Key stories for the week, brought to you by the distinguished newsman Sasha Morel.

Reading for the sake of reading sucks. Telling yourself to read to win a round is nice but ineffective. This condensed news brief helps you understand current domestic and international issues, analyze the news, and gives you opportunities to read more.

3 key domestic stories for the week:

1) IVF? More Like IV-F You Lindsey Zhao

Nikki Haley is known for being a more moderate candidate than her opponent, former president Donald Trump. That’s why, when she announced her opposition to IVF- saying that embryos are children- and Donald Trump announced his support for it, this author’s jaw dropped. 

IVF, or in vitro fertilization, is a fertility treatment developed in the late 1970s where an egg, taken out of a prospective mother’s body, is fertilized in a test tube, and then reinserted so it can develop. Today, an estimated 2% of all US births are from IVF, but it remains a hot topic among some religious groups. Fortunately, this technology that has allowed for thousands of more couples to have children, hasn’t been under major political fire for years.

But that all changed just a few days ago, when the Alabama Supreme Court, completely made of Republican justices, ruled this week that unborn, frozen embryos were legally considered children. Essentially, this case stems from a lawsuit brought by a few couples in 2020 that claimed a wandering patient in the hospital had broken into the storage room and dropped their embryos, destroying them. They tried to sue under the “Wrongful Death of a Minor” Act, and the supreme court had reversed the decision of a lower court, saying that unborn embryos were children. 

Ignore the blatant violation of the separation of church and state in the decision of the chief justice (who unironically invoked God in his ruling!) and consider the implications on fertility treatments like IVF that involve the handling of embryos. 

As a result, the biggest hospital in Alabama, the University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital, has paused all IVF treatments while legal experts obtain clarity on the decision, and figure out how to move forward without exposing themselves to legal repercussions. 

Doctors have described their reactions to this ruling as everything from disbelief to absolute, terrifying anger. Safe pregnancy advocates are stunned. Potential parents are considering moving their frozen embryos outside of the state entirely. Even some long-time anti-abortion advocates (see: Donald Trump) have condemned this ruling. 

IVF and abortion both have links that make them uniquely controversial. Both center around the idea that a fetus or embryo is considered a child, and then if it is moral to do anything to it at all. Crucially, they both revolve around women’s health care, and what their right to their own body looks like.

Thus, this newest ruling has yet again upended the abortion landscape in the United States. Some Republican lawmakers are working to distance themselves from this highly unpopular decision, while Democrats are working to tie Republicans irrevocably to the actions of a few of their own party. Democrats will likely be hoping that this Republican decision will help tip the scales in elections nationwide, especially in November. But that thought might see limited success in the general election, where Trump quickly declared his support for IVF, and demanded lawmakers in the state reverse the Alabama decision. 

Women’s healthcare came under threat in June of 2022. Back then, it was for the right for a woman to terminate a pregnancy. Now, it's for the right of a woman to begin one. 

Read more here: 

• Amatulli, Guardian 

• Rojas, NYT

• Chandler, AP & Fortune Magazine

2) News about Yale! (My Dream School) Lindsey Zhao

As one of the most prestigious colleges in the US, Yale sets not just the academic standard for thousands of universities, but also the precedent to follow amid an unprecedented onslaught against higher education. 

After the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in June of 2022, elite schools like Yale, Harvard, and Stanford, without the explicit ability to consider race in college applications, turned to another alternative- removing the rigid standardized testing requirement. Prior to their decisions, a student had to have taken a test such as the SAT or ACT and provide their scores in order to apply. 

In an effort to recognize the impact of socioeconomic inequality on standardized testing scores, some universities removed that requirement, going ‘test-optional’, meaning that students aren’t required to submit test scores. Harvard, for example, has instituted this policy at minimum until the graduating class of 2030. Other schools, like in the California university system, have used test-blind policies- meaning they won't look at test scores, even if they are submitted. MIT, though, had already reinstated their test-mandatory policy back in 2022, and Dartmouth did the same a few weeks ago. 

Critics have argued in the past that these test-optional policies have done the opposite- instead harming low income students whose high test scores help them get into college. For low income students that may not have the resources to do things like speech and debate, DECA, or internships that look good on a college application, these standardized test scores often helped them stand out. 

Now, Yale has reinstituted its previous policy- but with a twist. Students are required to submit some form of standardized testing, but it doesn’t have to be just the SAT or ACT- students now have the option to submit all of their AP/IB scores as well. This policy will go into effect for the admission class of 2025 and onward. 

Many of these ‘elite’ schools had said that they had partially instituted these requirements because of the learning gap during the pandemic- but now, as we put it behind us, these schools may feel like there is no longer a need to do so, even despite the active lack of affirmative action on college campuses. 

As more secondary education institutions reverse their stance on test optional policies, others will be left wondering if they should do the same- and that’s truly the power of precedent. 

Read more here: 

• Svrluga, Washington Post 

• Saul, NYT

• Leonhardt, NYT

3) The End of the Endless Partnership?  Paul Robinson

Ever since the Yom Kippur War in the 1970s, it has been safe to assume that the US will support Israel no matter what. But that has been brought into question recently when the US proposed a ceasefire agreement in the United Nations. It was far less satisfactory to many than the Algerian proposition which the US rejected, but the fact that the US is calling for a ceasefire in any form is, to say the least, surprising.

The ceasefire proposal would not be immediate as so many are calling for, but would rather take effect most likely after all the hostages still held by Hamas are released. The US believes that an immediate ceasefire could potentially hurt the current talks for peace being conducted by other Arab nations such as Egypt and Qatar.

The US is also calling on Israel to not carry out its planned offensive in Rafah, contrary to the promise of Netanyahu that the offensive “will happen.” This is potentially the first time that the US has publicly opposed Israel in such a manner. Considering that Netanyahu himself stated that his entire goal was to make Gaza “uninhabitable,” it is fairly clear why that would go against the interests of security in the region.

Will the resolution pass? It’s unlikely given that Russia has a likely chance of vetoing the resolution in the UN Security Council, where they along with China, Britain, France and the US can veto any resolution. Russia is supporting an immediate ceasefire, and probably wouldn’t want to be seen with their name on a resolution that opposes it. But, in a larger sense, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that the United States, the country backing Israel through thick and thin, has used the word “ceasefire” in a resolution, something that is undesired by Israel.

So, what is behind Biden seemingly warning Israel that it can no longer completely rely on US support?

The first answer is probably domestic politics. It is no secret that many within the US oppose the war in Gaza. Many on the left are extremely upset with Biden’s support for Israel, and some are even pledging to stay home from the polls in November, something Biden cannot afford.

The US also faces pressure internationally. Many nations, particularly ones in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE hold leverage over the United States given that they control world oil prices and buy huge amounts of weapons from US manufacturers. While neither has publicly threatened the US, the very fear of them going against the US and potentially tanking Biden’s popularity may well have also encouraged him to appease them.

It remains to be seen how far the US will go in standing against Israel. But just the fact that the US has opened the door to holding Israel accountable should be of concern to Netanyahu. If the US continues down this road, Netanyahu and his government may well have to stop such aggressive action.

Read More:

• Nichols, Reuters

• Al Jazeera

• Ravid, Axios

The Equality in Forensics News Brief is brought to you by Sasha Morel and the News Brief Team:

• Lindsey Zhao

• Roshan Shivnani

• Rowan Seipp

• Paul Robinson

• AmandaLesly Miranda

• Alex Ramirez

• Anthony Babu

Interested in becoming a contributor? You can apply to join our staff team here.