# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Seismic surveys to locate oil deposits can be especially harmful to whales and dolphins. (WikimediaImages/Pixabay)

HARTFORD, Conn. - Hundreds of Connecticut residents are in Hartford today to speak out against a proposal to open coastal waters to oil and gas drilling.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of the Interior proposed opening 90 percent of the nation's coastline to drilling. That would include Atlantic waters vital to Connecticut's economy.

The federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, which oversees offshore oil leases, has promised the environment would be protected.

But according to Martha Klein, chair of the Sierra Club Connecticut Chapter, concerns over the risk of spills have generated broad, bipartisan opposition to the proposal.

"Potentially we stand to lose billions because of our coastal tourism industry and our fishing industry," Klein says. "And environmentally, it's a terrible concern because of the high risk of accidents."

In 2013 Connecticut's ocean economy contributed almost $4.5 billion to the state's GDP. Supporters of the proposal say it would help ensure the nation's energy independence.

Klein points out that spills are not the only risks. The process of deciding where to drill also is hazardous to marine life. Seismic surveys using underwater explosions to map suspected oil deposits are especially harmful to marine mammals like whales and dolphins.

"We've already seen hundreds or thousands of beachings, animals basically committing suicide because they have to get out of the water because the sound is destroying them," she adds.

She notes that oil transport - by tanker or pipeline - and other oil and gas infrastructure, add further risks.

"We believe that collectively these activities would significantly damage the environment, marine wildlife and coastal economies," she warns.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is accepting public comments on the proposal through March 9.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CT Turns Out for Hearing on Offshore Drilling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Seismic surveys to locate oil deposits can be especially harmful to whales and dolphins. (WikimediaImages/Pixabay) HARTFORD, Conn. - Hundreds of Connecticut residents are in Hartford today to speak out against a proposal to open coastal waters to oil and gas drilling. Earlier this year, the U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
HARTFORD, Conn. - After a woman gave birth in her Connecticut prison cell, civil rights advocates want legislation to ensure respect for incarcerated women's health, dignity and human rights.

The delivery happened last month without medical assistance in the York Correctional Institution in Niantic.

According to Sandy LoMonico, Smart Justice organizer at the ACLU of Connecticut, Senate Bill 13 would prohibit the shackling of women during childbirth, ensure services and support during and after pregnancy and delivery, and allow frequent visitation with children.

"It's important to treat all women, no matter where they are, with dignity and respect," she says. "If we don't do that, it impacts the health of not only women who are incarcerated but their children and their families as well."

The bill, called An Act Concerning Fair Treatment of Incarcerated Women, has four sponsors and eleven co-sponsors in the General Assembly.

LoMonico says the bill would also give incarcerated mothers and their children access to child-friendly visitation areas away from the noise and confrontations that can take place in adult visiting rooms.

"Children of incarcerated mothers sense what their moms go through and they suffer as well, and we can do better," she explains. "We can stop the cycle of trauma and begin supporting the healing that is necessary for incarcerated women and families."

While some provisions of the bill are now covered by policies within the Department of Corrections, LoMonico notes that putting them in legislation would ensure that the rights of incarcerated women are guaranteed by state law.

Andrea Sears, Public News Service - CT

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bill Promotes Fair Treatment for Incarcerated Women

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
HARTFORD, Conn. - After a woman gave birth in her Connecticut prison cell, civil rights advocates want legislation to ensure respect for incarcerated women's health, dignity and human rights. The delivery happened last month without medical assistance in the York Correctional Institution in Niantic. ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
New London could become a regional hub for offshore wind development. (hpgruesen/Pixabay)

HARTFORD, Conn. - The bids are in on a request for proposals that will bring offshore wind energy to Connecticut.

Clean-energy advocates say offshore wind is a critical technology that will mean hundreds of jobs as well as clean, renewable energy to the state. According to John Humphries, lead organizer for the Connecticut Roundtable on Climate and Jobs, it's an important first step, but bidders were only allowed to propose up to 3 percent of the state's total annual electricity usage, or about 250 megawatts of power.

