Featured Stories
Why Are Women the Absent Voice in HIV Prevention?
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 14 -- The AIDS Healthcare Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
Why Are Women the Absent Voice in HIV Prevention?
*
Recent statistics from the Centers for Disease Controls and Prevention show that women account for nearly 20% of new annual HIV diagnoses in the United States, with heterosexual contact and injection drug use as primary transmission modes. And Black and Hispanic/Latina women face extreme and disproportionate statistical impacts compared to white women. Without question, the HIV epidemic involves women, especially women of color, but they continue
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 14 -- The AIDS Healthcare Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
Why Are Women the Absent Voice in HIV Prevention?
*
Recent statistics from the Centers for Disease Controls and Prevention show that women account for nearly 20% of new annual HIV diagnoses in the United States, with heterosexual contact and injection drug use as primary transmission modes. And Black and Hispanic/Latina women face extreme and disproportionate statistical impacts compared to white women. Without question, the HIV epidemic involves women, especially women of color, but they continueto be an absent face at the policy table when it comes to HIV prevention, both domestically and across the globe.
U.N. Women, a global group created by the United Nations, has revealed that sexism and gender inequality heavily block HIV prevention by creating unequal power dynamics, limiting access to education, and fueling stigma. These systemic barriers prevent women and marginalized groups from negotiating safer sex or seeking timely medical care.
In further study of this issue, research indicates that women often have less information about HIV and fewer resources to take preventive measures. They also face barriers to the negotiation of safer sex--because of unequal power dynamics with men.
Other contributing factors to the silencing of women in prevention is sexual violence and a widespread violation of women's rights. Evidence suggests that marriage can be a major risk factor, especially for young women and girls.
Many women living with HIV struggle with stigma and exclusion, aggravated by their lack of rights. Sexism permeates its ills in the public health sector, with women widowed by AIDS, or living with HIV, often facing property disputes with in-laws, which is complicated by limited access to justice to uphold their rights.
Regardless of whether they themselves are living with HIV, women generally assume a disproportionate burden of care for others who are sick from or dying of AIDS. This, in turn, can reduce prospects for education and employment.
But with the myriad of issues that women confront every day, even with sexism at its core, hope is not lost.
Through AIDS Healthcare Foundation's community-focused initiatives, which directly support the empowerment of women and girls domestically and internationally, programs like Girls Act and SPARK (Sisters working together to Promote Awareness through Resources and Knowledge) are actively seeking to shift the narrative of women being a silent voice in prevention to leading the charge.
Girls Act, AHF's global program created by girls and for girls, empowers girls and young women to be healthy and thrive. The program builds leadership, confidence, and life skills, encouraging members to take charge of their health, engage with their communities, and become advocates for change.
With a primary focus on women within the United States, AHF's SPARK (pictured above) empowers women and girls by providing knowledge, resources, and a strong community that nurtures health, well-being, and personal growth.
Collectively, these two programs are meeting women and girls in their communities and providing the critical education and resources needed.
To date, Girls Act directly engages more than 4,500 girls in over 35 countries and has distributed more than one million sanitary pads. On the domestic side, SPARK consistently engages thousands of women across the U.S. and has prepared and distributed over 3,000 personal hygiene kits.
For both AHF initiatives, the work has only just begun, with a dedicated focus to push back against the systemic ills of sexism and to ensure that all women live the fullness of their lives, knowing that we are our sister's keeper and what impacts one impacts us all.
W. Imara Canady is Director of Communications and Community Engagement at AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
***
Original text here: https://www.aidshealth.org/2026/10/why-are-women-the-absent-voice-in-hiv-prevention/
The Data Maven: What is the Most Common Sexually Transmitted Infection in the United States?
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 14 -- The AIDS Healthcare Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
The Data Maven: What is the Most Common Sexually Transmitted Infection in the United States?
*
The answer to our question is chlamydia, with over 1.5 million diagnoses in 2024 in the United States. While cases decreased by 8% from 2023, chlamydia remains the most persistent sexually transmitted infection. So, gals and guys, you better be using condoms.
