# data[].attributes.body
- Aug. 4 (huge explosions at the port of Beirut, Lebanon, killing more than 200)
- Aug. 20 (Kamala Harris accepts nomination for VP)
- Aug. 28 (Chadwick Boseman death)
- Sep. 9 (Orange skies in Bay Area)
- Oct. 2 (President Donald Trump announces that he tested positive for COVID-19)
- Oct. 27 (US Senate confirms Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court after RBG's passing)
- Nov. 7 (Joe Biden declared winner of the Presidential race, four days after the US election)
- Dec. 21 (US begins vaccinating for COVID)
- Jan. 6 (US Capitol storm)
- February (Texas winter storm)
- Apr. 20 (Derek Chauvin convicted of the murder of George Floyd)

# data[].attributes.body
For the first time since COVID started, the UK reported zero daily deaths on June 1, 2021.
- positive because it indicates the vaccine is working despite the new UK or India variants of COVID
- positive because no one died which is always good
- the impact is that the UK could be improving in health even though they do get new cases everyday and it indicates that the COVID-19 pandemic could be close to an end in multiple areas besides the US

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"But despite this undoubtedly good news we know we haven't beaten this virus yet, and with cases continuing to rise please remember hands, face, space and let in fresh air when indoors, and of course, make sure when you can you get both jabs."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Covid: Zero daily deaths announced in UK for first time

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"But despite this undoubtedly good news we know we haven't beaten this virus yet, and with cases continuing to rise please remember hands, face, space and let in fresh air when indoors, and of course, make sure when you can you get both jabs."

# data[].attributes.body
I think both Democrats and Republicans make valid points arguing for or against statehood. DC citizens are taxed but yet have no representation in the legislative chambers, but adding DC would skew the chambers into a Democratic majority. I don't think DC should be a state because in essence, DC is just a large "city". Puerto Rico should be a state if it's already a US territory, but giving DC statehood is like giving New York or Los Angeles statehood, which has WAY more people living in it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - House and Senate Democrats introduced legislation Wednesday that would make Washington, D.C., the 51st state.

The measure was reintroduced by Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., in the House and its companion has been unveiled by Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., in the Senate. As of Tuesday evening, Norton said that she had more than 200 co-sponsors in the House.

"There's never been a time when statehood for the District was more likely," Norton said in a statement, adding the bill was passed by the House last year for the first time and now has a "record" 202 cosponsors. With the Senate companion bill also gaining cosponsors, "we're ready to achieve voting representation and full local self-government for the 712,000+ residents of the District of Columbia," she said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., have committed to bringing the bill to the floor for a vote, Norton said. She added that with Democrats in the majority in the House and the Senate, and with with President Joe Biden's support, "This is the time we can finally correct this historic injustice and give D.C. residents the same rights as other taxpaying Americans."

While the bill could pass again in the House, which remains in Democratic control, its chances of clearing the Senate are nil. Democrats control the 50-50 split Senate because Vice President Kamala Harris can cast tie-breaking votes. But Democrats would need to overcome a filibuster, requiring 60 votes, for the legislation to pass, meaning they would need at least 10 Republicans to join them. Many GOP lawmakers have expressed opposition to statehood for D.C. because its congressional representation would almost certainly be Democratic.

Carper, however, said in a statement that D.C. statehood isn't "a Republican or Democratic issue."

"It's an American issue because the lack of fair representation given to the residents of D.C. is inconsistent with the values on which this country was founded," he said. "It is therefore incumbent upon all of us who enjoy the right and the privilege of full voting rights and representation to take up the cause of our fellow citizens in the District of Columbia."

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser applauded the move Wednesday.

"Generations of Washingtonians have been denied the right to participate in our democracy - to have their voices and votes heard in Congress, to help shape the future of our nation, and to have a say on Supreme Court justices," she wrote on Twitter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Democrats introduce bill to make Washington, D.C., the 51st state

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - House and Senate Democrats introduced legislation Wednesday that would make Washington, D.C., the 51st state. The measure was reintroduced by Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., in the House and its companion has been unveiled by Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., in the Senate.

# data[].attributes.body
- The recording of the "George Floyd" police brutality case changed our world last summer in 2020.
- From the military coming into our cities, looting, peaceful protests, and the world collectively mobililzing against racial inequality, the George Floyd case has brought both its pros and cons.
- Pros: made people more "racially aware", opened our eyes to the issue, pushing for empathy and police reform, keeping our politicians accountable
- Cons: lots of hurt and pain, divided America even more, vilified Liberals
- Derek Chauvin was charged with murder and put in jail

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At least six people have been killed in violence connected to the protests that started after Mr. Floyd died in police custody.

# data[].attributes.body
In Alaska, it's illegal to get drunk in the bar. According to state laws, you can come in if you are already drunk, but cannot stay if you become drunk. I guess this limits drinking... but it's kind of a law that does not make sense if eventually people will get tipsy or drunk if they drink in a bar which is what a bar is made for.

# data[].attributes.headline
W6: CURRENT SUPREME CASE (NCAA vs. ALSTON 2021)

# data[].attributes.subject
W6: CURRENT SUPREME CASE (NCAA vs. ALSTON 2021)

# data[].attributes.body
- The NCAA has long argued that antitrust law permits them to restrict athlete compensation to promote competitive equity
- D1 athletes filed a lawsuit arguing that the NCAA must allow for certain types of academic benefits
- District court held that the NCAA may still limit cash or cash-equivalent awards for academic purposes
- Practices violated antitrust law, but the NCAA wants to preserve "amateurism"
- court decision: pending

# data[].attributes.headline
W6: LANDMARK SUPREME CASE (LOVING VS. VIRGINIA 1967)

# data[].attributes.subject
W6: LANDMARK SUPREME CASE (LOVING VS. VIRGINIA 1967)

# data[].attributes.body
- In 1958, two residents of Virginia were married in DC but returned to Virginia
- The interracial couple was charged with violating the state's antimiscegenation statute
- Lovings were found guilty and sentenced to a year in jail
- In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the Virginia Law violated the due process and equal protection clause
- Impact: ruled that interracial marriages should not be infringed by the state

# data[].attributes.body
The issue is about "defunding the police" and the article comes from the more "conservative" side explaining how police are important and removing police would actually affect marginalized communities more. The article acknowledges the standpoint of the other side, but thinks more logically. This is evident because of the author's stances on reform, accountability, and their faith in "people" rather than the system itself.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The movement to defund the police is wrong, and here's why

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the days following the brutal killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police and the subsequent protests across the country, activists are calling for defunding the police as a solution to systematic institutionalized racism in America. Here is why we should not defund the police. Major reforms are underway.

