# data[].attributes.body
- Start of the BLM movement
- Stop AAPI Hate
- Vaccines are available for free
- Biden Getting Elected
- Capital Raid

# data[].attributes.body
Some good news is that President Joe Biden is pushing out more vaccines to the public and is adding more incentives so U.S. citizens will start getting vaccinated.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
biden announces 'national month of action' -- that could include free beer -- to get more americans vaccinated by july 4 - cnnpolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Biden announces 'National Month of Action' -- that could include free beer -- to get more Americans vaccinated by July 4

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Joe Biden on Wednesday announced a "National Month of Action" and outlined additional steps his administration is taking to get 70% of US adults at least one Covid-19 shot by July 4.

# data[].attributes.body
- I think that the U.S. doesn't need to add more states to the United States. It seems unlikely but if it does happen it may allow others to be able to voice their opinions more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Part of Issue #6 of The Highlight, our home for ambitious stories that explain our world.
A decade ago, Washington, DC, was on the cusp of gaining real representation in Congress. DC dwellers - who outnumber the populations ofboth Wyoming and Vermont - had been able to cast their votes in presidential elections since 1964, but they still lacked any voting power at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Washington has one congressional representative, currently Eleanor Holmes Norton, who can serve on committees but is not permitted to vote.

The proposal back then was this: DC's nonvoting delegate would be replaced by a full-fledged House member. In exchange, an additional seat would be created, which initially would have gone to a safely Republican part of Utah, balancing DC's heavily Democratic voter base. In many ways, the deal was a Band-Aid for the problem residents actually want fixed.

DC doesn't have a vote in Congress because it isn't a state, and becoming one is a long political ordeal:The last states joined the union 60 years ago, if that gives you an idea of how impossible adding another one seems now.

The 2009 deal, which would have circumvented the statehood process, made it through the Senate but died in the House. Democrats objected to provisions attached to the Senate bill to gut DC's gun control laws. But Republicans weren't too happy, either - including Jason Chaffetz, then still a representative from Utah. He didn't like the trade-off, even though it meant more power for his state. "This whole thing strikes me as political bribery," Chaffetz complained. "If Washington, DC, is due representation, make that case. ... Don't try and dangle a carrot out there."

This month, the widespread protests over the death of George Floyd may have helped make that case to the entire nation. After President Trump sent federal National Guard troops to patrol DC, the District's mayor, Muriel Bowser, seized on the moment to remind Americans of the District's diminished position.

"We're the capital city, we're a federal district, we're 700,000 taxpaying Americans, and I'm the mayor, governor and county executive all at once," Bowser told PBS NewsHour this week. Because the long quest for statehood has yet to be fulfilled, she said, "the federal government can encroach on our autonomy" - including taking widely criticized actions this week on DC soil.

The effort for DC statehood has been growing for some time: Residents drive around with license plates that complain about "taxation without representation." DC statehood bills have been introduced in every Congress since 1965. A standalone House bill on statehood received just one Republican vote back in 1993, the only time the question has come to the floor. Late last year, Congress held its first hearing on DC statehood in more than 25 years. But Chaffetz wasn't wrong about the state of affairs.

Political bribery is what the creation of states has been all about, with some exceptions. Whenever there's a desire to create a new state, all Congress has to do is vote for it. But like animals on Noah's ark, states have historically entered the union in pairs, with lawmakers using new states to maintain the balance of partisan power - or at least try to.

"It was never written down, but it's not an accident you got states in pairs," says Louisiana State University historian Jonathan Earle.

A majority of representatives are already co-sponsors of the bill that would make DC a state. In March 2019, the chamber passed a resolution that endorsed statehood. Still, the reality was that statehood for DC - or Puerto Rico, for that matter -didn't stand a chance. This moment could change national public perception around that.

However, if the House passes a statehood bill, it faces certain death in the Senate, where the Republican majority is adamantly opposed to adding a state where only 4 percent of voters supported Donald Trump in 2016. Democrats view DC statehood as a way to rebalance a Senate and Electoral College that have stymied progressive priorities, and Republicans oppose the idea for that very reason. And public opinion is on their side. More than 60 percent of Americans oppose statehood for DC, according to a recent Gallup poll.

A similar share support statehood for Puerto Rico, according to the same poll. But history has shown that the creation of new states generally involves some form of power-sharing agreement. Right now, the GOP has no incentive to bless the creation of new states that Democrats would surely dominate. "DC and Puerto Rico are both likely to be Democratic states," says Robert Pierce Forbes, a historian at Southern Connecticut State University. "It's hard to see what you trade to get even one of them in."

Insisting on tit for tat is part of a long pattern in American politics. The most recent additions to the US, Alaska and Hawaii, were brought in almost simultaneously in 1959 because one was understood to be Democratic and the other Republican.

Admitting states in ways that preserve partisan balance may sound cynical. The habit grew out of something much uglier. Throughout the first half of the 19th century, Southerners repeatedly blocked attempts to admit Northern free states unless they got a new slave state in return.

The birth of a state has frequently involved wrenching compromise, with the debate turning directly on the question of extending slavery or battles over race. The preservation of power has always been central to the equation.

Making new states wasn't supposed to be complicated

The Constitution was written to make it easy to achieve America's deeply rooted ambition to expand. But shortly after the founding, statehood fights devolved into a struggle involving the nation's original sin of slavery.

What's known as the new states clause ( Article IV, Section III of the Constitution) gives Congress the power to create states with few restrictions. Delegates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 rejected the idea of imposing a voting requirement beyond the simple majority typically required to pass the House and Senate. Whenever there's political will to create a state, Congress has free rein to do so.

Typically, Congress first passes an enabling act to allow residents to form a territorial government and propose a constitution. It later passes a law or resolution to admit a territory as a state - nearly always imposing conditions that have involved everything from voting rights, the state's political rules, language requirements, and, in the case of Utah, a ban on polygamy.

This system worked for the first few decades of the new United States - for settlers, if not the Native Americans they forced out nor enslaved people across the country. Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, and Mississippi were all admitted shortly after the War of 1812, which, "by removing the threat of the woodland Indians and the Creeks in the South, accelerated both the white settlement of these areas and the alacrity with which Congress acted to incorporate them as states," writes historian Sean Wilentz.

The nation expanded rapidly, thanks to passage of the Northwest Ordinance in 1787 (which covered much of what we now call the Upper Midwest) and the Louisiana Purchase. That favorable 1803 deal with France brought in land that stretched from the Mississippi River to the Rockies, more than doubling the size of the country. "If you had a bona fide amount of settlers, you could apply to Congress," says Earle. "It worked without a hitch until Missouri applied for statehood in 1819."

In 1819, the Senate was evenly divided between North and South, with senators from the11 states that allowed slavery and an equal number from the 11 free states. Missouri threatened to extend slavery west of the Mississippi River. The following year, House Speaker Henry Clay crafted the Missouri Compromise.

Missouri would enter the union as a slave state, but its admission was coupled with that of the free state of Maine, which until then had been part of Massachusetts. In addition, slavery was banned from any new states north of 36°30' latitude, a line stretching out from Missouri's border with the South.

"When that was proposed, it was considered shockingly transactional," says Forbes, author of The Missouri Compromise and Its Aftermath: Slavery and the Meaning of America. "There was a huge backlash in Maine. There was a famous comment by one legislator that his constituents would rather wait a thousand years for statehood than to take it on condition of bringing in a slave state."

Southerners weren't happy about the arrangement, either. Until that time, they had successfully blocked any attempt by Congress to regulate slavery in the states. They recognized that any limits meant its potential abolition. An elderly Thomas Jefferson saw that a "geographic line, coinciding with a marked principle" would forever be a source of irritation. "This momentous question, like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror," Jefferson wrote. "I considered it at once as the knell of the Union."