"The bids that are being submitted will likely fulfill all of that legal limit," he said, "and so, to keep this growing in the future, the Legislature will need to take action to expand that authorization."

With these proposals, Connecticut joins Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York, which have committed to building thousands of megawatts of offshore wind-generating capacity.

Humphries noted that Massachusetts utilities have been mandated to purchase 1,600 megawatts of offshore wind power over the next decade.

"Their first round of contracts will be signed this spring," he said, "and it'll be at least 400, maybe as much as 800 megawatts."

New York and New Jersey have set their sights on procuring 2,400 and 3,500 megawatts of offshore wind power, respectively, by 2030.

Humphries said New London's port is ideally situated to become a regional hub for the industry, generating construction jobs onshore and preparing for offshore development in the years to come.

"This opportunity to get into the offshore wind market is a tremendous way for Connecticut to capture some of the economic benefits of the renewable-energy market," he said.

This summer, the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection will select the winning bids and sign contracts for the state's first offshore wind projects.

More information is online at pierceatwoodwhatsup.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CT Takes First Step Toward Offshore Wind

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
HARTFORD, Conn. - The bids are in on a request for proposals that will bring offshore wind energy to Connecticut. Clean-energy advocates say offshore wind is a critical technology that will mean hundreds of jobs as well as clean, renewable energy to the state. ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The young people known as Dreamers will be able to apply for financial aid to Connecticut public colleges starting in January 2020. (ihsanadity/Pixabay)

HARTFORD, Conn. - "Dreamers" will soon be able to receive institutional financial aid to attend Connecticut's public colleges and universities. On Wednesday night, 13 Republicans joined 78 Democrats in the state House of Representatives to give final passage to the bill that will let undocumented immigrants who arrived as children to apply for the assistance.

The bill doesn't include access to federal Pell grants or state taxpayer-funded scholarships. But Carolina Bortolleto, co-founder of the group "Connecticut Students for a Dream," calls the bill an important advance for Dreamers' access to higher education.

"It won't cover the whole amount of tuition, but it will have a very big impact for students who previously were not eligible for any kind of aid," says Bortolleto. "So, any small amount that they get will help them."

Gov. Dannel Malloy has said he will sign the bill into law.

Opponents have said allowing undocumented students to apply for the limited amount of aid could mean some citizens will be denied. Bortolleto counters that the aid available is funded by tuition revenue, and allowing Dreamers to get some financial aid will increase enrollment in the state schools.

"The students benefit, the schools benefit and the state benefits, because more students means more tuition revenue, means more institutional aid," says Bortolleto. "So, I think this is a win-win-win situation for everyone."

The aid will be available to immigrants who arrived in the U.S. before age 17, have attended at least two years of high school in Connecticut and have no felony convictions.

Bortolleto notes that passage of the financial aid bill stands in sharp contrast to the anti-immigrant actions of some members of Congress and the Trump administration.

"I think our victory shows that Connecticut can do better," says Bortolleto. "We can rise above the partisanship that we see in Washington, D.C., and do something to actually improve the lives of our communities here in the state."

Six other states already allow some undocumented students to access financial aid, and New Jersey will soon be providing such aid as well.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
HARTFORD, Conn. - "Dreamers" will soon be able to receive institutional financial aid to attend Connecticut's public colleges and universities. On Wednesday night, 13 Republicans joined 78 Democrats in the state House of Representatives to give final passage to the bill that will let undocumented immigrants who arrived as children to apply for the assistance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fifty-five years after the Equal Pay Act became law, women still earn only 80 cents for every dollar paid to men. (12019/Pixabay)

HARTFORD, Conn. - Today is Equal Pay Day, marking the 99 extra days women have to work this year to equal the pay men were paid last year.

Data from the National Committee on Pay Equity show the wage gap between women and men narrowed slightly last year. Women are now paid 80 cents for every dollar paid to men.

According to Toni Van Pelt, president of the National Organization for Women, the research shows that progress toward equal pay has moved at a snail's pace since the Equal Pay Act was signed into law by President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

"When we first started talking about this, the average full-time working woman was earning 59 cents," Van Pelt said, "so in 55 years, it's only closed by 18 cents."

