Candidates and critics urge the party to allow media access and public broadcasting for open and transparent leadership debates.

SNP leadership candidates are advocating for greater transparency in the hustings process, pushing for media access and livestreaming of events. Initially, the party intended for these hustings to remain private, describing them as a “safe space” for members to engage directly with candidates.

One candidate emphasised the importance of inclusivity, stating, “Democracy and transparency are fundamental. Livestreaming would allow the SNP’s 100,000 members to participate, far exceeding the few hundred who can attend in person.” She added that opening the events to media coverage could serve as a positive example of respectful and informed political discourse.

Humza Yousaf’s campaign spokesperson said he welcomed media access and was already participating in televised debates to reach a broader audience. However, he acknowledged that the decision ultimately lies with the SNP’s National Executive Committee (NEC). Ash Regan echoed these sentiments, asserting that candidates should be subject to scrutiny and urging fair and comprehensive media reporting of the proceedings.

The NEC has since confirmed discussions with media outlets regarding access to upcoming hustings. They are also exploring ways to make content accessible to the broader membership. However, details remain unclear regarding the number of journalists to be admitted and which outlets will gain access.

Opposition parties have criticised the SNP’s initial decision to limit access. Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross accused the party of “hiding from proper scrutiny,” while Labour’s Shadow Scottish Secretary Ian Murray wrote to SNP Chief Executive Peter Murrell, urging transparency. Murray highlighted that previous leadership elections in Labour and the Conservatives allowed media and public involvement, contrasting this with the SNP’s earlier approach.

“The people of Scotland deserve to hear from the candidates seeking to become their next first minister,” Murray stated. “Conducting this contest behind closed doors undermines the democratic process.”

The debate over transparency in the leadership contest reflects broader concerns about accountability and public engagement as the SNP prepares to elect its next leader and Scotland’s potential first minister.

Legal experts and lawmakers seek revisions to the state’s strict abortion ban to address potential court challenges and ensure protections for women’s health.

The Attorney General of Tennessee, Jonathan Skrmetti, has expressed concerns about the state’s current abortion law, prompting increased debate among Republicans over the need for exemptions in one of the strictest bans in the United States. According to House Speaker Cameron Sexton, Skrmetti has advised lawmakers that adjustments to the state’s so-called “trigger” law would provide stronger protection against potential legal challenges. These concerns were echoed by Senator Richard Briggs, who participated in a recent teleconference with Skrmetti and other legislators.

Tennessee’s controversial abortion ban, which came into effect after the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, has no explicit exemptions, but includes an “affirmative defense” for doctors. This means that physicians must prove that an abortion was necessary to protect the life of the mother or prevent severe physical harm, placing the burden of proof on the doctor rather than the state.

While Tennessee’s law has yet to face a lawsuit, Skrmetti’s concerns about its vulnerability in court are shared by several lawmakers. Both lawmakers and legal experts have pointed to similar legal battles, such as in Idaho, where a judge blocked a similar “trigger” law. In light of these developments, proposals are emerging to amend the law, including suggestions for extended Medicaid coverage for pregnant women and parents, and potential sales tax breaks for essential baby products.

Briggs, a physician, discussed Skrmetti’s insights during the teleconference, revealing that the Attorney General is focused on clarifying what constitutes a criminal abortion. This focus aims to prevent confusion and ensure proper legal protections for doctors who act within the boundaries of the law. Skrmetti’s office confirmed that the Attorney General has approved an exemption bill focused on protecting the life of the mother, which lawmakers believe will be more defensible in court than the existing law.

Despite the concerns raised by some Republican lawmakers, other prominent figures, including Governor Bill Lee, have defended the current law, stating that the affirmative defense offers adequate protection for both women and the unborn. Lee emphasized that the law safeguards women’s health, even in cases where life-threatening complications arise during pregnancy.

Democratic lawmakers, however, continue to voice strong opposition. Senator London Lamar, who has personal experience with pregnancy complications, argued that the current law could lead to dangerous consequences for women. Lamar warned that the law could cause significant harm to women, particularly those who face life-threatening pregnancy complications.

As the Tennessee legislature prepares to revisit the abortion law, the debate over its impact on women’s health and legal protections remains a deeply divisive issue.

The Conservative MP shares her disappointment over not being selected to contest Stafford seat again, along with personal abuse linked to her maternity leave.

Theo Clarke, a Conservative Member of Parliament, has expressed her profound disappointment after being rejected as the party’s candidate for the newly redrawn Stafford constituency. In a message posted on Twitter following Friday’s selection meeting by the Stafford Conservative Association, Clarke stated that while the committee’s decision was final, she was upset by the personal abuse she had faced since announcing her pregnancy.