Statehood was a central front in the battle over slavery

If the idea of coupling free states with slave states was initially shocking, it soon became the norm. Due to Southern fears of being outvoted in the Senate, during the 1830s Michigan had to wait on Arkansas being admitted first. In its 1844 platform, the Democratic Party linked the entry of the vast slaveholding republic of Texas to the organization of the Oregon territory.

"Since control of the Senate, and more broadly the federal government, was vital to preserving the slave system, any change in the balance of free and slave states presented an existential threat to one side or the other," says Queens College historian Joshua B. Freeman.

The issue remained a tinderbox. After the Gold Rush, California was flooded with settlers and quickly admitted to the union, without having first spent time as a territory. Admitting California required the Compromise of 1850, a " comprehensive scheme " that was again cobbled together by Henry Clay.

The slave trade was abolished in DC, but to appease those who favored slavery, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah officially became territories without reference to it, leaving the question to settlers. In addition, the brutal Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 made it clear that African Americans were still legally considered property even after escaping to free states. Presciently, Free Soil Party co-founder and future Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase said, "The question of slavery in the territories has been avoided. It has not been settled."

In 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was a final attempt to maintain sectional balance by organizing two new territories split between the North and South. But its passage only fueled discord and prompted the formation of the anti-slavery Republican Party, with Abraham Lincoln declaring, "The spirit of '76 and the spirit of Nebraska are utter antagonisms." The "Bleeding Kansas" border war over whether the territory would become a slave state became an immediate precursor to the Civil War.

Southern secession meant, among other things, that the region was no longer represented in Congress. The party of Lincoln took full advantage, admitting Nevada as a state in 1864 and approving new territories in the North: Idaho, Montana, and the Dakotas.

In 1889 and 1890, Republicans solidified their power, admitting as states Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming, while splitting the Dakota Territory into two states. Territories with substantial populations that were perceived as less of a lock for the GOP - Arizona, New Mexico, Utah - had to wait.

"State admission was explicitly used as a partisan tool by Republicans who dominated Congress and wanted to maintain their position," says Eric Biber, a Berkeley law professor. "Republicans pushed through a number of states to improve their position in the Senate and the Electoral College."

The remainder of the continental US was admitted as states by the early 20th century - except DC. Long debate over the district's unique constitutional status - and Southern opposition to enfranchising black voters - kept residents waiting. And admitting the 49th and 50th states required making a new deal to keep both parties on board.

Alaska stops being ignored, while some considered Hawaii a threat

When Trump floated the idea of buying Greenland this summer, part of his motivation was to secure a legacy akin to the one Dwight D. Eisenhowercemented with his admission of Alaska as a state, according to the Wall Street Journal. The problem with that idea - okay, one of the problems with that idea - is that Eisenhower never wanted to admit Alaska.

The Democratic Party started promoting the idea of statehood for Alaska and Hawaii as early as 1916. By the 1950s, polls showed overwhelming approval, leading the GOP to endorse statehood as part of the party's 1952 platform.

Eisenhower, elected president as a Republican that year, wasn't convinced. He worried that Alaska would be a " tin cup state," forever dependent on the federal government for support. "The area was so vast, so uninhabited, so removed from the rest of the nation that it hardly seemed to warrant consideration in his view," according to Eisenhower biographer Jim Newton.

Conservatives were worried that Hawaii would be dominated by the West Coast longshoreman's union, which they viewed as Communist. (A loyalty oath for public officials was a condition of Hawaii's enabling act.) Southern Democrats disapproved of the nonwhite population of the islands, worrying that Hawaii would send senators of Asian descent who would represent two more votes against filibuster rules that helped them kill civil rights legislation.

"If Hawaii had been settled and primarily populated by Americans from the mainland, there might be no great problem admitting it as a state," Nebraska Republican Sen. Hugh Butler said at the time. "Unfortunately, that is not the case." (More bluntly displaying his racist beliefs, Butler also said he didn't want two lawmakers of Japanese descent in the Senate.)

Given overwhelming public support for admission, Eisenhower decided in the end that a promise was a promise. Lyndon B. Johnson, then the Senate Democratic leader, dropped his opposition to admitting Hawaii as part of his broader switch in favor of civil rights legislation.

Leaders in both parties came to believe it was a fair deal all around, largely because Alaska at that time was Democratic and Hawaii was Republican. "The expectation that Alaska would be a Democratic state forever - how foolish we all are when we make these projections," says Gerald McBeath, an emeritus political scientist at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Without something for the GOP, Puerto Rico and DC are left to wait

In recent decades, statehood has largely been a backburner issue. Most of the current territories are too small in population to generate serious consideration.

For DC and Puerto Rico, as has been the case with statehood arguments for 200 years now, the question remains what's in it for the other side. And race remains a factor, if less overtly than in the past: During the 1960s, the chair of the House committee that controlled DC's purse strings responded to a budget from the city's first black mayor by sending a truck filled with watermelons. Amid the George Floyd protests this month, the current mayor, Bowser, unveiled a message for President Trump on the city's streets: She renamed the plaza in front of the White House "Black Lives Matter Plaza" and emblazoned a thoroughfare visible from the executive mansion with a massive, bright yellow mural reading "Black Lives Matter."

Puerto Rico has held several referendums on statehood, with public opinion split. Statehood might help with the territory's financial problems, while presumably making it harder to neglect in the wake of natural disasters (or for FEMA officials to commit fraud). Still, there are concerns that statehood would increase the tax bill for residents and corporations and make it harder to maintain Spanish as the dominant language.

In 2017, 97 percent of those participating in a Puerto Rico referendum favored statehood. Turnout was less than 25 percent, however, with the pro-territorial status quo Popular Democratic Party boycotting the vote.

In DC, opinion about statehood is less mixed. A statehood referendum in 2016 drew support from 78 percent of voters.Bowser sees the lack of representation as nothing less than the "denial of our fundamental rights as American citizens" of residents, a majority of whom are people of color, in the "capital of the free world."

The main hurdle then, as now, is the fact that DC is overwhelmingly Democratic.
Alan Greenblatt is a writer covering politics and policy issues. He has been a reporter for Governing, NPR, and CQ.
In March 2019, the House passed HR 1, a broad election reform bill that included an endorsement of DC statehood. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has called the package "a terrible proposal" that "will not get any floor time in the Senate."

If the question of DC or Puerto Rican statehood were ever resolved politically in Congress, it would be a straightforward matter to admit them both, says Biber, the Berkeley law professor. For that to happen without sweeping Democratic majorities, however, something big has to be on the table for Republicans, and after all these years, it's still not clear what that could be.

Residents in the District of Columbia have been living with "taxation without representation" from Day 1. In September 2019, they took their call for statehood to Congress.

Looking for a quick way to keep up with the never-ending news cycle? Host Sean Rameswaram will guide you through the most important stories at the end of each day.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The US almost tore itself apart to get to 50 states. Can DC make it 51?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Part of Issue #6 of The Highlight , our home for ambitious stories that explain our world. A decade ago, Washington, DC, was on the cusp of gaining real representation in Congress.

# data[].attributes.body
- This was a major turning point in the U.S. due to the spark it caused in the hearts of others causing to BLM protests all around the U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Keep pushing": Washington DC protesters on keeping the momentum going

Thousands of Americans are taking to the streets to protest about racism - many for the first time in their lives. Why has this particular tragedy struck such a chord?

George Floyd is not the first African American whose death in police custody sparked protests.

There were also rallies and calls for change after Tamir Rice, Michael Brown and Eric Garner were killed by police.

But this time seems different, with the response more sustained and widespread. There have been demonstrations across the US - in all 50 states and DC - including in cities and rural communities that are predominantly white.

Local governments, sports and businesses appear readier to take a stand this time - most notably with the Minneapolis city council pledging to dismantle the police department.

And the Black Lives Matter protests this time seem more racially diverse - with larger numbers of white protesters, and protesters from other ethnicities, standing with black activists.

