Daily Archives: January 27, 2022

Ascensus Offers Institutional Partners and Advisors More Flexibility via Its Open-Architecture Platform

DRESHER, Pa., Jan. 27, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- Ascensuswhose technology and expertise help millions of people save for retirement, education, and healthcareannounced that Franklin Templeton has selected Ascensus to host its Personal Retirement Path managed account services offering.

(PRNewsfoto/Ascensus)

"Personalization is core to our value proposition at Franklin Templeton, and we believe it is the key to driving financial independence for every U.S. worker and household," said Yaqub Ahmed, Head of Retirement, Insurance & 529 U.S. at Franklin Templeton. "Through our partnership with Ascensus, we look forward to empowering advisors with the resources needed to create a path toward financial well-being at all stages of a participant's savings journey."

Personal Retirement Path managed accounts deliver personalized portfolio management to help individual investors reach specific goals. Its proprietary Goals Optimization Engine (GOE), which is based on award-winning academic research, makes personalization at scale a reality. The offering is backed by Franklin Templeton's strong commitment to servicing the retirement industry, along with its deep multi-asset investment expertise within Franklin Templeton Investment Solutions.

Ascensus announced the expansion of its managed account serviceswhich are supported by its purpose-built technology and open-architecture platform with no proprietary investment requirementsin September 2020. Since then, it has continued to develop its infrastructure to give institutional partners and advisors more choices that can enable them to deliver personalized account management services to their clients and savers. The addition of Franklin Templeton's Personal Retirement Path is another example of Ascensus' commitment to offer more savings options that can potentially drive better retirement outcomes.

Story continues

"As the appetite for saver personalization continues to grow, Ascensus has positioned itself to support an enhanced level of choice via our open-architecture approach," said Jason Crane, Ascensus' head of retirement distribution. "In Franklin Templeton, we're working with a partner that shares our passion for helping savers achieve their retirement goals; we're extremely proud to add Personal Retirement Path to our array of managed account services."

"The flexibility of Ascensus' managed account services reflects our independent business model," adds Crane. "We'll continue to work with partners that complement our business model, philosophy, and values while supporting unique investment management approaches and expanding relationships."

About Franklin Templeton Franklin Resources, Inc. [NYSE:BEN], is a global investment management organization with subsidiaries operating as Franklin Templeton and serving clients in over 165 countries. Through its specialist investment managers, the company brings extensive capabilities in equity, fixed income, multi-asset solutions and alternatives. With offices in more than 30 countries and approximately 1,300 investment professionals, the California-based company has 75 years of investment experience and over $1.5 trillion in assets under management as of December 31, 2021. For more information, please visit franklintempleton.com and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook.

About AscensusAscensus helps millions of people save for what mattersretirement, education, and healthcare. Through co-branded, private-labeled, and other governmental partnerships, our technology, market insights, and business knowledge enhance the growth and success of our partners, their clients, and savers. Ascensus is the largest independent recordkeeping services provider, third-party administrator, and government savings facilitator in the United States. For more information, visit ascensus.com.

Cision

View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/franklin-templeton-selects-ascensus-to-host-personal-retirement-path-managed-account-services-offering-301470043.html

SOURCE Ascensus

Originally posted here:

Franklin Templeton Selects Ascensus to Host Personal Retirement Path Managed Account Services Offering - Yahoo Finance

(W)hen some people are invisible, everyone suffers.

Women business owners in the state of Vermont are invisible. Researchers first learned that this vital data was missing in 2016 when examining the economic status of women in Vermont. Of the 81,132 businesses currently operating in Vermont, no one knows how many are owned and operated by women.

This omission is proving to be costly. When Federal Paycheck Protection Program funds became available in Vermont to women-owned and minority-owned businesses two years ago, there was no official way to identify them.

The Vermont Womens Fund is committed to changing this narrative. "This Way UP: theres power in our numbers" is an online survey to identify and track women-owned businesses in Vermont. It also assesses the impact of their economic contributions in real-time, so the aggregated results are instantly available.

Heres a sampling of the questions and answers from some of the first 681 respondents:

Where did women get their funding? 41% started their business by building it up slowly over time, 32% used savings, 11% got a loan from a bank, credit union or community development organization and 9% borrowed money from friends and family.

What life changes led them to start their business? 22% lost employment and decided it was time to work for themselves, 18% had someone who offered support while they started the business, 17% had a mentor who helped them get started, 16% became a caregiver and needed flexibility, while 14% had no other work options and had to start a business.

Are they ready to mentor and connect with others? 75% said "yes."

Behind the numbers, there are narratives voluntarily offered as part of the survey. They concretely reflect the issues so many female entrepreneurs have had to address. Here are a few:

"My adult existence has been defined by choosing to produce food and steward land while raising kids. Our farm began in 1868; I currently own 40% and when my parents retire, I will be the first female to ever own the farm. We have credit-card debt and back taxes from so many years without a living wage while building my husband's business, raising young kids in rural Vermont, and working to update and weatherize our 1920s farmhouse. And our story is nothing compared to so many of our neighbors. We are the lucky ones; I am among some of the most privileged of farmers. I live with mental illness, and it is on this land and through farming that I can stay well and be a productive member of society, but I have to tell you, it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep doing what I do, producing food and stewarding land, while knowing the burden it places on my family for me to do so."

It's impossible to get funding as a woman (with student-loan debt) in small business. I was only able to secure financing because of my husband's favorable credit. Even though this is 100% my business, I still have my business cards in his name. Access to capital for women in Vermont is so important.

Being in business for myself has been the best journey of self-discovery I have ever taken.

I initially went into real estate sales as an independent contractor in 1981. Prior to that, I was a stay-at-home mother. I went into the business as a financial necessity. In 2012, I made the move to open my own independent company. We have a great team of 14 now which includes my husband and two of my daughters.It has been a great moveand provides us all the means for financial independence with no glass ceilings to shatter.

I am a service-based business of one and a woman of color. I tried connecting with some networking organizations for business owners and found them to not be very welcoming, and I heard this repeatedly from others. Because I work with clients virtually, I am not focused on tying into the local community for customers but would love to have people to share ideas with, to support and uplift.

There is much more to be learned from the data that "This Way UP" is gathering. You can help the group reach its goal of signing up at least 10,000 women entrepreneurs by the end of the year. Share this with every woman you know who runs a business, be it full-time or part-time, from solopreneurs to large employers. Encourage them to sign up and be counted. The numbers bear out that there is an enormous untapped opportunity to grow Vermonts economic vitality and diversity, to create networks of mentorship, to secure funding and to increase contributions to Vermonts economy.

But the first step is to move women forward from invisibility into full view. Theres power in our numbers.

Go to ThisWayUPvt.com to take the survey and click on Todays Numbers to see the results to date. Visit vermontwomensfund.org to learn more about womens economic empowerment in Vermont

Meg A. Smith is Vermont Womens Fund director. She lives in Middlebury.

Read more here:

Smith: Power in numbers | Commentary | rutlandherald.com - Rutland Herald

Formerly incarcerated women working with the nonprofit New Jersey Reentry Corporation to find financial independence will now have access to a full menu of medical, dental and mental health services offered from a wellness center in Hudson County, according to an announcement Tuesday.