She added the pay gap is even greater for women of color, with African-American women earning an average of 66 cents, and Latinas just 60 cents, to every dollar paid to men.

Van Pelt pointed out the huge impact that this pay gap can have over the course of a lifetime, as hourly pay itself is just part of total lifetime earnings.

"Pension benefits, our vacation time, our care-giving time - all of these things can be based on how much a woman is paid," she observed. "And so, it's really important that she has equal pay."

On average, a woman's lifetime earnings are $530,000 less than a man's. And Van Pelt noted that lower pay for women affects more than their purchasing power.

"If women are kept in a state of constant economic insecurity, they are more liable to feel that they must put up with sexual harassment and sexual assault in the workplace," she said.

A study by the Institute for Women's Policy Research found that, at the current pace, white women will achieve pay equity with white men in about 40 years. But for African-American women, it will take 100 years, and for Latinas, more than two centuries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
HARTFORD, Conn. - Today is Equal Pay Day, marking the 99 extra days women have to work this year to equal the pay men were paid last year. Data from the National Committee on Pay Equity show the wage gap between women and men narrowed slightly last year. ...

# data[].attributes.body
Connecticut Related

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
DNA from sexual-assault evidence kits can link to suspects in the DNA database. (James Tourtellotte/CBP [Public domain])

HARTFORD, Conn. - Legislation to improve the tracking of sexual-assault evidence kits is on its way to Gov. Danell Malloy's desk.

After a 2015 survey found almost 1,200 untested kits at law enforcement agencies across Connecticut, the governor established a working group to coordinate their tracking and testing. Senate Bill 17, which was built on that work, passed both the House and Senate with unanimous votes.

According to Ilse Knecht, director of policy and advocacy with the Joyful Heart Foundation - a national group working on this issue - tracking can be key to both the criminal investigation and the healing process for survivors.

"This is a reform that helps all parts of the system know where a rape kit is at all times, to know if it's moving through the process as it should be," says Knecht. "And it also allows survivors to check on the status and location of their kits."

She says Connecticut is committed to clearing its backlog of untested sexual assault kits and to quickly testing new kits as they come in.

Knecht points out that DNA evidence from evidence kits may establish links to DNA gathered from other sexual assaults.

"That identifies serial offenders, potentially, and it can link to offenders who have committed other crimes and been eligible for their DNA to go into the DNA database," says Knecht.

She adds giving survivors the ability to check on the status of their kit can help counteract the loss of self-determination and control that is often at the core of experiencing sexual assault.

"Many times, when survivors leave the hospital, they never hear again about their rape kit," says Knecht. "So, this is a way that they can take that power on themselves. If they want to know where it is, they can go into the system and find out."

She says passage of this legislation makes Connecticut among the leading states in the nation to take on rape-kit reform.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rape-Kit Reform Bill Clears CT Legislature

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
DNA from sexual-assault evidence kits can link to suspects in the DNA database. (James Tourtellotte/CBP [Public domain]) HARTFORD, Conn. - Legislation to improve the tracking of sexual-assault evidence kits is on its way to Gov. Danell Malloy's desk.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cory Gardner, the leader of the Senate GOP's campaign arm, delivered an urgent message to President Donald Trump in a telephone conversation earlier this month: Congress and the White House need to act pronto on immigration reform.

"The sweet spot for getting an immigration deal remains now. The closer we get to the election and certainly post-election, the more difficult it will be," the Colorado Republican recounted telling the president. "If we wait longer, the more difficult it becomes. They'll blame it on both parties at that point."

Story Continued Below

A group of senators in both parties is beginning to restart back-channel talks across the aisle and with the White House in hopes that the chamber will be ready to act if the House or the courts throw the issue back to the Senate this summer. But the Senate isn't ready to take up the issue after a thoroughly unproductive immigration debate in February, followed by months of radio silence.

And lawmakers are growing more and more worried the upper chamber could be blindsided by a call to action later this year.