A number of different factors combined to create "the perfect storm for rebellion" over George Floyd's death, Frank Leon Roberts, an activist who teaches a course on the Black Lives Matter movement at New York University, told the BBC.

Floyd's death was particularly 'gruesome and obvious'

A police officer, Derek Chauvin, kept his knee on Mr Floyd's neck for nearly nine minutes - even as Mr Floyd repeatedly said "I can't breathe" and eventually became unresponsive. The incident was clearly recorded on video.

"In many previous instances of police violence, there's a possibility of an ambiguous narrative - there's a partial view of what happened, or the police officer says they made a split-second decision because they feared for their life," Mr Roberts said.

"In this case, it was a completely unambiguous act of injustice - where people could see this man [Floyd] was completely unarmed and incapacitated."

Wengfay Ho (second from left) said she joined a Black Lives Matters march for the first time after George Floyd's death

Many who joined the recent protests were first-time protesters, who said seeing George Floyd's death made them feel that they simply couldn't stay at home anymore.

"There are hundreds of deaths that aren't caught on video, but I think the gruesomeness and obvious hatred of the video woke people up," Sarina LeCroy, a protester from Maryland, told the BBC.

Similarly, Wengfay Ho said she had always supported the Black Lives Matter movement, but George Floyd's death was a particular "catalyst" that prompted her to take to the streets for the first time.

It "prompted a lot more emotion, and the call for change is so much more urgent right now".

It comes during a pandemic, and high unemployment

"History changes when you have an unexpected convergence of forces," argued Mr Roberts.

Mr Floyd's death came in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic that has led to Americans being ordered to stay in their homes, and sparked the highest level of unemployment since the Great Depression in the 1930s.

"You have a situation where the entire country is on lockdown, and more people are inside watching TV... more people are being forced to pay attention - they're less able to look away, less distracted."

"Fifty plus years later we're still dealing with the same thing"

The pandemic has already changed the way we live and work, and led to many Americans at home "asking themselves what parts of normal are no longer acceptable", he added.

And on a practical level, the US's 13% unemployment level means that more people than usual can protest and campaign without juggling work commitments.

'It was the last straw'

Mr Floyd's death came shortly after the deaths of Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor.

Mr Arbery, 25, was shot on 23 February while jogging in Georgia, after residents said he resembled a burglary suspect. Breonna Taylor, 26, was a health worker who was shot eight times when police entered her flat in Kentucky.

Both their names have featured on placards at the latest Black Lives Matters protests, with demonstrators being urged to chant Ms Taylor's name.

Mr Roberts described Mr Floyd's death as "the last straw for many communities", adding that the fact this happened during the summer, when people want to go outdoors, is also significant.

The fact that this is an election year also means that politicians are more likely to pay attention and respond, he said.

These protests appear more racially diverse

While there is no hard data on the ethnicity of protesters, many of the demonstrations appear to have a high proportion of supporters who are not African American themselves.

Laura Hopman brought her nine-year-old sons with her to Saturday's protests in DC

For example, in Washington DC, tens of thousands took to the streets on Saturday - and about half the crowd appeared to be non-black. Many protesters brought placards that specifically highlighted their desire to be allies to the movement.

Part of this could be down to a shift in opinion.

A poll for ABC suggested that 74% of Americans felt that the killing of Mr Floyd was part of a broader problem in the treatment of African Americans by police.

This was a sharp rise from a similar poll in 2014, following deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner - where 43% of Americans felt that those incidents reflected a broader problem, ABC reported.

While the Black Lives Matter movement has "always been multi-racial... white folks in the US don't really have a vocabulary for talking about race", Mr Roberts said.

"It's uncomfortable, and they think any conversation about racism is an attack on their very existence, or feel they don't have licence to speak out in case they offend someone."

However, he said he now sees more white allies speaking up, and "feeling more comfortable with being uncomfortable".

In addition to huge rallies in major cities, there have also been protests in small towns, including in Anna, described locally as one of "the most racist places" in Illinois and Vidor, in Texas, which was once infamous as a stronghold of the Ku Klux Klan white supremacist group.

More on George Floyd's death

The fact that the circumstances around Mr Floyd's death seemed particularly clear-cut may have also made it easier for people to unite.

In one opinion piece, titled " My tiny, white town just held a protest. We're not alone", journalist Judy Mueller said she was "gobsmacked" to see about 40 people at a vigil in Norwood, Colorado.

The vigil organisers there said "support for police and Black Lives Matter are not exclusive", while a local town board trustee, Republican Candy Meehan, said "I don't think this is a political matter... wrong is wrong."

Ceri Menendez (left) said she had never been to a Black Lives Matter march before - but felt it was important to show up now

Black activists have welcomed the broadened support.

Eric Wood, a DC resident, said he joined demonstrations after Trayvon Martin's death in 2012, and Breonna Taylor's death earlier this year, but the latest wave of protests were "probably the biggest yet".

"African Americans and minorities have been protesting this [racism] for years. Our voices clearly do not hold as much power as if we've got some of our white counterparts to help us."

Meanwhile, Mr Roberts argued: "History has been clear that the people who need to change before the dam breaks are people who have been beneficiaries of the existing systems."

Did police actions have an impact?

The vast majority of protests across the US were peaceful - and in several cases local police officers also showed their support.

However, there were some high-profile confrontations and clashes between protesters and police.

Last week, authorities forcibly removed peaceful protesters from a square outside of the White House. Shortly afterwards, President Donald Trump crossed the street to have his photo taken in front of a church.

Dozens of journalists covering the protests have also reported being targeted by security forces using tear gas, rubber bullets, and pepper spray.

Some demonstrators took to the streets after they felt police used excessive force.

"This is the first time in my life I've been afraid of the police"

Ben Longwell and Justine Summers said they were medical workers who decided to join the protests in DC - despite the difficulty of maintaining social distancing - as a result of police actions.

"This is the first time in my life I've been afraid of the police," Mr Longwell said.

Meanwhile, Ms Summers said she had not planned to take part - but "when I heard about how violent the police were getting... it seemed like a thing that I needed to do".

One poll conducted for CNN suggested that 84% of Americans felt peaceful protests in response to police violence against African Americans was justified, while 27% said violent protests were also justified - although support for violent protests was split sharply along political lines.

"The reality is we don't want anyone hurt. But we also have to realise that as a political and media strategy, for better of worse, rioting is often a way for activists to ensure that cameras stay on the issue," said Mr Roberts.

Where could these protests lead?

Dylan Pegram, 10, said his first march ever was "kinda stressful, and kinda good"

Many demonstrators have been calling for specific changes - including making it mandatory for police officers to wear body cameras, reducing funding for police forces, or encouraging more people to vote.

Mr Roberts said it was too early to tell whether the current protests would lead to lasting change - "remember the civil rights movement [of the 1950s and 1960s] went on for over a decade."

However, he was also hopeful, saying: "We live in a country where it only takes one Rosa Parks-like moment to change things."

Rosa Parks was arrested after she refused to give up her seat for a white man in 1955 - sparking boycotts, and a mass movement which eventually led to ground breaking civil rights legislation in 1964.

Many protesters in DC over the weekend also felt that they were on the cusp of a historic moment.

"We are at a point where things could really change," said Laura Hopman, adding that she brought her two nine-year-old sons with her because "I want them to be a part of this - to make it a turning point in their lives and many other peoples' lives."

Dylan Pegram, 10, was also with there his dad, on his first-ever march.

"I found it kinda stressful, but at the same time it's kinda good, because we need change," he said.

Copyright 2024 BBC. All rights reserved. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.

Beta Terms By using the Beta Site, you agree that such use is at your own risk and you know that the Beta Site may include known or unknown bugs or errors, that we have no obligation to make this Beta Site available with or without charge for any period of time, nor to make it available at all, and that nothing in these Beta Terms or your use of the Beta Site creates any employment relationship between you and us. The Beta Site is provided on an "as is" and "as available" basis and we make no warranty to you of any kind, express or implied.