The Francine A. LeFrak Wellness Center is named after Francine A. LeFrak, a philanthropist and social entrepreneur who founded Same Sky, a nonprofit that has promoted financial independence for women survivors of the Rwandan genocide, as well as formerly incarcerated women in New Jersey.

Francine LeFrak has been a steadfast advocate for our women program participants, former Gov. Jim McGreevey, executive director of the New Jersey Reentry Corporation, said during the grand opening ceremony for the center at the Governors Reentry Training & Employment Center in Kearny.

In the past, Ms. LeFrak has funded job training and financial literacy for women. Todays announcement recognizes Francine LeFraks historic philanthropy and support for the NJRC mission and opportunities for those participants seeking second chances, McGreevey said.

The Wellness Center has the support of medical providers across the state, McGreevey said.

Contributors include the corporations Medical Director Dr. Gloria Bachmann, professor for the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School; Clara Maass Medical Center President and CEO Mary Ellen Clyne, who will ensure patients receive medical and mental health referrals; and Dr. Shereef Elnahal of University Hospital in Newark and Dr. Su Wang of Cooperman Barnabas Medical Center in Livingston, who will assist with general medicine and hepatitis diagnosis and treatment. Some services will be offered from other locations across the state, according to the announcement.

We have worked diligently to link women exiting Edna Mahan Correctional Facility with premier medical and behavioral healthcare services, Bachmann said. The LeFrak Wellness Center will ensure that court-involved women and men are having their healthcare needs addressed in a coordinated framework while having access to the best medicine.

Since 2015, the New Jersey Reentry Corporation has helped people leaving prison by preparing them to find employment and live a stable life. NJRC has helped 2,367 people find jobs and enrolled 798 in building trade apprenticeships, according to its website. The nonprofit also has linked 3,130 people to drug treatment and 2,182 to Medicaid.

Medical, behavioral, and dental health care necessary prerequisites for success, LeFrak told the audience of medical professionals and elected officials.

To ensure that persons have a hand up, health care, financial literacy, and employment training are essential. The Governors Reentry Training and Employment Center will now offer all three components to maximize reentry success, LeFrak said.

Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to NJ.com.

Susan K. Livio may be reached at slivio@njadvancemedia.com. Follow her on Twitter @SusanKLivio.

View post:

Women leaving prison in N.J. now have a health center just for them - NJ.com

Tuneday: Be Heard, Be Discovered, Be Together

LONDON (PRWEB) January 27, 2022

Tuneday, the groundbreaking social networking app, is announced, focused on bringing together artists, industry professionals, and enthusiasts to collaborate and earn from the music industry. To support its development and marketing efforts, Tuneday is launching a promising crowdfunding campaign.

The global recorded music market grew by 7.4% in 2020, the sixth consecutive year of growth, according to IFPI. Figures released in IFPIs Global Music Report show total revenues for 2020 were US$21.6 billion.

Growth was driven by streaming, especially by paid subscription streaming revenues, which increased by 18.5%. There were 443 million users of paid subscription accounts at the end of 2020. Total streaming (including paid subscription and advertising-supported) grew 19.9% and reached $13.4 billion, or 62.1% of total global recorded music revenues.

At the same time, artists face difficulties to get discovered by the music industry, upload content & managing multiple platforms, and gain financial independence through their music.

The highly experienced team of Tuneday knows all that well and decided to develop a social networking platform that is focused on bringing together artists, industry professionals, and enthusiasts from all music sectors. Through Tuneday, artists will have the opportunity to reach more revenue streams, get discovered, connect to a community of like-minded individuals, and structure the workflow in 3 easy steps.

As Akin Soetan, founder of Tuneday, emphasizes, We aim to develop a platform where artists will collaborate with music industry professionals, get heard by the music community, build a career & gain financial independence, get mentored & get more reputation buzz. Thats what Tuneday is all about.

To support its further development and global marketing efforts, Tuneday is launching an exciting crowdfunding campaign. Potential funders will benefit from significant discounts and unique perks. They can also show their support by sharing the campaign with their social media networks (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc.)

For further information and to claim your perk, visit https://igg.me/at/tuneday

AboutTuneday, based in the UK, aims to offer the chance for every creator in the world to get discovered by bringing together artists, producers, music professionals, and consumers, all in one place. https://tuneday.co.uk

Share article on social media or email:

Original post:

Tuneday, the Pioneer Social Networking App Where Artists Work Together to Make Music History, is Launched and Turns to Popular Crowdfunding! - PR Web

In this weekend conversation, Tom and David Gardner, co-founders of The Motley Fool, talk about things including:

You can follow Tom and David on Twitter @TomGardnerFool and @davidgfool.

To catch full episodes of all The Motley Fool's free podcasts, check out our podcast center. To get started investing, check out our quick-start guide to investing in stocks. A full transcript follows the video.

This video was recorded on Jan. 08, 2022.

David Gardner: There's no substitute for being invested with skin in the game in the world at large, and it does have you, once you do that, paying attention far more than if you weren't.

Chris Hill: I'm Chris Hill and that was David Gardner. Today on Motley Fool Money we're stepping back from news of the day to have a broader conversation about the pillars of investing success, and how to set yourself up to be a lifelong learner and investor. Who better to do that than the co-founders of The Motley Fool Tom and David Gardner. They share lessons they learned from people like Warren Buffett and Peter Lynch, key elements of core Foolish investing styles, and some of the things they look for in companies before they invest in them. Think of this as the greatest investing class you never got the chance to take in school.

Tom Gardner: I'm Tom Gardner with my brother David, co-founders of The Motley Fool spending the first half-hour class of this series talking about why we invest and how we invest, and really the Motley Fool way of investing. David, thank you so much for spending the half-hour here.

David Gardner: You bet looks do it.

Tom Gardner: Why do you invest?

David Gardner: Well, I think the most obvious reason to invest is that you are hoping to make some money in order to do something in life. A lot of people think of it in terms of retirement. They think they'd like at some point to not have to go to their data job, whatever that is. They imagine that if they invest well, they can in fact achieve that independence, and it's happened. It's happened for me. It's happened for you I know Tom, it's having, for now, our 29th year at the company. It's happened for tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people that they've joined our services and have gotten that financial independence. I think the number one reason it's not the only reason, but to invest is because you're wanted to do something with the money that you're going to make. A lot of us are trying to buy time and buy freedom.

Tom Gardner: Our companywide mission is to make the world smarter, happier, and richer. You've highlighted the richer component of it. I think you've included some of the others as well. But what makes you happier as an investor?

David Gardner: Well, I think one of the important things that you and I have always felt we want to teach the world is that stocks are not just ticker symbols. Stocks are actually just the ownership in a company, and it's the company, and it's the product and services, the humanity. It's all of the good stuff that happens behind the stock. You and I get to be part-owners of companies through the miracle of the stock market but really for you and for me Tom, we want to have fun following the companies we are invested in. A big part of the reason why the Motley Fool is we're here to educate and enrich and amuse. We've always thought about the core jesters of your, and how they made things fun for everybody else around them. So I think it's not just about mechanically following some plan to achieve financial independence at some point. That does work, and it's a worthy goal. But I think for us, it's so much about what the companies themselves do, whether they're making the world better, and whether we enjoy following them.