The House, meanwhile, has become a hotbed of immigration debate - and it's preparing to take up one or several Republican bills in June. But even if the GOP is able to resolve its intense disagreements and pass something, the Senate is very unlikely to accept it, according to interviews with nearly a dozen senators of both parties. Their opposition extends from a conservative bill written by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.). to a more moderate one pushed by centrist House Republicans.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

And urgency is cranking up from the outside as well. Republican donors are putting increasing pressure on the party to follow through on immigration reform, and the Koch brothers' political network is calling for the GOP to take the Democrats' trade of protections for Dreamers in exchange for border security.

Yet the Senate does not have its own proposal that can get 60 votes right now. The possibility that the chamber will be caught flat-footed - after leading the debate for years - is starting to alarm senators from both parties.

"Either the House sends us something or the court sends us something and suddenly we have to do something," said Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.). "I don't want to be standing there saying we've been doing nothing for months."

"That pressure could ramp back up tomorrow if we're in a position where we see active deportations of Dreamers on a large scale," said Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.). "There are many Republican senators who realize that that is not a place they should ever want us to be."

The conservative Lankford and liberal Heinrich both voted against the Senate's bipartisan efforts in February. The bill would have provided 1.8 million young immigrants with a pathway to citizenship and delivered $25 billion for Trump's border wall. Both are involved in nascent bipartisan talks that have restarted recently. And they're precisely the type of lawmakers who will have to be on board for the chamber to pass anything.

In recent weeks, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) has been taking the lead on talking to Lankford and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), two more junior GOP senators who are widely viewed as bellwethers of Republican support for immigration reform. While senators say that the staples of any immigration deal are protections for Dreamers and money for border security, negotiations have broadened to include the expiring protected status for hundreds of thousands of Central American immigrants.

Coons, one of Lankford's Democratic partners in recent informal immigration discussions, described the talks as "a cautious exploration of ways to broaden" the debate.

The Trump administration's handling of the Temporary Protected Status program has created a population of people "who've been in this country legally for a decade or more facing imminent deportation," Coons said. "If we could find a way to reform the TPS program to include significant congressional engagement or oversight, that might put a new issue on the table."

Senators working on the issue acknowledge it's a long shot, and both party whips said that Democratic and Republican leaders are largely sitting back and watching what happens in the House before making a move. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he will not commit another week of the Senate's time to immigration after the February exercise, but he added the Senate might take legislation if the president is supportive and it can pass the House.

But that means senators need to bear down on the issue soon to have any hope of moving and whipping support from senators in both parties. Both the president's bill and a bipartisan bill led by Sens. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and Angus King (I-Maine) fell short of 60 votes in February, raising the question of whether anything can pass the chamber even if the House or courts force the issue.

"We need to begin to work on the wall that the president wants," said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.). "The Democrats are going to have to realize that we need 70 votes, not 60. Their view of a bipartisan deal is you get all the Democrats and a handful of Republicans."

Indeed, just eight Republicans backed the Rounds-King plan in February. And King now said it will be difficult to get 46 Democratic Caucus members to support another bill combining border security and protections for the Dreamers.

"It would be hard to get Democratic votes for that again today. That was a hard call at the time," King said.

That puts more pressure on Lankford and Tillis to introduce a proposal with Democratic support that can win over the majority of more centrist members in each conference.

Still, since those February votes, Tillis said he's held immigration talks "almost weekly."

"There's a number of us who, on a bipartisan basis, are meeting - our staff are meeting and talking," Tillis said. "I still think there's a path."

The path is an exceedingly narrow one, participants on all sides acknowledge. The Senate is scheduled to be in for just four more work periods this year, and it's expected to take a break for several weeks before the fall election. Plus, McConnell has been prioritizing noncontroversial legislation like a veterans care bill and water infrastructure plan, as well as confirmation of judges, over contentious issues like immigration.

Democrats are also worried about the president's influence. He put heavy pressure on Republicans to reject anything other than his plan to make deep cuts to legal immigration as a price for citizenship for Dreamers, and Democrats worry that will happen again in the coming weeks.

"I don't know that we've figured out: How do you create the dynamic for this to happen with this president?" Heinrich said.