In case of conflict between these Beta Terms and the BBC Terms of Use these Beta Terms shall prevail.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
George Floyd death: Why US protests are so powerful this time

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There have been many Black Lives Matter protests before, but things seem different this time. Why?

# data[].attributes.body
- The person in the article is saying how all human lives matter. They are saying how it is hard to stand behind what people are saying and how he wants everyone to be treated like humans and how police are innocent lives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the wake of these killings of black men at the hands of the police and the police being ambushed and killed, what are your thoughts?
Honestly, I think it's unfortunate. You pray for the families on both sides. You don't want to see anybody killed senselessly. It's a tough time we are living in, a very scary time. It's an uncertain future. It's frustrating on both sides. Because you understand that police officers have a duty and a job. They sacrifice a lot to protect and serve. And I understand that some don't do it the right way. I also understand that people shouldn't get killed just because of the color of their skin. They have a right to a trial.
You've always been outspoken on social issues. Has anybody from your team or the league ever asked you to tone it down?
No. No one has ever spoken to me about quieting down. Our team has always been supportive of how I speak my mind. They only caution me on understanding the issues fully and not going off the cuff.
What Black Twitter is saying about Richard Sherman's comments Do you think the NFL should be more active when it comes to issues of violence and race that we have in our country?
I think the league should, but I don't think they will because it doesn't affect their bottom line. It doesn't affect them, and a lot of the owners haven't come from a background where they would have to deal with these type of circumstances. So it's just news to them. They are too far away.

But as players, we are really close to it. A majority African-American league, with a lot of guys coming from impoverished environments, would really feel compelled to speak up.

Athletes lend their voice to a cause
What about the white and nonblack players? Do you think they should feel the same obligation as the black players?
I guess, in some respects, just as human beings.

We hear a lot about Black Lives Matter. But I think race was created. I think everybody is a human being first and then the color of their skin wouldn't matter if nobody told you it mattered, if that makes any sense.

I don't think it's the white players' obligation to speak up. I think it would be nice to show some unity within our league. But it truly hits home for a lot of the African-American players who are from these environments where people are getting killed.
What is your opinion of the Black Lives Matter movement?
It's hard to formulate an opinion and generalize because they have several different messages. Some of them are peaceful and understandable and some of them are very radical and hard to support. Any time you see people who are saying, 'Black Lives Matter,' and then saying it's time to kill police, then it is difficult to stand behind that logic. They are generalizing police just like they are asking police not to generalize us. It is very hypocritical. So, in that respect, I find it difficult to fully support that movement.

I stand by what I said that All Lives Matter and that we are human beings. And speaking to police, I want African-Americans and everybody else treated decently. I want them treated like human beings. And I also want the police treated like human beings. I don't want police officers just getting knocked off in the street who haven't done anything wrong.

Those are innocent lives.
You were at The ESPYS when the four NBA players - Carmelo Anthony, Chris Paul, Dwyane Wade and LeBron James - stood up and called on professional athletes to do more. Who would you say are the four NFL athletes that could be the leaders for the NFL, including you?
I would choose guys from my team like Doug Baldwin and Michael Bennett. Because I know those guys would stand up for what they believe and not really care about the consequences or retribution that would follow.

I would add Tyrann Mathieu from Arizona. He has been outspoken about a lot of the senseless violence.
If the NBA stars called on you and the NFL guys to join them, would you?
One hundred percent.

It would have to be a united message. It would have to be something that I could stand behind. I won't stand behind a message I didn't believe.
If a coalition of athletes was to form, what should they do?
I think we target the inner city and the black community and a lot of the places that have high gang violence and beg for them to stop the senseless violence within our own community. Because once we stop that, once we unite as a people, once we come together and stop looking at each other as enemies, then we can move forward in a very powerful way. And combat issues in a different way than it has ever been done before. But until we do that, we are fighting on two fronts.
What do you say to people who say that violence in the black community is a result of institutional racism? Their communities are devoid of opportunity and that creates a circumstance that breeds crime and violence.
I'd say, to some degree, that's true. There is low funding for education and very few jobs to go around. But there are also people who work hard to take care of their families. My parents did a great job, same inner city, Watts, South Central, [California]. They worked hard, didn't make the most money, but took care of the kids in the neighborhood, took care of us, made ends meet, kept us out of gangs and all the nonsense. But I think there is also a mentality that we want to blame someone else for black fathers not being there for all these people having all these kids and nobody raising them. We want to say that's systematic, but when do we stop saying it's systematic and move forward and make a difference?
In the past, you've said that you were optimistic about the future of race relations in this country. Are you still optimistic?
Yeah! You have to be, because if you're pessimistic, you don't believe there's a future, then why are we here? I believe that things will come together. This country has overcome worse things than this, like slavery. Obviously, this is a different time with different issues, but there were powerful people from every race coming together to do the right thing and I think that will happen again. There are good people in this country and that'll shine through.

Domonique Foxworth is a senior writer at Andscape. He is a recovering pro athlete and superficial intellectual.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Richard Sherman: As human beings, all lives matter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I spoke to Seattle Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman to discuss the issues of race and violence. In the wake of these killings of black men at the hands of th...

# data[].attributes.body
Black lives matter is a movement that spiked after George Floyd was brutally killed by police officers. This movement is to show how POC especially African Americans are subjected to police brutality and they finally had enough. There were many rallies and protest that ended up with the police becoming violent or in people getting injured or dying.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
By Larry Buchanan, Quoctrung Bui and Jugal K. Patel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Black Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in U.S. History (Published 2020)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recent polls suggest that about 15 million to 26 million people in the U.S. have participated in recent protests.

# data[].attributes.body
- This is important to hear about because if this passes people who are part of the LGBTQ+ may not be able to start a family because certain agencies don't allow LGBTQ+ people to foster children and adopt. I think that this is bad because it is stopping people from living the lives they want to live and how the government is starting to bring together religion and state which isn't supposed to happen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Supreme Court has issued nearly all of its landmark decisions involving LGBTQ rights in the month of June, Pride Month, and the high court is expected to do so again this year with a ruling expected soon in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. The court's decision could have lasting implications for gay couples looking to start a family.

In March 2018, Philadelphia ended its foster-care contract with Catholic Social Services (CSS) due to the organization's policy of not placing children with same-sex couples. The city's nondiscrimination policy guarantees "full and equal enjoyment of services and facilities without discrimination or segregation" because of gender identity, sexual orientation, race, religion, marital status and a number of other characteristics.

In response, CSS filed suit, claiming the policy violated its First Amendment right to religious exercise and free speech. Losing in district court, the agency appealed to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision in April 2019.

The case then went to the Supreme Court, which heard opening arguments in November and is expected to render its decision before the current term ends this month.

Right now, laws in 11 states allow state-licensed foster and adoption agencies to claim religious exemptions from civil rights laws and reject otherwise qualified LGBTQ prospective parents, according to the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ think tank. Another 18 states have no explicit protections for LGBTQ applicants in the foster and adoption system. In its filings, CSS maintains it has never been approached by a same-sex couple, and if it were, it would direct them to one of Philadelphia's 29 other foster-care agencies.

The agency points to the Supreme Court's 2018 decision in favor of Colorado baker Jack Phillips, who refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple because it violated his Christian beliefs on marriage. In a narrow ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy determined Colorado displayed "hostility" toward Phillips' religious views.

The agency and its supporters believe Philadelphia is demonstrating the same hostility.

They also maintain the city routinely circumvents its own anti-discrimination policy when it works to place Black children with families of color.

"[F]oster care is not a public accommodation nor a service to 'the public,'" James Dwyer, a professor at William and Mary Law School and the author of "The Relationship Rights of Children," wrote in the National Review. "Children are not generic goods for sale (like donuts or cups of coffee), to which everyone has an equal right. Instead, when the government is making decisions on behalf of foster children, it is obligated to act only in that child's best interest."

