This story originally appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first,sign up here. This weeks edition of The Algorithm is brought to you not by your usual host, James ODonnell, but Eileen Guo, an investigative reporter at MIT Technology Review. A few weeks ago, when I was at the digital rights conference RightsCon in Taiwan, I watched in real time as civil society organizations from around the world, including the US, grappled with the loss of one of the biggest funders of global digital rights work: the United States government. As I wrote in my dispatch, the Trump administration's shocking, rapid gutting of the US government (and its push into what some prominent political scientists call competitive authoritarianism) also affects the operations and policies of American tech companiesmany of which, of course, have users far beyond US borders. People at RightsCon said they were already seeing changes in these companies willingness to engage with and invest in communities that have smaller user basesespecially non-English-speaking ones. As a result, some policymakers and business leadersin Europe, in particularare reconsidering their reliance on US-based tech and asking whether they can quickly spin up better, homegrown alternatives. This is particularly true for AI. One of the clearest examples of this is in social media. Yasmin Curzi, a Brazilian law professor who researches domestic tech policy, put it to me this way: Since Trumps second administration, we cannot count on [American social media platforms] to do even the bare minimum anymore. Social media content moderation systemswhich already use automation and are also experimenting with deploying large language models to flag problematic postsare failing to detect gender-based violence in places as varied as India, South Africa, and Brazil. If platforms begin to rely even more on LLMs for content moderation, this problem will likely get worse, says Marlena Wisniak, a human rights lawyer who focuses on AI governance at the European Center for Not-for-Profit Law. The LLMs are moderated poorly, and the poorly moderated LLMs are then also used to moderate other content, she tells me. Its so circular, and the errors just keep repeating and amplifying. Part of the problem is that the systems are trained primarily on data from the English-speaking world (and American English at that), and as a result, they perform less well with local languages and context. Even multilingual language models, which are meant to process multiple languages at once, still perform poorly with non-Western languages. For instance, one evaluation of ChatGPTs response to health-care queries found that results were far worse in Chinese and Hindi, which are less well represented in North American data sets, than in English and Spanish. For many at RightsCon, this validates their calls for more community-driven approaches to AIboth in and out of the social media context. These could include small language models, chatbots, and data sets designed for particular uses and specific to particular languages and cultural contexts. These systems could be trained to recognize slang usages and slurs, interpret words or phrases written in a mix of languages and even alphabets, and identify reclaimed language (onetime slurs that the targeted group has decided to embrace). All of these tend to be missed or miscategorized by language models and automated systems trained primarily on Anglo-American English. The founder of the startup Shhor AI, for example, hosted a panel at RightsCon and talked about its new content moderation API focused on Indian vernacular languages. Many similar solutions have been in development for yearsand weve covered a number of them, including a Mozilla-facilitated volunteer-led effort to collect training data in languages other than English, and promising startups like Lelapa AI, which is building AI for African languages. Earlier this year, we even included small language models on our 2025 list of top 10 breakthrough technologies. Still, this moment feels a little different. The second Trump administration, which shapes the actions and policies of American tech companies, is obviously a major factor. But there are others at play. First, recent research and development on language models has reached the point where data set size is no longer a predictor of performance, meaning that more people can create them. In fact, smaller language models might be worthy competitors of multilingual language models in specific, low-resource languages, says Aliya Bhatia, a visiting fellow at the Center for Democracy & Technology who researches automated content moderation. Then theres the global landscape. AI competition was a major theme of the recent Paris AI Summit, which took place the week before RightsCon. Since then, theres been a steady stream of announcements about sovereign AI initiatives that aim to give a country (or organization) full control over all aspects of AI development. AI sovereignty is just one part of the desire for broader tech sovereignty thats also been gaining steam, growing out of more sweeping concerns about the privacy and security of data transferred to the United States. The European Union appointed its first commissioner for tech sovereignty, security, and democracy last November and has been working on plans for a Euro Stack, or digital public infrastructure. The definition of this is still somewhat fluid, but it could include the energy, water, chips, cloud services, software, data, and AI needed to support modern society and future innovation. All these are largely provided by US tech companies today. Europes efforts are partly modeled after India Stack, that countrys digital infrastructure that includes the biometric identity system Aadhaar. Just last week, Dutch lawmakers passed several motions to untangle the country from US tech providers. This all fits in with what Andy Yen, CEO of the Switzerland-based digital privacy company Proton, told me at RightsCon. Trump, he said, is causing Europe to move faster to come to the realization that Europe needs to regain its tech sovereignty. This is partly because of the leverage that the president has over tech CEOs, Yen said, and also simply because tech is where the future economic growth of any country is. But just because governments get involved doesnt mean that issues around inclusion in language models will go away. I think there needs to be guardrails about what the role of the government here is. Where it gets tricky is if the government decides These are the languages we want to advance or These are the types of views we want represented in a data set, Bhatia says. Fundamentally, the training data a model trains on is akin to the worldview it develops. Its still too early to know what this will all look like, and how much of it will prove to be hype. But no matter what happens, this is a space well be watching. Now read the rest of The Algorithm Deeper Learning OpenAI has released its first research into how using ChatGPT affects peoples emotional well-being OpenAI released two pieces of research last week that explore how ChatGPT affects people who engage with it on emotional issues, yielding some interesting results. Female study participants were slightly less likely to socialize with people than their male counterparts who used the chatbot for the same period of time, our reporter Rhiannon Williams writes. And people who used voice mode in a gender that was not their own reported higher levels of loneliness at the end of the experiment. Why it matters: AI companies have raced to build chatbots that act not just as productivity tools but also as companions, romantic partners, friends, therapists, and more. Legally, its largely still a Wild West landscape. Some have instructed users to harm themselves, and others have offered sexually charged conversations as underage characters represented by deepfakes. More research into how people, especially children, are using these AI models is essential. OpenAIs work is