Step into a world where the focus is keenly set on Taking Center Stage Meaning. Within the confines of this article, a tapestry of references to Taking Center Stage Meaning awaits your exploration. If your pursuit involves unraveling the depths of Taking Center Stage Meaning, you've arrived at the perfect destination.
Our narrative unfolds with a wealth of insights surrounding Taking Center Stage Meaning. This is not just a standard article; it's a curated journey into the facets and intricacies of Taking Center Stage Meaning. Whether you're thirsting for comprehensive knowledge or just a glimpse into the universe of Taking Center Stage Meaning, this promises to be an enriching experience.
The spotlight is firmly on Taking Center Stage Meaning, and as you navigate through the text on these digital pages, you'll discover an extensive array of information centered around Taking Center Stage Meaning. This is more than mere information; it's an invitation to immerse yourself in the enthralling world of Taking Center Stage Meaning.
So, if you're eager to satisfy your curiosity about Taking Center Stage Meaning, your journey commences here. Let's embark together on a captivating odyssey through the myriad dimensions of Taking Center Stage Meaning.
Facebook Takes Center Stage in 'Super Pumped' Season 2
Facebook Takes Center Stage in 'Super Pumped' Season 2
Showtime has renewed Super Pumped for a second season weeks before dropping its inaugural season about Uber. Viewers will get another taste of tech startup culture in season 2 as the limited series will focus on Facebook's origin story and its meteoric rise. According to the cable network, the next season of Super Pumped will spotlight the partnership between CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg.
ViacomCBS (now Paramount) revealed the news during its investor conference on Feb. 15. Season 1 of the upcoming series is based on Mike Isaac's book Super Pumped: The Battle for Uber and arrives on Showtime on Feb. 27. While the first installment explores Travis Kalanick's track record as a businessman and his bid to put Uber on the map, the second season will draw from Isaac's new book about Facebook.
Isaac, a New York Times reporter, shared his plans for the book on Twitter in January, writing, "I've decided to do a book on the company and those who made it what it is." Though Showtime already ordered up another serving of Super Pumped, there's no word on who will be cast as Mark Zuckerberg.
This is the latest Facebook-focused TV show in the pipeline, according to The Hollywood Reporter. HBO has a series in development called Doomsday Machine, with Claire Foy tapped to play Sandberg. Catch season 1 of Super Pumped with Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Kalanick on Showtime this month.
What States Can and Can't Do When Banning Abortion
What States Can and Can't Do When Banning Abortion
For more information about your reproductive health rights and related federal resources, you can visit the US government's
Reproductive Rights
site.
Whether someone can get an abortion or related medical procedure mostly hinges on which state they live in after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last month and ended the constitutional right to abortion. But the switch from federal protection to state law isn't straightforward and has led to confusion and misinformation on what pregnant patients and physicians can do.
In this still developing landscape, how confident can people be that their treatment is still legal?
"The answer to all your questions is 'Who the heck knows,'" said Dr. Louise Perkins King, a surgeon and bioethicist at Harvard Medical School. "And that's the problem."
The US Department of Health and Human Services issued guidance on July 11 reminding physicians of their responsibilities under the existing Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTLA, which supports the need to treat and stabilize patients in an emergency, including pregnant patients who may require an abortion. Days later, Texas sued the Biden administration over the law, which allows for medical assistance to save the life of the mother, because, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said, it "seeks to transform every emergency room in the country into a walk-in abortion clinic."
On Tuesday, a judge in Texas blocked the EMTLA guidance, so physicians in that state may no longer be protected by federal law if they perform an abortion when they deem it medically necessary but it falls outside of Texas' interpretation of a life-endangering pregnancy. Physicians nationwide who are members of the American Association of Pro-Life Gynecologists and Obstetricians or the Christian Medical and Dental Association are also exempt -- a total of about 18,000 health care providers, according to the court document.
Texas' new trigger law -- which will be in effect on Aug. 25 -- bans all abortions except when the pregnancy puts the mother "at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function." Physicians who perform an illegal abortion will be committing a felony. It doesn't make exceptions for rape, incest or fetal abnormalities, and it also doesn't make an exception for when the pregnant person's risk of death would come from a "claim or diagnosis" that they'll be hurt or might die in the future. (This could be interpreted to mean a doctor can't provide an abortion if a woman threatens to die by suicide because she has depression.) All abortions are currently banned in Texas after the state's Supreme Court ruled that a law from the 1920s could stand.