Dwyer argues CSS isn't preventing LGBTQ prospective parents from fostering in the city. It's simply "reaching deep into Philadelphia's huge Catholic population to recruit and train an impressive number of highly motivated and dedicated foster parents."

Unsurprisingly, LGBTQ rights advocates disagree.

"As long as there are kids out there who need a family, we should be doing everything we can to connect them with loving parents," Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, D-N.Y., a member of the House LGBT Caucus, said in a statement. "Ultimately, this case isn't about religious freedom - it's about granting a license to discriminate against families like mine. It hurts innocent children and denies them the family and support system they need."

In 2019, Maloney, a married gay father of three, sponsored the Every Child Deserves a Family Act, which would prohibit child welfare agencies receiving federal aid from turning away potential families on the basis of religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status.

The current case may force the Supreme Court to revisit its ruling in Employment Division v. Smith, a 1990 case involving Oregon's prohibition on smoking peyote, which some Native Americans consider part of their religious practice.

In a controversial decision, Justice Antonin Scalia found religion did not automatically provide "exemption from a generally applicable law."

"The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind - ranging from compulsory military service to the payment of taxes ... to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect," he wrote.

The high court could knock Fulton v. City of Philadelphia back down to the District Court to determine whether there was religious animosity, said Currey Cook, senior counsel at Lambda Legal and director of the organization's Youth in Out-of-Home-Care project. It could also rule narrowly in CSS' favor, forcing Philadelphia to change its foster care policies.

But it could rule more broadly that religious organizations can be exempt from anti-discrimination laws, even if they receive government funds.

"A broad ruling could have dire consequences for foster care," said Stacey Stevenson, CEO of Family Equality, a nonprofit group that advocates for LGBTQ families. "It will limit the pool of available homes and hamper kinship placements. And It could open the door to discrimination for any number of reasons - race, religion, sex - if based on religion."

Cook said a ruling in favor of CSS would "send a message to LGBTQ youth that they're second-class citizens."

"Those LGBTQ youth in the care of an agency that excludes same-sex couples unavoidably would receive the damaging message that the agency responsible for their welfare considers them to be unsuitable as parents and unequal as citizens," Lambda Legal wrote in an amicus brief.

There are more than 420,000 children in the foster care system, according to the Administration for Children and Families.

Same-sex couples are seven times more likely to foster and adopt children than straight couples, Stevenson said, and they're also more likely to adopt harder-to-place children, like those with special needs or who are older.

According to CSS, the problem isn't too few families but not enough agencies.

"We need to have a diverse group of agencies to meet the needs of diverse families," Lori Windham, senior counsel at Becket, the law firm representing the agency, told NBC News previously. "Shutting down Catholic Services is not going to make the crisis in foster care any better."

With three Trump appointees on the bench - Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett - the court now leans to the right. But Cook said that's not an automatic indicator of how it will rule.

"Yes, the fact that it's a much more conservative court and allows religious accommodations where possible should give us pause," he said. "But this case puts the government's very ability to contract into question and opens up a can of worms about how businesses operate that might concern even conservative justices."

In 2020, Gorsuch issued the majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, which determined that employment discrimination against people due to their sexual orientation and gender identity is tantamount to sex discrimination.

Barrett, a Catholic and a member of the charismatic Christian community People of Praise, was not on the court when it heard Bostock. That could make all the difference, Cook said.

"She comes from a bent of accommodating religion, so it remains to be seen how she'll weigh in."
Follow NBC Out on Twitter, Facebook & Instagram

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court to tackle religious freedom vs. LGBTQ rights in foster-care case

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Supreme Court has issued nearly all of its landmark decisions involving LGBTQ rights in the month of June, Pride Month, and the high court is expected to do so again this year with a ruling expected soon in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia.

# data[].attributes.body
- This is an important landmark case because it is one of. if not the most important case for women's rights. This case allows women to be able to have an abortion and have some sort of control over their bodies. This allows them to not have to give birth to children they are not ready for or any pregnancies as a result of rape or incest.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Roe v. Wade, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 1973, ruled (7-2) that unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional. In a majority opinion written by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the Court held that a set of Texas statutes criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a constitutional right to privacy, which it found to be implicit in the liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ("...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"). Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022.

The case began in 1970 when "Jane Roe"-a fictional name used to protect the identity of the plaintiff, Norma McCorvey (1947-2017)-instituted federal action against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas county, Texas, where Roe resided. The Supreme Court disagreed with Roe's assertion of an absolute right to terminate pregnancy in any way and at any time. Instead, it attempted to balance what it regarded as a "fundamental" right to privacy with the state's "compelling" interests in protecting the health of pregnant persons and the "potentiality of human life." In doing so, the Court formulated a timetable based on the notions of trimester and fetal viability (i.e., the "capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb"). During the first trimester of pregnancy, the Court ruled, the state could not intervene in a person's decision to have an abortion under normal circumstances. During the second trimester the state could regulate abortion procedures to protect the health of pregnant persons, but it could not prohibit abortions altogether. From the end of the second trimester, which the Court identified as the starting point of viability, the state could regulate or prohibit abortions in order to protect the pregnant person's health or to preserve fetal viability. In no case, however, could the state criminalize abortions that were necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant person.

Repeated challenges to Roe v. Wade after 1973 narrowed the decision's scope but did not overturn it. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), the Supreme Court established that restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional if they place an "undue burden" on a person seeking an abortion before the fetus is viable. In Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), the Court upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (2003), which prohibited a rarely used abortion procedure known as intact dilation and evacuation. In Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), the Court invoked its decision in Casey to strike down two provisions of a Texas law requiring that abortion clinics meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers and that doctors performing abortions have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Four years later, in June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo (2020), the Court invoked Whole Woman's Health to declare unconstitutional a Louisiana statute that was, as the majority noted, nearly identical to Texas's admitting-privileges law.

In May 2021 the Supreme Court agreed to review in its October 2021 term a lower court's decision to strike down a Mississippi state law, adopted in 2018, that banned most abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy, well before the point of fetal viability. Although the law was plainly unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Mississippi lawmakers passed the measure in the hope that an inevitable legal challenge would eventually make its way to the Supreme Court, where a conservative majority of justices would overturn or drastically reduce the scope of those decisions. The single question that the Court agreed to consider in the case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, was whether bans on all pre-viability abortions are unconstitutional. In May 2022 an apparent draft of a majority opinion in the case, written by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., was leaked to a political news publication in an extraordinary breach of the traditional secrecy in which the Court conducts its deliberations. The opinion, dated February 2022, indicated that the Court had voted to uphold the Mississippi law and to overturn both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. As expected, both Roe and Casey were overturned (5-4) in the Court's official decision in Dobbs, issued in June 2022, in which Alito held that there is no constitutional right to abortion. Soon after the decision was handed down, several states adopted laws that drastically limited the availability of abortion.

In 1998, having undergone two religious conversions, McCorvey publicly declared her opposition to abortion. However, in the documentary AKA Jane Roe (2020), a dying McCorvey claimed that she had been paid by antiabortion groups to support their cause.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Roe v. Wade | Summary, Origins, Right to Privacy, & Overturning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Roe v. Wade, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 1973, ruled (7-2) that unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional. The Court held that a set of Texas statutes criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a constitutional right to privacy.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that we should get rid of the money bail because that targets only the people who come from poverty when rich people could just get away with the crime they did by just handing over a sum of money. An example of this would be when the boy who got bailed out after killing 2 people and fatally injuring one person. Someone who didn't have connections or money wouldn't be able to get bailed out.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager charged with killing two people and injuring another during demonstrations on the streets of Kenosha, Wis., listens to defense attorney John Pierce during an extradition hearing on Oct. 30 in Waukegan in Lake County, Ill. (Pool/Reuters)

Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year-old charged in the fatal shooting of two people and the wounding of another in Kenosha, Wis. in late August, was released from jail on Friday after posting $2 million in bail.