Tom Gardner: I've observed in our family over many decades that really thinking about our father and then his brother, both, I think, began investing before the age of 10. Just observing some of their conversations, I remember a few years ago where they were debating who had made the worst investment between the two of them. That enjoy the competitive fun of investing and also just the humility the journey that we're all on testing and learning our way through understanding businesses and how to assemble a portfolio and how to make money sustainably over a long period of time. How about smarter? How does investing make you or any stock investor or your fund or ETF investor smarter?

David Gardner: I think there's no substitute for being invested with skit in the game in the world at large. It does have you once you do that, paying attention far more than if you weren't. That's a big reason why the Motley Fool Foundation and The Motley Fool are going to work so hard for the next 25 years to get people thinking that they can be part of the system, that they are an investor. In fact, they've always been investor. They just didn't realize that that was the word they should use. But anytime we spend a dollar we've made an investment, whether it's in the stick of bubblegum or a 401(k) plan. I think a big part of that Tom is that we're switching people onto realizing they are included, they are part of the system and the companies that are going to help them achieve financial independence while we want them to care about those companies. I think it makes you a lot smarter when you're starting to ask those of new questions. Just think about a company like Twitter. I think Twitter makes me smarter every day. The active investing in Twitter, it's not been a great stock pick has been up and down over the years. But it's maybe pay more attention to social media. Then I think about meeting an author for the first time as book you love just because you can direct message them via Twitter, which would've been a dream when you and I were 15 years old. I think just the act of being in the game makes you smarter assuming you're trying to play to win.

Tom Gardner: Before we now move out into how we invest, we've got a few sections that we will be discussing here in these 30 minutes. I just want to close with what do you think are the one, two, or three things somebody needs to have in place before they invest and whether those are based on age or experience or an amount of money you have. Can a 12-year-old be investing in stocks as readily as a 67-year-old? Where do you see as the one, two, or three things you think somebody should have in place to begin investing?

David Gardner: I think the first thing that comes to mind, and it doesn't matter what age you are, is to be a lifetime investor. I think that's what really separates people who are truly investors versus traders. So if you're making a lifetime commitment, as you and I have, Tom, to being an investor, in my case, the stock market, yours too, but there are other approaches. Real estate, we have some great advice at Millionacres at The Motley Fool venture capital, we do that too. There are lots of different ways to invest, but it's really taking that lifetime mentality. For me, whenever the stock market starts to sell off, I stay invested. I don't enjoy watching the stock market drop. Just that I don't enjoy watching my sports teams lose from time to time. But if you are just as you are a lifetime sports fan, if you're a lifetime investor that will make huge difference in your mindset, your mentality, and your results. That's probably the number one thing that comes to mind. It's something that is available to us all.

Tom Gardner: There's such a temptation to think short-term, to fear of missing out, to speculate, and to have high expectations. Those three factors together can destroy a lot of the opportunity to get smarter, happier, and richer. Everything that we do at The Motley Fool is about that lifelong set of goals and building rather than crossing your fingers and hoping something appears in the next six months. Now we're going to go out into how to invest, and they're going to be five segments of this classroom. The first is going to be talking a little bit about index investing versus stock investing. The second is, what are the core principles of our stock investing approach? A little bit about rule breaker investing and Everlasting investing. Then what type of returns are reasonable for someone to expect over time. Then how to handle the volatility and the emotional journey of being an investor. Let's start now with index investing versus stock investing. What do we see as a few of the strong supporting points behind being an index investor?

David Gardner: Well, I will give one, but I'm going to ask you back because I want to make sure it's not just you interviewing me. I think an important thing to recognize is if you're going to be an index fund investor, obviously you need to know the definition of that. A lot of people hearing us right now already know what that is, but I guess in the interest of making sure everybody does, it simply means that you are putting your money toward a manager. You're handling your money over to somebody else or a computer, and they are allocating you into the components of an index. A common example would be the Standard & Poor's 500.

There are 500 really big companies that make up the building blocks of American business. If you give your money over to that human/computer managing you, they're going to put your money into 500 little pieces. If you have $500, they're going to put you one dollar in each of those 500 companies, and now you are in an S&P 500 index fund. You could have selected a Russell 2000 Index fund, which is 2,000 small companies. You could have selected a restaurant index fund or ETF, and then you'd just be invested in all the restaurants. So the concept of being an index fund investor means, number 1, you're giving your money over to have it mechanically allocated. Then number 2, it's all about what is the index that you are invested in.

Tom Gardner: Because of that mechanical allocation, and this was really popularized and created by Vanguard and Jack Bogle who we were able to spend so much time with over the last 20 plus years at The Motley Fool that mechanical approach means that the fee structure is very low. It undermines a lot of the fee-based models and financial services because that automated methodology and that distributing the capital and in the S&P 500 often capitalization, where it says you're actually getting more of the larger and less of the smaller although there are many different flavors of index funds, that it is essentially free just about, and very tax-efficient because you're not doing a lot of transaction.

Tom Taulli: It also allows you to budget because there are historical returns for the S&P and you can loosely make some estimates, and drop some expectations about how the market would perform over a 10-year period or a 20-year period. Any given year obviously going to be a lot of volatility, but when you buy an index fund, you know what you own, it's automated. It's essentially borderline free, very tax efficient, and you can budget around it and those are very advantageous. Now, what would be the reason, David, that you would choose not to invest? Why are we not primarily index investing at The Motley Fool?

David Gardner: Yeah, it's funny because I first booked out The Motley Fool investment guide. You were the one who really set this up, but we put it forward as something worth doing and then the very next chapter, we yank the rug out from the reader and say, but why would you do that when you can actually buy directly individual companies? I think a big reason for us is that you can outperform the index. I believe you can do so with confidence, even though a lot of academia still believes that that's not true, and that's one of the reasons we love being Fools. We will have challenging conventional wisdom, but I think our records will show that we have consistently outperformed the indices.

Therefore, why wouldn't you want to do that? Why wouldn't you want to buy stocks directly? I think the whole secret is simply buying the good ones. I'm not trying to be facetious there. I'm not talking about the good stock last year or the good stock that you think will be good the next quarter. We're talking about the great companies of our time and just being invested in those companies, so those are in the indexes. But so we're all the mediocre ones and some downright bad businesses as well. When people buy an S&P 500 index fund, I might like 50 of those companies. I am not sure I want the other 450. I think a big part of it is discernment as to what really wins in business and therefore what you want to be invested in. Now, you and I both know that not everybody is going to want to go through that journey, spend that time. In fact, Tom, I think it's fair to say a minority of people in the world today actually want to spend time buying stocks directly. But that's what I see. What else do you see there?