Legal battles within some states will continue to shape post-Roe America, with the landscape changing by the day. And lawsuits like the one in Texas clarify the country's stance on whether state law preempts federal rule on abortion or reproductive health care. Basically, can federal regulations trump state law?
"There's going to be cases that are going to have to determine this question," I. Glenn Cohen, a professor and bioethicist at Harvard Law School, said.
The argument over medication abortion access -- which is banned or restricted in many states but still available to people if they order it (not without risk) online -- will likely also be one of the first big court cases post-Roe, Cohen said. Questions of whether federal regulations on medication abortion conflict directly enough with state restrictions will continue to be center stage.
Medication abortion, for use in early pregnancy, accounts for more than half of abortions in the US. Restricting the pills is the new frontier of abortion bans.
Robyn Beck/Getty Images
Other federal guidance issued by the Biden administration includes a reminder to pharmacists that they are required to fill medication and birth control prescriptions for patients. Failing to do so is discrimination based on pregnancy status. This was in response to the many reports of women having treatment delayed or prescriptions denied while health care workers try to navigate around new state laws.
Here's what we know today.
Can states ban abortion pills? Not completely, but some are trying.
Any state with a current total ban on abortion -- including Texas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri and Wisconsin -- also bans medication abortion. Heavy restrictions in other states, including Tennessee and South Carolina, which ban abortion after about six weeks, also extend to medication abortion. This means providers can't prescribe the medication in those states and patients can't fill prescriptions at pharmacies.
"If a state law bans abortion broadly, that includes medication abortions," Elisabeth Smith, director of state policy and advocacy at the Center for Reproductive Rights, told MedPage Today.
But abortion bans and state laws seek to punish abortion providers or people who assist them, not the person seeking the abortion (there's reason to believe this might change in the future). For now, people living in the most restrictive states can still order pills from an overseas pharmacy, including Aid Access. However, the pills could take awhile to arrive and potentially put the person past the point of pregnancy for which the medication is safe and effective (about 10 weeks).
Peter Dazeley/Getty Images
The fate of medication abortion pills in Republican-leaning states centers on mifepristone, the first pill given in the two-dose regimen of medication abortion. Because the US Food and Drug Administration approved mifepristone as a safe and effective way to end a pregnancy over 20 years ago, states shouldn't be able to restrict it, the US attorney general's office argued the same day Roe was overturned. (Misoprostol, the second pill, is used off-label for abortion and miscarriage treatment. It's also used to treat health conditions such as stomach ulcers.)
Whether this federal regulation (and the FDA's stamp of approval) supersedes state laws will need to be decided. Cohen said this is likely to be determined by the Supreme Court as "one of the first post-Dobbs cases."
"It's unclear whether that's going to be a winner of an argument, to be perfectly honest," Cohen said.
Last year, the FDA extended a pandemic-era rule that allowed patients to get medication abortion pills through the mail, instead of requiring them to be prescribed in person. This was seen as a victory for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other medical groups, which viewed the in-person requirement as unnecessary for a medication that's safe and effective in early pregnancy.
But states have their own requirements for medication abortion, and providers licensed in Montana can't prescribe pills to patients who travel over from a restrictive state like South Dakota, NPR reported.
Read more: Worries About Post-Roe Data Privacy Put Spotlight on Period Apps
Ectopic pregnancies can't result in a delivery and require medical treatment. Symptoms can start with typical pregnancy signs, including a missed period, but can progress to abdominal or pelvic pain, vaginal bleeding, weakness and more.
Svetlana Gustova/Getty Images
Can states ban treatment for high risk pregnancies? The HHS says no, but doctors say state laws are restricting care.
Even though the most restrictive states banning abortions leave room for some degree of medical emergency, practicing physicians need to decide where the medical emergency line is – and risk prosecution if a state sees it differently.
This month, the story of a 10-year-old girl who was raped and pregnant and who traveled to Indiana from Ohio, where abortion is banned around six weeks without exception for rape or incest, made headlines. Not only was the physician publicly questioned by Indiana's attorney general on whether she followed state law, but Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost said in the aftermath that the girl should've been able to legally get an abortion under the state law's medical emergency exemption. Ohio's OB-GYNs disagreed.