Why is chlamydia so common? This STI is often asymptomatic, which allows it to spread undetected from one person to another through sexual contact.
If
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 14 -- The AIDS Healthcare Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
The Data Maven: What is the Most Common Sexually Transmitted Infection in the United States?
*
The answer to our question is chlamydia, with over 1.5 million diagnoses in 2024 in the United States. While cases decreased by 8% from 2023, chlamydia remains the most persistent sexually transmitted infection. So, gals and guys, you better be using condoms.
Why is chlamydia so common? This STI is often asymptomatic, which allows it to spread undetected from one person to another through sexual contact.
Ifsymptoms like abnormal discharge (i.e., an unknown liquid from the genital area) or a burning sensation during urination do appear, it may take weeks after the sexual encounter. This lack of noticeable symptoms is one reason chlamydia continues to spread so easily and leads directly to why women make up most instances of chlamydia.
Women are most impacted by chlamydia, accounting for 62% of all reported cases (943,890 of 1,515,985 cases) in 2024. The infection's tendency to remain asymptomatic, combined with the internal nature of the female reproductive system, can make chlamydia difficult to detect. Not every case results in discharge or burning, and an undetected and untreated case can have long-term effects on the reproductive system.
Thankfully, chlamydia is easy to prevent and easy to treat. Using condoms during vaginal, anal, and oral sex provides the barrier protection necessary to prevent transmission of chlamydia.
If someone tests positive for chlamydia, a medical provider will prescribe antibiotics to treat the infection. It is important to take the medication as prescribed and complete the full course of treatment in order to fully eliminate the infection.
Because chlamydia can occur without symptoms, regular STI testing is the best way to quickly detect an infection if you are sexually active. Find a free HIV/STI clinic near you at freestdcheck.org.
Lauren Natoli is the Director of Advocacy and Policy Research in the Public Health Division of AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
***
Original text here: https://www.aidshealth.org/2026/10/the-data-maven-what-is-the-most-common-sexually-transmitted-infection-in-the-united-states/
Reason Foundation: Rent-Setting Algorithms Require Targeted Regulation, Not New Laws
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 14 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
Rent-setting algorithms require targeted regulation, not new laws
Fragmented, vague legislation creates unnecessary risk and uncertainty about how platforms and users can operate without triggering legal penalties.
Eliza Terziev
Housing Policy Analyst
Max Gulker
Managing Director
October 12, 2026
The use of algorithms in housing rental markets to help assess and determine market pricing has come under increased scrutiny, with both federal regulators and state assemblies taking action. While many
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 14 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
Rent-setting algorithms require targeted regulation, not new laws
Fragmented, vague legislation creates unnecessary risk and uncertainty about how platforms and users can operate without triggering legal penalties.
Eliza Terziev
Housing Policy Analyst
Max Gulker
Managing Director
October 12, 2026
The use of algorithms in housing rental markets to help assess and determine market pricing has come under increased scrutiny, with both federal regulators and state assemblies taking action. While manyfear these services will inevitably lead to collusion that only raises rents, a closer look shows algorithmic pricing is not the boogeyman many have portrayed. Whether algorithms benefit or harm consumers depends on the data they use and the goals of the software.
A recent settlement between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and RealPage, the largest firm in the rent-setting algorithm market, shows that the federal regulatory system is working to preserve the positive features of these tools while disallowing the use of certain data that may facilitate price collusion between landlords.
Several states have also acted, either passing or considering legislation with goals similar to the antitrust settlement. However, many of these bills prove irrelevant at best and harmful at worst when considered alongside the federal settlement. A better approach would be to focus on enforcing existing federal regulations instead of layering new laws that add many costs for landlords and few benefits for renters.
Algorithmic rent-setting in practice
Algorithmic pricing uses computer software to recommend a price for a product based on user data, economic variables, and other information. While the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has brought greater public attention to the practice, algorithmic pricing has been a part of many markets for decades, including airfare, ridesharing, and e-commerce.