But most senators believe that the political prospects for immigration aren't likely to improve in the future, as the election approaches and Trump's decision to end the Deferred Actions for Childhood Arrivals program wends through the courts. That means that if the issue lands in their lap in June or July, senators want to have something to put up that has a prayer on the Senate floor.

"We're still trying to swap paper and figure out how to get there," Lankford said. "The important thing to me is, [can we] get six of us or so ... in a bipartisan way and say: 'That's close enough?'"

This article tagged under:

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning - in your inbox.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Senators to Trump: It's do-or-die time on DACA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cory Gardner, the leader of the Senate GOP's campaign arm, delivered an urgent message to President Donald Trump in a telephone conversation earlier this month: Congress and the White House need to act pronto on immigration reform. "The sweet spot for getting an immigration deal remains now.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Video that shows a Minnesota police officer shooting seven rapid shots at Philando Castile during a traffic stop in July was made public Tuesday, just days after the officer was acquitted on all counts in the case.

The video taken from St. Anthony police Officer Jeronimo Yanez's squad car illustrated how a simple traffic stop of a black man shifted in an instant from a routine exchange to a deadly confrontation.

When Yanez opened fire, another officer near the car jumped back, and Yanez began yelling at the driver. As more police and an ambulance arrived, Yanez could be heard breathing heavily and swearing and trying to explain his actions to fellow officers.

The video was made public just days after the Latino officer was acquitted on all counts in the case. Although the squad-car footage was described repeatedly and was shown to jurors in the courtroom, it had never been made public until Tuesday.

The shooting on July 6, 2016, in the Twin Cities suburb of Falcon Heights gained widespread attention because Castile's girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, livestreamed its gruesome aftermath on Facebook. Unlike Reynolds' video, the squad-car video shows the situation's quick escalation and the shooting itself.

Yanez, who was found not guilty of manslaughter and other charges, began firing only seconds after Castile told the officer he had a gun.

"Sir, I have to tell you, I do have a firearm on me," Castile said.

Before Castile finished that sentence, Yanez began pulling his weapon out of the holster. Yanez said, "OK. Don't reach for it then." He told the driver twice more not to pull out the weapon and then started firing into the car. After the firing ends, he screamed, "Don't pull it out!"

About 100 people attended a march June 18, 2017, in Chicago to protest the acquittal of the police officer who killed Philando Castile near St. Paul, Minn., the year before. The protesters marched from Washington Park to the intersection of East 49th Street and South Cottage Grove Avenue where the marchers joined a Father's Day barbecue. (Alexandra Wimley / Chicago Tribune)

About 100 people attended a march June 18, 2017, in Chicago to protest the acquittal of the police officer who killed Philando Castile near St. Paul, Minn., the year before. The protesters marched from Washington Park to the intersection of East 49th Street and South Cottage Grove Avenue where the marchers joined a Father's Day barbecue. (Alexandra Wimley / Chicago Tribune)

SEE MORE VIDEOS
Castile, a 32-year-old elementary school cafeteria worker, had a permit to carry the weapon.

The release of the video made some people even angrier about the death.

Steven Belton, the black president and CEO of the Minneapolis Urban League, said the footage was "powerfully painful" and that Castile was "gunned down like a rabid animal."

Bekuh Sibet, a 29-year-old waitress from nearby Richfield, said it was obvious to her from the video that Castile was complying.

"I feel like it's 10 times worse now," said Sibet, who is white.

Craig Hutchinson, a white employment recruiter from the Minneapolis suburb of Plymouth, said in a tweet to The Associated Press that he was surprised at how quickly the situation intensified.

Hutchinson, who said he has a concealed-carry permit, also said the video left room for reasonable doubt, because it does not show where the gun was. He also said Yanez could have acted differently.

"If the officer would've exercised more caution, it may not have escalated as fast," he said.

Marcell Lenoir, a 24-year-old insurance worker from suburban Brooklyn Center, referred back to testimony that the officer thought Castile resembled a suspected armed robber.

"He already thought in his mind that this was a suspect in a robbery, and he just panicked and he messed up," said Lenoir, who is mixed race, African-American and white.