Tom Taulli: I think we've talked about index plus a few as a great way to invest. If you had $50,000 to invest, you could take $35,000 of it and put it into one, two or three index funds, and then take the remaining 15,000 and divide across a dozen or two dozen different stocks. We're in a wonderful world now where the transactional costs of investing in stocks is essentially free, very close to free. Obviously there are some hidden costs in there, but very, very inexpensive relative to when the Motley Fool started 1993 and you'd be paying $59 or $99 per trade. It wasn't unusual to actually have those prices. Now it's easy to distribute your capital across a number of stocks, and so maybe having an index fund for some people or collection of them and stocks, that's definitely part of the Motley Fool way of investing, but I want to transition now toward the stock investing portion of your portfolio. We know for us in our family growing up, nobody bought index funds. We're in all stock family, but we're a diversified stock family and we're looking for the great companies, not looking for the trading and stock price momentum, price movements in the short-term. I'd love to hear Dave, what do you see as a few of the key Motley Fool principles that are distinct from what somebody might encounter looking elsewhere for investment guidance?

David Gardner: Well, this might just recapitulate something said earlier, but let's make sure we double underline it. I think if you're going to be buying stocks, please be buying businesses not the tickers. There's a lot to unpack there and we only have limited time, but really, so many people are just thinking about what's the ticker symbol, and then some people are looking at the chart or the graph of the stock and looking for patterns. As soon as they buy, they often are thinking what's my target price where I'm going to sell? You have people who are really not, I think using the beauty of the tailwind that the stock market provides you as something that consistently rises over time. Instead, people are jumping in and jumping out. So I think, number 1, just be a business-focused investor and I really think that Tom, that's something that you and I mean, certainly reading Peter Lynch or Buffett. I mean, there are some great exemplars that predate us, but I think the Fool when we launched 30 years ago from Day 1, we were basically talking about businesses and buying the businesses and not getting caught up in stock market talk. That's at least number 1 that comes to mind right away from me. What's one for you?

Tom Taulli: Well, I think also on that point about Buffett saying at one point, he was asked, well, why doesn't everyone just copy what you're doing? He said, well, I put all my principals out there, but there's just something that causes people to approach investing in the markets differently and to not think about business. I think a lot of that has reinforced with headlines, and short-term news, and just the way that our brains are wired. It can cause us to think, and a lot of people still think the stock market is closer to a gambling casino than a system for funding innovation, a business, employment, opportunity growth. I really love that first point. When you're investing the Motley Fool way, you're definitely looking at the companies that you're invested in and that is more important than the price of the stock as you're evaluating that investment. I'd say a second one which you started our conversation off with is to be a lifelong investor. That is a Motley Fool principle to the core, we would never think I'm going to drop into the market here for the next two years and hope that I can make enough money to accelerated a payment on my mortgage or be able to pay for some travel around the world.

We would always be deploying our capital and thinking, this is going to this Visa process that I'll be following for the rest of my life. That's part of the reason that our mission statement uses comparative words. We're not trying to be the best, the smartest, the happiest, and the richest person that we know. We're not just trying to get smart, happy, and rich. We're trying to constantly get smarter, happier, and richer together from our work, and so that's a lifelong journey. I'd say principle number 1, please be an investor in businesses if you're investing in the Motley Fool. Number 2, please make it part of your lifelong journey and you're always adding capital and always trying to learn more. Let's have a third and a fourth principal and then we'll move a little bit to Rule Breaker Everlasting. We've got business focus and lifelong investor. What's your principal number 3?

David Gardner: Well, I guess diversify. Again, we've already spoken to, but we're going to go in circles on some of the really key points because we need to make sure everybody is bought in, everybody hears it, maybe rehears it and then starts to make sure that they act in accordance with it. For me, and I know for you and for our company, everybody making sure that you are not pinning your hopes on one stock, one type of investment, one NFT, one, fill in the blank. But that you instead are taking a comprehensive approach. One thing we love about index funds, of course, is that you are almost by definition diversified. Although if you're just buying an ETF, that's a genomics ETF. You're diversified within that, but you're not really diversified, are you? I think, that that's why for years now we've talked about having anywhere from 15, 10, 25, 25 investments even at the start, and 100 's maybe before you're done. We have members who have done wonderfully well, well beating the averages and they own more than 100 different investments. I think for a lot of people, especially when they're starting, they think they just need to find what's that one stock, that one idea. Since we hear that we're like, OK, yeah, and what are your other 24?

Tom Taulli: The data shows across Motley Fool services, and this is past performance, so we don't know what it means about the future, but you have a high likelihood of profitability with the Motley Fool style of investing if you buy 25 or more investments in companies and hold them for five years or more on average. That really puts you into the data set of that long-term compounding, looking for high-quality companies, as David said. So there we go. There are three principles and I'll add the fourth. Let's restate the three to be a lifelong investor that's business-focused, that's diversified. I would say the fourth is about you and about all of us, and that is to be inquisitive. One of the things we've been working on at The Motley Fool is to truly be always on as a company. We want to be a place, a digital home for you where 24/7 you can come and ask questions and keep poking around to learn more and figure out how to manage your capital more effectively, but also how to learn more about the individual companies. Every one of us has a competitive advantage in the zone of our areas of greatest interest in life.

That maybe cooking for you, that maybe exercise, that may be genomics, you maybe an engineer, you may be a software developer. Each of us has a circle of competence, and if we continue to en-quire and study that area of our lives, it presents a lot of investment opportunities as well. So I love those four principles and those are core Motley Fool investment principles. Now we're going to talk just a little bit about two styles of investing inside the Motley Fool. Their many different styles, but like to hear Dave, what you would identify as a couple of the top principles of Rule Breaker Investing, then I will share a couple of principles of everlasting investing. Enlighten us, for anyone who hasn't yet encountered the Rule Breaker investment principles, and you talked about them in the Rule Breaker podcast that you do. What are some of the key guiding themes of being a successful Rule Breaking investor?

David Kretzmann: Well, I think for me, number 1 is that you're looking at companies that are, the phrase I've used is top dogs and first movers in important emerging industries. So you're very focused on who is the best innovator, and it's not just the best innovator of all it's in every industry. In every industry there are innovators and often they're upstarts and a lot of the time they're disrupting the status quo in some way, shape, or form. That's why I selected phrase rule breakers because the rules out there are being set by the businesses that already exist. Some of them great big Goliath companies. They are the rule makers, they are setting the way that business happens, but when all of a sudden you say, hey, actually, we're going to try something new. What if you bought something by clicking something online and they got mailed to you, that's a very disruptive thing, and Amazon did that about 28 years ago. That's about how long we've held the stock, and it's a great example of the rewards of finding top dogs and first movers in important emerging industry.

So that's obviously a really big one for me, Tom, and I think that you have to be willing to lose. That's the second one. Because just like a venture capitalist, you're going to be wrong a lot and so you have to be OK with that. That's part of the reason we diversify and don't pin all our hopes on one company. But it's also just worth remembering in life that sometimes your expectations simply won't be met and sometimes, by the way, you're pleasantly surprised. I've had stocks like Priceline, it's now Booking.com, that I recommended thinking it wouldn't do that great, and it ended up being one of the best picks I've ever made. It completely shocked me, but it didn't fulfill my own thesis for the company. I think that again, top dogs and first movers in important emerging industries, is that's a stocked pond where if you just fish in the pond, you're going to have probably some of the best stocks of your generation. And if you just even have one of them, they can float an entire portfolio even though we stay diversified. But that second one is being willing to lose.

