Im antonio mora. Here is more on what is ahead. Senate shot down a bill that would have changed the way sexualities are prosecuted. A shocking ruling date day. In favour of a man that took upskirt photos. A new report finds american hospitals and doctors have been overprescribing antibiotics. They are often used as shotgun treatments. New voe cab words and a scaled back map section. What you do on s. A. T. Is not what you do in high school. Can you take pictures up a womans skirt. According to mass , you can, and you can text people pictures of your genitals, why . Because the law doesnt prohibility it. Friday, governor patrick signed a new law making it illegal. As technology develops, what can we do to keep it outpacing the law. Al jazeera jamie floyd is here in new york. This case in massachusetts is stunning. They basically ruled a guy who was taking pictures up womens skirts could do it, it wasnt illegal. Yes, there were two reasons. The pictures were taken in public, a place you dont have reasonable inspection of privacy, and the women and there are only two documented, but the women were not undoctorsed. They were not naked or partially nude. And the peeping tom law requires you be in a dressing room or a place of privacy. So the specificity of the law, the alert of the law was not violated. Couldnt the judge have looked at the peeping judge law and said hey, the intention of law is. You are asking if they could go with the spirit of the law. This happened in the state of washington, the same issue, upskirting, and the court ruled the same way. Judges are not supposed to make law, but interpret it. Its a cry out for the legislature to make a law that fits modern times and technology. This law is only 10 years old, iphones five years old. Thats how quickly the world is changing. This court made it clear that they didnt like that they had to do this, they dont agree with the state of the law, but had to do what the law required. The Georgia Supreme Court said the same thing and a more extreme case. A guy sent, to put it bluntly, pictures of his tattooed penis to a woman who had no interest in getting it. Unsolicited. They said it was fine. They said it wasnt covered by what the law there covered. Which was hard copy you could not sent pornographing pictures. In the mail. Electronic pornographic imagery was not covered by the law. And, therefore, under the letter of the law, what the man had done was not il. They were saying, get with it legislature, lets make laws covering the new technology. Is this a case where the court had more lee way. If you are saying you cant send it by snailmail, what is the difference sending it by email, you are sending the pornographic material over some form of mail. It is fundamentally different. The means and method is different. That gets to the bigger question how can the law keep up with technology, can it. The Supreme Court gets these cases every year, and we are going to have to start looking forward, instead of looking backward. The law is so reactionary. We wait until there are victims, and then we do something about it. Thats the position that will judges are in, not just high court judges. This case was the Supreme Court of the state of massachusetts, going all the way through the system in that state. State court judges, before you get there, are looking back after a victim complains in court. Its for the legislatures to make law looking ahead. Shouldnt there be a most. Is there nothing out there that is trying to do that, suggest new laws to deal with technologies. I think lets talk to the kids. She said, cell phones under skirts, she said what about google glass. Some guy will be sitting on the sub way looking through my clothes, i wont have to worry about them looking up my skirt. Young people are visionaries about the Way Technologies runs up 200yearold rights. We need to talk with them, our thought leaders of technology about how to make the law fit. Talking about technology, and our constitutional rights, the state Supreme Court of georgia did not rule on this. It was a thing brought up. Whether the guy sending the pictures by text or email. That was within his rights. We have to be clear about this. The first amendment, google glass, technology, its positive. Its great, its good. When used properly. So we are focussed on the victims in massachusetts, the ways in which the courts hands were tide and the ways we want to protect victims in the future. We dont want to focus on the fear factor. We want to work with the legislatures and Technology Leaders to make the technology work, and not allow the wrong doers to have more control over technology than those of us that want to use it in positive ways. Good to have you on the show. Turning to the s. A. T. , its the second Biggest College transexam after the act. There are major revisions, among them going back to a 1600 point system, the essay optional. Critics are not sure it will help judge a students ability to succeed. Hes from fair test, a watchdog group. Why so many challenges now. The leaders of the clem board figured out College Board figured out that the changes failed in the market play. The act, which had been behind, overtook the s. A. T. As the most popular standardized tests and 95 colleges dropped requirements, going test optional. Which is what fair test advocated. Is this a competitive thing, that they want to get people taking the s. A. T. More again. Look at what happened. Its like when the Cocacola Company introduced new coke and it flopped. They had to reformulate. The changes the College Board made is to make it look more like the actment the College Board will make the sa optional. Just as its been the case. Theyll score the test differently so you are not penalized. Theyll eliminate esoteric words. If you want to, well see what the new s. A. T. Will be like. Take the new act right now. Theyll narrow the focus of the maths section of the test. Even the headlines said