The footage shows a wide view of the traffic stop and the shooting, with the camera pointed toward Castile's vehicle. It captures what was said between the two men. The video does not show what happened inside the car or what Yanez saw.

Yanez testified that Castile ignored his commands not to pull out the gun.

The video shows Yanez following Castile's car, then pulling it over. Yanez can be seen approaching Castile and asking for a driver's license and proof of insurance. Castile gives the proof of insurance to Yanez through the driver's side window, and the officer puts it in his pocket.

After the first shot, Castile's body is thrown to the right. The video shows Yanez's backup officer, Joseph Kauser, standing on the passenger side of the vehicle, retreating when the shots were fired.

When the shooting stops, the video shows Yanez standing at the car window with his gun drawn for some time. Reynolds' then-4-year-old daughter starts to get out of the car and is grabbed by an officer.

Officers order Reynolds out of the car, and she gets out, hands held high. Soon, she is heard wailing.

A fellow officer speaks repeatedly to Yanez to get him away from the car: "I'm going to take your spot. I'm going to take your spot. Listen, listen, I'm going to take your spot." Yanez slowly walks away, and another officer says: "You all right? You all right? You're not hit any, are you?"

Officers pull Castile from the vehicle and begin CPR. Yanez is then off-camera, but can be heard talking through his body microphone.

Yanez, 29, is heard telling a supervisor that he didn't know where Castile's gun was, then saying that he told Castile to get his hand off it. Yanez testified, "What I meant by that was I didn't know where the gun was up until I saw it in his right thigh area."

Yanez's acquittal prompted days of protests, including one in St. Paul last Friday that attracted thousands and shut down Interstate 94 for hours. Eighteen people were arrested.
___
This story has been corrected to show that the officer began screaming after the shots were fired, not before.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dashcam video shows officer firing 7 shots into Philando Castile's car

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Video that shows a Minnesota police officer shooting seven rapid shots at Philando Castile during a traffic stop in July was made public Tuesday, just days after the officer was acquitted on all counts in the case. The video taken from St.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Two Mississippi police officers could be facing additional charges after they were terminated by the Laurel Police Department (LPD) for allegedly beating 36-year-old James Barnett last week.

Barnett was pursued by officers after reaching a vehicle checkpoint and turning around in Jasper County. Following a short chase, Barnett was pulled over and the officers approached his car with their guns drawn, according to Barnett.

Police told Barnett to get down on the ground and when he did, they began kicking him, Barnett said to ABC News.

Barnett also claimed that he never fought back.

Shakari Briggs/WDAM-TV, via AP

The police then transported him to the South Central Regional Medical Center, where he was beaten more, Barnett claimed.

The police charged him with five misdemeanors, including resisting arrest and driving with a suspended license.
What Is Excessive Force?
Barnett posted pictures of his alleged abuse on his Facebook page last week.

"I've never been so afraid in my life," Barnett wrote in the Facebook post. "I will not let this go, I don't [want] this to happen to anyone else. There is no justice in what they did to me!! But I will get JUSTICE!!"

Shakari Briggs/WDAM-TV, via AP

The supervisor on duty realized that there was a problem with the arrest that occurred, according to the Laurel Police Department. The department's Internal Affairs (IA) began investigating hours after the incident occurred and the next day the officers, who were not named, were fired.

The police department has been in contact with the Mississippi Bureau of Investigations (MBI) on the possibility of pressing additional charges against the involved officers.

"The Officers and Administration of LPD take these types of allegations very seriously," the Laurel Police Department said in a statement to ABC News. "It should be noted that the IA was initiated only hours after the incident occurred before any media attention, social media posts or even a formal complaint from the individual involved."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
2 police officers fired after alleged police brutality incident

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two Mississippi police officers could be facing additional charges after they were terminated by the Laurel Police Department (LPD) for allegedly beating 36-year-old James Barnett last week. Barnett was pursued by officers after reaching a vehicle checkpoint and turning around in Jasper County.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In spite of enduring threats to LGBTQ rights in the U.S., a recent poll found that Americans overall are more supportive of same-sex marriage than ever before.