# data[].attributes.body
Here, the issue is about the movement to "defund the police" which was a big issue discussed last year around the Black Lives Matter movement in the summer. The perspective here is of a more "liberal" one where they want to defund the police and reinvest into more mental health initiatives. In this opinion column, there is so much "charged" language that skews it toward the liberal perspective suggesting that the foundations of the police are racist, violent, and oppressive serving to generalize all police. The author claims that reform is not working and would rather "dismantle" the whole system.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The history of police forces in America is rooted in systemic racism and oppression.

Therefore it is time to radically reshape policing across the US, including "defunding the police."

This means we should reduce the budget of police departments and instead redirect those funds to social services and community projects.

This will make a more equitable system and reduce police violence in this country.

Ashish Prashar is a justice reform campaigner, who sits on the Board of Exodus Transitional Community, Getting Out and Staying Out, and the Responsible Business Initiative for Justice.

This is an opinion column. The thoughts expressed are those of the author.

Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

The nationwide protests over the killing of George Floyd and the violent police response to peaceful protesters has made it clear to more Americans what many have known for a long time: in many cases police officers are not in our communities to protect and serve, but to punish and abuse without fear of consequence.

There is only one answer to fix a system so deeply and structurally racist and violent: reduce the role of the police in society and replace them with a system that seeks justice through peace.

This means reducing the amount our governments spend on police and instead investing in alternative, community-based resources to take over the jobs we have inexplicably handed to police.

We need a system that does not use violence and brutality as a response to warranted insurrection. In other words: we need to defund the police.

The history of American police

In order to address why policing needs to be dismantled, it's important to know the oppressive history and roots of policing in America.

Many Americans don't know that local US police forces began as slave patrols prior to the Civil War and after the war, evolved into community forces that terrorize and 'control' Black people, immigrants and the poor, while showing a different side to white Americans.

George Floyd's killing has shone a spotlight on this - along with the deaths of Breonna Taylor and many more. Police in the US killed over 1,000 people last year. 24% of these people were Black, despite Black people making up 13% of the overall population.

And it's important to remember that this police violence we're now seeing broadcast across our social channels has been our nation's status quo pre-cellphone camera, we're just now seeing it.

Our system also absolves law enforcement from repercussions when it comes to the harm they inflict on Black people. The Supreme Court has even ruled that police agencies are not obligated to provide protection of citizens. Pause here with me and let that sink in: under federal law, police agencies are not obligated to provide protection of citizens.

Police are also freed from public accountability via union contracts that preemptively trade away rules and accountability mechanisms with which every other citizen must comply. After incidents like the killing of George Floyd, it is clear that all of these problems I've outlined and many more need to change.

Community first

The only way we're going to stop this endless cycle of police violence is by creating alternatives and reinvesting police funding (often spent on their militarization) into programs that work to build stronger communities. It is our responsibility as citizens to play an active role in that goal.

We spend $100 billion annually on policing in this country By decreasing that budget and funneling that money into communities, we can build youth and family programs that provide learning environments for young people, conflict resolution spaces, and emotional and mental health support for families.

Municipalities can further protect their communities by replacing police officers as respondents to certain kinds of emergencies, including but not limited to, substance abuse, domestic violence, homelessness or mental health-related cases in official protocols. Healthcare workers or emergency-response teams are better equipped to handle these incidents.

Emergency calls reporting drug overdoses ought to be met by healthcare teams; with a smaller police response assisting if called upon by healthcare teams. Restorative-justice teams or violence interrupters can mediate situations where no public safety is being threatened.

Community leadership is much better placed to care for their members and their block rather than outside police forces. And with fair and equitable changes to laws, protocols, and funding recipients, our communities can actually become welcoming, strong and safe spaces for Black people.

Those who say the police reform is inconceivable need to do their homework.

Look at Washington DC, where programs like Violence Interrupters are in place. Staff members rely on personal outreach for information about potential violence and then mediate and diffuse. The aim is not to penalize, but to stop violent crimes before they begin.

Meanwhile in Durham, NC, the city invested in life-affirming services, not an unjustified expansion of the police force. This came after activists successfully campaigned for zero police expansion.

The city of Dallas is pioneering a crisis system where social workers will respond to 911 calls involving mental health emergencies, and in another major Texas city, the Austin Justice Coalition is advocating for a similar shift in protocol - emergency medical services should respond to mental health calls, instead of the police.

Police forces across the US have invested in training, de-escalation tactics and community engagement. And yet, in cities in every single state in America, communities are taking to the streets, enraged that they are still harassed and abused by the very parts of society we are told are in place to protect us.

Efforts to change the police are not working. It's clear that the time of the police, a force rooted in slavery, must be over - this country must start to understand how it can move from oppression and into progress.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The history of police forces in America is rooted in systemic racism and oppression. Therefore it is time to radically reshape policing across the US, including "defunding the police." This means we should reduce the budget of police departments and instead redirect those funds to social services and community projects.

# data[].attributes.body
A law should be to veto or eliminate the tampon tax permanently or to allow greater accessibility to menstrual products for women in public spaces. It is so unnecessary to treat a tampon/pad as a "luxury" item when women need it every month for the majority of their life and this helps combat period poverty.

# data[].attributes.headline
W3: "Wyoming sheriffs in standoff over Second Amendment bill" 

# data[].attributes.subject
W3: "Wyoming sheriffs in standoff over Second Amendment bill" 

# data[].attributes.body
If this legislation is passed, a federal entity could take away a firearm from a peace officer in order to keep them accountable. However, they argue that this is an infringement on the 2nd Amendment which is the right to hold and bear arms.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SUNDANCE - All 23 of Wyoming's sheriffs have registered alarm at the damage a bill under consideration by the Legislature could do to policing in this state. Though the Second Amendment Preservation Act (House Bill 124/Senate File 81) is intended to be pro-Second Amendment, said Crook County Sheriff Jeff Hodge, its implications are strongly anti-law enforcement.