Kenosha County Sheriff Sgt. David Wright, a department spokesman, confirmed that Rittenhouse left the county's detention center around 2 p.m. local time Friday, accompanied by a security team and one of his attorneys.

"Kyle is free, he is totally innocent, and it's about time," said his attorney John Pierce. "He is totally innocent, and we are going to prove it."

Pierce said former Special Operations service members were hired to provide security for Rittenhouse.

In Wisconsin, bail has to be paid in the full cash amount. Pierce said the $2 million came from funds raised by Fight Back, an organization whose website said is tasked to "protect and defend the constitutional rights, livelihoods and property of people and businesses that are being targeted and destroyed." The organization was founded by Lin Wood, another Rittenhouse attorney.

In a Twitter post Friday, Wood characterized Rittenhouse as "a political prisoner" and said the organization would continue to raise money for his defense costs. He also credited "NYPD Blue" actor Ricky Schroder and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell with "putting us over the top."

Two other conservative organizations, the National Association For Gun Rights and American Wolf 689, have raised a total of $105,000 directly for living expenses for Rittenhouse's family, which left its home in Antioch, Ill., for an undisclosed location, because of harassment and death threats, Pierce said.

Rittenhouse has been in custody in Kenosha since Oct. 30, when he was extradited to Wisconsin from Lake County, Ill., just across the state line, where he was arrested Aug. 26.

Rittenhouse has been charged with first-degree intentional homicide and first-degree reckless homicide in the shooting deaths of Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum. He has also been charged with attempted first-degree homicide in the shooting of Gaige Grosskreutz. The shootings took place during street protests related to the shooting of Jacob Blake, an unarmed Black man, by a Kenosha police officer two days earlier.

Rittenhouse attorneys say the teenager was acting in self-defense.

Bail conditions set at Rittenhouse's last court hearing included not making contact with families of the victims or possessing a weapon. His next hearing is Dec. 3.

On Thursday, Kenosha police detective Ben Antaramian testified in court that Dominick Black, a friend of Rittenhouse's, told investigators that he had bought the AR-15 assault rifle used in the shootings. Black, 19, is charged with two counts of intent to sell a dangerous weapon to a person under 18. According to the criminal complaint, Rittenhouse gave Black money to buy the weapon in May from a hardware store in Ladysmith, a town in the far north of Wisconsin. They then went shooting with the weapon that day, and the weapon was stored in Black's stepfather's house in Kenosha, the complaint says.

Rittenhouse could not buy a gun because he did not have an Illinois firearm owner identification card. Gun possession in Illinois is prohibited for people younger than 21 unless they get written consent from a parent or legal guardian.

Antaramian said that during a second interview, Black provided "a conflicting statement," saying that instead of giving Rittenhouse the gun the day of the shooting, Rittenhouse took the gun without his knowledge. According to the complaint, Black's stepfather told police he did not know the gun was missing from his house. It had been stored in a locked safe but was taken out the previous day when rioting broke out in Kenosha.

Black "skirted around issue that Kyle took it without him looking and he made no attempt to stop Kyle from taking it at that point," Antaramian said.

The day before the shooting, Rittenhouse, who lived in nearby Antioch, Ill., worked his job at a Wisconsin recreation center outside Kenosha and then stayed overnight at Black's house.

Black's next court appearance is Jan. 13.

In an interview, Wendy Rittenhouse, the teenager's mother, described Black "as a son."

"I support Dominick for what he's going through. I'll always love Dominick. He is part of my family, and he will always be part of my family," she said.

Today's Headlines

The most important news stories of the day, curated by Post editors and delivered every morning.

By signing up you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kyle Rittenhouse released from jail after posting $2 million bail

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year-old charged in the fatal shooting of two people and the wounding of another in Kenosha, Wis. in late August, was released from jail on Friday after posting $2 million in bail. Kenosha County Sheriff Sgt. David Wright, a department spokesman, confirmed that Rittenhouse left the county's detention center around 2 p.m.

# data[].attributes.body
- A law that I believe that the United States should have is Universal Health Care. While many other countries already have this, the U.S.'s cost of healthcare is at such a high rate. Even though the U.S. claims that they are the best country we still aren't able to provide for everyone equally while other countries can. Universal Health Care would be something that would be beneficial to many or maybe all middle/lower class citizens.

# data[].attributes.body
- I think that this needs more attention because this is a part of someone's religion and it seems unethical to have them get rid of something that has always been part of their life style. Their Hijabs are not just some sort of fashion statement that you can try to control, I think that they should be able to believe what they want and wear what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How France's Latest Hijab Controversy Fits Into History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To understand the controversy over the hijab in France means looking at the deep history behind the debate.

# data[].attributes.body
- I think that it is important to respect other's choices and what they do to their own bodies. I think that people should have the right to choose what they do to their bodies or be able to love who they want. If it doesn't have anything to do with others, then why do people choose to interfere. I think that other people shouldn't try to control what other people do in order to live happy lives. In conclusion, I think that people should just try to control what they can and that's themselves.

# data[].attributes.body
- In this post it talks about how they are not allowed to require students to wear masks at in-person classes. I believe that this is very ignorant on the U.S. governments part due to the fact that there are still other factors that need to be taken into account like if someone has underlying health conditions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Sharon Bernstein and Colleen Jenkins

(Reuters) - Two days after the school board in Johnston, Iowa, decided last week to keep requiring mask wearing in schools to prevent coronavirus transmission, the state's Republican governor signed a law that immediately prohibited such mandates.

The reaction in Johnston was swift and sharply divided, with some parents applauding the move to make masks optional for the waning days of the school year and others calling it dangerous given the continued threat from COVID-19.

"I just find it super disappointing and selfish," said local parent Sara Parris, who is still sending her two sons to class with face coverings.

The debate over masks in schools is yet another flashpoint for U.S. educators grappling with how to keep students and staff safe during the pandemic. Friction around returning to in-person learning has given way to heated disagreements over whether masks should be shed for good.

Iowa and Texas have banned school districts from requiring kids to wear masks on campus. Similar moves are under consideration in other states and local jurisdictions, spurred in part by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) saying on May 13 that vaccinated people no longer needed to wear masks in most situations.

With children under age 12 not yet eligible for vaccinations, however, the CDC recommends face coverings in educational settings at least through the end of the school year. While children are less likely to suffer severe COVID-19, they are not without risk and can readily transmit the virus.

Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds said on Twitter that her state was "putting parents back in control of their child's education and protecting the rights of all Iowans to make their own health care decisions."

Responding to the governor via Twitter, Democratic state Senator Sarah Trone Garriott said: "I'm hearing from lots of parents reporting that their children are being bullied for wearing a mask. Are you going to stand up for their personal choice?"

At the Johnston school board meeting last week, most parents spoke in favor of making masks optional, with one mother calling masking requirements for children abusive. Other parents emailed school officials asking for mask mandates to remain in place.

"It's been difficult to try to find the right balance," Justin Allen, president of the school board and a parent of two high school students, said in an interview.

"Just when you think you are in kind of a comfort zone and you think you can focus on education for awhile, something else emerges and you have another controversial issue to address."

In North Carolina, parents opposed to mandatory face coverings staged a protest in Wake County after Democratic Governor Roy Cooper lifted mask requirements in some situations but not in schools.

"Parents should determine if their child should wear a mask, not school systems or the governor," parent Nazach Snapp wrote in a letter to the Wake County school board.

Others urged the board to continue its mask requirement.

"Given that vaccines are not available yet for children under 12, I implore you to continue to require students in middle and elementary settings to wear masks," wrote parent Mimosa Hines.

