# data[].attributes.body
Denisse Gamez
The article simply states which states have legalized marijuana (for medicinal purposes) and which have not. Showing the state authority.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump moves to ban flavored vaping products to discourage young people from e-cigarettes

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump moves to ban flavored vaping products to discourage young people from e-cigarettes

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/09/11/donald-trump-wants-to-ban-flavored-vapes-discourage-young-people-from-e-cigarettes/2284270001/ via @usatoday
Denisse Gamez
The article is about Trump banning e-cigarettes, due to their quick inducing death to those who use them. It will inevitably cause some sort of debacle because there seems to be no ban on actual cigarettes.

# data[].attributes.body
Recently California has decided to make policies to limit plastic straw use in their state in efforts to help the environment
Name: Nicholas Barrone

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Come 2019, California diners who want a plastic straw for their beverage will have to specifically ask for one. On Thursday, a bill banning full-service restaurants from automatically giving customers plastic straws was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown.

"Plastic has helped advance innovation in our society, but our infatuation with single-use convenience has led to disastrous consequences," Brown wrote in a signing message per the Los Angeles Times.

Straws won't be completely vanishing, though: In addition to customers at full-service restaurants being able to get one on request, the law does not apply to fast-food restaurants (arguably the biggest user of plastic straws), coffee shops, delis, or restaurants serving takeout, as Eater SF reports.

Plastic straws have seemingly become public enemy number one this year, with celebrities like Tom Brady publicly promising to stop using them and and big companies like Alaska Airlines, Ikea, and Starbucks discontinuing their use or vowing to do so soon. (Starbucks says it will phase out plastic straws by 2020 in favor of plastic sippy cups and compostable straws.)

Though California is the first to enact a statewide law restricting the use of plastic straws, Seattle became the first city to ban straws (and other plastic utensils) back in July. (The city of San Francisco previously passed a law of its own banning the use of plastic straws outright; it's due to take effect in July 2019.) Meanwhile across the pond, UK Prime Minister Theresa May proposed banning plastic straws by the end of the year.

According to environmental group EcoCycle, Americans use an estimated 500 million disposable straws every day (though the accuracy of this figure has been questioned), and straws were the seventh most common piece of trash picked up on beaches worldwide by volunteer cleanup crews associated with the marine conservation group Ocean Conservancy.

While the negative environmental impact of America's fervent plastic straw use cannot be discounted, banning straws isn't without consequence: Some people with disabilities depend on plastic straws for safe drinking. Meanwhile, others are learning to make do with reusable metal straws, which may seemingly soon become as common as reusable water bottles and travel coffee mugs.

* California Becomes First State to Restrict Plastic Straws at Restaurants [LA Times]
* CA Bans Plastic Straws Except Upon Request at Full-Service Restaurants [Eater SF]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
California Bans Restaurants From Automatically Giving Out Plastic Straws

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Come 2019, California diners who want a plastic straw for their beverage will have to specifically ask for one. On Thursday, a bill banning full-service restaurants from automatically giving customers plastic straws was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown.

# data[].attributes.body
Name: Nicholas Barrone
The following article is regarding the possibility of Georgia legalizing medical marijuana
This article is written by Devan Cole from CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
georgia on cusp of legalizing medical marijuana - cnnpolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Georgia on cusp of legalizing medical marijuana

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Georgia is on the verge of legalizing medical marijuana after the state assembly passed a bill that would allow for the in-state sale and production of the drug for medicinal purposes.

# data[].attributes.body
Name: Elexis McGill

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

Immigration has been a touchstone of the U.S. political debate for decades, as policymakers have weighed economic, security, and humanitarian concerns. Congress has been unable to reach an agreement on comprehensive immigration reform for years, effectively moving some major policy decisions into the executive and judicial branches of government and fueling debate in the halls of state and municipal governments.

President Donald J. Trump was elected on pledges to take extraordinary actions to curb immigration, including controversial plans to build out the border wall with Mexico, deport millions of undocumented immigrants, and temporarily ban Muslims. In office, he has scaled back his plans in some areas but pushed ahead with full force in others, often drawing legal challenges and public protest.

What is the immigrant population in the United States?

Immigrants comprise about 14 percent of the U.S. population, or more than 43 million people out of a total of about 323 million, according to the Census Bureau. Together, immigrants and their U.S.-born children make up about 27 percent of U.S. inhabitants. The figure represents a steady rise from 1970, when there were fewer than ten million immigrants in the United States. But there are proportionally fewer immigrants today than in 1890, when foreign-born residents comprised 15 percent of the population. Mexico is the most common country of origin for U.S. immigrants, at 25 percent, but the proportion of immigrants from South and East Asia-who number about 27 percent-is on the rise.

Undocumented immigration. The undocumented population is about eleven million and has leveled off since the 2008 economic crisis, which led some to return to their home countries and discouraged others from coming to the United States. In the first half of 2019, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reported more than double the number of people apprehended or stopped at the southern border compared to the same period a year earlier. Still, southern border apprehensions remain well below [PDF] their levels in prior decades.

More than half of undocumented immigrants have lived in the United States for more than a decade; nearly one-third are the parents of U.S.-born children, according to the Pew Research Center. Central Americans seeking asylum, which is protected under U.S. law, make up a growing share of those who cross the U.S.-Mexico border. These immigrants have different legal rights from Mexican nationals in the United States: under a 2008 anti-human trafficking law, minors from noncontiguous countries have a right to a hearing before being deported to their home countries. The spike in Central American migration has strained the U.S. immigration system, with more than nine hundred thousand cases pending in immigration courts.

Though many of the policies that aim to reduce unlawful immigration focus on enforcement at the border, individuals who arrive in the United States legally and overstay their visas comprise a significant portion of the undocumented population. A Center for Migration Studies report found that in 2010-2017 individuals who overstayed their visas far outnumbered those who arrived by crossing the border illegally.

Legal immigration. The United States granted 1.1 million individuals [PDF] legal permanent residency in fiscal year 2017. More than two-thirds of them were admitted on the basis of family reunification. Other categories included: employment-based preferences (12 percent), refugees (11 percent), diversity (5 percent), and asylees (2 percent). In late 2018, nearly four million applicants were on the State Department's waiting list for immigrant visas [PDF].

Hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals work legally in the United States under various types of nonimmigrant visas. In 2017, the United States granted close to 180,000 visas [PDF] for high-skilled workers, known as H1B visas, and more than 280,000 visas for temporary workers in agriculture and other industries. H1B visas are capped at 85,000 per year, with exceptions made for certain fields.

Immigrants made up roughly 17 percent of the U.S. workforce in 2014.

Immigrants made up roughly 17 percent of the U.S. workforce in 2014, according to the Pew Research Center; of those, around two-thirds were in the country legally. Collectively, immigrants made up 45 percent of domestic employees; they also comprised large portions of the workforce in U.S. textile manufacturing (36 percent), agriculture (33 percent), and accommodation (32 percent). Another Pew study found that without immigrants, the U.S. workforce would decline from 173.2 million in 2015 to 165.6 million in 2035; the workforce is expected to grow to 183.2 million if immigration levels remain steady, according to the report.

How do Americans feel about immigration?