the changes are making the s. A. T. Harder. It looks like the op sid. It wont make it harder or easier. They equate the scores, curbing the scores so tests are equally hard from year to year. What theyll do is make it more attractive to students and parents around the country to regain market share. A criticism is that the s. A. T. S open the door for all the tutors and prep courses and books that allow or give an unfair advantage to kids that have money. They are trying to counter that by providing online tute earring. Will that tutoring. Will that help balance things . Maybe a little bit. But the that is correct of the matter is theres free video tutoring. Free s. A. T. Test prep and theres hundreds of product. Free or no cost. Every Guidance Office has copies that will get you ready. This is unlikely to affect the high end test prem in which wealthy parents by the kids the equivalence of test steroids by paying students 100 or 500 or paying individual personal trainers 15,000 to 25,000 to give the kids the personalized one on one coaching that is significantly boosting scores, and give the kids who have every advantage, because their parents have money another leg up. It wont be a level playing field. Rich kids will do better on the s. A. T. S, and schools that rely on scores will continue to give an advantage to kids that need it the least. As you said. Some schools moving away from looking at test scores for admission purposes, but without them, doesnt it make it that much harder for College Admissions people to figure out how strong a student a kid is, especially given the big differences in the quality of schools around the country . Not at all. A Detailed Research report came out two weeks ago looking at 123,000 students, plying to 33 optional institutions and found this they are making as good or better decisions without reliance on s. A. T. Scores. They were admitting kids that worked just as much. Test scores are not necessary. They are not as good a predictor as High School Grades are. Everyone says that grades are all over the lot. There are stuff and easy stools. Thats true. Grades are better than prep schools that shows you how poor they are as a predictor. It has been shown that High School Grades are more predictive. What are the biggest problems that you see the changes dont address . They dont address the predict ability of the test. They dont test the biases of the the exam. Theres a relationship between a Family Income and test scores giving advantages to kids from well to do families. They underestimate for females and overestimate for males. For kids whose first lapping wig is not english, and for students applying at a nontraditional aids. Add to that the skews of coaching and some get tremendous advantages compared to their peers and going to clems that require s. A. T. Scores. I know a lot taking the s. A. T. Scores. Consider this will be right back. Turning to Sexual Assault in the military, a bill that will remove military commanders over decisions of Sexual Assault cases in the armed forces was defeated in the senate on thursday. The main sponsors vowed to keep fighting for victims. We know that the deck is stacked against victims of Sexual Assault in the military. Today, sadly, we saw the same in the halls of congress. For two decades every secretary of defense said zero tolerance for the crime. But all we have seen is zero accountability. The pentagons survey found 26,000 incidents of unwanted Sexual Conduct in 2012. And the ongoing problem was driven home with the suspension of the top army prosecutor, accused of groping a colleague at a Sexual Assault legal conference. One of the highest ranking officers on thursday admitted to an affair, pressuring female officers to send nude photos of themselves. A trial will proceed on more serious charges. For more we are joined by an attorney who spearheaded nationwide lawsuits designed to transform the matters in which the military prosecutes rape and Sexual Assault. Thanks for joining us. Senator jilly brand came close to getting what she needed for her bill. As we heard, for two decades every secretary of defence said theres zero tolerance for scult. Is there any doubt that the system is broken. Theres no doubt. The sad reality is we as a nation sat by and let the infers members bear the brunt of this judicial system. Everyone has been on notice that the system is broking. The senator said she was disappointed by the lack of support from the white house. Would that have helped . It would have helped. Obviously the president is the commander in chief. He should have the same impatience and unwillingness to tolerate more rapes or sexuality assaults. We know its time for a change your, there has to be reform. Her main change, the main demonstrate of her bill was to take the prosecution of Sexual Assault cases outside the chain of military command, that if it stayed as it is now, people would not come in and report the cases. Its an important structural reform. The by it is set up you have the people in charge, the commanders serving as judges, in an ajudic atory function, but we know the best justice is blind justice. Thats why, for example, if you sit on a jury, you are excused. The way the military system is structured, is that the commanders, whoever is the boss about the accused they get to decide the legal steps that are taken. They are the ones who are being given this judicial power. The argument, of course, is that the commanders need to command, and taking them out of the command would undermine the whole hierarchy of the military. Senator mcas kills bill doesnt go as far, but events those accused of using the good shoulder defense. They use the military conduct. They will not be able to. And a commanders decision not to move forward would be reviewed by a support and by a legal individual. Is that not enough. At this point, its not just one commander making a decision. If he decides not to move forward, a