Tom Taulli: On that first one, I think of just the mind and the approach of deciding, let's create an electric car. There were attempt set before it. Let's have a supercharger network. Let's start developing software that could maybe allow these cars to drive themselves. There's so many disruptive breakthroughs in that style and you often. This would lead a little bit into the Everlasting style, and these are obviously such complementary styles of investing. The core Motley Fool principles are more important really than the individual styles I think, to get people business focus, lifelong, focused on adding capital and diversified and being inquisitive. Then we get to a little the stylistic things and I would just say in Everlasting, I might start to add in, who are the decision-makers at the company? How are the decisions made at the business? There have been some companies where I loved everything about it and then really found that big financial institution had the voting rights are owned more than half of the company.

So you might end up with a very disruptive, great team that's working toward an amazing mission, but ultimately they're beholden to a large bank that is trying to harvest that company and sell their shares in the next couple of years. So the decision-making structure at the business, the ownership, and it does communicate skin in the game. Warren Buffett has said that his favorite investments, are investments in people who are running a business that they view as the only asset their family will have for the next 100 years. So there's a very long-term mindset to that ownership style. And then the second factor I'd mentioned would be tilting a little bit more toward smaller companies. It's not a necessary thing to succeed, but small-caps historically are under-followed in the public markets. They aren't the companies that are discussed on the daily financial news coverage of the markets and so looking where others aren't can be a wonderful way to invest in.

We've learned so much from other great investors who have outlined principles like these. But I think the Rule Breaker breakthrough investment style is a game changer for a lot of individual investors in Everlasting release, bringing some of that ownership, long-term, five-year old, and maybe looking at smaller cap companies as well. Those are just a couple of flavors of Motley Fool style. We have so many great analysts and so many great community investors out on our CAPS platform at caps.fool.com that you can learn from. But thank you for that, Dave, now, what about what types of returns should an investor somewhere between expect and hope for over the long term? So let's say somebody who is listening right now, they're I'm buying into the Motley Fool way. I'm going to follow these principles. Now tell me what I can expect from this.

David Kretzmann: Well, I think the first thing you should know is that the stock market traditionally return somewhere between nine and 11 percent annually, depending on which country we're talking about over which meaningful long-term period. Some countries don't have developed or strong economy, so they're not going to be racking up 10 percent returns every year, but at least the United States stock market, the biggest and best one of the world has done that for decades. So for that reason, it's really good to remember that because that's your tailwind and you can get that with the index fund as we mentioned earlier and you can be done with your day in your investing life if you like, by just saving every two weeks and putting it into the index fund, which is what a lot of people do through their 401K retirement plans and that works.

That's why a lot of Americans do end up retiring and getting some of that financial freedom they're shooting for. So I think that ten percent is probably the best expectation anybody should have. By the way, that's a lot better than bonds which are typically percent. Well, bank accounts have been paying one percent or so until recently, with inflation up, it's probably going to need to rise a little bit. Of course, the state lottery is minus 50 percent everyday for people who are invested in that. So it's helpful to know these big box, big picture return expectations. I'm happy to say that Motley Fool stock advisor and some of our services have racked up returns closer to 20 percent annualized. That's a really profound difference than just 10 percent.

David Gardner: It feels good to be in the market in any given year, but if you keep doing that year after year after year, you can really roll up some outstanding performance. We would never promise that, that's never anything. We always shoot for it. You should know that in our services, at least the ones that have those stated goals, we're trying to beat the market as badly as we possibly can and we have a pretty good record for doing so, but I've never Tom, and you tell me whether you have, I've never put a number expectation on what I'm going to do with my investing portfolio, or investment approach, or over any short-term at least, but maybe even over any period at all. I'm just not somebody who puts a number in the air and tries to hit it. I just try to exceed. How about you?

Tom Gardener: I sometimes mark out goals of a 6X return from an individual stock over 10 years would be 20 percent per year. I'd say the only reason that I do that is to try and provide context to everyone for what we're aspiring toward because I do think a lot of investors come in to the markets and have no idea when they first arrive. Particularly when markets are performing very well, I'm hoping for a 30-40 percent a year. There's not an investor, really, outside of venture capital in the public markets that's consistently gotten any return like that. Conversely, at the other end of the continuum, yes, the investors that say this is just a great being gambling machine and most people are going to lose money. That's actually not true. Most people should be making money, most people should be getting close to at least around 10 percent a year over long periods of time. I'd say in Motley Fool history, to hope, aspire to be in somewhere in the 10-20 percent annualized returns zone, that's probably just loosely.

I think it's helpful just to provide a little bit of context for how we've performed over our 25 plus year period and what we aspire too. But I also agree, there's not really a scoreboard where if we don't get to that number, that was a real loss for us. We're really aspiring to do better than the average market return, but David, in getting those returns to close out our Saturday classroom, there is a lot of volatility in the equity markets. For somebody who's arriving to the Motley Fool style investing now and listening, how do you face volatility? Some of our favorite companies at any point in time, you'll look and see oh, it's down 25 percent, this one stock or my overall portfolio is down 17 percent right now. Or I've had three great years and I don't know what to expect is. At three up years in the market, should I expect the next three years to be up? Just talk a little bit about how you approach the volatility of pricing in the market. That 10 percent annualized as you said, it's certainly not that every single year.

David Gardner: I think that if you've made a lifetime commitment as an investor, and we talked about that earlier, if you're doing that, then the only thing that really makes sense is to expect that you will have one year in three, where your stocks will drop in value, two years in three, they will rise. You're going to be invested in all three years, and then three after that, and then three decades after that. From my standpoint, it's not very hard to work with volatility because as a lifetime investor, I know we're going to have drops. We've had dramatic drops in Motley Fool history 2001, we all remember that, 2008 and '09. The fourth quarter of 2021 for a lot of Fool stocks was a tough quarter. It was 2018, the final quarter there or check 2016.

Even though a lot of people think in terms of, this bull market, when will it ever end? I think we've seen together that the stocks that we follow anyway, have gotten crushed at different points down 25 percent in a month at different points in just the last five years. I think you have to be going in eyes wide open recognizing that, and if that's not for you, there are certainly ways to mitigate against that or invest more conservatively. This kind of volatility that, let's say, I'm willing to accept as a Rule Breaker is much more than the average person would or should. You don't need to have that kind of volatility to feel great about your investing. I guess it's knowing what color your parachute is, as the old book said, and then making sure you're flying appropriately with your parachute. You got to have a soft landing if you're looking for one, or maybe a little bit of a reckless landing, if you're willing to really go forward out there. So knowing yourself is a big part of this as well.

Tom Gardener: Closing with a restatement of our first Saturday classroom, we talked about why we invest the pursuit of a smarter, happier, and richer life for ourselves and our families and for the world. Then as we go out to invest in the equity markets, seeing the opportunity to be an index fund investor, stock investor, an individual stock investor, or a blend of the two, are the beauty of the index fund being that it's very low cost, very tax efficient, you know what you own, you can just add money to it regularly and almost setup budgets around long-term returns. The beauty of stock investing as you learn a lot more about the world and you can really put your capital behind the things you believe in and that can include your personal ethics, as well as the things that you think are going to win over the coming years and decades.