A 2019 Gallup poll found that 76 percent of Americans considered immigration a good thing for the United States. As many as 81 percent supported a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants if they meet certain requirements. A 2016 Gallup poll found that among Republicans, support for a path to citizenship (76 percent) was higher than support for a proposed border wall (62 percent).

What legislation has Congress considered in recent years?

Congress has debated numerous immigration reforms over the last two decades, some considered comprehensive, others piecemeal. Comprehensive immigration reform refers to omnibus legislation that attempts to address the following issues: demand for high- and low-skilled labor, the legal status of the millions of undocumented immigrants living in the country, border security, and interior enforcement.

The last time legislators came close to significant immigration reform was in 2013, when the Democrat-led Senate passed a comprehensive reform bill that would have provided a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and tough border security provisions. The bill did not receive a vote in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

What actions have presidents taken in recent years?

Barack Obama. President Obama took several actions to provide temporary legal relief to many undocumented immigrants. In 2012, his administration began a program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), that offered renewable, two-year deportation deferrals and work permits to undocumented immigrants who had arrived in the United States as children and had no criminal records. Obama characterized the move as a " stopgap measure" and urged Congress to pass the DREAM Act, legislation first introduced in 2001 that would have benefited many of the same people. As of November 2018, more than nine hundred thousand [PDF] had taken advantage of DACA. Obama attempted to extend similar benefits to undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents in a program known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA), but the Supreme Court effectively killed the program in 2016.

The Obama administration's enforcement practices drew criticism from the left and the right. Some immigrant advocacy groups criticized his administration for overseeing the deportation of more than three million people during his eight-year tenure, a figure that exceeded those of the administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Many Republicans said the Obama administration, by narrowing its deportation efforts to undocumented immigrants who had committed serious crimes, was soft on enforcement.

Donald J. Trump. Trump has signed several executive orders affecting immigration policy. The first, which focused on border security, instructed federal agencies to construct a physical wall "to obtain complete operational control" of the U.S. border with Mexico. Additionally, it called for an end to what it calls "catch and release" practices, in which certain unauthorized immigrants who were captured at the border would be allowed into the United States while they await court hearings.

The second executive order, which focused on interior enforcement, expanded the categories of unauthorized immigrants prioritized for deportation and ordered increases in enforcement personnel. It also moved to restrict federal funds from so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, which limit their cooperation with federal immigration officials.

The third order, which focused on terrorism prevention, banned nationals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen from entering the United States for at least ninety days; blocked nationals from Syria indefinitely; and suspended the U.S. refugee program for 120 days.

These actions, particularly the ban on travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries, drew widespread protests and legal challenges from individuals, cities, and states. The Trump administration revised the travel ban twice, and it eventually found its way to the Supreme Court, where justices allowed [PDF] its third iteration to stand.

Trump more than halved the annual cap of refugees admitted to the United States to fifty thousand, and he has sought to make it more difficult for individuals to seek asylum; more than 250,000 applied for asylum in 2017 [PDF]. That year, the Trump administration ended temporary protected status (TPS) for thousands of Haitians and Nicaraguans who were allowed to remain in the United States after environmental disasters in their home countries. Beneficiaries of TPS are permitted to live and work in the United States for up to eighteen months, a period that can be extended at the president's discretion. In 2018, Trump ended the same relief program for hundreds of thousands of Hondurans, Nepalis, and Salvadorans.

In September 2017, Trump announced plans to phase out DACA, which he called, along with DAPA, "illegal" actions by Obama, but challenges in the courts have so far prevented him from terminating the program. The Trump administration's attempts to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census have also been blocked in court. Opponents said the move would have led to a significant undercount of immigrants and minorities.

The Trump administration has also ratcheted up previous administrations' efforts to deter border crossings, including by those seeking asylum. In early 2018, it implemented what it called a zero-tolerance policy, in which authorities arrested and prosecuted everyone caught crossing the southern border without authorization. As parents faced criminal prosecution, they were held apart from their children. Presidents Bush and Obama had likewise faced criticism for widespread detentions.

In July 2019, the Department of Homeland Security's inspector general reported overcrowding and prolonged detentions [PDF] at CBP facilities, and investigators found that detainees, including children, were sometimes held without access to beds, showers, or clean clothes for weeks.

Since 2018, CBP has also implemented "metering," accepting a limited number of asylum applicants each day and instructing others to remain in Mexico. Opponents charge that the practice violates U.S. law, as well as international standards, by denying entry to asylum seekers.

Amid efforts to strike deals with Mexico and Guatemala to further curb migration, the administration issued a rule that would require asylum seekers to seek protection in the first safe country they arrive at-in practice, Guatemala or Mexico. (Courts have for now enjoined the measure.) Washington had earlier threatened to raise tariffs on Mexican goods, but Mexico forestalled the move by agreeing to migration talks and deploying troops to its border.

Where do the Democratic presidential candidates stand?

In the early stages of the 2020 Democratic primaries, many candidates have decried the Trump administration's changes to immigration policy. More than a dozen candidates indicated that they would support the repeal of criminal penalties for migrants apprehended while crossing the border. Some have also expressed support for increasing aid to Central American countries and extending government health insurance plans to cover undocumented immigrants.

How are state and local authorities handling these issues?

States vary widely in how they treat unauthorized immigrants. Some states, such as California, allow undocumented immigrants to apply for drivers' licenses, receive in-state tuition at universities, and obtain other benefits. At the other end of the spectrum, states such as Arizona have passed laws permitting police to question people they suspect of being unauthorized about their immigration status.

The degree to which local officials are obliged to cooperate with federal authorities is a subject of intense debate.

The federal government is generally responsible for enforcing immigration laws, but it delegates some immigration-control duties to state and local law enforcement. However, the degree to which local officials are obliged to cooperate with federal authorities is a subject of intense debate. More than six hundred state and local jurisdictions limit their cooperation with federal authorities, according to the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.

President Trump decried these sanctuary jurisdictions throughout his campaign and issued an executive order to block federal funding to them and reinstate a controversial program known as Secure Communities, in which state and local police provide fingerprints of suspects to federal immigration authorities and hand over individuals presumed to be in the country illegally. He also ordered the expansion of enforcement partnerships among federal, state, and local agencies. Several cities are challenging Trump's order in court. In March 2018, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against California, alleging that several of the state's laws obstruct federal immigration enforcement.

Some states have also protested Trump's border security policies. After Trump called on states to deploy National Guards contingents to the southern border, at least five governors said they would refuse.
Samuel Parmer contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Immigration has been a touchstone of the U.S. political debate for decades, as policymakers have weighed economic, security, and humanitarian concerns. Congress has been unable to reach an agreement on comprehensive immigration reform for years, effectively moving some major policy decisions into the executive and judicial branches of government and fueling debate in the halls of state and municipal governments.

# data[].attributes.body
Name: Elexis McGill
This article is about what the law is when it comes to getting married in Minnesota.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A valid Minnesota marriage license is required for a legal Minnesota marriage to take place. Minors need to have the consent of a parent to get married, while other requirements are imposed on adults who were previously married. While Minnesota does not recognize common law marriages, it does recognize those that are legally valid in another state. The requirements for successfully applying for a Minnesota marriage license are provided below.
Minnesota Marriage Consent Laws

With Parental Consent: Individuals between 15 and 17 can only marry in Minnesota with the consent of a parent, guardian, or the approval of a judge. Minors younger than 15 need written consent from a parent and a juvenile court judge.