"It's not intended to be anti-law enforcement, but it is," he said. "The intention was good but they need to talk to peace officers and prosecutors."

If the legislation is passed, the sheriff said, it could turn an ordinary arrest into a career-ending decision for a peace officer. While it does little to protect the average citizen and removes a protection that peace officers rely on, he said it only provides protection for one particular group: criminals.

The intent of the Second Amendment Preservation Act is to prevent firearms from being confiscated by federal entities due to federal laws that may be passed in the future, and it does this by holding state law enforcement officers accountable. However, while the sheriffs may have no issue with this as a concept, they feel the wording is extremely flawed.

The first section of concern states that no person, including a peace officer, shall have the authority to enforce any federal law or ordinance that infringes on a person's right to keep and bear arms. Anyone who knowingly violates this or knowingly deprives a resident of Wyoming of their Second Amendment rights shall be liable for this action.

The second concerning section states that anyone who does so shall be "permanently ineligible to serve as a law enforcement officer" and immediately terminated from their position. The bill removes "qualified immunity," a legal principle by which an officer is immune from civil suits unless the plaintiff can show they violated statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable person would have known.

According to Hodge, Wyoming's sheriffs were not consulted about this wording. Those involved in law enforcement on the ground could quickly have explained the problematic implications.

In a real-life situation where a crime has been committed, Hodge explains that a peace officer may seize a firearm, as evidence or to prevent further harm from being inflicted, for example. However, if the case becomes federal and the gun owner is ultimately not convicted of any crime and thus remains a law-abiding citizen, that decision would lead to the officer losing his job.

"Everything you're doing, you're always going to have that in the back of your mind," Hodge said.

"This could actually inhibit law enforcement from doing our job," he continued. "It's going to make it to where we don't want to seize a firearm in any case for an investigation because, if they are found not guilty, you've violated the statute and are ineligible to be in law enforcement."

While the bill is intended to address situations in which federal laws are applied, it's not exactly unusual for federal law enforcement to become involved in local cases.

"There are so many circumstances that we already work with federal law enforcement: child pornography cases, aggravated assault, child trafficking," Hodge said. "They might originate locally, but they can expand outside of our jurisdiction so we automatically look for federal officers to partner with."

Another example of how problematic this legislation could become involves self-defense, said Hodge. If one person shoots another in self-defense, an officer is going to seize that firearm for evidence until the investigation is complete.

"If the investigation is completed and it turns out to be self-defense, you have just taken a firearm from a law-abiding citizen. You are law-abiding until you have been convicted," he said.

"If it ends up going to court and he's found not guilty, he's still a law-abiding citizen so (the officer who seized the firearm) has violated the statute."

What are the implications of this for peace officers? It's not difficult to imagine a scenario in which an officer feels reluctant to seize a firearm even in a potential murder case, as doing so could ultimately bring an end to their career if that person is not convicted.

"Even though we have probable cause to arrest, it can still get to court and be dismissed," he said.

In a letter from all 23 sheriffs to the Wyoming Legislature, this is described as an "impossible dilemma."

"For example, we could normally seize a firearm as part of a local case and turn the firearm over to federal entities for prosecution. These cases run the gamut of aggravated robbery, child pornography and various dangerous drug investigations," states the letter.

The letter also expresses concern over the stripping of qualified immunity. "To punish and hold liable a peace officer who seizes a weapon which is later returned, is wrong," it states.

An officer having qualified immunity doesn't mean citizens have no protections, Hodge explained. Right now, if an officer were to violate someone's rights intentionally, that person would have every right to sue.

"It protects us when it's an unknowing violation of an unknown constitutional right," he said. "In other words, it hasn't been decided by courts or it's under good faith. This could open up the floodgates for lawsuits and anti-law enforcement groups."

The knock-on effects of this legislation would be immense, the sheriff said, from the huge increases in insurance costs thanks to the lawsuits that would inevitably be initiated, to the impacts on recruitment.

"You aren't going to be able to recruit because nobody is going to want to be in law enforcement," he said.

The House version of the bill is co-sponsored by 13 representatives, as well as six senators. Hodge is concerned the bill will be passed exactly as it stands due to the fear of being labelled "anti-Second Amendment."

"The thought now that you're hearing from legislators is that, if they don't sign on to these bills, they're automatically anti-Second Amendment, which is just absurd," Hodge said. "Surely we can do good legislation and protect Second Amendment Rights and be pro-law enforcement (all at the same time)."

Hodge does not believe effective legislation can be achieved by catering to special-interest groups only.

"Good legislation comes from everybody discussing, debating and at times compromising," he said. "Being bullied into signing legislation over fear of special-interest groups that likely do not have the best interests of Wyoming citizens in mind and are often not even from Wyoming should be very concerning to Wyoming citizens."

The Second Amendment Preservation Act isn't the only piece of legislation Hodge finds concerning. He also has issues with HB-117, which would prohibit a private property owner from restricting firearms on his property. Again, the intention of this seems to be the protection of Second Amendment rights, but Hodge believes the practical implications haven't been well thought through.

"If you own a restaurant, you can't prohibit someone from walking in there with an AK-47 and sitting down to eat," he said. "You can't restrict someone from coming on your private property with a firearm on."

It's an attack on private property rights, Hodge said, and would collide the constitutional rights of one person with those of another. Which would take precedent is something the courts would have to decide.

"As I've always said, your rights don't trump another person's rights," he said.

Another bill on the horizon would repeal gun-free zones on school property. Hodge said he's not a huge supporter of "gun-free zone" signs at schools but, on the other hand, doesn't think the kids of Crook County would particularly enjoy playing in a junior high basketball game while feeling intimidated by someone sitting on the sidelines with a rifle slung over their shoulder.

"Because they can, somebody will," Hodge said. "I think there can be some type of compromise that could address the issue of gun-free school zones and regulating school buildings."