A study https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7021e1.htm published by the CDC on Friday showed that in elementary schools that required masks, transmission of COVID-19 was lower by 37% than in schools where masks were optional. The study, which included 169 elementary schools in Georgia that were open for in-person instruction, also showed improved ventilation slowed virus transmission.

It advised increasing, not decreasing, the use of masks and ventilation in schools.

The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the National Education Association, two unions that represent a total of about 5 million teachers and staff, have urged states to keep their mask requirements at least through the end of this school year.

While nearly 90% of AFT's members have been vaccinated against COVID-19, many of their students have not.

U.S. regulators earlier this month authorized use of the COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer Inc and partner BioNTech SE for children ages 12 to 15. It is still being tested for use in younger children.

AFT President Randi Weingarten said Texas and Iowa "jumped the gun" in removing their mask requirements. Politics around masks, along with unclear guidance from the CDC, have left teachers in an awkward position, she said.

"Teachers don't want to become the mask police," she said. "It's time to let us actually teach."

(Reporting by Sharon Bernstein in Sacramento, California and Colleen Jenkins in Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Editing by Bill Berkrot)

Copyright 2021 Thomson Reuters.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
COVID-19 Mask Mandates Latest Flashpoint for U.S. Schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Sharon Bernstein and Colleen Jenkins (Reuters) - Two days after the school board in Johnston, Iowa, decided last week to keep requiring mask wearing in schools to prevent coronavirus transmission, the state's Republican governor signed a law that immediately prohibited such mandates.

# data[].attributes.body
- This shows how we are slowly but surely moving towards a somewhat normal world again and by being able to administer these vaccinations it shows how some people are ready for that change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Reuters) - The United States had administered 297,720,928 doses of COVID-19 vaccines in the country and distributed 368,375,195 doses as of Thursday morning, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.

Those figures are up from the 296,912,892 vaccine doses the CDC said had gone into arms by June 2 out of 366,977,535 doses delivered.

The agency said 169,090,262 people had received at least one dose, while 136,644,618 people were fully vaccinated as of Thursday.

The CDC tally includes two-dose vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech, as well as Johnson & Johnson's one-shot vaccine as of 6:00 a.m. ET on Thursday.

(Reporting by Mrinalika Roy in Bengaluru; Editing by Shinjini Ganguli)

Copyright 2021 Thomson Reuters.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. Administers 297.7 Million Doses of COVID-19 Vaccines - CDC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(Reuters) - The United States had administered 297,720,928 doses of COVID-19 vaccines in the country and distributed 368,375,195 doses as of Thursday morning, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. Those figures are up from the 296,912,892 vaccine doses the CDC said had gone into arms by June 2 out of 366,977,535 doses delivered.

# data[].attributes.body
- This is important because this is Trumps first official public announcement since he was banned from Twitter, this speech can do good or really bad.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Former President Donald J. Trump will speak at the conservative event known as CPAC on Feb. 28, his first public appearance and lengthy address since he left the White House for a final time last month.

A senior aide to Mr. Trump confirmed that he would attend the Conservative Political Action Conference, which is being held in Orlando, Fla., this year, and that he planned to talk about the future of the Republican Party as well as President Biden's immigration policies, which have been aimed at undoing Mr. Trump's.

What Mr. Trump plans to talk about and what he ultimately says once he's onstage often diverge, as he discards scripts that aides prepare for him.

But it will be the first time that he has spoken in a public setting since the deadly Jan. 6 riot by his supporters at the Capitol building.

The former president, who was permanently banned from Twitter and who is facing investigations into his businesses as well as whether he has culpability for the assault on the Capitol, has generally kept a low profile, except for giving a small round of interviews to sympathetic news outlets about the death of the radio host Rush Limbaugh last week. Even though the interviews were supposed to be about Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Trump still strayed into repeating his false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him.

But CPAC is traditionally a cattle call for Republican candidates for office as well as aspiring figures in the party. And Mr. Trump has signaled to several allies and advisers in recent days that he is focused on running for president again in 2024.

Whether he actually does is an open question. But his presence could freeze the field for the next two years, preventing other candidates from developing operations and, more important, networks of donors to sustain their candidacies.

Mr. Trump is currently locked in a battle with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, over the party's future and what kind of candidates it attracts. Mr. McConnell has made it clear that he wants to try to minimize Mr. Trump's influence after the deadly riot.

But Mr. Trump has said he will try to encourage candidates who will carry his brand of politics forward.

The CPAC conference is the event where, a year ago, when it was held in Washington, D.C., Mr. Trump gave a speech downplaying the threat of the novel coronavirus and insisting that his administration had the situation in hand. A New Jersey man who attended the conference tested positive for the virus, setting off a scramble by officials with the American Conservative Union, who run the conference.

Within two weeks of Mr. Trump's speech, the pandemic was a full-blown crisis, one that ultimately engulfed his administration. The administration's failed response to the virus was a key issue for voters in the 2020 election.

Mr. Trump's modern political life began with a speech at CPAC in 2011.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump Schedules Address Before CPAC Next Sunday

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Former President Donald J. Trump will speak at the conservative event known as CPAC on Feb. 28, his first public appearance and lengthy address since he left the White House for a final time last month.

# data[].attributes.body
- I think that it is wrong to prevent a child from playing a sport just because they are transgender. Transgender people are still people and have every right to play a sport that should allow everyone.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sunny Bryant, an 8-year-old transgender girl who lives in Texas, loves to play baseball and participate in gymnastics.

She's also been "begging" to play soccer, according to her mother, Rebekah Bryant. But Sunny, who currently plays on co-ed teams, is aware that she might not be able to play on girls-only teams as she has in the past. Some lawmakers in her state have been trying to force her off of girls' sports teams in the future and make her play with boys instead.

"It wouldn't be fair," she told ABC News in a recent interview.

Texas SB 29, which passed in the Senate, would have required public school students to compete on sports teams and in competition based on their sex assigned at birth. It was being considered in the state legislature but the House ran out of time in the legislative session to consider it.

"We know something like this is going to happen again ... This doesn't just immediately go away -- this pain that we experienced during the session," Bryant said.

The measure was among what critics say are more than 250 anti-LGBTQ bills that have been introduced in state legislatures across the country, according to the Human Rights Campaign. Florida recently joined Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Montana, Tennessee and West Virginia in signing anti-trans sports legislation, similar to the one proposed in Texas, into law.

One area of focus for the legislation -- and a cultural flashpoint -- has been youth sports and Texas is just one of more than 30 states that have introduced bills against the participation of trans youth in sports teams of their corresponding gender.

'This is what's going on'
In April, Rebekah Bryant testified against the legislation in front of the Committee on Public Education in the Texas House of Representatives. Before she took the trip to Austin to speak out in support of her daughter, she explained to Sunny what she was fighting for.

"I explained to her, 'So, this is what's going on,'" Bryant said she told her. "'They want to stop you from playing sports, they want to not allow you to have puberty blockers, all those things. So I'm going to go try to convince them not to.'"

In her testimony, she recounted Sunny's story -- saying her daughter has known that she was a girl since she was 4 years old. She told the lawmakers she'd imagined what it would be like for a 16-year-old Sunny to play on a team that doesn't correspond with her gender identity.

"Long blonde hair, blue eyes, she's a young woman, but she has to play on the boys' soccer team," she said. "She'll be alone in the locker room, she won't have a lot of the same interests as her teammates, and she may even be bullied and harassed by the players, opponents and parents."

Some Texas legislators, like Republican state Sen. Charles Perry say the bill ensures fairness in girl's sports -- citing biological differences.

He did not respond to requests for comment from ABC News, but told NBC affiliate KCBD "it's just an effort to preserve the tradition, the history, and provide safe competition for women with their biological peer group."
'Absolutely horrific legislation'
Annie Lieberman, the director of policy programs for Athlete Ally, an advocacy group that works for inclusive policies in sports, said that the wave of legislation will only worsen conditions for an already vulnerable community.