In the rental market, companies like RealPage and Yardi use macroeconomic variables and property-level data to generate real-time, algorithmically recommended rents for each unit in a property. Landlords can choose to implement these prices or ignore them. Property occupancy, historical price data, and lease length are examples of data points used to understand each property's internal supply-and-demand dynamics and ultimately inform final price recommendations. Current estimates find that 10.4% of rentals in the United States use algorithmic pricing, with users skewing towards larger multifamily buildings. An estimated 30% of buildings with 20 or more residential units use algorithmic pricing. In an estimated 90% of cases, landlords accept and implement the price recommendation generated by the algorithms.
Researchers and regulators separate the potential effects of rent-setting algorithms into two categories. First, algorithms make rents more responsive to changing market conditions. More efficient price-setting benefits the market overall. Like any other product or service, markets function best when landlords can quickly learn from and act on public information. For example, in 2008, when housing markets were in a nationwide downturn, properties that used algorithms had lower rents and higher occupancy rates. Algorithms quickly updated their recommendations based on new macroeconomic information, which resulted in lower prices. When the housing market recovered, the prices recommended by algorithms were higher than those charged in units that were not using them.
As this example shows, the proper use of algorithms is not biased toward either higher or lower rents; it simply helps landlords and renters find the right apartments and prices more quickly and efficiently. A 2026 study from the University of Pennsylvania and the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) confirmed that RealPage had this effect, making the discovery of market information and the setting of prices more efficient.
However, the second category of effects, algorithmic use of nonpublic information from individual landlords, has raised concerns about collusion. This data includes but is not limited to rents, leases, and occupancy rates for specific units. In effect, algorithm users could indirectly set rents informed by confidential information from their competitors.
The NBER/UPenn study found evidence that prices resulting from using an algorithm were consistent with "joint profit maximization," or collusion among landlords, because of this shared nonpublic data. Across the 4.2 million rental units observed, this resulted in an estimated $25 increase in monthly rents. Concerns about this aspect of algorithmic pricing were the prime motivator of the 2024 DOJ antitrust suit against RealPage.
DOJ and RealPage reach a settlement
In August 2024, the DOJ, along with several states, sued RealPage, alleging the company's software allowed price coordination between landlords. The suit focused on the use of nonpublic data to generate frequent price recommendations for participating landlords and algorithmic features that were designed to asymmetrically push prices up, even when they were not optimal. In November 2025, RealPage agreed to remove features that limit price decreases and to stop using current and granular competitive data to recommend rent prices.
The remedies agreed to by RealPage and the DOJ do not reject all algorithmic pricing as anticompetitive. RealPage continues to offer an algorithm that incorporates a landlord's own property data, macroeconomic data, other public information, and some aged competitor data. The settlement seeks to preserve the efficiency-enhancing information properties of rent-setting algorithms while removing data and features that might aid collusion.
Reaching this settlement is evidence that the antitrust infrastructure already in place is working. While state-level challenges remain and are being resolved, the bottom line is that the DOJ and RealPage agreed these solutions are adequate to address antitrust concerns. A further question is whether additional legislation is needed.
State-level legislative efforts
To signal action on housing affordability, many states are now introducing their own legislation to restrict algorithmic rent-setting. Three states--New York, New Jersey, and California--have already enacted such laws, and states such as Maryland and Massachusetts are currently considering them.
* * *
Table 1: Enacted legislation as of October 2026
Table 2: Examples of state-level legislation currently being considered
* * *
All the state bills overlap substantially with the terms of the antitrust settlement between RealPage and the DOJ. Nevertheless, they raise concerns. First, with federal regulators already on the case, even small variations between bills risk creating a regulatory patchwork across states that would raise compliance costs for landlords and algorithm providers without providing any additional benefit to consumers. For example, states differ on whether using nonpublic data, or any competitor data at all, constitutes coordination.
