Three University of Texas at Austin professors filed a lawsuit claiming that letting people carry firearms on their campus would have a chilling effect on speech. Last week, District Judge Lee Yeakel dismissed the suit claiming the professors could present “no concrete evidence to substantiate their fears” and that their fears rest on “mere conjecture.” Although it’s certainly refreshing to see professors using First Amendment justifications with such vigor, it’s even better that Yeakel dismissed their ludicrous arguments and protected campus carry.
In 2015, the Texas legislature strengthened their commitment to gun rights at public universities. Senate Bill 11, which came into effect in August 2016, permitted campus concealed carry in campus buildings within reasonable guidelines. Those guidelines vary from school to school. At UT Austin, guns must stay out of sight, and individuals professors can choose to make “gun-free zones” in their offices, provided they post their rules clearly.
Read the rest at: Reason
Properly sheltering the homeless presents a mix of logistical and political challenges. In many cities, NIMBY residents block efforts to build supportive services nearby, concentrating those living in homelessness in dangerous and squalid conditions under highways and in under-populated areas. When shelters are built, they can be far from where people need them and are often plagued by crime, to the point that many people regularly voluntarily forfeit the opportunity to spend the night there.
One possible way around those barriers––design that utilizes cheap, easily-duplicated, pod-based living.
Read more in CityLab
Last week, a group of female protesters dressed as handmaids from the popular show “The Handmaid’s Tale” ventured through the Ohio Statehouse in protest of Senate Bill 145, which would restrict abortion methods. Although protesting often involves hyperbole designed to make a point, this goes too far. Equating the abortion debate to a dystopian show where women are used as incubator slaves is intellectually dishonest––and, frankly, deeply offensive.
The bill they were protesting would ban dilation and evacuation procedures, which are exactly what they sound like––the cervix is dilated, and suction is used to get the fetus out. They’ve come under scrutiny in many states because they’re used when the fetus is more developed, so laws restricting them are fairly common.
Read more in The Washington Examiner