There's surely common ground on the issue of protecting Second Amendment rights while allowing law enforcement to do its job, he said, but it isn't going to be found in the legislation that's currently on the table.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Sarah Pridgeon Sundance Times Via Wyoming News Exchange

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Wyoming sheriffs in stand-off over Second Amendment bill

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SUNDANCE - All 23 of Wyoming's sheriffs have registered alarm at the damage a bill under consideration by the Legislature could do to policing in this state. Though the Second Amendment Preservation Act (House Bill 124/Senate File 81) is intended to be pro-Second Amendment, said Crook County Sheriff Jeff Hodge, its implications are strongly anti-law enforcement.

# data[].attributes.headline
W3: "Student Editor Sues Over Directive Muting Kansas Newspaper" 

# data[].attributes.subject
W3: "Student Editor Sues Over Directive Muting Kansas Newspaper" 

# data[].attributes.body
The university of Haskell Indian Nations University was found violating the first Amendment as it tried to silence a student newspaper. The 1st Amendment includes the freedom of speech and of the press.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
LAWRENCE, Kan. (AP) - The student newspaper editor at Haskell Indian Nations University filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday alleging the university and its president violated the First Amendment rights of the students by retaliating against them for engaging in protected speech and journalistic activities.

The lawsuit stems from a directive Haskell's president, Ronald Graham, sent in October to Jared Nally, editor of The Indian Leader, instructing him not to contact any government agency for information while representing the paper or "attack" any student, faculty member or staff in copy.

"That directive forbade regular acts of journalism and restricted free speech expression, and the purpose of the lawsuit is to reaffirm that Haskell students have that," Nally told the Lawrence Journal-World.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a nonprofit that aims to protect free speech rights on college campuses, filed the lawsuit on his behalf. In addition to the university and its president, the lawsuit also names as defendants the Bureau of Indian Education and its director.

Graham and a spokesperson for the Bureau of Indian Education did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In January, Graham walked back his directive and acknowledged in a letter that he "took an incorrect approach."

Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Student Editor Sues Over Directive Muting Kansas Newspaper

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The student newspaper editor at Haskell Indian Nations University filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday alleging the university and its president violated the First Amendment rights of the students by retaliating against them for engaging in protected speech and journalistic activities.

# data[].attributes.body
- The President vetoed the NDAA
- In a surprise decision, the Senate voted to overturn his veto with 2/3rds vote of each chamber
- The President exercised his power over the Legislative Branch, but the Legislative Branch used the same power to overpower the President

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In a first, Congress overrides Trump veto of defense bill

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON (AP) - Congress on Friday overrode President Donald Trump's veto of a defense policy bill, a first by lawmakers since he took office nearly four years ago, ensuring that the measure becomes law...

# data[].attributes.body
Nowadays, while mental health is emphasized, many Asian families are not "used" to having open conversations on mental health. This needs to change to have a healthy, open discussion because the ignorance of spiritual/mental health is too prevalent in our homes.

# data[].attributes.body
As a child of a pastor, my Christian faith holds great importance to me as it informs my worldview and defines my other values such as kindness and compassion.

# data[].attributes.body
After the riot on January 6th, Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives. However, he was bailed out by the Senate which failed to convict him on charges of inciting violence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The U.S. Senate on Saturday acquitted former President Donald Trump on an impeachment charge of inciting an insurrection.

The acquittal comes more than a month after a mob of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol as lawmakers were counting the electoral results that certified Trump's loss. Five people died in the riot, including a police officer. Two other officers later killed themselves.

A majority of senators voted to convict Trump - 57 to 43, including seven Republicans. But two-thirds, or 67 votes, was needed to convict. It was the second time Trump was acquitted in an impeachment trial.

The seven GOP senators who voted to convict Trump on Saturday were: Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Trump is the first president in U.S. history to be impeached by the House twice, and the first to be tried for impeachment after leaving office.

The verdict closes the book on this Trump presidency, though the Senate, by not convicting and barring him from holding public office in the future, left open the possibility that Trump, a 74-year-old Republican, could run again for president.

In a narrowly divided Senate, the outcome of the trial, which lasted a little less than a week, was largely expected, though it very nearly was extended potentially by weeks. Impeachment managers began Saturday with a surprise, saying they had decided to call a witness, Washington Republican Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler.

After the defense rested Friday, Herrera Beutler issued a statement detailing - again - that Trump had gotten into a shouting match with Republican House leader Kevin McCarthy during the riot, telling him, "Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are."

The Senate then voted to allow witnesses, and Trump's lawyers threatened to call dozens. Both sides eventually agreed to enter Herrera Beutler's statement into the record and move on.

The heart of Trump's legal team's argument was supposed to be that theSenate did not have jurisdiction to take up the trial of a former federal official. That was certainly part of it and wasa message that resonated with the overwhelming majority of GOP senators.

In a vote on the first day of the trial, for example, 44 Republicans voted to say it was unconstitutional for the Senate to try a president after he left office. That's despite a 145-year-old precedent in which the Senate voted that it was constitutional to try a former Cabinet official for impeachment.

The constitutionality argument allowed many Republican senators to sidestep the merits of the case against Trump. That's even though the lead impeachment manager, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., on Thursday closed his side's arguments by imploring senators that the constitutionality of the trial had been resolved by the earlier vote.

Trump's lawyers, however, did not stick to a narrow constitutional argument. Instead, they accused Democrats of using the impeachment process for partisan gain and of trying to disenfranchise the people who voted for Trump's reelection. The defense declined to provide evidence of what the president knew about the violence, when he knew it and what he did about it.

The Democratic House impeachment managers argued that the former president, who addressed a rally outside the White House ahead of the insurrection, was "singularly responsible" for the violence on Jan. 6.

They relied, in large measure, on video to prove their case, including never-before-seen Capitol security footage. The videos showed on the Senate floor during what was an, at times, emotional trial brought back the vivid images of the Capitol violence to the very place it happened.

The video demonstrated how close rioters came to then-Vice President Mike Pence and members of Congress. And the impeachment managers argued that the video showed clearly that the mob of pro-Trump supporters was there for the president, and many believed they were there at the president's behest.

The impeachment managers, however, made a broader case than Trump's comments on Jan. 6. They argued that Trump laid the groundwork for false grievance on the part of his supporters with two months of baseless claims of widespread election fraud that cost him the electionand years, in fact, of tolerating, condoning and encouraging violence.