Second, by using overbroad terms and definitions, state bills risk banning algorithmic rent-setting that facilitates the efficient flow of market information but does not assist in collusion. A primary example is the use of older competitor data. During its settlement, the DOJ determined that algorithms may still use nonpublic data if it is at least 12 months old and not part of an active lease. However, all five state bills in the tables below provide no similar carve-out and ban the use of all such data. These provisions will add uncertainty and complexity to rental markets.
Each bill contains different provisions and defines terms differently. In Massachusetts, for example, "coordinate" is defined as collecting data on historic or current rent prices, supply levels, occupancy rates, or lease dates; analyzing this data through software; and recommending a rental price. This definition makes no distinction between public and nonpublic data, capturing virtually all versions of algorithmic pricing software, regardless of any connection to price collusion. This definition also deviates from most other states, which specify the non-public nature of the data they target.
The differences between laws don't end with definitions. They also vary substantially in which activities they target. Some states, like New Jersey, directly address "parallel price coordination," while Maryland, for example, targets the training of models on nonpublic data. These differing provisions across state bills range from redundant to overly broad.
Fragmented, vague legislation creates unnecessary risk and uncertainty about how platforms and users can operate without triggering legal penalties. To complicate things further, several city governments, like Bellingham, Wash., and Montgomery County, Md., are proposing to layer their own laws over state and federal laws. Even if these local rules are well-targeted, they risk creating an even more fragmented regulatory landscape.
Instead of adding additional laws and regulations on an increasingly granular scale, focusing on the use of nonpublic data while relying on the existing legal code can achieve the same goal of market fairness directly. As the RealPage lawsuit demonstrated, a robust, nationwide legal infrastructure already exists to address antitrust concerns. Price collusion is already illegal, and the system already addresses instances when it occurs. Relying on these existing, functioning legal frameworks is a clearer path to enabling both innovation and accountability, without creating a patchwork of state-specific laws that tech companies and landlords must now navigate.
* * *
Eliza Terziev is a housing and land use policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
Max Gulker, Ph.D., is managing director of technology policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/rent-setting-algorithms-require-targeted-regulation-not-new-laws/
Reason Foundation: How Local Governments Force Short-Term Rental Platforms to Turn Over User Data
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 14 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
How local governments force short-term rental platforms to turn over user data
State lawmakers should act to make clear that online platforms are not supplements to aid in the administration of overly burdensome local requirements.
Nicole Shekhovtsova
Technology Policy Analyst
Caden Rosenbaum
Managing Director of Technology Policy
October 12, 2026
Across the country, local governments have set up a complex web of burdensome restrictions on short-term rentals (STRs), units leased to tenants for 30
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 14 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
How local governments force short-term rental platforms to turn over user data
State lawmakers should act to make clear that online platforms are not supplements to aid in the administration of overly burdensome local requirements.
Nicole Shekhovtsova
Technology Policy Analyst
Caden Rosenbaum
Managing Director of Technology Policy
October 12, 2026
Across the country, local governments have set up a complex web of burdensome restrictions on short-term rentals (STRs), units leased to tenants for 30days or less. Despite their local nature, these restrictions extend well beyond county lines, affecting the online platforms that facilitate STR transactions.
At a minimum, STR restrictions center around licensing. If a person doesn't have a license to run an STR out of their home, then they are violating the law. However, in many localities, anti-STR restrictions are imposed on would-be hosts to make it nearly impossible to obtain a license. Because these requirements are so nuanced, they are impossible to enforce without spending considerable amounts of tax dollars. So instead of scaling back their requirements, local governments turn to online STR platforms that facilitate transactions, demanding they hand over data about the hosts using their platforms--creating a privacy predicament for online platforms and a honeypot for hackers.
As more localities move to impose burdensome STR restrictions that rely on the data and assistance of online platforms for enforcement, state lawmakers should act to make clear that online platforms are not supplements to aid in the administration of overly burdensome local requirements, and the data they collect on hosts should only be accessible to localities when there's a warrant involved.