Without Parental Consent: Adults 18 and older need not obtain parental consent to get married in Minnesota.

Minnesota Common Law Marriage
The state of Minnesota does not recognize common law marriages. However, Minnesota does recognize valid common law marriages from other states.
Minnesota Marriage License
Residency: No residency requirement.

Tests: None.

Identification Required: Required identification may vary by county, but a photo ID such as a driver's license is a minimum. A certified copy of your birth certificate may also be required.

Appearance/Proxy: Proxy marriages are not allowed in Minnesota. However, only one party needs to show up at the time of application, provided they have the other party's notarized signature and identification.

Previous Marriages: Previously married individuals must provide certified proof of the dissolution of the previous marriage.

Length of License: 6 months from the time of issuance.

Fees: $110, but $40 for couples who have completed a minimum of 12 hours of a premarital education course.

Authorized Minnesota Officiants: Judges, clerks of court, and any licensed ministers, priests, and rabbis. Not all Minnesota judges will perform marriages, so check with your specific county for more information.

Free Legal Advice - Get Informed

General Marriage Information Marriage Law Information by State Pre Marital Agreements

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A valid Minnesota marriage license is required for a legal Minnesota marriage to take place. Minors need to have the consent of a parent to get married, while other requirements are imposed on adults who were previously married. While Minnesota does not recognize common law marriages, it does recognize those that are legally valid in another state.

# data[].attributes.headline
California governor plans to veto environmental rules bill

# data[].attributes.subject
California governor plans to veto environmental rules bill

# data[].attributes.body
Name: Luvaire Murrell
This bill would have granted the California state government the authority to 'backstop' or create baseline environmental standards with supremacy over any federally mandated standards (or lack thereof).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Saturday he will buck Democratic legislative leaders by vetoing legislation aimed at stopping the Trump administration from weakening oversight of longstanding federal environment al laws in California.

His announcement came less than a day after lawmakers approved the bill on the chaotic final day of the year's legislative session.

Newsom said in a statement he fully supports the aims of the bill but argued it wouldn't give California new authority to push back on the Trump administration. He also said it would stop California from relying on the best available science. His office further said he's concerned about a piece of the bill that could require the state to rely on Endangered Species Act opinions written roughly a decade ago.

Despite his pledge to veto the bill, Newsom was quick to praise Senate President Pro Tempore Toni Atkins, the bill's author and an important ally for the freshman governor.

"I look forward to my continued partnership with Senate President Pro Tempore Toni Atkins - who is an extraordinary leader on the environment and for our state at large - to ensure California can continue to protect our environment and our workers against federal rollbacks, and push back against Trump's anti-environment agenda," he said in a statement.

Atkins, though, said she's "strongly disappointed" in Newsom's decision, and she disputed his characterization of the bill. It allowed state agencies to use the best scientific evidence available and gave the state authority to "backstop baseline standards" if the federal government rolled them back, she said in a statement.

In opposing the bill, Newsom is siding with the state's water contractors and Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

"We can't really have a California system and a federal system," said Jeffrey Kightlinger, general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which delivers water to nearly 19 million people. "We're all in the same country here, so we need to find a way to make this work."

California has a history of blunting Republican efforts at the federal level to roll back environmental protections. In 2003, shortly after the George W. Bush administration lowered federal Clean Air Act standards, the Legislature passed a law banning California air quality management districts from revising rules and regulations to match.

More recently, after the Trump administration announced plans to roll back auto mileage and emission standards, Newsom used the state's regulatory authority to broker a deal with four major automakers to toughen the standards anyway.

State lawmakers tried this last year, but a similar proposal failed to pass the state Assembly. But advocates say several recent announcements by the Trump administration - including plans to weaken application of the federal Endangered Species Act - have strengthened support for the bill.

The bill could have played out most prominently in the management of the state's water, which mostly comes from snowmelt and rain that rushes through a complex system of aqueducts to provide drinking water for nearly 40 million people and irrigation to the state's $20 billion agricultural industry.

It aimed to make it easier for state regulators to add animals protected under California's Endangered Species Act - animals that have historically been protected under federal law. It would then apply the state's Endangered Species Act to the Central Valley Project, a federally operated system of aqueducts and reservoirs that control flooding and supply irrigation to farmers.

But it's not clear if a state law would apply to a federal project, "which could generate years of litigation and uncertainty over which environmental standards apply," according to a letter by Feinstein and four members of the state's Democratic congressional delegation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
California governor plans to veto environmental rules bill

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Saturday he will buck Democratic legislative leaders by vetoing legislation aimed at stopping the Trump administration from weakening oversight of longstanding federal environment al laws in California. Add Environment as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Environment news, video, and analysis from ABC News.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump administration nixes Obama-era clean water protections

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump administration nixes Obama-era clean water protections

# data[].attributes.body
Name: Luvaire Murrell
This is about the Trump administration trying to roll back environmental regulations for waterways Obama gave the federal government authority over. This will essentially leave the task of regulating the use of these waterways to the states, as it had been prior to 2015.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Trump administration rolled back a major Obama-era clean water regulation on Thursday, reversing protections for certain waterways and wetlands that had fallen into a legal grey area after a series of Supreme Court challenges.

Announced by Environment Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler during an event at the headquarters of the National Association of Manufacturers, a trade group that had long lobbied for the 2015 rule to be repealed, the rollback will limit the number of waterways the federal government will protect from pollution and chemicals - which President Donald Trump has argued infringes on the rights of farmers, real estate developers and landowners.

"Today's Step 1 action fulfills a key promise of President Trump and sets the stage for Step 2 - a new [Water of the United States] definition that will provide greater regulatory certainty for farmers, landowners, homebuilders and developers nationwide," Wheeler said, noting that the final rule change will come through later this year.

The rule came about after two Supreme Court decisions created uncertainty around what waterways and wetlands were owed protections. While the Bush White House had a loose guideline in place, the Obama administration moved to establish a permanent rule and definition through the EPA in 2015. That new bit of regulation extended protections to an estimated 60 percent of American waterways.

But farming and industry groups said that it only served to limit the way they could use their own land.

"No regulation is perfect, and no rule can accommodate every concern, but the 2015 rule was especially egregious," said Zippy Duvall, the president of the American Farm Bureau - which lobbied for the rule change. "We are relieved to put it behind us. We are now working to ensure a fair and reasonable substitute that protects our water and our ability to work and care for the land."

Former EPA officials who've worked under Republican and Democratic administrations told NBC News that this rule change will only benefit mining industries, oil and gas pipeline corporations and land developers.

Though critics of the 2015 rule say it overregulated farmers, forcing them to get permits for every potential stream or body of water, the officials said that the rule maintained every exemption for agriculture that the Clean Water Act required them to, and they even expanded exemptions to extend to ditches and other bodies of water that didn't consistently flow.

Industries, not farmers, are the ones who will benefit, said Betsy Southerland, the former director of Science and Technology in EPA's Office of Water, which she departed in 2017 after more than 30 years.