"It states specifically 'medically diagnosed condition,' and as far as I can tell, adolescent pregnancy is not a medically diagnosed condition that's listed," Dr. Jason Sayat, a Columbus OB-GYN, told the Ohio Capital Journal.
The Department of Health and Human Services reminded physicians and hospitals that if they want to keep their Medicare agreement and avoid "civil penalties," they must treat pregnant patients and provide abortions if necessary as required under the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. The EMTLA, now blocked in Texas, outlines certain life-endangering pregnancies that doctors must treat regardless of state law, including ectopic pregnancies, preeclampsia and complications of pregnancy loss.
But that narrow line of abortion exceptions for medical emergencies given by states like Wisconsin is what's troubling Dr. Jennifer McIntosh, a maternal-fetal medicine physician practicing in the state. While Wisconsin's attorney general said he wouldn't enforce a ban, physicians there stopped performing abortions because the state has a pre-Roe criminal statute that prohibits most abortions. The "save the life of the mother" abortion exception language in that law can leave out health conditions which may not be an immediate emergency but can become one down the line.
"Some of what we do is to prevent emergencies from happening," McIntosh said. "To have to wait for an emergency to actually appear puts your patient's life at risk."
The treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is termination, because terminating the pregnancy is the only safe outcome when an embryo grows outside of the uterus, typically in a fallopian tube. Without treatment, the fallopian tube is likely to rupture, which can lead to internal bleeding and death. But some laws, like one in Texas, specifically restrict medications including methotrexate, which has led to access problems for people who are pregnant as well as people who are taking methotrexate for another health reason.
Complicating confusion and risk over how abortion bans will affect treatments for ectopic pregnancies is the fact that more rare types of ectopic pregnancies exist, including ones where the pregnancy is growing inside a C-section scar or other area outside the safety of the main cavity of the uterus -- but still technically in the uterus. These rarer kinds of ectopic pregnancies are also life-threatening, and may be more difficult to diagnose and treat as such in a state that bans abortions with an emphasis on the pregnancy being in the uterus.
Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images
States are not prosecuting people who have abortions (yet)
Current state laws -- both those in effect and those in limbo in court -- prosecute other people involved in an abortion, not the person who's pregnant.
But the health impact may be already felt when a doctor is hesitant to treat patients, or pharmacists are reluctant to fill a prescription for mifepristone before interviewing a woman to ascertain whether her pregnancy is already ended and her situation is in line with state law.
"Even in these straightforward cases of basic OB/GYN practice, the laws leave providers questioning and afraid," Dr. Carley Zeal, an OB-GYN in Wisconsin, told The New York Times. "These laws are already hurting my patients."
Aside from hesitancy among health care providers, physicians also fear that worries people have about being prosecuted for having an abortion or miscarriage will stop patients experiencing complications from any kind of pregnancy loss from seeking care.
That's because it was already happening, before Roe was overturned. According to the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, there were over 1,700 arrests or prosecutions of women from 1973 (when Roe became law) to 2020 where their pregnancies were the focus of the case against them.
So will doctors report you if they suspect you had an abortion?
"The vast majority of health care professionals will not do that, because that's not caring for their patients," King said. But, she added, "I'm sure there's a very small, but unfortunately detrimental, minority who might."
Your current access to birth control shouldn't be impacted by the overturn of Roe v. Wade. However, there's reason to believe that could change in the future.
Carol Yepes/Getty Images
Birth control is still protected under the Affordable Care Act
Right now, IUDs, birth control pills and other birth control methods are legal in all 50 states. And they should also be covered at no out-of-pocket cost for those covered under the Affordable Care Act. The right to birth control is protected under two Supreme Court rulings: Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and Eisenstadt v. Baird. (Another Supreme Court Case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, chipped away a little of that protection, however, finding that some corporations are exempt for religious reasons.)
Plan B or "morning after pill" brands are also not included in abortion bans, because they will not end an existing pregnancy. Most health plans should also cover them.
Legislators in Missouri last year voted to block taxpayer funding for IUDs and emergency contraception, casting doubt that all birth control devices will be protected indefinitely, at least in some states. The claims of legislators like Paul Wieland, a Republican state senator in Missouri, are that anything that has the potential to disrupt a fertilized egg's implantation into the uterus is an abortifacient.