Clarke, who recently returned from maternity leave, revealed that some individuals had been critical of her six-month absence from Parliament. She shared the emotional toll of the situation, highlighting how the abuse had made her feel undervalued, despite her record of securing significant investments for the Stafford constituency.

“My record of bringing millions in investment to Stafford, including crucial funding for mental health services and infrastructure, stands as a testament to my hard work,” she said. “I’ve campaigned tirelessly to make Stafford a better place for people to live, work, and raise families.”

The rejection comes as Clarke had hoped to continue her service for Stafford after a significant victory in 2019, where she secured a majority of over 14,000 votes. Clarke’s candidacy in 2015 and 2017 for the Bristol East seat had been unsuccessful, but she ultimately won in Stafford, a constituency she has since worked to improve.

The new boundaries for constituencies, intended to make voter representation more equal, will come into effect for the next general election, expected by January 2025.

In her statement, Clarke further revealed that the abuse she endured, particularly in connection with her pregnancy, had been “disappointing,” as she returned to work this week. “It has been very disheartening,” she added.

Her comments echo broader frustrations within the party, especially in light of the rejection of another senior Tory, Damian Green, for the newly formed Weald of Kent seat. Green, a centrist Conservative and former deputy prime minister under Theresa May, has also faced the fallout from party leadership changes, with some suggesting his rejection was tied to his role in Boris Johnson’s resignation.

Clarke had previously resigned as trade envoy to Kenya in protest against Johnson’s leadership in July 2022, adding a further layer of complexity to her current situation.

Colorado leads efforts to challenge industry immunity, with other states following suit in tightening gun laws.

In the wake of increasing mass shootings, lawmakers in Colorado, along with at least five other states, are working to curb the legal immunity that has shielded gun manufacturers and dealers from being held responsible for the misuse of their products. This new legislative push aims to hold the gun industry more accountable for the role it plays in mass violence.

Colorado’s proposed bill, which is expected to be formally introduced Thursday, seeks to repeal a 2000 law that has protected firearm companies from liability for crimes committed with their products. The bill also proposes a code of conduct that targets how firearms are marketed and designed, with particular attention to advertising practices that may appeal to vulnerable groups, such as young men at risk of violence.

The bill draws from recent high-profile cases, such as the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, where families of victims reached a $73 million settlement with the gun manufacturer. In that case, plaintiffs argued that the company’s marketing strategies, which aimed at young, at-risk men, contributed to the tragedy.

If passed, Colorado would join states like California, New York, Delaware, and New Jersey, all of which have recently passed similar laws. However, these states are now facing legal challenges, as a federal law passed in 2005 offers the gun industry broad immunity from lawsuits related to the use of its products.

Gun control advocates, including Ari Freilich from Giffords, argue that this exemption from accountability is unprecedented and harmful, preventing victims of gun violence from pursuing justice. Freilich believes that the new legislation will allow these victims to hold the gun industry accountable for failing to take reasonable precautions in designing and selling firearms.

Mark Oliva, of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which has launched lawsuits against similar state laws, warns that Colorado’s bill would likely face significant legal challenges. He compares the situation to the case of Coors Brewing Company, arguing that if the beer manufacturer is not held responsible for drunk driving, gun manufacturers should not be held liable for how their customers use firearms.

Despite these concerns, the sponsors of Colorado’s bill argue that it offers some leeway, giving states the power to regulate the gun industry. For example, the bill would prevent companies from marketing firearms in a way that encourages illegal conversions, such as advertising semi-automatic rifles capable of holding large-capacity magazines, which are illegal in Colorado.

The bill also aims to eliminate a provision in Colorado law that requires plaintiffs to pay the defendant’s attorney fees if their case is dismissed. This provision previously led to the financial ruin of two parents of a woman killed in the 2012 Aurora theater shooting.

Rep. Sonya Jaquez Lewis, a Democrat and one of the bill’s sponsors, emphasised the importance of ensuring that victims, including those affected by the Club Q shooting, have access to the legal system. She also stated that the bill would help level the playing field with other industries that do not enjoy the same legal protections as the gun industry.

Supporters of the bill believe that by holding the industry liable, it will create an incentive for companies to better regulate themselves. Rep. Javier Mabrey, another sponsor, argued that civil liability would encourage the gun industry to adhere to existing laws.

However, the bill may face opposition from Republicans in Colorado’s statehouse. Republican Rep. Mike Lynch, the minority leader in the Colorado House, declined to comment on the bill, as he had not seen the draft. Senate President Steve Fenberg expressed support for the bill, stating his excitement about the legislation’s progress.

Governor Jared Polis has yet to publicly state his stance on the bill, leaving uncertainty around the potential for its passage.