"This will mean that miners can do mountaintop removal and fill in streams, pipelines can cut across wetlands, land developers can build on wetlands without a permit," Southerland said. "What they are doing with this repeal, is leaving it to the states to handle it. I can tell you that there are very few states that have permitting and enforcement programs to do this. They have always depended on EPA."

Meanwhile, the quality of American water will deteriorate and poor rural communities will be the first to pay the price, according to Southerland and other officials.

"The cumulative effect of all these wetlands being lost and all these headwater streams being destroyed is going to have an enormous negative impact on all the waters we do use for drinking and recreation," Southerland said. "Wetlands are big flood control functions and filter pollutants out before they get to streams that we drink from. All of that will be lost if we no longer have these protections, and once you lose them you can't get them back."

After the rule became official in 2015, 18 states sued the Obama administration to stop what they argued was an unlawful extension of federal authority over insignificant waterways such as streams and wetlands. The states said the federal government had usurped the language of the Clean Water Act that drew a clear distinction between federal authority and state or private landowners.

Experts say that the Trump administration and industries who are invested in this rule change may have to wait for challenges from states and environmental groups to make their way through the legal system.

"The withdrawal rule has been very controversial, and is now almost three years in the making," said Mark Ryan, a leading expert on the Clean Water Act who helped write the rule near the end of his 24-year career as a senior litigator for the EPA. "It will certainly be challenged by the states - almost half of which are now operating under the 2015 Rule - and by environmental groups."

Another issue is that this rule will also potentially suggest a new way to handle interstate waterways, which could lead to lawsuits between states.

"That's what the federal government is here to do," Southerland said, "they make sure that there is a level playing field between states for water and air quality."

More than two dozen environmental groups shared statements on Thursday announcing their intense displeasure with the Trump administration's decision and their fear for what it could mean for unprotected streams and waterways. Many said they would not sit idly by.

Scott Edwards, the director of the Food & Water Justice program at Food & Water Action, said that his group plans to match or exceed the challenges the 2015 rule had seen since its adoption.

"It has now been four years of constant litigation since the 2015 rule came out," he said. "Trump's rule will be met with an equal amount of opposition and court challenges and attempts to strike it down.

Edward's group is not alone in that challenge.

Earthjustice, an environmental legal group that has sued the EPA over several environmental regulatory changes, said they plan to continue to maintain pressure on the current administration.

"We're already involved in litigation and advocacy on these issues," said Anna Sewell, a senior attorney with Earthjustice. "We plan to continue to litigate as necessary to make sure that the clean water protections remain consistent with the full force of the law."

While most voiced a concern over this latest move by the Trump administration, many groups said this there are many more fronts for legal challenges.

"There is literally a tidal wave of regulatory changes that are coming out of this administration now that are going to need to be challenged," Edwards said, "and we will be in court challenging them."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump administration nixes Obama-era clean water protections

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Trump administration rolled back a major Obama-era clean water regulation on Thursday, reversing protections for certain waterways and wetlands that had fallen into a legal grey area after a series of Supreme Court challenges.

# data[].attributes.headline
Federalism: how both the roles between the state and the nation play a part together

# data[].attributes.subject
Federalism: how both the roles between the state and the nation play a part together

# data[].attributes.body
I found this article where it speaks on both the states roles as well as the country's role

# data[].attributes.body
I wasnt sure how to do the whole twitter things so i decided to link the articles the old fashioned way. http://www.ncsl.org/bookstore/state-legislatures-magazine/the-state-of-federalism-today636359051.aspx

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump administration policy issued changes of children's citizenship.  

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump administration policy issued changes of children's citizenship.  

# data[].attributes.body
Jinhee Kim

This article is about Trump administration of changes to the way children get citizenship. This policy has standars for causing confusion in many people and has been critized for demanding improvements.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Trump administration appears to be making it tougher for some foreign-born children of members of the military and U.S. government employees to get U.S. citizenship.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service quietly issued changes Wednesday to the way a group of these children acquire citizenship. The new rules apply to children who were not born as citizens - such as those who were born to noncitizens and later adopted by U.S. citizens serving abroad, or in cases where parents who were not citizens at the time of the child's birth but were later naturalized.

In such cases, the agency will not automatically grant the residency status these children need for citizenship. Instead, those parents will have to apply for their children's citizenship and prove that they meet the legal requirements. Children of U.S. citizens who do not meet technical residency requirements would also be affected.

The changes do not apply to the majority of children born to two citizens serving abroad.

Nonetheless, because the wording of the changes was not easy to grasp, the new guidance, which came in different stages through the day and had to be clarified by the agency Wednesday afternoon, caused widespread confusion and criticism as word of the change spread through social media.

"My question is No. 1, are we in a new era where basic laws of politics don't matter?" asked Doug Rand, a former Obama White House immigration policy adviser. "In what possible universe does it make sense to make it harder for our service members overseas to do this and who want to serve overseas?"

Citizenship and Immigration Services announced the change on a page on its website, declaring it a USCIS Policy Manual Update. It also issued a fact sheet with some explanation.

In a summary of the change on its web site, the agency said it is trying to bring rules regarding how a child derives citizenship from a U.S. citizen parent in alignment with the Immigration and Naturalization Act and State Department guidance in regards to how citizenship is defined.

Christian Penichet-Paul, policy and advocacy manager for the National Immigration Forum, said his office still was reviewing the change late Wednesday. USCIS did not warn advocates of the change or provide any explainer before issuing it, he said.

"At the moment, it does look like this makes the process for certifying citizenship more onerous and a little more bureaucratic," he said. He said his office was trying to determine what additional steps families may have to take and which form they fill out and what process they use to apply.

He said it appears the new process will require more evidence from parents on the length of their residence in the United States and will no longer be able to count time spent abroad while serving in the military or working for the U.S. government as time in the United States.
Follow NBC Latino on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump administration policy change on children's citizenship causes widespread confusion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Trump administration appears to be making it tougher for some foreign-born children of members of the military and U.S. government employees to get U.S. citizenship. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service quietly issued changes Wednesday to the way a group of these children acquire citizenship.

# data[].attributes.headline
Washington State's New Public Option plan reduce Health care cost?

# data[].attributes.subject
Washington State's New Public Option plan reduce Health care cost?

# data[].attributes.body
Jinhee Kim

This article is about the Washington state government creates health insurance for all with .  I think that this policy may reduce the cost burden of the public, but the state government will likely have to build more revisions and systems for public.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Millions of Americans who buy individual health insurance, and don't qualify for a federal subsidy, have been hit with sticker shock in recent years. Instability and uncertainty in the individual market - driven in part by changes Congress and the Trump administration made to the Affordable Care Act - have resulted in double-digit premium increases.

Now Washington state has passed a law designed to give consumers another choice: a new, "public option" health insurance plan that, in theory, will be cheaper.

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat who's running for president, signed the measure into law on Monday.

"Washington state is leading the nation in a brighter way to provide for the health and security of our families," Inslee said at a bill signing ceremony in the state Capitol in Olympia.