The medical community has been clear that IUDs and emergency contraception do not cause abortions and will not end an existing pregnancy. Copper IUDs work mostly by causing a chemical change in the sperm and egg before they meet, according to the World Health Organization. Hormonal IUDs like Mirena work mostly by thickening cervical mucus so sperm can't reach the egg, and can also prevent ovulation. Plan B and similar pills likely won't work if a person has already ovulated, meaning the chances of it stopping implantation are currently understood to be slim.
Nevertheless, unlikely occurrences or instances where a fertilized egg may be prevented from implanting into a uterus could be called into question in future court cases.
Read more: Could a Post Roe v. Wade World Impact Your Access to Birth Control?
The information contained in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as health or medical advice. Always consult a physician or other qualified health provider regarding any questions you may have about a medical condition or health objectives.
Tinder parent match group sues google over play on stage tinder parent match group sues google overstock tinder parent match group sues google oversettelse tinder parent match group sues google overdrive app tinder parent match group sues google drive tinder parent match group sues google flights tinder parent match group sues trump tinder parent match group llc tinder parent match group ceo
Tinder-Parent Match Group Sues Google Over Play Store Billing
Tinder-Parent Match Group Sues Google Over Play Store Billing
Match Group, the company that operates dating apps such as Tinder, Hinge and OkCupid, has filed a lawsuit against Google, accusing the internet giant of forcing it to use the Google Play Store's billing system, paying royalties for subscription transactions. The lawsuit, which was filed Monday in federal court in California, accuses Google of violating federal and state antitrust laws.
"Ten years ago, Match Group was Google's partner. We are now its hostage," Match Group said in a press release.
Match Group said Google assured app developers that they would be able to choose alternative payment systems for their customers, only to do an about-face. The dating giant says that its users prefer Match's internal billing system and that Google's system is "lacking capabilities."
Google pushed back against the lawsuit.
"This is just a continuation of Match Group's self-interested campaign to avoid paying for the significant value they receive from the mobile platforms they've built their business on," a Google spokesperson said in a statement to CNET. "Like any business, we charge for our services, and like any responsible platform, we protect users against fraud and abuse in apps."
Google went on to point out that Match Group was sued by the Federal Trade Commission in 2019 for failing to filter out fake profiles that may have incentivized users into paying for subscriptions. The lawsuit was thrown out earlier this year. Last month, Match also won a lawsuit against Muslim dating app MuzMatch over trademark infringement.
App store fees have been at the center of a number of legal battles in recent months. In March, Google struck a deal that would allow Spotify to offer its own in-app payment option alongside Google's. This deal came after Epic Games, creators of Fortnite, sued both Apple and Google for not allowing its own in-app payment systems, meaning that every in-game costume purchase had Apple and Google taking a percentage off the top. Google and Epic Games have agreed to a trial in early 2023.
In this new lawsuit, Match says it attempted to resolve Google's concerns but was told that its apps would be removed from the Google Play Store by June 1 if it didn't comply. The dating app maker's lawsuit accuses Google of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, the California Cartwright Act, the California Unfair Competition Law and California tort law by demanding companies exclusively use Play Billing.
"They control app distribution on Android devices, and pretend that developers could successfully reach consumers on Android elsewhere," Match Group CEO Shar Dubey said in a statement. "It's like saying, 'you don't have to take the elevator to get to the 60th floor of a building, you can always scale the outside wall.'"
Given that 90% of app downloads on Android occur on the Google Play Store, Match says Google's marketplace is the only viable app platform. Google said if Match didn't like its terms, it could distribute its apps elsewhere.
Match says fees can be as high as 30%, which is 10 times more than those charged by payment processors such as Visa and Mastercard. Google says its high fees are necessary to protect Android users from fraud and abuse and that Match Group is eligible to pay 15% on Google Play for digital subscriptions.
"While Google has claimed that 99% of the developers subject to the Google tax will qualify for the lower rate, hidden by this statistic is the fact that not all in-app purchases qualify and some of the most popular are still subject to the 30% tax," according to an FAQ created by Match Group regarding the lawsuit.
When asked about the high percentage rate of its fees compared with payment processors, Google said the Play Store does more than process payments, adding that the fees help keep the Android operating system free and fund development of platforms such as Android Auto and TV, security, app distribution, developer tools, and billing systems around the world.
If Match is forced to stop using its internal payment system, the company says it will suffer "irreparable damage to its customer relationships, reputation, business performance, and goodwill and its users will be harmed by increased prices and Google's monetization of their data."