"It has been and continues to be an absolutely horrific legislative session, especially for LGBTQ+ Americans," Lieberman said. "When trans kids have access to gender-affirming spaces at school, like a locker room, a restroom, a sports team, they are 25% less likely to commit suicide. And when we look at rates of suicidality and depression, we know that they are significantly higher when trans kids don't have access to those gender-affirming spaces."

Almost half of trans youth featured in a study by the Suicide Prevention Resource Center say they have strongly considered ending their lives.

Reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention find trans youth often report feeling isolated and excluded in academic environments and that discrimination puts them at increased risk for poor mental health, suicide, substance abuse, violence and other health risks.

However, research shows that welcoming school environments that prohibit bullying and harassment in schools have been linked to positive outcomes for these students, according to research in The American Journal of Public Health.

In an interview with ABC News, Sunny raved about her latest baseball game, saying, "I think it might have been the best game we played yet. And it was one of the funnest games. It was just fun because a lot of people got out and a lot of hits."
Support from sports governing boards
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the Olympics and the governing bodies for U.S. national sports leagues all allow transgender athletes to compete.

However, the Concerned Women for America, a conservative Christian group, is against trans girls and women participating in women's sports, but asserts that advocating for protections for female athletes "does not mean advocating against trans athletes."

"The issue is about the basic fairness and opportunities that women have fought for centuries to obtain," the group said in a statement to ABC News. "We are not saying trans athletes can't compete, it's just not fair for them to compete in women's sports ... The disparity comes when forcing women to compete against a biological male that has innate biological differences, giving them physical advantages that simply cannot be erased."

There is no evidence that trans athletes are disproportionately dominating sports that correlate with their gender identity or that they have an advantage in their sport, Lieberman said. Dr. Eric Vilain, a geneticist who studies sex differences in athletes, told NPR that testosterone affects performance in only a very small number of athletic disciplines and doesn't provide any advantage. The Texas bill that was under consideration does not cite any evidence of this either.

In April, amid the onslaught of legislative activity on trans student-athletes, the NCAA Board of Governors issued a statement in support of trans participation in college sports.

"The NCAA has a long-standing policy that provides a more inclusive path for transgender participation in college sports," the statement read. "Our approach - which requires testosterone suppression treatment for transgender women to compete in women's sports - embraces the evolving science on this issue and is anchored in participation policies of both the International Olympic Committee and the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee."

Bryant said that she fears what the consequences might be for her daughter if the Texas legislation is signed into law.

"I have nightmares about her future already," Bryant said. "I already have obstacles in place because she's trans. We weren't exactly excited to find out that she was trans -- it's scary. I lay in bed and think about whether she'll get a job one day or whether she'll find a partner, or will she be murdered by somebody simply for existing."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Young transgender athletes grappling with anti-trans sports legislation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sunny Bryant, an 8-year-old transgender girl who lives in Texas, loves to play baseball and participate in gymnastics. She's also been "begging" to play soccer, according to her mother, Rebekah Bryant. But Sunny, who currently plays on co-ed teams, is aware that she might not be able to play on girls-only teams as she has in the past.

# data[].attributes.body
- Student changes their speech in light of the new abortion laws in Texas and chooses to talk about real issues. I think that it is really mature of her and important that she uses her voice to show her opinion and inform others on her view points.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The speech that high school valedictorian Paxton Smith pulled from inside her graduation gown was not the one she had shown the school. So she took a deep breath before launching into it, wondering if she would be allowed to share her thoughts about Texas' new restrictive abortion law.

"I cannot give up this platform to promote complacency and peace, when there is a war on my body and a war on my rights," Smith said in her speech at the graduation ceremony for Lake Highlands High School in Dallas.

Despite swapping her text, Smith finished her speech and got a rousing cheer from her classmates and staff. In the days since her address on Sunday, video of the event has gone viral, and Smith has been praised for speaking her mind.(You can read a full transcript of her speech below.)

"I have dreams, and hopes and ambitions. Every girl graduating today does," Smith said. She later added, "And without our input and without our consent, our control over that future has been stripped away from us."

Smith concluded her speech by stating, "We cannot stay silent."

Her remarks came less than two weeks after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed new restrictions into law that ban abortion as soon as a fetal heartbeat can be detected - as early as six weeks.

As Smith noted, many women do not realize they're pregnant at six weeks. The law does not allow exceptions for cases of rape or incest.

The senior had intended to use her speech to talk about TV and the media, but, she said, "it feels wrong to talk about anything but what is currently affecting me and millions of other women in the state."

Smith says she has received hundreds of messages of support, as videos of her graduation speech were widely shared across social media. In many ways, the speech went better than she anticipated, especially since the school had raised the possibility of remarks being cut short if they diverged from the approved script.

"I thought that the microphone was going to get cut off a couple minutes in, but it didn't," Smith told local TV station WFAA in Dallas.

In a statement released to local media, the Richardson Independent School District, which includes Lake Highlands, says that students choose their own messages to share at graduation. But noting that Smith's speech was not approved and "not in the podium book" of remarks for the event, the district says it will look at ways to prevent similar switches from taking place in the future.

Smith's father, Russell Smith, tells the Lake Highlands Advocate that he's proud of his daughter.

"It was something that she felt was important, and she had the nerve, determination and boldness to put herself out there and say her piece," he said. "So few people demonstrate this level of maturity and poise, regardless of age."
The text of Smith's speech, as transcribed by NPR:
I'm not usually very good at expressing my gratitude for the people that I care about. But I would like to say "thank you" to Coach. I think he's had a bigger role in my life than he realizes. [deep breath]

OK.

As we leave high school, we need to make our voices heard. Today, I was going to talk about TV and media and content, because it's something that's very important to me. However, under light of recent events, it feels wrong to talk about anything but what is currently affecting me and millions of other women in the state.

Recently, the Heartbeat Bill was passed in Texas. Starting in September, there will be a ban on abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, regardless of whether the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest.

Six weeks. That's all women get. And so before they realize - most of them don't realize that they're pregnant by six weeks - so before they have a chance to decide if they are emotionally, physically and financially stable enough to carry out a full-term pregnancy, before they have the chance to decide if they can take on the responsibility of bringing another human being into the world, that decision is made for them by a stranger.

A decision that will affect the rest of their lives is made by a stranger.

I have dreams and hopes and ambitions. Every girl graduating today does. And we have spent our entire lives working towards our future. And without our input and without our consent, our control over that future has been stripped away from us. [applause]

I am terrified that if my contraceptives fail, I am terrified that if I am raped, then my hopes and aspirations and dreams and efforts for my future will no longer matter. I hope that you can feel how gut-wrenching that is. I hope you can feel how dehumanizing it is, to have the autonomy over your own body taken away from you.

And I'm talking about this today - on a day as important as this, on a day honoring 12 years of hard academic work, on a day where we are all gathered together, on a day where you are most inclined to listen to a voice like mine, a woman's voice - to tell you that this is a problem, and it's a problem that cannot wait.

And I cannot give up this platform to promote complacency and peace, when there is a war on my body and a war on my rights. A war on the rights of your mothers [cheers], a war on the rights of your sisters, a war on the rights of your daughters.

We cannot stay silent. Thank you.

[cheers, applause]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
High School Valedictorian Swaps Speech To Speak Out Against Texas' New Abortion Law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The speech that high school valedictorian Paxton Smith pulled from inside her graduation gown was not the one she had shown the school. So she took a deep breath before launching into it, wondering if she would be allowed to share her thoughts about Texas' new restrictive abortion law.

# data[].attributes.body
Knows:
- What the three branches are and what they control
- There are different levels of power
Wants to know:
-The flow of power and how laws and regulations come into place
-What happens if there is a problem within the three branches
-How the different parties came into place