Then we talked about some Motley Fool core investment principles like being a lifelong investor, investing in businesses, having a diversified investment portfolio, and really being inquisitive. We then talked about the Rule Breakers style of looking for the disruptive innovators of our time. It's an important thing to remember that innovation is always coming. We sometimes think, oh, I missed that one, oh too bad. There will never be something so exciting as what we've just been through and of course, that is not the case in the market system that we get to enjoy. In this world, there are entrepreneurs coming thinking of the next great opportunities to serve the world. Then to take maybe that everlasting style of really those long-term ownership periods and thinking about who's making the decisions and what are the small companies that are rising in the marketplace that present opportunities. Then we talked about, what type of returns are reasonable.

The equity markets delivering about 10 percent annualized over the last century and we try and beat that at The Motley Fool, and we closed with a little conversation about the volatility, the natural ups and downs to the market. On average, the market falls 10 percent once a year, 20 percent every four years or so, 30 percent once a decade. When that happens, a lot of growth investments can go down more than that. Just accepting that as part of a lifelong journey that they're going to be ups and downs in any given year and ups and downs within your portfolio, you are going to have losing stocks in your portfolio, but when we blend it together and take these principles and build around them. We've got a couple of decades of success that we're excited to build on at The Motley Fool with you over the next couple of decades. David, thank you for being here on the grand debut of Saturday classroom in Motley Fool Money.

David Gardner: Thank you for the invite and it's been a lot of fun. Thanks, Tom. Fool on.

Tom Gardner: Fool on.

Chris Hill: You can follow Tom and David Gardner on Twitter. We've included their Twitter handles in the show notes for this episode. That's all for today, but coming up tomorrow, a one-on-one conversation with the co-host with CNBC's signature show, Squawk Box, the one and only Becky Quick. As always people on the program may have interest in the stocks they talk about, and the Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against, so don't buy or sell stocks based solely on what you hear. I'm Chris Hill, thanks for listening, we'll see you tomorrow.

This article represents the opinion of the writer, who may disagree with the official recommendation position of a Motley Fool premium advisory service. Were motley! Questioning an investing thesis -- even one of our own -- helps us all think critically about investing and make decisions that help us become smarter, happier, and richer.

Continued here:

How to Invest -- and Why -- With Tom and David Gardner - Motley Fool

This week marked the 49th anniversary of Roe v. Wade (1973), the landmark opinion in which the U.S. Supreme Court first recognized constitutional protection for the right to have an abortion up to a certain point in pregnancy. Big anniversaries often present an auspicious time to reflect on important precedentsthe history that preceded them, the changes they wrought or reflected, and the often head-spinning ways in which society has changed in the intervening decades.

The 50th anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), in which the Supreme Court recognized a fundamental right of married couples to access and use contraception, was an occasion to note that the Court had started a revolution in sexual and reproductive autonomy but that access was newly threatened by the rise of religious conservatism and rollbacks to family planning programs designed to ensure broad access to contraception.

The 40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia (1967), in which the Supreme Court held that bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional, was an occasion to note the importance of the Courts recognition of marriage as a fundamental right but also the persistence of strong cultural norms against interracial romantic relationships.

Roe is unlikely to reach its 50th anniversary intact. As many have noted with dismay, the Supreme Court is poised to overturn the entire body of constitutional law related to abortion rights. As unimaginable as it seems, it is time to plan for the end of constitutional abortion rightsand the end of federal constitutional protection for womens bodily autonomy and reproductive decisionmaking, and the end of a constitutional commitment to ensuring womens equal equal opportunity to capitalize on their natural talents and abilities.

The short-term impact of eliminating federal constitutional protection for abortion will be devastating for many individuals, especially those who live in states like Texas, where abortion will instantly become a felony when and if Roe is overturned. It would be hard to overstate the harm that will flow from such a decision. But while abortion advocates are hard at work figuring out how to support people immediately affected by the deprivation of abortion rights, they are also hard at work building the future. And as they do this important work, it bears noting that the problem with Roe was never that it went too far but that it did not go far enough. As a recent Florida case involving a pregnant minor who was initially denied access to abortion because her high school grades were too low, many pregnant women already face significant barriers to abortion care despite the existence of constitutional protection. This column will explore those barriers as a reminder that we need to work towards a future that is more protective and more equal rather than just trying to claw our way back to the bare minimum provided by Roe v. Wade.

Abortion rights turn on the Supreme Courts pending decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization. In that case, which was argued on December 1, 2021, the Supreme Court is considering the validity of a Mississippi law that bans all abortions after fifteen weeks. Specifically, the Court agreed to consider the question whether all pre-viability abortion bans violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Under current precedents, including but not limited to Roe, the answer is clearly yes. Yet, the Court agreed to hear this case.

At stake inDobbsis the constitutional right of abortion. The Court first recognized that right in 1973 inRoe v. Wadeand reaffirmed but revised it inPlanned Parenthood v. Caseyin 1992. (A more detailed analysis of these cases can be foundhere,here, andhere.) Thus, the Court has recognized and enforced a right to abortion for almost fiftyyears.

As I wrote in a previous column, the justices made quite clear during oral argument in Dobbs that they are planning to dismantle the abortion precedentsmost likely in full. That prediction seems all the more solid given that the Supreme Court has allowed the most extreme unconstitutional abortion ban in the country, Texass SB 8, to remain in effect for almost five months. It has weighed in on the case three different times and, each time, declined to block the law even though it cannot be reconciled with the Courts existing abortion precedents. (Some background on SB 8 can be found here, although much has happened since. The bottom line: SB 8 is still in effect.)

The abortion rights framework recognized in Roe and revised in Casey gave pregnant women rights against undue state interference into their decision whether to have a pre-viability abortion. But this right meant nothing for many people who lacked the resources, information, mobility, transportation, personal safety, childcare, sick leave, or the many other things that are necessary to access abortion care. The Court ensured that abortion rights would benefit some people more than others when it upheld the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment, a longstanding restriction on federal funding of abortion.

The focus post-Roe needs to embrace the reproductive justice framework, which seeks to ensure that every individual has the right to have a child, every individual has the right to decide not to have a child, and every individual has the ability to raise their children in a safe and healthy environment. (Loretta Ross, one of the founders of the reproductive justice movement, explains its tenets here, among other places.) In the abortion context, this requires that we remove the barriers to abortion care that so many women face. Repealing the Hyde Amendment is a necessary but not sufficient step in this direction.

One group that has fared especially poorly under the Roe/Casey framework is pregnant minors. The recent case out of Florida, which is getting a lot of national media attention, is illustrative of some of their challenges.

In that case, In re Jane Doe, a seventeen-year-old young woman petitioned the court for permission to terminate her pregnancy without parental consent. A high school junior, Doe testified in the hearing that she has a 2.0 grade point average (mostly Cs), but was currently making B grades. She testified about her future plans to graduate high school, enter the military, go to college, and eventually pursue a career in nursing. She also testified that she had been working for the last year and had held three jobs during that timetwo at the same time over the summer. Doe has two credit cards and $1,600 in a savings account. As she told the court, her mother pays for her cellphone, but she uses the money she earns to pay for everything else for me, like clothes, nails, and all the other necessities. She testified that does not have a drivers license because her parents will not put her on their insurance nor permit her to pay for her own.