The patchwork problem created by multiple different licensing requirements
In Muskegon, Mich., the number of licensed short-term rentals is capped at 25 percent in neighborhoods. In Kansas City, Mo., rentals operated by non-residents are generally prohibited in residential zones, with few exceptions. And in Louisville, Ky., STRs can be no closer than 600 feet from another STR.
These are only a few of the many differing restrictions localities impose based on who they decide can and cannot rent out a home. In their zeal, however, these localities run headlong into the costly and complicated issue of actually having to enforce their ordinances by hiring staff and implementing monitoring software. When faced with this challenge, many cities and localities instead turn to the online platforms that facilitate transactions between hosts and guests, like Airbnb, Homeaway, and Vrbo, demanding they turn over data about their users to be used to verify compliance and send a takedown request for out-of-compliance STR listings.
The cybersecurity problem hidden beneath the surface of these requirements
Complying with the demands and restrictions of hundreds of different localities is an obvious headache for online platforms and STR operators alike. But the most concerning part of the local-level compliance burden is that, in many cities and towns, online platforms are strong-armed into turning over data to government agencies rather than prioritizing protecting their users' privacy. Platforms are often required to provide local governments with detailed data that includes whatever information a locality deems necessary, such as host names, dates a property was in operation, length of guest stays, amount charged per night, and more.
Many states have data protection laws on the books, but these laws protect user data from misuse in the hands of corporations--not local governments. Once a STR platform is forced to turn over data, users are dependent on their localities to protect their data.
Unfortunately, such data transfers add to an already existing honeypot of information within local government servers, which are already a favorite target for hackers to tap into. Many local governments' cybersecurity systems are woefully underfunded, resulting in insufficient investment in the infrastructure needed to keep such data safe.
How states should approach the policy problem at hand
There are many more examples of online platforms caught in the web of local government requirements than just STR platforms. But they all face the same central issues, which break down into two key components. First, online platforms should not be part of the regulatory equation at the local level. Second, absent a full-on warrant requirement, the data that a locality can request from an online platform should be significantly limited.
Several states have already adopted workable approaches. Tennessee's 2021 law prohibits local regulation of online marketplace operations and prohibits demands for personally identifiable user information without an administrative subpoena or court order. North Carolina enacted similar restrictions in 2023, requiring a subpoena or court order for compelled disclosure. Utah's 2026 law follows the same approach.
Conclusion
A platform may provide convenience in connecting STR hosts with guests, but that convenience shouldn't be the excuse local governments use to conscript online platforms when their STR ordinances get too complex for localities to police on their own. Such convenience favors the regulator, and much of the privacy, security, business risk, and cost of compliance is ignored or passed along to the platform and its users. As more localities seek to pass burdensome STR restrictions that rely on online platform data for enforcement, more states should follow the lead of states like Tennessee, North Carolina, and Utah.
* * *
Nicole Shekhovtsova is a technology policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
Caden Rosenbaum is the managing director of technology policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/how-local-governments-force-short-term-rental-platforms-to-turn-over-user-data/
Health Foundation: Social Care Report Highlights Need for Workforce Plan to Help Lay the Foundations for a National Care Service
LONDON, England, Oct. 14 (TNSrpt) -- The Health Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Social care report highlights need for workforce plan to help lay the foundations for a National Care Service
14 October 2026
Responding to the annual Skills for Care State of the adult social care sector and workforce in England report, Lucinda Allen, Senior Policy Fellow at the Health Foundation, said:
'Today's report lands at a pivotal moment, with the prime minister prioritising social care reform and promising change for care workers. Vacancies have dropped but longer-term workforce pressures
... Show Full Article
LONDON, England, Oct. 14 (TNSrpt) -- The Health Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Social care report highlights need for workforce plan to help lay the foundations for a National Care Service
14 October 2026
Responding to the annual Skills for Care State of the adult social care sector and workforce in England report, Lucinda Allen, Senior Policy Fellow at the Health Foundation, said:
'Today's report lands at a pivotal moment, with the prime minister prioritising social care reform and promising change for care workers. Vacancies have dropped but longer-term workforce pressuresremain, with growth slowing as numbers of both British staff and new international recruits fall.