only a start. Read more from Rhiannon Williams. Bits and Bytes Opinion Why handing over total control to AI agents would be a huge mistake Companies like OpenAI and Butterfly Effect (the startup in China that made Manus) are racing to build AI agents that can do tasks for you by taking over your computer. In this op-ed, some top AI researchers detail the potential missteps that could occur if we cede more control of our digital lives to decision-making AIs. A provocative experiment pitted AI against federal judges Research has long shown that judges are influenced by many factors, like how sympathetic they are to defendants, or when their last meal was. Despite AI models inherent problems with biases and hallucinations, researchers at the University of Chicago Law School wondered if they can present more objective opinions. They can, but that doesnt make them better judges, the researchers say. (The Washington Post) Elon Musks truth-seeking chatbot often disagrees with him Musk promised his company xAIs model Grok would be an antidote to the woke and politically influenced chatbots that he says dominate today. But in tests done by the Washington Post, the model contradicted many of Musks claims about specific issues. (The Washington Post) A Disney employee downloaded an AI tool that contained malware, and it ruined his life MIT Technology Review has long predicted that the proliferation of AI will enable scammers to up their productivity as never before. One victim of this trend is Matthew Van Andel, a Disney employee who downloaded malware disguised as an AI tool. It led to his firing. (Wall Street Journal) The facial recognition company Clearview attempted to buy Social Security numbers and mugshots for its database Three years ago, Clearview was fined for scraping images of individuals faces from the internet. Now, court records reveal that the company was attempting to buy 690 million arrest records and 390 million arrest photos in the USrecords that also contained Social Security numbers, emails, and physical addresses. The deal fell through, but Clearview nonetheless holds one of the largest databases of facial images, and its tools are used by police and federal agencies. (404 Media)

Why do we hear about medical breakthroughs in mice, but rarely see them translate into cures for human disease? Why do so few drugs that enter clinical trials receive regulatory approval? And why is the waiting list for organ transplantation so long? These challenges stem in large part from a common root cause: a severe shortage of ethically-sourced human bodies. It may be disturbing to characterize human bodies in such commodifying terms, but the unavoidable reality is that human biological materials are an essential commodity in medicine, and persistent shortages of these materials create a major bottleneck to progress. This imbalance between supply and demand is the underlying cause of the organ shortage crisis, with more than 100,000 patients currently waiting for a solid organ transplant in the US alone. It also forces us to rely heavily on animals in medical research, a practice that cant replicate major aspects of human physiology and necessitates the infliction of harm to sentient creatures. In addition, the safety and efficacy of any experimental drug must still be confirmed in clinical trials on living human bodies. These costly trials risk harm to patients, can take a decade or longer to complete, and make it through to approval less than 15% of the time. There might be a way to get out of this moral and scientific deadlock. Recent advances in biotechnology now provide a pathway to producing living human bodies without the neural components that allow us to think, be aware, or feel pain. Many will find this possibility disturbing, but if researchers and policymakers can find a way to pull these technologies together, we may one day be able to create spare bodies, both human and nonhuman. These could revolutionize medical research and drug development, greatly reducing the need for animal testing, rescuing many people from organ transplant lists, and allowing us to produce more effective drugs and treatments. All without crossing most peoples ethical lines. Bringing technologies together Although it may seem like science fiction, recent technological progress has pushed this concept into the realm of plausibility. Pluripotent stem cells, one of the earliest cell types to form during development, can give rise to every type of cell in the adult body. Recently, researchers have used these stem cells to create structures that seem to mimic the early development of actual human embryos. At the same time, artificial uterus technology is rapidly advancing, and other pathways may be opening to allow for the development of fetuses outside of the body. By integrating these different technologies and using established genetic techniques to inhibit brain development, it is possible to envision the creation of bodyoids a potentially unlimited source of human bodies, developed entirely outside of a human body from stem cells, that lack sentience or the ability to feel pain. There are still many technical roadblocks to achieving this vision, but we have reason to expect that bodyoids couldradically transform biomedical research by addressing critical limitations in the current models of research, drug development and medicine. Among many other benefits, theywould offer an almost unlimited source of organs, tissues and cells for use in transplantation. It could even be possible to generate organs directly from a patient's own cells, essentially cloning their biological material to ensure that transplanted tissues are a perfect immunological match to a patient and thus eliminating the need for lifelong immunosuppression. Bodyoids developed from a patient's cells could also allow for personalized screening of drugs, allowing physicians to directly assess the effect of different interventions in a biological model that accurately reflects a patient's own personal genetics and physiology. We can even envision using animal bodyoidsin agriculture, as a substitute for the use of sentient animal species. Of course, exciting possibilities are not certainties. We do not know whether the embryo models recently created from stem cells could give rise to living people or, thus far, even to living mice. We do not know when, or whether, an effective technique will be found for successfully gestating human bodies entirely outside a person. We cannot be sure whether such bodyoids can survive without ever having developed brains or the parts of brains associated with consciousness, or whether they would still serve as accurate models for living people without those brain functions. Even if it all works, it may not be practical or economical to grow bodyoids, possibly for many years, until they can be mature enough to be useful for our ends. Each of these questions will require substantial research and time. But we believe this idea is now plausible enough to justify discussing both the technical feasibility and ethical implications. Ethical considerations and societal implications Bodyoids could address many ethical problems in modern medicine, offering ways to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering. For example, they could offer an ethical alternative to the way we currently use nonhuman animals for research and food, providing meat or other products with no animal suffering or awareness. But when we come to human bodyoids, the issues become harder. Many will find the concept grotesque or appalling. And for good reason. We have an innate respect for human life in all its forms. We do not allow broad research on people who no longer have consciousness or, in some cases, never had it. At the same time, we know much can be gained from studying the human body. We learn much from the bodies of the dead, which these days are used for teaching and research only with consent. In laboratories, we study cells and tissues that were taken, with consent, from the bodies