Does testimony was not limited to her education and work experience. She also testified about her relationship to each of her parents (though her mother lives out of state and Doe lives only with her father) and about their opposition to abortion. She testified about how she got pregnant, whether she had used birth control, why she wanted an abortion, and whether her boyfriend or anyone else had pressured her to terminate the pregnancy. She also testified about the risks of abortion, her plans for financing it, and whether she anticipates she will have experience adverse emotional consequences from the decision.

To understand why a high school junior would end up in a court of law discussing both the most intimate and the most mundane aspects of her life with a judge, we must first introduce the Supreme Court precedents that specifically involve the abortions rights of minors.

Under Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the state can regulate abortion from the outset of pregnancy as long as it does not impose an undue burden on the right to terminate a pregnancy. Before viability, it can impose a variety of requirements under the guise of informed consent such as waiting periods, mandatory ultrasounds, prescribed counseling, and so on. After viability, the state can prohibit abortion unless necessary to preserve the womans life.

The Court at various points considered the abortion rights of minors. In Bellotti v. Baird (1979), the Court concluded that a woman does not forfeit her abortion rights simply because she is a minor but that the right can be adjusted to reflect the peculiar vulnerability of children; their inability to make critical decisions in an informed, mature manner; and the importance of the parental role in child rearing.

The Court considered these factors before settling on the constitutional parameters of a parental notification and consent law, which must not be constructed in such a way as to unduly burden the minors right to terminate a pregnancy.According to the opinion in Bellotti, a state may only require parental consent or notification for abortion if it also makes available a judicial bypass option that allows the pregnant minor to seek judicial rather than parental approval for her decision to have an abortion. The Court inBelottiwent beyond simply requiring theexistenceof a bypass option in every state that requires parental consent or notification; it specified theexact legal standard to be applied in such a proceeding.

To be constitutionally sufficient under current precedents, a states judicial bypass procedures must be confidential and expeditious. More importantly, they must use the constitutionally approved standard. A pregnant minor is entitled in such a proceeding to show either: (1) that she is mature enough and well enough informed to make her abortion decision, in consultation with her physician, independently of her parents wishes; or 2) that even if she is not able to make this decision independently, the desired abortion would be in her best interests. If either prong is satisfied, the court must grant the judicial bypass.

About three quarters of the states currently have parental consent or notification laws for minors who seek abortion care; of constitutional necessity, they also have a bypass procedure. A pregnant minor like Jane Doe in the Florida case would contact an abortion clinic seeking to make an appointmentand would then be told that she needs either to bring a parent who can sign the consent form for medical treatment or that she needs to file a petition for a judicial bypass. Depending on the state, the fluidity of this process can vary quite a bit. In Texas, an organization called Janes Due Process coordinates the legal representation and provides other services necessary to help pregnant minors obtain abortions without parental consent. But in other states, pregnant teens might be turned away by clinics and left to navigate the legal process alone.

Lets return to the Florida Jane Doe. She had gone to a womens health clinic in Tampa, where she lived, but was told they could not even talk to her until she obtained a judicial bypass. She filed the petition necessary to start the bypass process and attended the hearing described above. The Florida bypass statute requires the trial court to determine whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the minor is sufficiently mature to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy.

In her petition, Doe asserted that she was mature enough to decide to have an abortion but that she was way too young to be a parent, did not have enough income to support herself and a child, and was worried about having her plans to enlist in the military derailed by the pregnancy. The court held the hearing as required by the statute but denied her request for a judicial bypass.

Florida law requires the trial judge to weigh several factors deemed relevant to the minors maturityage, overall intelligence, emotional development and stability, credibility and demeanor as a witness, ability to accept responsibility, ability to assess immediate and long-range consequences, and ability to understand and explain the medical risks of terminating a pregnancy. The law also requires the trial court to make factual findings and legal conclusions in view of these specific factors, rather than simply ruling granted or denied without explanation.

The judge in this case found that although she is seventeenand therefore almost the age at which she would be permitted to make all medical decisions on her ownher intelligence is below average. Addressing her overall intelligence, the judge wrote that [w]hile she claimed that her grades were Bs during her testimony, her GPA is currently 2.0. Clearly a B average would not equate to a 2.0 GPA. Thus, the court concluded, Petitioners testimony evinces either a lack of intelligence or credibility, either of which weigh against a finding of maturity pursuant to the statute.

The trial judge made other findings to support the conclusion that she was insufficiently mature to make the abortion decision without parental involvement. He noted, with seeming disapproval, that Does only responsibilities were household chores and that she has no responsibility for younger family members. The court also noted that her lack of a drivers license suggested a lack of emotional stability or development and concluded that she has never had any financial responsibilities, even so much as paying for her own cell phone bills. The court therefore concluded that she had not presented sufficient evidence to meet the legal standardthat she is mature enough to make a decision about abortion without parental involvement.

A fundamental oddity of the bypass standard is that a pregnant minor who is deemed insufficiently mature to have an abortion will likely continue her pregnancy and give birth (unless she can obtain parental consent after the bypass is denied or she finds another way around the parental involvement law such as leaving the state or having a self-managed abortion). And once she gives birth, the law recognizes her right to be a mother from the moment of the childs birth. She would have the legal authority to consent to medical care for her baby, as well as to leave the hospital unsupervised with the baby in tow. Or she could decide to place the baby for adoption and would have the legal power to consent to an irrevocable relinquishment of her parental rights. So the Florida Jane Does grades are too low to consent to abortion care but just fine for motherhood or consent to adoption? It doesnt make any sense.

Moreover, as this case illustrates, pregnant minors seeking a judicial bypass are left to the whims and biases of the judges assigned to their cases, who arent accountable to anyone because the hearings are held in secret. The Supreme Courts reasoning in Bellotti for insisting that parental involvement laws be paired with judicial bypass procedures was that a pregnant minors parents should not be given arbitrary veto power over their childs abortion decision. Yet, for many bypass petitioners, that power rests with the judges who preside over their cases.

Studies of judicial bypass cases have demonstrated that the system leaves much to be desired. The judges who preside over bypass hearings are often biased against abortion, as might be the attorneys and guardians ad litem who may be involved in their cases. The hearings themselves often reinforce stereotypical attitudes about girls and their sexualityand force them into a situation where they have to beg an authority figure for autonomy while promising to be a good girl going forward. Research also shows that many individuals who go through the bypass process find it humiliating and traumatic.

For this Jane Doe, petitioning for a bypass meant sharing intimate details of her life with a male authority figure who sized her up after a brief interaction and then handed her an official piece of paper saying, in essence, youre too dumb to have an abortion.

Doe appealed this ruling, and the appellate court ruled 2-1 that the trial courts ruling should be reversed. She is entitled to obtain an abortion without parental involvement. The majority found that the trial court had abused its discretion in denying her petition. It criticized the courts reading of the GPA testimony, noting that a person with a C average in high school is an average rather than a below average student and also noting that Does testimony about her current grades was not inconsistent with the evidence of her overall average. Moreover, the appellate court found no evidence linking Does lack of a drivers license to her emotional development or stability. Doe testified that she would like to drive but that her parents would not allow her either to use their insurance or buy their own. That testimony was unrebutted. The court found similar fault with the trial judges assessment of the evidence about Does financial independence. He criticized her for having never had any financial responsibilities and yet ignored her testimony about her work history, her possession of credit cards, and her considerable savings. Finally, the appellate court found it odd that the trial court criticized Doe for not having any responsibilities pertaining to younger family members when she testified that her youngest sibling is thirty and that no one younger than she lives in the home.