'The number of internationally recruited workers in social care dropped by 40% from 2024 to 2025. This is partly down to the closure of the care worker visa route, showing how policies focused narrowly on reducing immigration can negatively impact people's health and care services. Current proposals to make migrant care workers wait much longer to qualify for UK settlement could exacerbate recruitment challenges.
'Social care pay remains stubbornly low, with a quarter of care and support workers paid around the minimum wage. Government plans for new Fair Pay Agreements in social care are an important part of tackling this issue. The policy's success will rely on having the right incentives in place, including for providers to comply with new rules and staff to stay and progress in the sector.
'Evidence suggests pay policies work best as part of a wider strategy for recruiting and retaining enough staff, including measures to support training, oversight of workers and ethical international recruitment. So, it is welcome that the Secretary of State recently promised a government-led workforce plan for social care, which would be the first since 2009. While the prime minister's ambition for care to be free at the point of use is unlikely to be realised in this parliament alone, government should begin laying the foundations for a National Care Service now to show progress. A strong and supported workforce is one of the cornerstones on which those reforms will be built.'
* * *
REPORT: https://www.skillsforcare.org.uk/Adult-Social-Care-Workforce-Data/workforceintelligence/resources/Reports/National/The-state-of-the-adult-social-care-sector-and-workforce-in-England-2026.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://www.health.org.uk/media-office/press-releases/social-care-report-highlights-need-for-workforce-plan-to-help-lay-the-foundations-for-a-national-care-service
FFRF Helps Arkansas Parent Secure Inclusive Field Trip for Kindergartners
MADISON, Wisconsin, Oct. 14 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
October 12, 2026
FFRF helps Arkansas parent secure inclusive field trip for kindergartners
A concerned Arkansas parent no longer has to choose between protecting their 5-year-old from school-sponsored religious activity and letting the child share a special field trip with classmates.
Lakeside Primary School, located in Hot Springs, had planned an Oct. 1 kindergarten field trip to Family Farm Christian Day Camp. The parent complainant personally visited Family Farm last year and witnessed
... Show Full Article
MADISON, Wisconsin, Oct. 14 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
October 12, 2026
FFRF helps Arkansas parent secure inclusive field trip for kindergartners
A concerned Arkansas parent no longer has to choose between protecting their 5-year-old from school-sponsored religious activity and letting the child share a special field trip with classmates.
Lakeside Primary School, located in Hot Springs, had planned an Oct. 1 kindergarten field trip to Family Farm Christian Day Camp. The parent complainant personally visited Family Farm last year and witnessedreligious activity there. When the school sent home permission slips in early September, the parent objected to an official public school trip to camp with a pervasively sectarian mission.
The parent first raised the issue directly with the school. Principal Amanda Sarver confirmed that previous school visits to Family Farm had included "a brief prayer in the morning after the pledge" and that there could also be "brief comments that reference being thankful to God." Students were not required to participate, the principal said.
But having to opt their child out of the field trip because it was inappropriate did not feel like a real solution to the parent. They wanted their kindergartner to enjoy the same educational and social experience as classmates without first needing a lesson in how to navigate religious activity at a public school event.
"I don't want to exclude [my child] from fun school experiences with [their] classmates because of this," the parent told the school.
"I don't think it's fair that a 5-year-old should have to grapple with this distinction in the context of a public-school field trip," the parent wrote. "I would much rather be able to send [them] on a school field trip without having to prepare [them] for the possibility of religious activity."
That is when the parent turned to FFRF.
"My concern is not that a private Christian organization exists or that individual students or staff members hold religious beliefs," the parent explained to FFRF. "My concern is that a public elementary school is sponsoring and organizing a kindergarten field trip to a location identified as a Christian day camp, where religious activity has occurred as part of the experience."
FFRF Staff Attorney Sammi Lawrence wrote to Lakeside School District Superintendent Bruce Orr on Sept. 22, explaining that public schools cannot place families in the position of choosing between an important school experience and avoiding unconstitutional school-sponsored religious events.