Talk of a public option has been around since before passage of the Affordable Care Act. Generally, the idea is for the government to create a health insurance program to compete with the private marketplace, one that, unlike Medicaid and Medicare, would be available to all.

Washington's embrace of a public option comes as Democratic candidates for president are talking about "Medicare for All" proposals and some states are considering letting people buy in to Medicaid. Washington is thought to be the first state law to authorize the creation of a public insurance plan of this type.

But is Washington's approach to individual health care a true public option?

"It depends on how you define a public option," says Jennifer Tolbert, director of state health reform at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Under Washington's approach, called Cascade Care, the state will not get into the insurance business. Instead, Washington is creating more of a hybrid public-private system where the state will contract with private health insurers to administer the plans, but will control the terms to manage costs. In that sense, says Tolbert, what Washington is creating could be called a state-sponsored plan.

Still, Tolbert says, it's not yet clear how much of a game changer Washington's new health insurance law will be.

"I think we have to wait and see," she says.

Washington state, Tolbert notes, has a history of leading the way on health care by seeking innovative approaches to expand coverage and ensure affordability.

But she also has a reality check for consumers regarding the new Washington law.

"It will likely be a lower-cost option, but [it's] unlikely to be a dramatic savings over what people are paying today, more likely a modest savings," Tolbert says.

Even sponsors of the legislation acknowledge the state plans may save consumers only 5-10% on their premiums.

Democratic state Rep. Eileen Cody, who sponsored the House version of the public option bill in Washington, says that given the climate of rising costs, it's less about bringing prices down than about holding the line on premium increases.

"What we're hoping is the rate that you pay today is what you'll pay when this comes on the market," Cody says.
How it works
Here's how Washington's new law is intended to work.

Starting in 2021, consumers seeking individual coverage will have the option to buy a state-sponsored plan on the Health Benefit Exchange, the state's online insurance marketplace. To keep premium and deductible costs down, the new plans will cap total provider and facility reimbursement rates at 160% of Medicare.

That cap is the keystone of the new law.

"It's the first time that anybody has put a rate cap on a plan and tried to make sure that those people who are buying insurance don't have to pay so much," says Cody.

Another feature of the new law may give consumers some relief from other, out-of-pocket expenses. By 2021, the exchange will create standardized health plans with the goal of lowering deductibles and copays.

The creation of the Cascade Care program, at the request of Gov. Inslee, follows years of volatility and steep premium increases in Washington's individual health insurance market.

Washington state officials say the individual insurance market has been buffeted by a series of actions by the Trump administration and Congress. These include the end of federal reinsurance and cost-sharing payments, as well as the suspension of penalties for individuals who don't buy coverage.

"It's been a triple whammy that's created this bow wave effect in terms of premium increases year-over-year," says Pam MacEwan, CEO of the Washington Health Benefit Exchange.

This year, the state's insurance commissioner approved an average premium increase of 13.8% for plans sold inside the exchange. In 2018, the average rate increase was 36%, a spike attributed in part to President Trump's decision to stop funding cost-sharing reduction assistance.

As premiums have gone up, enrollments have dropped. Between 2018 and 2019, more than 13,000 people left the individual market, according to data provided by Washington's exchange. Today, about 200,000 Washington residents buy their insurance individually.
"Bare counties" have been an issue
Besides affordability, another challenge has been getting insurance companies to offer a choice of plans in all 39 Washington counties. Currently 14 counties offer only one individual health insurance plan option on the exchange. In previous years, the state has scrambled to find even a single carrier to provide coverage in some rural counties and avoid what are known as "bare counties."

The goal of the legislation is to offer public option plans in all 39 counties. But participation by health insurers in Cascade Care will be voluntary, and there's no requirement that they offer statewide coverage.

Democrats, who are the majority in the Washington legislature, embraced the public option this year as a way to increase offerings on the exchange without scaling back required benefits or requiring additional state spending on health care.

"This is going to lower premiums, it's going to have better [out-of-pocket costs] and Washingtonians will be much better off for it," said the bill's prime sponsor, Democratic state Sen. David Frockt of Seattle, on the floor of the state Senate last month.

Republicans in the state legislature opposed Cascade Care and warned of potential unintended consequences.

"We worry that this could distort the market," said state Sen. Steve O'Ban, the ranking Republican on the Senate's Health and Long Term Care Committee.

O'Ban raised the specter that doctors might drop Medicaid patients "to make it work financially to participate in this plan with the lower reimbursement rates."

Under Cascade Care, the state will not subsidize or help cover the cost of premiums beyond federal subsidies that are already available on the exchange based on income levels. However, the new law requires the exchange to study the feasibility of offering state-level subsidies in the future.

"We think initially the consumers that will be most interested in purchasing these plans will be those who don't qualify for subsidies and who are paying the full cost of health care out of their pocket," MacEwan said.

Washington isn't alone in pursuing a public or state-sponsored health insurance option. Last month, Colorado lawmakers approved legislation directing state agencies to develop a proposal for a public health coverage option. Other states, including Connecticut, are also considering public option legislation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Will Washington State's New 'Public Option' Plan Reduce Health Care Costs?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Millions of Americans who buy individual health insurance, and don't qualify for a federal subsidy, have been hit with sticker shock in recent years. Instability and uncertainty in the individual market - driven in part by changes Congress and the Trump administration made to the Affordable Care Act - have resulted in double-digit premium increases.

# data[].attributes.body
Alabama governor signs controversial abortion ban into law but will likely face legal challenges - ABC News - https://abcn.ws/2Jm6Xul via @ABC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed the state's controversial abortion ban into law, though it is expected to face near-immediate legal challenges.

The ban makes it a felony for doctors in the state to perform abortions in all cases, with the only exception being when the life of the mother is threatened.

The law, which was passed by the state's Senate on Tuesday, does not include exceptions in cases of rape or incest.

The original sponsor of the bill when it was in the state's House of Representatives previously said that supporters of the bill expect it to be challenged in the courts, but also hope that happens. Rep. Terri Collins told ABC News that they wrote the bill with the hopes that it will be picked up by the Supreme Court and allow for the landmark federal ruling in Roe v. Wade, which allowed for legal abortions, to be overturned.

In her statement announcing her decision to sign the bill, Ivey points to the fact that the bill "was approved by overwhelming majorities in both chambers" of the state's legislature.

State of Alabama Office of the Governor

"Many Americans, myself included, disagreed when Roe v. Wade was handed down in 1973. The sponsors of this bill believe that it is time, once again, for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit this important matter, and they believe this act may bring about the best opportunity for this to occur. I want to commend the bill sponsors, Rep. Terri Collins and Sen. Clyde Chambliss, for their strong leadership on this important issue," Ivey said in her statement.

According to data compiled by the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, Alabama ranks 47th in terms of female representation, with 15.7% women in their state legislature on the whole.

There are four women in the 35 seats in the state Senate and 18 women in the 105 seats in the House of Representatives.

There have been threats of legal challenges by civil rights groups already. The ACLU of Alabama issued a tweet on Tuesday night, after the state's Senate vote and before the governor signing it into law, saying that they and the national ACLU as well as Planned Parenthood Federation of America "will file a lawsuit to stop this unconstitutional ban."