The appellate court then considered whether there was sufficient evidence in the record to show that she was mature and well-informed enough to make the decision about abortion on her own. It found ample evidence that the standard was met. She understood the nature of the procedure she was seeking to obtain, along with its risks. She discussed her decision with other people, including adultsjust not her own parents. She researched issues relevant to the decision in the same way that an adult might. And she was thoughtful about the demands of parenthood and why she did not feel prepared to meet them at this point in her life. The majority concluded that she met the statutory standard set out in Florida lawbut mandated by the Supreme Court in Bellottiand was entitled to consent to her own abortion care.

One judge, John Stargel, dissented from the ruling. As noted by many media outlets, he is married to Kelli Stargel, a Republican Florida state senator who sponsored a recent bill to require parental consent before a minor can obtain an abortion. Given that this is the very issue at stake in the case, Stargel was criticized for not recusing himself. He argued that the trial court had properly applied the standardand that there was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Doe was not intelligent enough to make this decision. He noted, in addition to Does GPA, that there were allegedly spelling errors in her petition.

Although the Florida Jane Doe ultimately got the court order she needs to obtain abortion care without parental involvement, the system imposed burdens on her that are not even remotely outweighed by what the state claims to gain from parental involvement laws. The bypass process caused significant delays in her ability to seek abortion care and was demeaning, to say the least.

Many pregnant minors discuss abortion decisions with their parentsand those that dont usually have a good reason for foregoing such discussions. We need to trust teens to make the best decisions for themselves, rather than vesting the decision in a stranger who knows little or nothing about the minor (and maybe even less about abortion) and is given the veil of secrecy to cover their biases. The decision whether to bear or beget a pregnancy has been recognized by the Supreme Court as fundamental for a reasonit has serious consequences for the individual. That is true not just for adults, but for minors as well, maybe even more so.

This case is just one example of the ways in which a system that purports to offer robust constitutional protection for abortion rights still fell short for many pregnant individuals. And now that system is about to be dismantled, leaving us all without the protections necessary for human dignity, autonomy, and flourishing. As we recover from what the Supreme Court is about to do to usunabashedly, and without regretwe need to reframe abortion as just one of many aspects of reproductive justice that should be shared by all.

More:

The Last Anniversary of Roe v. Wade: A Time to Reimagine Abortion Rights for All - Justia Verdict

IXFI is created to be user-centred and encourages even beginners to start their crypto journey. Cybersecurity is, perhaps, the most important aspect, I agree entirely. The key is being open to all possibilities, positive and negative, entering the market. I think the Metaverse will certainly change society, like any other big invention of the past, but that doesnt mean it will necessarily be in a negative sense, I think. As long as we stay informed and are cautious enough, I trust that humanity will triumph over any challenge posed by the virtual world.

Crypto Veteran. Tokenization, DeFi and Security Tokens - Blockchain.

Ishan Pandey: Hi Cristian, welcome to our series Behind the Startup. Please tell us about yourself and the story behind IXFI?

Cristian Andrei: Hi Ishan and thank you for having me on your series. Its a great pleasure! As for my story, just like everyone elses, I can say that its a long one. Ill try to keep it short. I have been involved in the industry since 2016 and my experiences with many aspects of the crypto market often left me disappointed. The idea of IXFI was probably born at the moment when I realized that instead of waiting for changes to happen, I should be part of that change. So, in short, I wanted to create a place for others to enjoy the positive aspects of crypto exchange without all of that associated disappointment. IXFI is created to be user-centred and encourages even beginners to start their crypto journey.

Ishan Pandey: How does a crypto-based debit card work?

Cristian Andrei: Its a bit difficult to imagine for some, Im sure. The truth is, its not much different from a traditional debit card. But, instead of being connected with a bank, the card connects a crypto payment processing company with your crypto wallet. With a crypto debit card, you can make transactions at any merchant that accepts debit cards, so pretty much everywhere, but you use the funds in your crypto wallet instead of those in your bank account.

Ishan Pandey: Cybersecurity is critical for crypto exchanges. Please tell us about the best cybersecurity practices that a crypto exchange must follow?

Cristian Andrei: Cybersecurity is, perhaps, the most important aspect, I agree entirely. Thats why a crypto exchange must prioritize finding the best solutions to protect its users. For example, we ensured that logins can be secured with both email and phone authentication, which makes an account significantly harder to hack. Other security measures we have implemented are 2 Factor Authentication such as Google Authentication, SMS Authentication, Anti-phishing Code and also we have a Device Management System, where we can keep track of logged-in devices with IP addresses.

Ishan Pandey: The parent organization of Facebook, Meta, is seeking deeper compatibility with blockchain technology and Metaverse. What are your views on Metaverse? Further, do you think it will break the fabric of our society?

Cristian Andrei: The Metaverse is surely something we, as a society, have been expecting to happen at some point. Its the logical progression of the digitalized era we live in. Maybe we didnt expect it to come so soon, but its understandable with so many companies and institutions moving their activity online. Of course, crypto will play a huge part in this alternate universe of sorts because its economy will be completely decentralized. As for breaking the fabric of our society, I dont take that particular view. I think the Metaverse will certainly change society, like any other big invention of the past, but that doesnt mean it will necessarily be in a negative sense. Its more nuanced than that, I think. As long as we stay informed and are cautious enough, I trust that humanity will triumph over any challenge posed by the Metaverse being born.

Ishan Pandey: What are your views on Ethereum and Solana as their competitors?

Cristian Andrei: Etherum and Solana certainly gained a lot of traction and popularity over the last few years. Etherum especially is crucial in many blockchain processes. All I can say on the matter is that, due to the industrys volatile nature, any sudden change can happen. We are completely aware of that and we try to account for any possible outcomes, positive and negative, entering the market. The key is being open to all possibilities.

Ishan Pandey: Please tell us a little bit about IXFI and how the crypto industry is revolutionizing traditional banking?

Cristian Andrei: I dont think Im the only one to stand by this, but I truly believe crypto is the future and that traditional banking will soon adapt to it. Thats why this is the crucial moment for everyone to get informed and choose how they want to manage their finances in the following years. Because the vast majority are still unaware of crypto, our goal with IXFI is to empower everyone, especially beginners, to achieve financial independence. Yes, too many, it might seem like another exchange platform you could use to make profit, but we also wanted to create a place where people find community, where they can learn, improve their skills, and feel like their needs are being met heard.

Ishan Pandey: According to you, what new trends are we going to see in the blockchain industry?

Cristian Andrei: Thats a good question. Some of my predictions for the future are that more and more people will understand and enter the crypto market and that the majority will soon realize the financial independence the blockchain offers. Also, I think the way we see jobs and careers will change drastically in just a few years and the grind of 9-to-5s will become obsolete. All in all, Im optimistic about whats to come and I hope IXFI can play a part in changing peoples lives for the better.

Related Stories

Here is the original post:

Ethereum Consensus Layer will End the DeFi Race - hackernoon.com