Trump's lawyers largely sidestepped Trump's false claims of election fraud. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., asked during the question-and-answer session: "Are the prosecutors right when they claim that Trump was telling a big lie, or in your judgment did Trump actually win the election?"

Trump lawyer Michael van der Veen shot back, "My judgment? Who asked that?"

"I did," Sanders replied.

"My judgment is irrelevant," van der Veen said.

"You represent the president of the United States!" Sanders yelled back before Sen. Patrick Leahy, the presiding officer, gaveled the chamber back to order.

Trump's rhetoric about widespread fraud and a stolen election was false, dismissed by many courts stemming from dozens of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and allies across several key states.

Trump's legal team also argued that his Jan. 6 rally speech was protected by the First Amendment, a contention that impeachment managers labeled ludicrous. This, after all was an impeachment trial, not a criminal proceeding. An impeachment trial is a political process intended to judge whether an official was upholding their oath of office and a standard of conduct.

With his second acquittal, Trump now plots his next steps in political and public life. Yet he is also contending with potential legal trouble stemming from a New York grand jury investigation and a newly announced criminal probe in Georgia.

That's in addition to Trump's mounting debt and devalued assets. The former president's net worth also dropped $1 billion in early 2020, according to Forbes.

Trump has been able to spin difficulties in his business and personal life before, and the country waits to see if has a next, and perhaps final, act.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Senate Acquits Trump In Impeachment Trial - Again

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. Senate on Saturday acquitted former President Donald Trump on an impeachment charge of inciting an insurrection. The acquittal comes more than a month after a mob of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol as lawmakers were counting the electoral results that certified Trump's loss.

# data[].attributes.headline
W1: “California Will Revise Indoor Church Guidelines After Ruling” (NBC)

# data[].attributes.subject
W1: “California Will Revise Indoor Church Guidelines After Ruling” (NBC)

# data[].attributes.body
After two federal court cases, it was ruled that indoor church services guidelines could be revised among mounting pressure on the governor of California, Gavin Newsom, to do so.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
California Gov. Gavin Newsom's office said Saturday it will issue revised guidelines for indoor church services after the Supreme Court lifted the state's ban on indoor worship during the coronavirus pandemic, but left in place restrictions on singing and chanting.

In the most significant legal victory against California's COVID-19 health orders, the high court issued rulings late Friday in two cases where churches argued the restrictions violated their religious liberty. The justices said for now California can't continue with a ban on indoor church services, but it can limit attendance to 25% of a building's capacity and restrict singing and chanting inside.

California had put the restrictions in place because the virus is more easily transmitted indoors and singing releases tiny droplets that can carry the disease.

Newsom's office said those measures were imposed to protect worshippers from getting infected.

"We will continue to enforce the restrictions the Supreme Court left in place and, after reviewing the decision, we will issue revised guidelines for worship services to continue to protect the lives of Californians," the governor's press secretary, Daniel Lopez, said in a statement.

On Saturday, Santa Clara County issued a statement regarding the Supreme Court decision, saying that although the decision applies to the state, the county's orders are structured differently and the ban includes all indoor gatherings, including places of worship.

"The county has consistently taken a neutral, across-the-board, risk-based approach to curbing COVID-19 that comports with the requirements of last night's Supreme Court decision," the statement read.

The county encourages the faith community to safely gather outdoors or virtually.

The justices were acting on emergency requests to halt the restrictions from South Bay United Pentecostal Church in Chula Vista and Pasadena-based Harvest Rock Church and Harvest International Ministry, which has more than 160 churches across the state.

"You can go to your house of worship, as of now! You can go back to church, we're excited about that," Pastor Art Hodges of the South Bay United Pentecostal Church said.

The church has defied state orders since last May by holding service indoors while following COVID-19 safety protocols, Hodges said. He said he was thankful to hold services on Sunday "without any pressure or threat or concern" and added that the 25% attendance limit will make him add two or three more services to accommodate church members.

"It at least allows us some wiggle room to operate," he said.

On Instagram, Harvest Rock's ministry in downtown Los Angeles announced it would hold an in-person service Saturday evening.

"Bring the kiddos! We'd love to see the whole family for service tonight!" the announcement said, followed by the hashtag #inpersonservice.

Attorney Mathew Staver, who represents the church, said in a statement that he and his clients would "continue to press this case until religious freedom is totally restored."

The court's action follows a decision in a case from New York late last year in which the justices split 5-4 in barring the state from enforcing certain limits on attendance at churches and synagogues. Shortly after, the justices told a federal court to reexamine California's restrictions in light of the ruling.

With few exceptions, California's COVID-19 restrictions have been largely upheld, but a number of lawsuits seeking to allow outdoor dining are still in the courts.

Copyright AP - Associated Press

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
California Will Revise Indoor Church Guidelines After Ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
California Gov. Gavin Newsom's office said Saturday it will issue revised guidelines for indoor church services after the Supreme Court lifted the state's ban on indoor worship during the coronavirus pandemic, but left in place restrictions on singing and chanting.

# data[].attributes.headline
W1: "Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion COVID-19 stimulus plan, explained" (Vox)

# data[].attributes.subject
W1: "Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion COVID-19 stimulus plan, explained" (Vox)

# data[].attributes.body
As part of Joe Biden's first legislative proposal to combat the pandemic, his administration came up with the American Rescue Plan. This is a $1.9 trillion dollar proposal that includes money for vaccinations, schools, child tax credits, unemployment benefits, stimulus checks, and much more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President-elect Joe Biden has unveiled his opening bid on Covid-19 relief and economic recovery: a $1.9 trillion stimulus deal meant to help the United States address the health and economic crises induced by the pandemic.

The proposal, called the American Rescue Plan, is divvied up into three buckets: $400 billion for dealing with the coronavirus, including vaccines and testing; $1 trillion in direct relief to families; and $400 billion in aid to communities and businesses. It includes money for testing, vaccines, and public health workers; $400 a week in extended federal unemployment insurance through September; rental assistance; emergency paid leave; and funding for reopening schools, among other items.

And, as Democrats promised when campaigning in Georgia, Biden's plan would send out another $1,400 in stimulus checks, bringing the total this year to $2,000.