of the dead and the living. Recently we have even begun using for experiments the animated cadavers of people who have been declared legally dead, who have lost all brain function but whose other organs continue to function with mechanical assistance. Genetically modified pig kidneys have been connected to, or transplanted into, these legally dead but physiologically active cadavers to help researchers determine whether they would work in living people. In all these cases, nothing was, legally, a living human being at the time it was used for research. Human bodyoids would also fall into that category. But there are still a number of issues worth considering. The first is consent: The cells used to make bodyoids would have to come from someone, and wed have to make sure that this someone consented to this particular, likely controversial, use. But perhaps the deepest issue is that bodyoids might diminish the human status of real people who lack consciousness or sentience. Thus far, we have held to a standard that requires us to treat all humans born alive as people, entitled to life and respect. Would bodyoidscreated without pregnancy, parental hopes, or indeed parentsblur that line? Or would we consider a bodyoid a human being, entitled to the same respect? If so, whyjust because it looks like us? A sufficiently detailed mannequin can meet that test. Because it looks like us and is alive? Because it is alive and has our DNA? These are questions that will require careful thought. A call to action Until recently, the idea of making something like a bodyoid would have been relegated to the realms of science fiction and philosophical speculation. But now it is at least plausibleand possibly revolutionary. It is time for it to be explored. The potential benefitsfor both human patients and sentient animal speciesare great. Governments, companies and private foundations should start thinking about bodyoids as a possible path for investment.There is no need to start with humanswe can begin exploring the feasibility of this approach with rodents or other research animals. As we proceed, the ethical and social issues are at least as important as the scientific ones. Just because something can be done does not mean it should be done. Even if it looks possible, determining whether we should make bodyoids, nonhuman or human, will require considerable thought, discussion, and debate. Some of that will be by scientists, ethicists, and others with special interest or knowledge. But ultimately, the decisions will be made by societies and governments. The time to start those discussions is now, when a scientific pathway seems clear enough for us to avoid pure speculation but before the world is presented with a troubling surprise. The announcement of the birth of Dolly the cloned sheep back in the 1990s launched a hysterical reaction, complete with speculation about armies of cloned warrior slaves. Good decisions require more preparation. The path toward realizing the potential of bodyoids will not be without challenges; indeed, it may never be possible to get there, or even if it is possible, the path may never be taken. Caution is warranted, but so is bold vision; the opportunity is too important to ignore. Carsten T. Charlesworth is a postdoctoral fellow at the Institute of Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine (ISCBRM) at Stanford University. Henry T. Greely is the Deane F. and Kate Edelman Johnson Professor of Law and director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences at Stanford University. Hiromitsu Nakauchi is a professor of genetics and an ISCBRM faculty member at Stanford University and a distinguished university professor at the Institute of Science Tokyo.

The author (not pictured) had her daughter at 42. Getty Images 2025-03-25T10:17:02Z SaveSaved Read in app This story is available exclusively to Business Insider subscribers. Become an Insider and start reading now.Have an account? I was surprised and thrilled when I discovered I was pregnant at 42. I didn't think I'd have kids, but I was ready for a new chapter. Being an older parent has both perks and challenges.I never thought I'd be a mom. Then, at 42 years old, my partner and I were delighted and shocked to discover I was pregnant. Now, at 55, I have a 13-year-old daughter. Despite my initial unpreparedness, I've realized that becoming a parent later in life has made me a much better one.I got to enjoy young life child-free and still become a parentI'm not saying all parents automatically regret what they missed when they have kids at a young age, but I know some who do and I might have been one of them. Having my daughter in my 40s means I don't resent my daughter for things I didn't get to do.At 24, I was the founding editor of an entertainment magazine. If I'd had a child back then, could I have pulled the countless all-nighters working that I did, or attended all the gigs and events we covered? Unlikely.My 20s were fun but exhausting, and by the time I hit my 40s, I was ready for a new adventure. More importantly, I was more secure in who I was. That meant I didn't sweat all the small stuff I probably would have if I were younger and trying to prove I could be the "perfect mom."Instead, as a mom in my 40s to a turbo toddler, I learned that a messy house could still be a happy one. A mud-covered 3-year-old wasn't naughty just carefree. And even if my Christmas cookies looked more like Edvard Munch's Scream than a jolly snowman, baking them with my tween was a better bonding experience than not making Christmas cookies at all.Something else that surprised me as a middle-age mom was that I became more patient, not less, when my daughter acted out.I've heard other older mothers claim the same, and it seems we're not alone. Several studies have found that older moms are less likely to yell at or punish their kids. Seemingly, life experience gives us a broader perspective. And let's be honest part of that is that we simply have a lot less energy!Of course, I don't ignore bad behavior, but I can recognize when my daughter is just having a bad day like I do. So, rather than yell, I talk to her about it, something I certainly wouldn't have had the patience to do in my younger years.There are some trade-offs to being an older parentWhen I initially told people I was pregnant, the conversation often crept around to how I would manage an infant and then a lively toddler when I was edging toward 50. One (former) friend suggested I was being selfish, as I'd likely end up being a financial or emotional burden on my daughter.I'd be lying if I said I hadn't had several sleepless nights batting away imagined realities of myself as a wizened older parent, an embarrassment and health hindrance to a 20-something daughter. But that fear pushed me to prioritize my health with good lifestyle habits, regular exercise, and routine check-ups.Of course, it hasn't stopped me from occasionally being mistaken for my child's grandmother (something my daughter finds hilarious) but I'm still fitter than I ever was in my partying 20s and 30s.Still, I worry about aging. My 80-year-old mom is thriving and there for me when I need her; my daughter might not have that same experience.On a broader level, I also fret about the uncertain future that awaits her. With the climate crisis, the rise of AI and automated jobs, and skyrocketing property costs, I worry about whether she will be OK if I'm not around to help her handle these challenges, as so many parents of Gen Z adults currently are.Yet, despite those anxieties, I know I'm better off as an older parent.This is just my experience. I wasn't ready for motherhood in my 20s or 30s, but I'm beyond grateful I got the chance in my 40s. I have a great relationship with my daughter, and I credit my age as a big part of that.At 55, while many parents look forward to an empty nest and doing things they couldn't when their kids were young, I can say: been there, done that, and I'm thrilled for the next chapter of this adventure with my daughter.