"Planned Parenthood is ready to fight it in the courts," Dr. Leana Wen, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said on a call with reporters Wednesday morning.

Christopher Aluka Berry/Reuters

Separate from any delays prompted from legal challenges, it will take at least six months for the law to go into effect.

Alabama is just the latest state to put an abortion restriction into law, following Georgia's governor recently signing a so-called "heartbeat" bill into law, making it illegal to have an abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected which can come as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.

ABC NEWS

The so-called "heartbeat" bans have been the more common avenue for states to impose abortion restrictions of late, with four states passing them into law and 13 others introducing or filing similar bills.

The Alabama ban goes further than any such bans, as it does not provide any window of a pregnancy when an abortion is legal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AL governor signs abortion ban into law but will likely face legal challenges

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed the state's controversial abortion ban into law, though it is expected to face near-immediate legal challenges. The ban makes it a felony for doctors in the state to perform abortions in all cases, with the only exception being when the life of the mother is threatened.

# data[].attributes.headline
Michigan Ban on Vaping (State Government

# data[].attributes.subject
Michigan Ban on Vaping (State Government

# data[].attributes.body
Michigan becomes first state to ban flavored e-cigarettes, cites dangers of vaping https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2019/09/04/michigan-bans-flavored-e-cigarettes/2207061001/ via @freep

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CLOSE

Michigan will become the first state in the nation to ban flavored vape products in a move Gov. Gretchen Whitmer says is aimed at protecting youth.

The ban, which will be imposed by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) through direction from Whitmer, prohibits online and retail sales of flavored nicotine vaping products.

The action will not ban unflavored or tobacco-flavored vaping products, according to a spokesperson for Whitmer.

The move comes not by executive order from Whitmer, but through Michigan's administrative rules process, which allows state agencies to create regulations or policies that, once authorized, act as laws.

The vaping ban rule has not yet been filed, but will be effective immediately once complete in a few weeks, Whitmer's spokesperson said. At that point, the ban will last six months, and will give Michigan businesses 30 days to comply.

The ban comes after the MDHHS found that youth vaping constitutes a public health emergency for the state, according to a statement from Whitmer.

"As governor, my number one priority is keeping our kids safe," Whitmer said in a statement. "And right now, companies selling vaping products are using candy flavors to hook children on nicotine and misleading claims to promote the belief that these products are safe. That ends today. Our kids deserve leaders who are going to fight to protect them. These bold steps will finally put an end to these irresponsible and deceptive practices and protect Michiganders' public health."

Last week, MDHHS announced it was investigating six lung infections reported in the Lower Peninsula that were tied to e-cigarette and vape use.

Read more: Michigan investigating 6 lung infections that may be tied to vaping

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control is looking into the national wave of e-cigarette-related lung illnesses that have now affected at least 200 people across 23 states. One person in Illinois has died of the illness.

In 2018, the Food and Drug Administration reported that about 3.62 million middle and high school students used e-cigarettes. A 2013-2014 survey on e-cigarette use found that 81% of young e-cigarette users said the appealing flavor options were a major reason for their use.

Read more: What kind of vape is your kid using and what's in it?

Whitmer's ban also prohibits e-cigarette companies from "misleading marketing of vaping products" by using words like "clear," "safe" or "healthy" to describe their products.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel praised Whitmer's announcement in a statement Wednesday, pledging her department's support in enforcing the coming rules.

"With a more than 1.5 million increase in the number of students using vaping products in just one year, the governor's emergency actions today are exactly the bold measures we must take to protect Michigan's children from the dangerous effects of vaping," Nessel said in a statement.

While the governor's move prompted support from health organizations and fellow Democrats, vaping advocates vow to challenge the ban.

"This shameless attempt at backdoor prohibition will close down several hundred Michigan small businesses and could send tens of thousands of ex-smokers back to deadly combustible cigarettes," American Vaping Association president Gregory Conley said in a statement. "These businesses and their customers will not go down without a fight."

Conley said in the statement that Michigan's action will "create a massive, multimillion dollar black market" for vaping products, and that the American Vaping Association will support any lawsuits against the ban.

State Rep. Beau LaFave, R-Iron Mountain, said that Whitmer was taking away rights from law abiding adults.

"In a dark smoke filled back room, Emperor Whitmer has banned smoking alternatives for adults," he said. "This is a non-democratic process by which Emperor Whitmer has decided to bypass lawmakers to completely ignore the rulemaking process ... and has manufactured a crisis for political gain."

The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association is calling on Michigan residents to call and write Whitmer and state lawmakers in opposition to the ban.

Michigan has already banned sales of e-cigarettes to minors.

The state Senate has decided not to challenge Whitmer's ruling on vaping, said Amber McCann, spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, R-Clarklake.

"The governor has the authority to declare a public health emergency, and then to declare rule in response to that emergency and we do not intend to challenge the governor," McCann said. "The majority leader shares her concerns about the impacts of those products on kids."

Once the emergency rules go into effect, they'll last for six months and Whitmer could renew the vaping ban for another six months. After that, she will either have to go through the formal rules process through the Legislature's Joint Committee on Administrative Rules or ask the Legislature to enact a bill that would enshrine the ban into state law.

"We believe the governor is exercising the authority of her office properly," McCann said. "And with this particular product perhaps the health concerns and the impact on youth outweigh the argument for free trade."

Michigan investigating 6 lung infections that may be tied to vaping

Soon, only 3 Kmart stores will remain in Michigan

Read or Share this story: https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2019/09/04/michigan-bans-flavored-e-cigarettes/2207061001/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Michigan becomes first state to ban flavored e-cigarettes, cites dangers of vaping

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CLOSE Michigan will become the first state in the nation to ban flavored vape products in a move Gov. Gretchen Whitmer says is aimed at protecting youth. The ban, which will be imposed by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) through direction from Whitmer, prohibits online and retail sales of flavored nicotine vaping products.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about state limiting Mag capacity. A standard mag will hold  30 round.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A gunman who killed nine people and injured dozens more in a matter of seconds in Dayton, Ohio, legally obtained his gun and ammunition, according to police.

The speed with which he carried out the massacre drew attention not only to the firearm, but the large capacity ammunition magazines that enabled him to unload 41 rounds in 30 seconds.

Connor Betts opened fire early Sunday using a .223 caliber high-capacity rifle equipped with a 100-round drum magazine, Dayton Police Chief Richard Biehl said.

Betts had a total of 250 rounds in his possession during the shooting, raising fears about how many more lives might have been lost if officers patrolling nearby did not intervene and kill Betts as soon as they did.

Biehl called it "fundamentally problematic" for the gunman to have such a high "level of weaponry in a civilian environment, unregulated."

But only nine states have laws banning large-capacity ammunition magazines, and Ohio is not one of them.

Most states and the District of Columbia enacted those laws in response to mass shootings, said Ari Freilich, a staff attorney with Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Large capacity magazines enable shooters to fire repeatedly without having to reload. They have been a recurring feature in some of the country's deadliest shootings, from Columbine High School in 1999 to Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012 to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018.

The brief pause in action to reload can save lives by giving bystanders or law enforcement a chance to intervene, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

For those who make it through background checks, limiting the amount of ammunition allowed in a magazine is the next line of defense, along with banning certain types of firearms, Freilich said.