"We need to tackle the public health and economic crises we're facing head on," Biden said in a tweet on Thursday. "That's why today, I'm announcing my American Rescue Plan. Together, we'll change the course of the pandemic, build a bridge toward economic recovery, and invest in racial justice."

The incoming Biden administration is sorting its approach to the economy into two stages: rescue and recovery. This is the "rescue" partof the equation, meant to address the immediate crisis. The details on the recovery plank are still to come.

Lawmakers have already passed two sweeping Covid-19 relief bills, including the $2.2 trillion CARES Act in March and an additional $900 billion in relief in December. Biden's proposal is a follow-up to those and signals a rather ambitious push on addressing the pandemic and the economy - even though the plan is likely to change before it's signed into law, if it is at all.

Overall, this is a big deal. The $1.9 trillion in relief Biden is proposing is more than double the $800 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that Democrats passed in 2009 in the wake of the Great Recession. The size and scope of this proposal is a reflection of some lessonsDemocrats have learned: In 2009, many lawmakers believed they'd have a chance at another bill to deliver more help, but they neverdid. So the recovery was slower and more uneven than it could have been had they been more ambitious at the outset.

With that in mind, many Democrats and progressives plan to push the Biden administration and congressional leaders to go even further. Their mantra is that the real risk is doing too little - not too much.

"When Democrats passed the recovery act in 2009, it was smaller than was necessary, and a lot of members thought there was going to be another bite at the apple. There wasn't," one Democratic aide said. "Members who were around in that time period are very much cognizant of that lesson."

What Biden wants done on the economy right now

Biden's proposal for the American Rescue Plan is largely focused on immediate relief: measures necessary to help the country address the pandemic and its economic fallout. After all, the economy getting back to normal is contingent on getting the virus under control, which at this point means vaccinating as many people as possible, as quickly as possible.

Here's a rundown of some of what Biden is proposing:

A national vaccination program and scaled-up testing. Biden is pushing to invest $20 billion in a national vaccination program in partnership with states, localities, tribes, and territories, including creating community vaccination centers and mobile vaccination units. He is also advocating for $50 billionto expand testing, including rapid tests, expanded lab capacities, and help for schools and local governments. And he is pushing for an additional $10 billion to manufacture pandemic supplies domestically, as well as $30 billion to the Disaster Relief Fund for supplies and protective gear.

A public health jobs program and funds toward addressing health disparities. Biden's proposal looks to fund 100,000 health workers to expand the public health workforce. He also wants to increase funding for health services to underserved populations and those who live in congregate settings, such as nursing homes.

Money for reopening schools. Biden's proposal calls for $130 billion to help schools reopen safely, $35 billion in funding for higher education, and $5 billion for governors to use to support educational programs for those hardest hit by Covid-19.

Emergency paid leave: Biden is calling for changes his team says will expand paid sick leave to 106 million more Americans, including renewing the expired requirement for employers to provide leave and expanding emergency paid leave to federal workers.

Bigger stimulus checks. Biden is proposing adding $1,400 to the latest round of stimulus checks so that they total $2,000. His plan also expands eligibility for the checks to adult dependents left out of previous rounds and to mixed-immigration status households.

Extended unemployment insurance. Under the current stimulus packages, the unemployed are eligible for an additional $300 in weekly federal unemployment benefits through March 14. Biden's plan increases that amount to $400 through September and also continues extended benefits to people who have exhausted benefits or wouldn't normally qualify, such as contractors or freelancers.

Housing assistance. The president-elect's plan calls for extending eviction and foreclosure moratoriums through September, directing $30 billion toward rental assistance, and $5 billion in emergency assistance to secure housing for the homeless.

Food benefits. The plan includes extending the 15 percent increase in SNAP benefits through September, investing $3 billion in the special supplemental nutrition program for WIC, and providing US territories with $1 billion in nutritional assistance.

Child care assistance. The plan calls for a $25 billion emergency stabilization fund for child care providers and an additional $15 billion to the Child Care and Development Block Grant Program.

Tax credits for children and low-income workers. The plan expands the child tax credit - another important one for Democrats - to $3,000 per child up to age 17 and $3,600 for children under age 6. And, it increases the earned income tax credit from about $530 to $1,500 and expands eligibility.

Support for small business. Biden is proposing $15 billion in grants to hard-hit small businesses and leveraging $35 billion in government funds into $175 billion in loans and investment in small businesses.

Support for state and local governments. Biden's plan calls on Congress to provide $350 billion in funds for state, local, and territorial governments. It's framed as money that will help pay frontline workers, reopen schools, and get people vaccinated. It also requests $20 billion in relief for public transit agencies and $20 billion to support tribal governments' pandemic response.

A $15 minimum wage. Biden's proposal asks Congress to increase the minimum wage to $15 per hour as well as ending the tipped minimum wage and sub-minimum wage for people with disabilities. It also calls on employers to provide hazard pay.

This is an opening bid, and some Democrats want to go bigger

Biden's proposal is likely just the beginning of Democratic debate on how to bolster the country's public health crisis response and economic recovery. More than nine months into the pandemic, thousands of people are dying each day of Covid-19, and millions of people are still out of a job.

"Given the urgency of the moment, I think there is a good argument for doing as much as possible as quickly as possible and continuing to push for more," said Angela Hanks, deputy executive director of the progressive group Groundwork Collaborative, which released an estimate before last month's stimulus bill was passed suggesting that it would take $3 trillion to $4.5 trillion to really get the economy moving.

Discussions are underway among Democrats and progressives inside and outside the legislative process about how to do more. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) sent a letter to Biden calling on his administration to push to include " baby bonds " in an economic recovery package. "We urge you to 'go big,' with a bold vision for racial and economic justice," they wrote, arguing that baby bonds, which would create federally funded savings accounts for every child in America, "represent a once-in-a-generation opportunity to close the racial wealth gap and unleash economic opportunity for every American."

Student debt cancellation - an increasingly important issue on the left - is absent from Biden's plan. Biden has said he supports Congress canceling $10,000 in federal student debt, but that's not in Thursday's proposal. He has come under pressure, including from many Democrats in the House and Senate, to cancel up to $50,000 of student debt.