lawyer has to look at it too. No, sadly its not enough. Everyone has been supportive of senator mcas kills bill. This is a question as to whether the military and the nation and Congress Step up and fix a broken judicial system. The changes are tweaks, but the underlying structure remains flawed. The problem is you have a system with year in and year out failed to incarcerate predators. As a result you see the numbers of rapes continue to rise and climb. Its an epidemic. So you have to fix the judicial system. You have to look at why we are not getting enough reporting and when we are getting reporting, why we are never getting convictions. The glaring for is the commanders are tinkering. Other nations modernized uniformed codes of justice. They realised its an anabbing ronism for the commanders to have the judicial power. They stepped forward into the presence and we need to do the same. We saw this situation this week. We saw it with the head prosecutor sfoor Sexual Assault being accused for Sexual Assault himself. Well, the reality of any system of justice is when you have prosecutorial discretion, some cases will be brought and some will not. What we know is that our american system its emphasis on im impartiality. They know that people making the decisions do not have a personal bias or skin in the game. Here for the service members. We let people hold decisionmaking power that have their career interest, their promote ability interest at stake. Its a straight ford public policy. Theres no way around the fact that its broken. We saw a video of him, one of the highest ranking officers pleading guilty to sexual cases today. Well be back with more of consider this. The use of ivf is exploding in the United States is leading to ethical questions. Is it leading to designer babies, is it a bad thing. This week, a controversial version of ivf that could lead to something that parents are calling 3parent babies. As medical technology advance, where do we join the line on what is acceptable and what is not. Joining us is the captain of University Medical center. Ivf is growing, more than 60,000 of the babies born in 2012 were born that ivf 1. 5 ever babies. Its well own 200,000 worldwide. What used to be an oddity is routine. How much of it is personalities with fertility issues, and how much is parents who are doing this because they want to d Genetic Screening for a disease that they might be transmitting with their genes. Its a great question. If we went back five, seven years wed have 95 of people infertile. Today i bet fertile people saying, i want to avoid disease, i dont want a child with a problem. The reality is doctors can test the embryos for all sorts of issues. We have been able to pull a cell off an embryo, it is replaced, not hurt it. You take the d. N. A. Out of the cell, you run the tests that you reason on you or me. One case that is getting attention is a woman having gss. I wont try to pronounce the disoos. It leads to a painful death. She had invitro and basically looked at the embryos that were in the dish, and they figured out which ones did not have the gss gene, and they discarded those embryos, and she went on to have healthy babies who would not have the disease. Its morally controversial to destroy an embryo, when you pick up the one that is will have a horrible disease or live a shortened life span, it seems to be the ethical thing to do to avoid creating that burden. That type of screening embryos, that use of ivf i support that. We have other things, Breast Cancer genes, increasing the likelihood of severe Breast Cancer. Where do you draw the line . Thats the big question. Id say in . . When you talk about a certainty of disease, you see flawed genes, you have a child with terrible conditions, rarer but dead for the baby, i think there you can screen. We get requests to say, hey, how about boy or girl . , we dont do it at my schools, a lot of others they dont. Some do. In india it has a big business. If its a clear cut Disease State or the rfb of a clear cut disease, you can screen morally. When its a difference, a taste, i start to have reservations. Its not just the sex. There are plenty of things soon to be put on the table. In many states, there is albanism. Not a big deal, you put on your sunglasses. In many parts, they dont want someone without pigment. I think there were two nobel prize winners. Thats one thing Disability Advocates will say. A lot of people with incredible contributions to society nef existed. Let me give you an example. I had a request from a deaf coup, herred tarial deaf, and they wanted deaf. They wanted to create a child that was deaf like them. Theres a separate question, can you use genetic testing if it makes the child worse off or less than it might have been. My answer is no. So many questions being raised, none more than this without news of people in britain, looking into the possibility of parents being 3parent. Remember your high School Textbook where the cells are dividing. It takes power. You need energy. Theres a mitochondria, the battery park, the energy factory. When they are not right, the battery doesnt work. You get diseases if its not right. We can take the mitochondria from a normal egg and put them into an egg from the woman who has the condition. Fertilise that. You have prepared thing of it like an organ transplant. We transplant the mitochondria. To me just because you have a power pack doesnt make you a parent . Opponents are up in arms. One of the things they are raising is theres no way of knowing what the consequences have been. Could this be something that creates problems. There are too concerns. One is is it safe. You have to do it. You want to do if in the cells. I think we have seen enough evidence to say we are close to being sure you can make a healthy child. Were you 100 . Is medicine 100 sure. Until you try it in humans, you dont know. Im ready to say even how horrible these diseases are you probably cr