"Restricting magazine capacity is probably the single most effective thing we can do to restrict the lethality of mass shootings," Freilich said.

The federal government banned gun owners from owning semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines from 1994 to 2004, until the law expired and lawmakers failed to renew it. Now, they are legal in states without laws setting limits.

What constitutes a large capacity magazine varies among states. California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and the District of Columbia define it as a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds, according to the Giffords Center. In Colorado, it's a magazine capable of holding more than 15 rounds. Vermont law defines it as a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds for use in a long gun or more than 15 rounds for use in a handgun.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nine states ban large-capacity ammunition magazines, but Ohio is not one of them

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A gunman who killed nine people and injured dozens more in a matter of seconds in Dayton, Ohio, legally obtained his gun and ammunition, according to police. The speed with which he carried out the massacre drew attention not only to the firearm, but the large capacity ammunition magazines that enabled him to unload 41 rounds in 30 seconds.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about fiscal year 2020 and its propose plans to raise troops pay. my opinion solider deserve a pay raise  especially for the long hours of work,  dedication behind the job.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
House appropriators backed plans for a 3.1 percent military pay raise next year but cut the White House's end strength request by 2,000 troops in their first draft of the fiscal 2020 Defense Department budget, released Tuesday.

The $690.2 billion plan is about $8 billion below President Donald Trump's ask for next year and rejects his plans to get around mandatory spending caps by shifting almost $100 billion extra into overseas war accounts.

House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., said in a statement that the appropriations measure "rejects the Trump administration's budgetary gimmicks and sleights of hand and instead provides the Defense Department with appropriate resources" to address worldwide threats.

Like the military construction budget approved by the committee last week, the measure also contains language banning the White House from shifting funding for the military "from being stolen for the President's wasteful wall."

The Democrat-authored measure is likely to face fierce opposition from congressional Republicans and Trump himself, who in recent months has touted his higher military funding target as necessary to maintain military readiness and might.

The two sides have also fought over the president's decision to shift billions in funding from military accounts to his southern border wall project, and his request to replace those funds with new monies next year.

In response to that, Democrats are proposing limiting the amount of money the military can shift between accounts for any purpose, from $9.5 billion this year to $1.5 billion in fiscal 2020. Defense officials have warned that such a move could create lengthy bureaucratic waits for routine business.

Thanks for signing up!

One area where the two sides appear to agree is the annual military pay raise. A 3.1 percent increase next January would be the largest for troops since 2010 and would match the federal formula for how annual military salary increases are calculated.

For junior enlisted troops, a 3.1 percent pay raise would to about $815 more a year in pay. For senior enlisted and junior officers, the hike equals about $1,500 more. An O-4 with 12 years service would see more than $2,800 extra next year under the increase.

But the House plan would mandate about 600 fewer active-duty troops overall for the Defense Department next year, instead of Trump's request for a boost of about 1,400 more personnel across the services.

Combined with the reserve forces, the total military end strength would fall to 2,138,300 under the the House Democrats' plan.

Their draft also includes $38 million extra for military Sexual Assault Prevention and Response programs for a total of $297 million, bringing total funding for those efforts to nearly $300 million.

It funds procurement at $142 billion, an increase of $11.4 billion above the White House budget request. That money would buy 90 F-35 aircraft (12 more than the White House asked for) as well as 73 UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters and 14 V-22 aircraft.

For the Navy, the plan calls for $21.7 billion for 11 ships: three DDG-51 guided missile destroyers, two SSN-774 attack submarines, one frigate, one Ford-class aircraft carrier, two oilers, and two ships for towing, salvage, and rescue.

The ground vehicle budget plan includes $249 million above the White House request for 86 30mm cannons and weapon stations for Stryker vehicles, and the upgrade of 165 Abrams tanks.

The committee is expected to vote on the budget plan later this month. The proposal will still have to pass out of the full House before negotiations with Senate appropriators can commence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Democrats' budget plan includes a 3.1 percent pay raise for troops

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
House appropriators backed plans for a 3.1 percent military pay raise next year but cut the White House's end strength request by 2,000 troops in their first draft of the fiscal 2020 Defense Department budget, released Tuesday.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about Georgia Teachers Pay Raises. I feel that teachers do need a pay raise because of their hard work and dedication to teaching their students.

Summa Holland

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SAVANNAH, GA (WTOC) -Some good news for teachers in Georgia: They and other certified school employees will see a $3,000 raise under the $27.5 billion spending proposal headed to Governor Brian Kemp's desk.

The 2020 general budget, which will begin July 1, was agreed on Friday by the state House and Senate.

Of the $611 million added over last year's budget, nearly 90% will go to the teacher pay raises. Other school employees including school bus drivers, cafeteria workers, and janitors will receive a 2% increase for a total cost of $2.8 million.

The budget also includes funding for new school buses and for grants that public schools can use to improve school safety. Claxton High School says school safety is one of the important things that they have invested in. One teacher says investing in Georgia teachers equals investing in students in our school systems.

"It is something that would be an incentive to teachers," said Channa Robinson. "It would give us more money and incentive to do a better job of investing in our future kids and our students."

Copyright 2019 WTOC. All rights reserved.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teachers to recieve $3,000 raise in 2020 Georgia spending bill

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SAVANNAH, GA (WTOC) -Some good news for teachers in Georgia: They and other certified school employees will see a $3,000 raise under the $27.5 billion spending proposal headed to Governor Brian Kemp's desk. The 2020 general budget, which will begin July 1, was agreed on Friday by the state House and Senate.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump about-face on Affordable Care Act 

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump about-face on Affordable Care Act 

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about the Controversial of Trump and Obama Care.

Summa Holland

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, were a cat, it would be just about out of its nine lives.

It is amazing that this law, which represented a sea change in how we provide care to almost everyone in the country, has survived all the challenges so far, including two cases before the Supreme Court and untold efforts by Republicans in Congress to overturn the law.

The move by the Trump administration on March 25 to basically say that the law should be thrown out entirely might be the final blow.

Here's what happened. In December 2018, a federal district judge in Texas ruled that the individual mandate in the ACA, which requires people to buy health insurance or face a penalty, is unconstitutional. Judge Reed O'Connor then stretched to say that the entire law is unconstitutional. Many health policy experts shrugged off the ruling as mere political man euvering. The next decision is expected to come from a federal appeals court in New Orleans, possibly in the summer.

But the Trump administration tightened its stranglehold on March 25. The Justice Department, which typically defends the law of the land, said it cared nothing about defending this law. In a two-sentence letter, the Justice Department said it would not urge "that any portion of the district court's judgment be reversed."

Read: Trump asks courts to outlaw 'Obamacare' while claiming GOP as the 'party of health care'

As a former CEO of a health insurance company and longtime researcher of this industry, I see trouble ahead not just for individuals but the vast network of companies that are part of the health care economy.

An expensive system

The U.S. spends more on health care than any other country, has more highly paid professionals and better equipped facilities and, for the last few years, almost as much access as our peers. But the constant assault on the ACA has had its effect, especially on self-employed individuals and small businesses.