When I was pregnant, sick, and alone, I created a support system that helped me through it. Courtesy of Naomi Carmen 2025-03-25T10:13:02Z SaveSaved Read in app This story is available exclusively to Business Insider subscribers. Become an Insider and start reading now.Have an account? I thought solo parenting would be fine with my husband away a third of the year.Then, I got pregnant with my second child and was puking nonstop, severely anemic, and mostly alone.I learned to ask those around me for help and was shocked by how many people were willing.For three years straight, my husband, who's in the US military, was home less than a third of the year.My daughter took it hard because she was too young at the time to understand why her stepfather couldn't just ask his boss to come home.Before remarrying, I'd already mastered the art of being a single mom: timing mowing the lawn during naps or after bedtime, balancing work with being present and attentive to my toddler, and including her in my workouts and runs.So when I remarried and knew my husband would be gone for months at a time, I was confident we'd survive and may even enjoy the alone time.What I didn't anticipate was how challenging life and parenting would be when I became pregnant with my second child.For most of my pregnancy, I was puking nonstop, severely anemic, and mostly alone. Through it all, though, I saw a golden opportunity to make lemonade out of the lemons life had hurled at me and that made all the difference.I created a support system that strengthened my existing friendships, created new ones, and helped me learn to accept other people's help.People genuinely wanted to help; I just had to let them know howFriends and neighbors stepped in to mow the grass, bring food, and help clean and organize my house.At first, it was difficult to accept their generosity when I knew I couldn't repay them enough, but I eventually learned to welcome the help.Living nine hours away, my in-laws became a new level of support I also didn't anticipate but welcomed. They got a long-term rental spot for their camper, only 10 minutes from my house, and would stay for up to three weeks at a time.For much of my pregnancy, I was severely dehydrated and wasn't keeping fluids down because of morning sickness, so my father-in-law, a retired ER doctor, traveled to administer IVs in my living room.My in-laws also picked up my daughter from school and played with her while I was in the hospital, pregnant with COVID-19.My husband had to leave again when our son was 3 weeks old, so I called on that same support systemI shouldn't have been surprised, but I still was when many people happily came to hold my newborn while I showered, napped, mowed, or went to a doctor's appointment.All of this happened because I asked for and accepted help. Had my husband been home, I would not have contacted anyone for help.Although I would have loved for him to be with us during that time, the bonds and relationships I formed would never have been built to that degree otherwise.Years later, I still cherish and maintain those strong friendships.After my husband was back home, it took us months to learn how to all live togetherThis summer will be one full year that my husband has been home.It's wonderful to have the help of getting the kids from school in the afternoon and having another capable and active parent involved.However, we all had to figure out how to fit him into our lives again, and that was extremely challenging.Initially, my 2-year-old son would cry when my husband went to work, thinking he wouldn't see his father again for a while.My daughter, who is 7, wasn't as upset as my son but still whined and begged him not to go. But then she'd be delighted when he was there at school to pick them up.It took the kids several weeks of seeing him every day to get used to the idea that he was not actually going away again.It took an additional five or six months for all of us to finally figure out how to live together again full time.He and I also had to face our issues head-on as opposed to sweeping them under the rug because of the "we only have two days together" excuse. Thankfully, marriage counseling saved the day and our marriage.In my experience, you attract what you're looking for. If you seek out miserable people, they will seemingly be everywhere, complaining about anything possible. If you seek out people who embrace their experiences, you will find them. I strive to be the latter.The best thing I've ever done in any new place I've lived is to seek out people with the same positive mindset.

Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic is one of the most straightforward cases the Supreme Court will hear this year. It involves a federal law that requires every states Medicaid program to ensure that any individual eligible for medical assistance may obtain that care from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required. Thus, Medicaid patients, and not the state, clearly have a right to choose their own health providers, with only one exception. The provider must be qualified, which, as the federal appeals court that heard this case explained, means that the provider is professionally competent to provide the care that the patient seeks.Nevertheless, South Carolina, along with several other states, attempted to exclude Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program in violation of this statute. The reason, of course, involves abortion. In 2018, Republican Gov. Henry McMaster issued an executive order forbidding abortion clinics from being paid to provide care to Medicaid patients. Though the state is permitted to ban abortion outright under the Supreme Courts decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization (2022), South Carolina permits abortions up to the sixth week of pregnancy.But the state is not allowed, under the Medicaid statute at the heart of Kerr, to prevent Medicaid patients from choosing Planned Parenthood for non-abortion-related care at least as long as Planned Parenthoods providers are competent to provide this care. And the state admits in its brief that it did not cut off Planned Parenthood because it believes that its doctors are professionally incompetent. According to that brief, Planned Parenthood could restore Medicaid funding if it stops performing abortions but it has chosen not to do so.So how on Earth did this straightforward case wind up before the highest Court in the country? The answer to that has two parts, one legal, the other political.The legal issue is that South Carolina claims that the federal law allowing Medicaid patients to choose their health providers is virtually unenforceable. And the state is correct that the Supreme Courts rules governing when individual patients may sue to enforce federal Medicaid law are complicated, although not nearly as complicated as its lawyers claim.The political issue is that this case involves abortion, an issue that often causes judges to place politics above law. And so, while most federal appeals courts have concluded that the choice-of-provider law is enforceable, two GOP-dominated courts did not. The Supreme Court typically steps in to resolve legal questions that have divided federal appeals courts.Notably, however, both of the lower courts that ruled against Medicaid patients did so before the Supreme Court decided Health and Hospital Corporation v. Talevski (2023), a significant decision clarifying which provisions of federal Medicaid law can be enforced through private lawsuits. The Talevski case cuts strongly