The district acted immediately.
The very next morning, Orr informed FFRF that Lakeside would not proceed with the trip to the Family Farm Christian Day Camp. Instead, the district is planning an alternative kindergarten outing and is considering the Mid-America Science Museum and a local botanical garden.
"We intend to preserve the opportunity for our kindergarten students and their families to enjoy this special experience together while ensuring the school-sponsored activity is appropriate for all students," Orr wrote in an email.
Orr also acknowledged the district's constitutional responsibility: "Lakeside respects the individual religious beliefs of all of our students, families, and staff. We also recognize our responsibility as a public school district to ensure that school-sponsored educational opportunities do not promote or favor particular religious beliefs or practices."
FFRF commends Orr and the Lakeside School District for taking the parent's concerns seriously and responding promptly.
"This is exactly how public schools should respond when it becomes aware of a First Amendment violation," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "Every activity in a public school should be educational, inclusive and welcoming to all. Young and impressionable students should never be taken on a religious field trip as part of a public school activity."
FFRF is pleased that Lakeside students will still get their field trip, with the educational experience and childhood memories that come with it, while leaving religious instruction where it belongs: with families and religious organizations, not public schools.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With nearly 41,000 members and several chapters across the country, including hundreds of members and a chapter in Arkansas, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-helps-arkansas-parent-secure-inclusive-field-trip-for-kindergartners/
[Category: Religion]
Beware of Sneaky 'Astroturf' Groups Funded by Big Pharma to Influence Public Policy
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 14 -- The AIDS Healthcare Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
Beware of Sneaky 'Astroturf' Groups Funded by Big Pharma to Influence Public Policy
*
A major problem in the United States is the practice of "astroturfing," in which industries, often big drug companies or other corporate interests, create or fund organizations that appear to be independent grassroots movements while concealing their financial backing. The purpose is to influence public opinion, regulatory decisions, or policymaking--and astroturfing disguises corporate-sponsored campaigns as
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 14 -- The AIDS Healthcare Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
Beware of Sneaky 'Astroturf' Groups Funded by Big Pharma to Influence Public Policy
*
A major problem in the United States is the practice of "astroturfing," in which industries, often big drug companies or other corporate interests, create or fund organizations that appear to be independent grassroots movements while concealing their financial backing. The purpose is to influence public opinion, regulatory decisions, or policymaking--and astroturfing disguises corporate-sponsored campaigns asgenuine efforts by patients and community groups. It's a sneaky, dishonest, and misleading way to do business.
Drug companies use these efforts to shape policy debates, counter criticism, or downplay product risks. Recent examples are drug companies funding astroturf organizations to attack how nonprofit Ryan White HIV clinics use the 340B Drug Pricing Program to stretch federally funded grants to provide more medical care services to low-income persons living with HIV.
Common tactics include hiding corporate funding behind neutral-sounding organizations or coalitions and funding patient advocacy groups, nonprofits, or trade associations to influence regulators and policymakers.
These fake grassroots groups flood public discussions with questionable studies and misleading talking points that obscure independent evidence or safety concerns.
The problem with astroturfing is that it generates fake comments to legislators and regulators from groups their sponsors have paid off to amplify corporate influence over effective healthcare policy.
Corporate sponsorship of advocacy groups and medical research may also undermine public trust and the integrity of medical decision-making. Watchdog organizations try to monitor and expose these hidden relationships, but their resources are limited compared to the multi-million-dollar lobbying budgets of powerful, deep-pocketed drug companies.
The bottom line is that astroturfing is a strategy used by certain drug companies and other organizations to covertly shape public and regulatory opinion by creating the appearance of independent public support. Therefore, as the cliche goes, the public must follow the money before accepting what fake astroturf groups are promoting, especially when it comes to the drug industry.
John Hassell is the National Director of Advocacy for AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
***
Original text here: https://www.aidshealth.org/2026/10/beware-of-sneaky-astroturf-groups-funded-by-big-pharma-to-influence-public-policy/