Both of these have seen increases in out-of-pocket costs that were completely due to legal and regulatory changes to the original act. It looks to me as if these changes were designed to drive this subgroup of job creators to the poorhouse and into the arms of politicians who never wanted this in the first place and would do whatever it took to eliminate it.

Insurance is all about risk: how to manage and spread it among all the parties so that each one is covered when the need arises. The "affordable" in the ACA was only about the out-of-pocket cost that each party could absorb after paying for essentials. The subsidies the law provided were designed to reduce the premium that competitive insurers had to charge to a net level of no more than 2% of disposable income for people at the poverty level and 9.5% at the top.

But that risk-sharing structure has fallen apart. Ongoing challenges in the courts, the federal government defaulting on what insurers were promised, cuts in marketing and assistance, and elimination of measures designed to get everyone in the pool have forced insurers to cover their monumentally higher risks with much higher premiums.

To low-income individuals, this is hardly noticeable, since the subsidies from the government simply rose enough to cover the higher premiums.

But for higher-income people buying on the exchanges, this has been disastrous.

In effect, the Republicans have made Obamacare look like an extended version of Medicaid with the poor protected by subsidies. But those with higher income had to bear the price for these changes through higher premiums not offset by subsidies. Congress also invited people to leave the exchanges by eliminating the tax people would owe if they did not buy insurance.

While it may be laudable that the country still supports those with little means of payment, it is at the price of driving entrepreneurs and successful individuals out of the market.

Read: House Democrats are introducing legislation to rescue the Affordable Care Act

Danger ahead?

Now to add insult to injury, the Texas court has held that without the tax penalty eliminated by the recent cut in taxes, the mandate requiring individuals to purchase coverage is void. The ruling is a logical extension of the debate about whether the government can compel a citizen to pay for health care plans.

But then to strike down the whole ACA is, in my opinion, an enormous reach that does damage far beyond concern over whether the exchanges are valid.

I believe there would be an uprising if people knew this means that insurers can go back to denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and selling worthless plans to uninformed people; that the largest funding to address the opioid crisis, the Medicaid expansion, would disappear; that their local hospital may have to close due to skyrocketing bad debts; and that individual bankruptcies would once again hit record levels as bill collectors return in force.

Read: Obamacare has been great for women's health

In addition, more subtle improvements in the way we provide health care would be in jeopardy. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation has fostered major changes in how we organize care and improve quality through their payment incentives. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute that compares alternative treatment to see what is best would disappear.

And even the collection of quality measures that have let us see who is best and provided a guide to our choices would be in question. In other words, the wholesale elimination of the ACA would take us back to a more primitive time and place.

The Obamacare cat with nine lives may soon be gasping for breath. The ensuing chaos would be enormous to investors in health-care businesses, suppliers to the industry, professionals and support staff of providers, medical schools and training programs, and local businesses which depend on them.

Rex Nutting: Trump gives the momentum back to Democrats by trying again to kill Obamacare

But even worse would be the loss of almost 10 years of attention to the patient as the center of care and improved coordination that the ACA has fostered. I really don't think we as a country want to go back. The price is far too high for a few political points that one side might score in the short term. As those who thought Brexit was a good idea are learning, disruptive change to a whole economic and social system is a very dangerous game to play.

J.B. Silvers is a professor of health finance at the Weatherhead School of Management & School of Medicine at Case Western Reserve University. This was first published on The Conversation - "DOJ efforts to kill Obamacare, the cat with 9 lives, could cause health care havoc for millions".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump about-face on Affordable Care Act court case would damage health-care innovation, this ex-health insurance CEO says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, were a cat, it would be just about out of its nine lives. It is amazing that this law, which represented a sea change in how we provide care to almost everyone in the country, has survived all the challenges so far, including two cases before the Supreme Court and untold efforts by Republicans in Congress to overturn the law.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/07/us/heartbeat-bill-georgia.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.washingtonpost.com/national/in-alabama--where-lawmakers-banned-abortion-for-rape-victims--rapists-parental-rights-are-protected/2019/06/09/6d2aa5de-831b-11e9-933d-7501070ee669_story.html%3foutputType=amp

These are some of controversial abortion laws that have recently been passed in some states. They are good examples of how certain state laws can cause such controversy.

# data[].attributes.body
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/22/politics/abortion-laws-blue-state-red-state-divide/index.html?utm_source=twCNNp&utm_medium=social&utm_term=image&utm_content=2019-06-23T11%3A36%3A05

This shows how different states have different policies regarding the same issue, with some states having the same ideology as the president and others opposing it.

# data[].attributes.body
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/19/politics/house-blocks-funding-trump-transgender-military-ban/index.html

Congress used its power to block funding for the president's transgender military ban. Military issues are issues at the national level.

# data[].attributes.headline
Here’s why troops are poised for their biggest pay raise in nine years

# data[].attributes.subject
Here’s why troops are poised for their biggest pay raise in nine years

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.militarytimes.com/pay-benefits/2018/05/22/troops-poised-for-their-biggest-pay-raise-in-nine-years/#.XRAujX2IX-w.twitter

Jihong Ma
Congress is ready to give troops a pay raise. Supporting military, or raising an army, is the responsibility of national power.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.internations.org/usa-expats/guide/29461-family-children-education/marriage-in-the-united-states-16286?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=share_button&utm_term=article_expat_magazine

Jihong Ma
Marriage laws in the US are constituted by different individual states, not the national government.

# data[].attributes.body
This shows how Colorado has benefitted from the taxation of marijuana legalization.  Marijuana is only legal at the state level and not yet at the federal.

The state of marijuana 5 years after legalization in Colo. https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/its-been-5-years-since-recreational-marijuana-was-legalized-in-colorado-heres-where-the-tax-money-stands

# data[].attributes.body
It is constitutional for State and Federal government to confiscate land for public use with compensation.

Perspective | States battle the federal government for control of public lands. They both have long trampled on Native American rights. http://wapo.st/2yJmq2S?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.01d1fe916c95

# data[].attributes.body
Mexico aims to avoid tariffs with potential deal limiting migrants going north

Jialin Luan
Mexican and US officials are discussing deal that would dramatically increase immigration enforcement in Mexico w/National Guard, and transform asylum rules across entire region by making applicants seek refuge in first country they arrive to

# data[].attributes.body
To Make Headway on Climate Change, Let’s Change the Subject

Jialin Luan
States point to the economic advantages of cleaning up their electric grids.

# data[].attributes.body
Chidozie Onyeze
New Jersey wins supreme court case that gives them the right to allow betting at sporting events over federal ban.

# data[].attributes.body
Chidozie Onyeze
Court Judge rules that ACA Contraceptive Mandate goes against religious freedoms

# data[].attributes.body
Jack Brunet
Although marijuana is federally illegal, the state of New York has decriminalized possession from being a crime to being a finable violation.

# data[].attributes.body
Jack Brunet
Congress passed new laws limiting federal authority in marijuana legal states.

# data[].attributes.body
Holly Joyner Serpico
Although stealing mail is a federal crime, the state of Texas has increased the state punishment to include up to 10 years in prison.

# data[].attributes.body
Holly Joyner Serpico
Immigration is a federal issue, but could the states step in and improve the living conditions for these children?