That's not the only thing Biden can do on his own. If he can't get Congress to raise the federal minimum wage to $15, he could require federal contractors to pay a $15 minimum wage. There is a long list of actions he can take unilaterally to boost the economy, as well as putting people in place across the executive branch who can enact an agenda to create a fairer, more prosperous economic landscape. "There's a lot that actually can absolutely be done without Congress," said Felicia Wong, president and CEO of the Roosevelt Institute.

Biden's plan nods at automatic stabilizers-tying social safety net mechanisms, such as expanded unemployment insurance, to certain economic conditions. That way, Congress doesn't have to haggle about them all the time. But the idea is likely to get more attention in the coming weeks.A number of lawmakers have called for automatic stabilizers, including Sens. Michael Bennet (D-CO) and Ron Wyden (D-OR).

"Ideally, you have a social safety net that exists to activate in times of crisis, and we don't have to rely on policymakers to act just in time or after," Hanks said. "It also means that in those moments of crisis, you're not worrying about the immediate impact on things like unemployment insurance and you can focus on other areas you didn't anticipate." For example, like a pandemic.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who is about to chair the Senate Budget Committee, has indicated he wants to go big from his new perch. That includes budget reconciliation, which could ultimately be the mechanism Democrats use if they can't get enough Republicans on board with their agenda.

"It is absolutely imperative that the Congress not lose sight of the fact that working families in this country are facing more economic distress today than at any time during the Great Depression," Sanders recently told Politico. "What Congress has got to show the American people is that ... it can handle more than one crisis at a time."

Budget reconciliation could be on the horizon

The general line from the Biden team and many Democratic lawmakers is that they want to give Republicans a chance to get on board with the agenda and pass Covid-19 relief through regular order, which would mean needing 60 votes to overcome a Senate filibuster. After all, that's what happened throughout 2020. But if they can't make it work, they'll go another route.

"We need to know as early as we can, are [Republicans] serious about wanting this to go forward," one Democratic aide said. "The disagreement will be how long we wait before we switch if we are going to be switching [tactics]. The best possible outcome here is that Republicans praise it and it's bipartisan."

Budget reconciliation - a process that exempts from the filibuster legislation primarily dealing with taxes and spending -is likely an option. (Vox has a full explainer on what it is.) In the current scenario, legislation passed under budget reconciliation could pass with 50 Senate Democratic votes plus tie-breaker Vice President-elect Kamala Harris.

My colleague Dylan Matthews recently ran down a list of what Biden can do with budget reconciliation, and the rescue plan mostly includes items that are clearly doable under reconciliation. Experts say there are ways to finagle the rules to make almost of all it work.

"Looking through the Biden plan, as best I can tell, almost anything in it besides the minimum wage increase they can do through reconciliation," said Marc Goldwein, senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. He said there are a few areas where it could get tricky - namely, state and local aid and vaccination money. "They have to get a little creative, but it's not even that hard."

Democrats have two potential reconciliation bills to work with, one for the 2021 fiscal year and one for 2022. If they go that route, there will be a push on the left to make the proposal even bigger - that's certainly, for example, what Sanders wants.

"I'm going to use reconciliation in as aggressive a way as I possibly can to address the terrible health and economic crises facing working people today," he told Politico. That translates to spending on areas such as infrastructure, climate, and other parts of Biden's "Build Back Better" plan.

But there are also moderate Democrats to contend with - getting to 50 votes means that the Joe Manchins and Kyrsten Sinemas of the world need to be on board. One Democratic policy adviser noted that a lot of the agenda is pretty uncontroversial, including expanded unemployment and state and local aid - among the caucus. Other elements, not so much. "It's kind of a matter of what we think we can get away with and what we can push the envelope on and what we can convince 50 senators of, including our dear friend Mr. Manchin, on the floor," the person said.

On a call with reporters earlier this week, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) said he looked forward to soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer putting some legislation on the floor, in a test of whether soon-to-be Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Republicans will take the same approach as under the Obama administration - obstruction at every turn. "If that's his view of moving on anything, then we'll have to find a way through reconciliation or something else. But I think you give them the chance," Brown said.

Brown also said he believes there is "way more" consensus among Democrats than people may think. "My job is to find out what we can do together, find out what arguments work, are the most persuasive with them, and how I can figure out with them to make everything that we've come out with more palatable," he said.

Biden and the Democratic Party are in a position many thought was unlikely after the November elections, when the probability of a double victory in Georgia's Senate runoff elections seemed small: They have an opportunity to take some big swings at helping the economy, ultimately, helping people. Now we know what Biden's opening bid to do that looks like. Over the days and weeks to come, the country will see how it plays out.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Joe Biden's $1.9 trillion Covid-19 stimulus plan, explained

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President-elect Joe Biden has unveiled his opening bid on Covid-19 relief and economic recovery: a $1.9 trillion stimulus deal meant to help the United States address the health and economic crises induced by the pandemic.

# data[].attributes.headline
W1: "FDA Grants Emergency Authorization to Johnson & Johnson Vaccine" (NBC News)

# data[].attributes.subject
W1: "FDA Grants Emergency Authorization to Johnson & Johnson Vaccine" (NBC News)

# data[].attributes.body
Adding onto Moderna and Pfizer's vaccine, Johnson & Johnson's one-shot vaccine with 72% effectiveness was approved by the FDA. This one-shot vaccine is more convenient and is a step forward to defeating the coronavirus pandemic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Food and Drug Administration granted emergency use authorization to Johnson & Johnson's Covid-19 vaccine on Saturday, adding a third vaccine to the U.S. arsenal to fight the pandemic.

"Today's emergency use authorization of the Janssen Covid-19 vaccine is another milestone as we work to end the Covid-19 pandemic," said Dr. Peter Marks, director of the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. "Guided by our careful review of the science and data, we have determined that the vaccine's known potential benefits clearly outweigh its known potential risks."
Full coverage of the coronavirus outbreak
The decision comes one day after an advisory committee to the FDA voted unanimously in favor of recommending the vaccine.

"We're in a race between the virus mutating, with new variants coming out that can cause further disease, and stopping it," said Dr. Jay Portnoy, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine and a member of the advisory committee.