in favor of Medicaid patients, and against South Carolinas position in this case.So its likely that even this Supreme Court will reject South Carolinas attack on Planned Parenthood. The law in this case is simply too clear, and it was recently reaffirmed in Talevski, a decision that is less than two years old.Still, nothing is ever certain when an abortion-related case reaches this Court, as most of its Republican members have a history of handing down preposterous interpretations of the law in order to restrict abortion rights. If the six Republicans on the Supreme Court were to abandon longstanding law, that could have disastrous consequences for Medicaid patients, and for thousands of other Americans.The specific legal issue in Kerr, briefly explainedA federal law known as Section 1983 is probably the most important civil rights statute ever enacted by Congress. It permits state officials to be sued in federal court if they deprive someone of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. Without this law, many federal laws and even many provisions of the Constitution would be unenforceable, because there would be no way to bring a lawsuit vindicating the rights protected by those legal provisions.Notably, Section 1983 does not permit anyone to bring a lawsuit challenging any violation of any federal law whatsoever. Instead, as the Court said in Blessing v. Freestone (1997), a plaintiff must assert the violation of a federal right, not merely a violation of federal law. Talevski, meanwhile, laid out the Courts framework for determining whether a particular federal law creates a right that may be enforced through private lawsuits. The key question is whether the provision in question is phrased in terms of the persons benefited and contains rights-creating, individual-centric language with an unmistakable focus on the benefited class.Thus, if Congress passed a law stating that no state may prevent a hungry person from eating at Taco Bell, that statute would be enforceable through private lawsuits because its language focuses on the people who benefit from it (people who are hungry). A similar statute stating that states shall not impede access to cheap burritos would likely not be enforceable through such lawsuits, because this hypothetical law is silent regarding who is supposed to benefit from it. The second version of this law would, at the very least, need to have some language focused on the people the law was supposed to protect in order to authorize private suits.And so, with Talevskis framework in mind, consider the statutory language at issue in the Kerr case:A State plan for medical assistance must provide that any individual eligible for medical assistance (including drugs) may obtain such assistance from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required (including an organization which provides such services, or arranges for their availability, on a prepayment basis), who undertakes to provide him such services.This law is riddled with the kind of individual-centric language with an unmistakable focus on the benefited class demanded by Talevski. It provides a right to any individual eligible for Medicaid benefits. It provides that these individuals may obtain care from their choice of provider. And it concludes with a pronoun (him) which refers back to the individuals who benefit from the law.South Carolinas lawyers most of whom work for the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the Christian right law firm that unsuccessfully tried to get the Supreme Court to ban the abortion drug mifepristone essentially ask the justices to replace Talevski with a new rule that would drastically limit private lawsuits enforcing Medicaid statutes, and many other laws that are enforced through Section 1983 lawsuits.Specifically, they claim that the Court has heard only four cases where it ultimately concluded that a federal law contains the kind of language that Talevski requires, two of which explicitly used the word right, and two of which used language that closely mirrors the text of the Fifth Amendment. Based on this claim, they then allege that the Supreme Court has limited clear rights-creating language to statutes where Congress explicitly uses the label right or lifts language from the rights-creating provisions of the Constitution.But that is not what the Court said in Talevski. Again, Talevski did not hold that Congress must use certain magical words or a statute is unenforceable. It held that federal laws may be enforced by private lawsuits if they focus on the individuals who benefit from the law, regardless of which specific words Congress used when it wrote that law.If the Court were to impose such a magic words requirement in Kerr, moreover, that would have disastrous consequences for Medicaid beneficiaries and for many other Americans. Congress could not possibly have known, when it wrote the original Medicaid law in 1965 or when it wrote any of the various amendments to it, that the Supreme Court would later require it to use very specific language if it wanted the law to be enforceable. Nor could it have known that the Court would impose a magic words requirement when it wrote countless other federal laws. Because the laws governing Medicaid were not written with the ADFs proposed new rule in mind, huge swaths of that law could cease to function if the Court agrees with ADF in this case.In fairness, federal law does provide one alternative remedy if the Supreme Court does shut down private lawsuits enforcing Medicaid law the federal government can cut off Medicaid funding to states that violate this law. But the government rarely uses this power, because it effectively punishes Medicaid patients and providers for a legal violation by the state. And, in any event, theres little chance that the Trump administration will use this power to protect abortion providers.So, Medicaid patients of all kinds should hope that the Supreme Court does not, in its zeal to restrict abortion rights, embrace the Alliance Defending Freedoms arguments in the Kerr case. Because if the Court does, much of federal law will become unenforceable overnight.See More:

This story was originally published in The Highlight, Voxs member-exclusive magazine. To get early access to member-exclusive stories every month, join the Vox Membership program today.Americas fragile child care system relies heavily on immigrant workers. Donald Trumps immigration crackdown could cripple it.Since 2011, federal guidance has advised Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents against conducting enforcement in sensitive locations like hospitals, churches, schools and day care centers. On his first day back in office, Trump removed these longstanding protections, marking a major change from his first term as president. Now with ICE officials charged with increasing their daily arrests from a few hundred people to upward of 1,500, and top immigration agents demoted for not deporting people fast enough day care centers stand as direct targets.The crackdown on immigrants threatens to upend an industry where foreign-born staff make up one-fifth of the workforce nationally and nearly half in cities like New York, Los Angeles, and San Jose, California. Research led by the New American Economy think tank estimated that over 200,000 undocumented immigrants work in child care and day care services. The new, harsher enforcement comes at a particularly precarious time, as major employers phase out remote work policies, leaving parents with an intensifying scramble for child care. Child care programs already have an employee turnover rate 65 percent higher than average. The pay helps explain why: As of 2023, the median hourly wage for full-time, year-round child care workers was just $14.60, and the field ranked as the 10th lowest-paid occupation out of nearly 750 jobs across the economy, according to one analysis. The Trump crackdown could make everything even worse.RelatedJessica Brown, an economist at the University of South Carolina, has studied how earlier bouts of immigration enforcement affected child care markets. Her analysis of the Secure Communities program, which operated nationwide from 2008 to 2014, found that even when immigration enforcement primarily targeted men, it still disrupted female-dominated child care. The program decreased the overall supply of child care workers and centers and reduced enrollment overall.Despite claims that immigrants are taking jobs from native-born Americans, when immigrant workers left the child care industry, native-born workers didnt fill the gap. Instead, the number of native-born child care workers also decreased as costs went up and centers closed.Todays situation could prove even more disruptive.The current raids represent a much more salient threat of deportation for women, said Brown, who anticipates a larger impact on child care markets compared to Secure Communities, at least in the short-term. The long-term effect depends on whether this becomes the new normal. More importantly, its about perception even if the raids decrease, once fear takes hold in immigrant communities, the chilling effects could linger. Among those most vulnerable to such fear are the children themselves. The cascading effects of immigration enforcementThese chilling effects arent theoretical. The first Trump term provides insight into the impacts these raids could have on both kids and child care providers. Back in 2017, the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), a national anti-poverty organization, launched a multistate study on how Trumps immigration policies were affecting children under age 8. In interviews with staff and families across six states, researchers found that children as young as three were showing signs of trauma from fears about enforcement.RelatedEarly childhood educators reported disturbing new behaviors increased aggression, separation anxiety, and withdrawal that they described as distinct from childrens behaviors in past years. One preschool director in Georgia described a 5-year-old child whose anxiety was so severe that he was biting his fingertips until they bled.The study found widespread drops in day care attendance and enrollment as families isolated themselves. Programs reported parents leaving young children with older siblings or grandparents instead of in formal care, minimizing time outside the home to avoid law enforcement encounters. With enrollment declines cutting into already-thin margins and state subsidies often tied to attendance, these shifts threatened the financial viability of centers that entire neighborhoods depend on.The crisis extended beyond the direct provision of child care. Providers and parents reported increased reluctance to access public benefits like health insurance and nutrition assistance due to worries that Medicaid or SNAP information could be shared with immigration officials. Early childhood staff themselves reported intense anxiety about increased incidents of racism and xenophobia affecting the families they serve and, in some cases, themselves personally. Many providers described the emotional burden of being asked by parents to become emergency guardians for their children in case they were deported.One-third of young children in the US live with at least one parent who speaks a language other than English at home, and these children achieve better academic outcomes in dual-language child care programs programs that often rely heavily on immigrant teachers.Wendy Cervantes, the director of Immigration and Immigrant Families at CLASP who co-led the research, told Vox that the difficulty of finding child care providers who have the right skills to educate dual-language children is often overlooked. There are not a lot of people who have the training and are also bilingual who are competent, she said.How policymakers, advocates, and child care directors are trying to protect families and staffDuring the first Trump administration, many child care providers didnt even know their centers were protected under the sensitive locations federal guidance, leading advocates to launch national campaigns to raise awareness about these safeguards. Now, however, those same advocates are working to help providers understand that guidance is no longer in effect, but that they still have constitutional rights.They still have rights under the Fourth Amendment to restrict the extent to which ICE can enter, Cervantes said. Immigration agents still need signed judicial warrants with a specific persons name and address to raid a private space. To help providers navigate these changes, CLASP is coordinating resources and planned a national webinar at the end of February for child care programs specifically.The political crusade against immigration may score political points, but on the ground, its setting up a chain reaction that could cascade through the entire economy.Many child care centers are also developing new protocols to operate in this environment. Some are removing outdoor signage to avoid ICE attention and developing new systems to communicate warnings to parents. Others are rethinking their data collection policies, to limit questions that ask about families immigration status.Theres a difference between finding out something and documenting, said Atenas Burrola Estrada, an attorney with the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights. She emphasized the importance of child care centers making plans ahead of time so that staff know what they need to do if ICE enforcement comes.What can be different about child care is the fear-factor, and it can be much more traumatizing for a small child, she said. Providers also need to know who to call if mom and dad dont come home, so they can avoid children ending up in state custody.Some states are hoping to create new protections through legislation. In California, a bill would make it harder for ICE agents to enter schools or child care centers. And even if agents met the requirements for entry, theyd still only be able to enter areas where children arent present.In Congress, Democrats Rep. Adriano Espaillat and Sen. Richard Blumenthal recently reintroduced a bill to codify the sensitive locations federal guidance. But the legislation is a long shot: It failed to pass in 2017, and todays political landscape has shifted so that even many Democrats now support tougher immigration enforcement amid growing concern about border security. Earlier this year, Congress passed the Laken Riley Act, requiring mandatory detention for immigrants accused of theft and related crimes exactly the type of broad enforcement that advocates fear could sweep up child care workers. As politicians wage war on immigration in the name of protecting American jobs, their policies threaten to unravel the very system that keeps millions of Americans especially mothers in the workforce. In classrooms across the country, children form bonds with care workers who help shape their earliest years, and immigrant teachers create the bilingual, multicultural spaces that define modern American childhood. The political crusade against immigration may score political points, but on the ground, its setting up a chain reaction that could cascade through the entire economy from parents forced to cut back work hours to businesses losing productive employees to a generation of children without supportive care at their most formative age.This work was supported by a grant from the Bainum Family Foundation. Vox Media had full discretion over the content of this reporting.See More:

The Nintendo Switch 2 will be fully revealed next week, but the company could hold another event this week according to multiple sources here's all we know so farTech10:14, 25 Mar 2025Ready for a Switch event this week?The Nintendo Switch 2 was revealed in January, but Nintendo has been quiet since then and promised April 2 is the next big milestone in the console's launch likely coinciding with its preorder time once the console's price and release date have been confirmed.Imagine our surprise, then, when a series of accounts with relatively solid track records on gaming leaks have suggested that a second event could take place as soon as this week.Article continues belowThat would mean some kind of Nintendo presentation this week, followed up by the Switch 2 reveal next week. It sounds bizarre but perhaps isn't as surprising as you may think let's dig in.Content cannot be displayed without consentRegular leaker NateTheHate2 (who correctly predicted the Switch 2's initial reveal timing and format) posted on X (formerly Twitter) this week to confirm they believe a fresh event is coming up."To stop the constant questions: Yes, I've heard there is a Nintendo presentation this week -- I believe it is on/around Thursday & it'll be a Direct; but I'm not 100% certain on the format at present."Another Direct before the Switch 2 showcase suggests that Nintendo will make the first Switch its focus, and there are some big hitters still slated for the console.Xenoblade Chronicles X: Definitive Edition just launched, but there's still Pokemon Legends: Z-A and Metroid Prime 4 although the latter is tipped to be a big part of the Switch 2 event.Nintendo Switch 2 is being fully revealed on April 2(Image: Nintendo)Fans are hoping for more Metroid surprises after Metroid Prime Remastered was 'stealth dropped' in a prior Nintendo Direct, especially since rumours have persisted that the second and third titles in the trilogy are on their way to Switch.Nintendo also likes to hold different kinds of Direct events, so this one could be more focused on indie games, or third-party games.With the Switch 2 offering backwards compatibility (potentially with a boost), it's a chance for Nintendo to show the console is still appealing whether someone is upgrading or not.We reported yesterday that one leaker suggested the Switch 2 will off power similar to a Steam Deck, but potentially with a display that supports Variable Refresh Rates.Article continues belowFor more on Switch 2, be sure to check out all we know about how the console could use AI, why Elden Ring could be a launch title, and a report it could already be on US soil.For the latest breaking news and stories from across the globe from the Daily Star, sign up for our newsletters.

A pair of vouchers can currently be redeemed for two games (Nintendo)Theres no point holding back from using Nintendo Switch Game Vouchers, as theyre not going to work for Switch 2 titles.As of today, Nintendo has officially killed its Gold Points reward scheme for Nintendo Switch; something it alerted fans to last month. You can still spend the ones you have on discounts, but you can no longer earn them through game purchases.While the company never gave a real explanation for its decision, its safe to assume that its part of its preparations for the launch of the Nintendo Switch 2 later this year.Thats not been the only change though, as Nintendo has added some small print to the rules for its Nintendo Switch Game Vouchers, even going so far as to reupload a dedicated YouTube video about them.Fans noticed that the official Nintendo of America YouTube channel posted an overview trailer for the Switch Game Vouchers over the weekend. This seemed a bit random, considering the vouchers have been a thing for years and Nintendo already had an explainer video for them.On closer inspection, its obvious why Nintendos done this, since both the trailer and the video description include new fine print on how you wont be able to redeem the vouchers on Nintendo Switch 2 exclusives.How do Nintendo Switch Game Vouchers work?As a reminder, the vouchers exist to net you Switch games at a slight discount. For 84, you receive two vouchers, which can be redeemed for two games from a curated list, which includes the likes of The Legend Of Zelda: Tears Of The Kingdom and, most recently, Xenoblade Chronicles X: Definitive Edition.More TrendingNintendos given no explanation for making the vouchers ineligible for Switch 2 games, but its reasoning is crystal clear. With such excitement surrounding the new console, Nintendo isnt going to want people acquiring its first party games at a discount so soon.So far, no Switch 2 games from Nintendo have actually been announced, barring a new Mario Kart that was teased as part of the consoles reveal trailer. You wont have to wait much longer for such announcements though, since a Nintendo Direct all about the Switch 2 is happening next week.Unlike the Gold Points, Switch Game Vouchers arent going anywhere, and the list of eligible games stands to get longer. Metroid Prime 4: Beyond and Pokmon Legends Z-A are still due to come out for the original Switch this year (although the former is speculated to be a cross-gen release for Switch 2 as well).Plus, its recently been claimed a separate showcase for the original Switch is taking place this week, meaning Nintendo still has some more games planned for the system. Looks like Pokmon Legends: Z-A wont be the only reason to hold onto your current Switch console (The Pokmon Company)Emailgamecentral@metro.co.uk, leave a comment below,follow us on Twitter, andsign-up to our newsletter.To submit Inbox letters and Readers Features more easily, without the need to send an email, just use ourSubmit Stuff page here.For more stories like this,check our Gaming page.GameCentralSign up for exclusive analysis, latest releases, and bonus community content.This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Your information will be used in line with our Privacy Policy