"The fewer people who are infected with the virus, the less opportunity it has to emerge as a more virulent strain."

President Joe Biden released a statement after the announcement, calling the decision "exciting news for all Americans, and an encouraging development in our efforts to bring an end to the crisis."

Doses are expected to begin shipping Monday, starting with about 4 million of them. Johnson & Johnson, which developed the vaccine in partnership with Janssen Pharmaceuticals, said that 20 million doses will be available by the end of March.

That will be enough to fully vaccinate 20 million people, because the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is given as a single dose. The other available vaccines, from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, are given as two doses each, three to four weeks apart.

Though the Johnson & Johnson vaccine will be given as a single dose, the company is studying the impact of a second dose.

On Friday, members of the FDA's panel of independent experts wondered what would happen if a two-dose formulation is ultimately authorized.

Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccine expert at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, suggested it might be difficult to communicate the change to those who only received the one dose.

"You can see where that would be confusing to people where they may be thinking, 'Maybe I didn't get what I need?'"

An FDA analysis, posted online Wednesday, found the vaccine to be safe and effective. The single shot was shown to be 86 percent effective at preventing severe disease. In the U.S., the shot was found to be 72 percent effective at preventing moderate to severe disease. In South Africa, where a worrisome variant is circulating, that number was lower: 64 percent.

"People should take the vaccine they are able to access," said Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock. "All these vaccines meet our standards for effectiveness."
Download the NBC News app for full coverage of the coronavirus outbreak
Dr. Richard Besser, president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and a former acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, applauded the FDA's decision.

"With three Covid-19 vaccines now available, the number of cases and deaths around the country continuing to fall, and Congress taking steps toward approving additional critically needed economic relief, I have never been more encouraged that we might be finally turning the corner on this pandemic," he said in a statement.

Still, Besser said that Americans must remain vigilant, adhering to mask-wearing, distancing and limiting travel. "Whether and when the pandemic ends is - as it has always been - largely up to us."

In December, the FDA authorized Covid-19 vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna. Two more vaccines, from AstraZeneca and Novavax, are completing Phase 3 clinical trials, and are expected to apply for FDA authorization in the spring.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
FDA grants emergency authorization to Johnson & Johnson vaccine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Food and Drug Administration granted emergency use authorization to Johnson & Johnson's Covid-19 vaccine on Saturday, adding a third vaccine to the U.S. arsenal to fight the pandemic. "Today's emergency use authorization of the Janssen Covid-19 vaccine is another milestone as we work to end the Covid-19 pandemic," said Dr. Peter Marks, director of the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

# data[].attributes.headline
W1: "San Francisco vs. San Francisco School Board: A Push to Get Students Back in School" (NPR) 

# data[].attributes.subject
W1: "San Francisco vs. San Francisco School Board: A Push to Get Students Back in School" (NPR) 

# data[].attributes.body
In San Francisco, the city sued its own school district which allegedly failed to deliver a comprehensive plan to get students back onto campus while neighboring students and private schools have had in-person learning for months.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The city of San Francisco sued its school district on Wednesday in a drastic attempt to get students back into the classroom. The city argued it's safe enough and the district has dragged its feet on preparing for the students' return.

City Attorney Dennis Herrera cited a "woefully inadequate" reopening plan by the San Francisco Unified School District Board of Trustees. He is supported by Mayor London Breed, who said, "This is not the path we would have chosen, but nothing matters more right now than getting our kids back in school."

Although the state lifted its Regional Stay Home Order last week, over 99% of Californians, more than 40 million people, are still under stringent COVID-19 guidelines, including San Francisco residents. The city experienced a coronavirus peak in early January, seeing as many as 562 new cases a day. But those numbers are declining.

The city attorney said he will file a motion on Feb. 11, requesting that the court issue an emergency order. If the order is granted it would force the district to take action and prepare for students to return to campus, Herrera said.

He alleged the school board failed to deliver a comprehensive plan to get students back on campus, while neighboring counties and private schools have had students on campus for months. SFUSD Superintendent Vincent Matthews rebutted Herrera's claims in a press conference Wednesday.

"It appears that the city attorney has not read through our plans or joined the hours of open meetings we have had on the topic of safely returning to in-person learning," he said. "It is simply untrue that the board and district have no plan to reopen schools. SFUSD has a very comprehensive plan with specific steps around health and safety and what in-person learning will look like for our focal student populations to return as soon as we can complete all the clearly laid out steps."

Board of Education President Gabriela Lopez insisted the city continue to work with the schools instead of "playing politics." She said the board asked the city to spearhead efforts to provide surveillance testing for staff and students, but the city has failed to deliver. "Instead, SFUSD must go through a competitive bidding process and find a provider to administer this critical component of reopening schools," Lopez said.

It's widely understood that students in many places have suffered from being out of the classroom. The achievement gap, an imbalance in academic performance between students, continues to grow. Children with more educational resources continue to advance, while others fall further behind their peers.

Debby Rosenthal is a kindergarten teacher at the Buena Vista Horace Mann K-8 Community School. She told NPR the pandemic has left many families struggling to stay afloat. The hardships lead to depression and anxiety, which trickle down to the children.

"One student is left in the care of her older siblings while her mom sits on the street selling things they don't use in order to earn a little bit of money. She ... is part of my group of struggling students," Rosenthal said. "They have little, if any, support at home and the achievement gap between kids like them and kids with support is getting wider. The lack of academic growth at this time of the school year is very noticeable and very worrisome."

By no means are Bay Area residents out of the woods, but cases appear to be dropping. Cases in San Francisco are about where they were in the beginning of December. A rolling average of 163 new cases daily.

The state has administered approximately 3.8 million doses of the coronavirus vaccines, including just over 90,000 in San Francisco. According to the state's vaccine distribution plan, teachers are now eligible for inoculation.
NPR's Anya Kamenetz contributed this story.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
San Francisco Vs San Francisco School Board: A Push To Get Students Back In School

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The city of San Francisco sued its school district on Wednesday in a drastic attempt to get students back into the classroom. The city argued it's safe enough and the district has dragged its feet on preparing for the students' return.

# data[].attributes.headline
W1: What do you know & want to know about government? 

# data[].attributes.subject
W1: What do you know & want to know about government? 