Uruguays Pavilion at the 2025 Venice Biennale Highlights Water Management as Essential to the Future of ArchitectureSave this picture!Courtesy of Katia Sei Fong, Ken Sei Fong, Luis Sei FongThe national exhibition of Uruguay at the 2025 Venice Architecture Biennale, titled "53.86% Uruguay, Land of Water," explores the intrinsic relationship between architecture, territory, and water. Curated by architects Katia Sei Fong and Ken Sei Fong, along with visual artist Luis Sei Fong, the exhibition proposes that we may be entering the age of water, the "Hydrocene", and that the way humanity manages and conserves this resource will shape its future. In this context, the project highlights that Uruguay's maritime territory (53.86%) is larger than its land territory. Water, therefore, is not only a natural resource but a fundamental element of the country's history and culture, essential to its development.Save this picture!According to the curators, the total amount of water on Earth has remained unchanged since the planet's formation. Within this context of scarcity, they point to the exploitation of water as a key challenge in Latin American urban and political dynamics. They argue that while territorial conquests have historically sought minerals and natural resources, today's corporations and national governments engage in a "peaceful conquest" through agreements granting access to resources such as gold, oil, radioactive minerals, technological-use minerals, and, increasingly, water. This extractivist approach affects local economies, societal well-being, and the built environment.Save this picture!For Katia, Ken, and Luis Sei Fong, architecture is a complex process involving living beings, materials, and resources, with water playing a crucial role at every stage. As a discipline, architecture has the potential to address water-related challenges through infrastructure that promotes conservation and efficiency while contributing to a stable water supply for human consumption, agriculture, industry, and energy production. While water management and preservation should be addressed through public policies that promote intelligent and collective use, the presence of water in a territory can serve as a unifying element, opening possibilities for innovative urban planning and design. Related Article Revitalizing Urban Ecosystems: 4 Projects Reconnecting Cities with Their Water Heritage These possibilities take shape in the Uruguay Pavilion through an immersive experience. The installation incorporates sound and visual devices, a walkable artistic pavement, and an estuary landscape where fresh and saltwater meet during a storm. Inside the pavilion, a "factory of drops" will act as an inverted spring, where amethysts, crystallized water from another time, float like suspended drops, generating volumetric tension in a textile ceiling from which real drops fall. The dripping was designed to make gravity perceptible both literally and metaphorically, as the falling water creates sound upon hitting metallic containers, resonating throughout the space.Save this picture!Graphic projections on the walls complement the installation, presenting an open-ended narrative through interviews, photographs, videos, and artworks that shape the discourse, allowing water to guide the auditory experience. The exhibition seeks to explore water's intelligence as a natural force, a built system, and a common good in dispute. Uruguay will be presented as a space for experimentation, rethinking the architecture of the future at a time when water management and its symbolic value are critical to life. The curatorial invitation is to reimagine architecture and territory "from a liquid, flexible, and ever-evolving perspective." The 19th International Architecture ExhibitionLa Biennale di Venezia 2025, curated by Carlo Ratti under the theme "Intelligens. Natural. Artificial. Collective." will be open to the public from May 10 to November 23, 2025. Other Latin American pavilions also explore cultural heritage in relation to land and territory. Peru's exhibition honors ancestral construction techniques, while Brazil reflects on the recent archaeological discovery of ancient infrastructure in the Amazon. Chile's pavilion will focus on the political significance of the roundtable and its connection to artificial intelligence, while Argentina's Siestario project will explore the relationship between architecture and time.Image gallerySee allShow lessAbout this authorCite: Antonia Pieiro. "Uruguays Pavilion at the 2025 Venice Biennale Highlights Water Management as Essential to the Future of Architecture" 25 Mar 2025. ArchDaily. Accessed . <https://www.archdaily.com/1028354/uruguays-pavilion-at-the-2025-venice-biennale-highlights-water-management-as-essential-to-the-future-of-architecture&gt ISSN 0719-8884Save!ArchDaily?You've started following your first account!Did you know?You'll now receive updates based on what you follow! Personalize your stream and start following your favorite authors, offices and users.Go to my stream

Nightingale Village Leftfield / Kennedy Nolan ArchitectsSave this picture! Tom RossArchitects: Kennedy Nolan ArchitectsAreaArea of this architecture projectArea:2610 mYearCompletion year of this architecture project Year: 2022 PhotographsPhotographs:Tom Ross Lead Architects: Rachel Nolan, Patrick Kennedy, Victoria Reeves and Michael Macleod More SpecsLess SpecsSave this picture!Text description provided by the architects. Nightingale is a model for triple-bottom-line developments. This development was led by the Architect to produce medium-density housing that is environmentally, socially, and financially sustainable. Combining ethical investors and best practices in design, the ultimate goal of Nightingale is to provide great-value housing by simplifying both the development process and the building itself.Save this picture!Save this picture!Save this picture!Kennedy Nolan's work in single and multi-residential projects; our exploration of interiors and landscape; our experience delivering a conventional development product, and our own investment in other Nightingale projects, led us to a Nightingale License in 2016. The following year, we purchased a site in a precinct shared with six other Architects. Alongside our professional contemporaries, we are contributing to an exciting urban village beside the Upfieldtrain line in Brunswick, in the inner north of Melbourne.Save this picture!Save this picture!Save this picture!A generative gesture was to tint the grey pre-cast a warm ochre from which we built a tonal palette of orange-red windows, doors and metalwork and terra-cotta painted FC sheet all offset against raw concrete. The walls and ground plane at the base of the building, the principal point of close interaction on the street, are clad in the familiar pressed-red bricks of 19th-century Melbourne. All elements are arranged with a playful approach, particularly on our west faadewhich has a friendly personality generated by its mega-scale zoomorphic composition. This western faade is visible from a great distance over Brunswick and as the western sun hits it in the afternoon, it glows warm and friendly. Save this picture!Save this picture!Save this picture!Save this picture!The building consists of 27 apartments, ranging from small 34 sqm 'teilhaus' (studio) apartments to generous 80 sqm 2-bedroom apartments. The building is an exemplar in sustainable design (including a 7.5-star NatHERS thermal rating, 100% fossil fuel free in operation, zero private car parking, and access to 15 car share vehicles).Save this picture!Save this picture!Save this picture!Twenty percent of the apartments have been voluntarily pre-allocated to an affordable housing provider and purchaser priority is given to key service workers, individuals with a disability, and Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders.Save this picture!This is a building designed with community in mind, a community that is diverse, cohesive, and connected. We are proud to have delivered 27 homes that have the comfort, delight, and function for which our practice is known.Save this picture!Project gallerySee allShow lessAbout this officeMaterialBrickMaterials and TagsPublished on March 25, 2025Cite: "Nightingale Village Leftfield / Kennedy Nolan Architects" 25 Mar 2025. ArchDaily. Accessed . <https://www.archdaily.com/1028299/nightingale-village-leftfield-kennedy-nolan-architects&gt ISSN 0719-8884Save!ArchDaily?You've started following your first account!Did you know?You'll now receive updates based on what you follow! Personalize your stream and start following your favorite authors, offices and users.Go to my stream