Gallup's annual Values and Morals poll, conducted May 1 through 10 and released on Wednesday, found that 67 percent of Americans surveyed said same-sex marriage should be legally valid.

That's up 40 percentage points from 1996, when Gallup first asked the question, and it is the highest level of support on record.

Same-sex marriage has been legal nationwide since the Supreme Court's landmark 2015 ruling in the Obergefell v. Hodges case. The decision was a historic victory for gay rights activists, who fought for years in lower courts for marriage equality, and it came over a decade after Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage. By 2015, 37 states and the District of Columbia already recognized marriage equality.

Activists have noted, though, that despite the steady rise in popular support, same-sex marriage faces very real and persistent threats. Fewer than half the Republicans polled - 44 percent - said gay marriage should be legal, according to Gallup. Other polls have found support to be even lower among the most conservative Republicans and Christian evangelicals, who dominate the GOP base, which President Donald Trump has catered to since declaring his candidacy. From signing discriminatory "religious liberty" orders to banning transgender people from the military, Trump and social conservatives have found ways to challenge LGBTQ rights.

Trump's Supreme Court appointee, Justice Neil Gorsuch, is known to oppose same-sex marriage and in 2017 sent a message to state courts that they should challenge the Obergefell decision.

As HuffPost editor-at-large Michelangelo Signorile warned, "The greater threat in the short term than outright overturning Obergefell is the effort to turn same-sex marriage into second-class marriage."

Despite such obstacles, the percentage of LGBTQ Americans in a same-sex marriage has steadily grown since the Supreme Court ruling. As of June 2017, when Gallup last released findings on the topic, just over 10 percent of adult gay and lesbian Americans said they were married to their partner.

That was far below the 50 percent for American adults overall, according to Pew Research, but was up from roughly 8 percent pre-Obergefell. "It's likely that the percentage of married LGBT adults in the U.S. will continue to grow as new generations of same-sex couples enjoy their newfound rights," Gallup writer Justin McCarthy said.

This rise in gay marriages means that Americans are increasingly likely to know someone who has wed a same-sex partner, which Gallup said may play a role in reversing previously held opposition to the legal status of such unions.

"Now that it's been legal for nearly three years ― and even longer in certain states ― some opponents to gay marriage may be rethinking their previous opposition," McCarthy wrote.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
More Americans Than Ever Support Same-Sex Marriage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In spite of enduring threats to LGBTQ rights in the U.S., a recent poll found that Americans overall are more supportive of same-sex marriage than ever before. Gallup's annual Values and Morals poll, conducted May 1 through 10 and released on Wednesday, found that 67 percent of Americans surveyed said same-sex marriage should be legally valid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Democrats also reached an all-time high

More and more LGBTQ people are getting married | Photo: Flickr/CityofStPete

More Americans than ever - 67% - think same-sex marriage should be legally valid. It's the highest ever reported support for everyone's right to marry, regardless of sexual orientation.

The data comes from Gallup's annual Values and Morals poll. They conducted the poll from 1 - 10 May.

Gallup first began asking about same-sex marriage in their morals and values poll in 1996. Then, only 27% of polled Americans supported legalizing it.

Now, that feeling has jumped a full 40 points.

It's also higher than last year's 64%, which, at the point, was the highest ever support. Both of these years counted higher than 2016, showing support is continuing to increase year over year.

All three political parties - Democrats, Republicans, and Independents - have also seen an increase in their support of same-sex marriage.

83% of Democrats now support it, up from 33% in 1996. This is the highest ever support from their party too. Meanwhile, Independents are at 71% after being at 32% in 1996.

Republicans, naturally, have the lowest support. Still, their support has increased since 22 years ago. 44% of Republicans now support it, compared to only 16% in 1996.

Reasons for increased support

Gallup gives one big reason for the increased support over the years.

One of the reasons is that more and more LGBT adults are getting married in the US. As of last year, 10.4% of all LGBT adults in the country are married to a same-sex spouse.

As the organization explains: 'This means that Americans are more likely to know someone who has married a same-sex partner, and the visibility of these marriages may be playing a role in overturning some folks' previously held opposition to their legal status.'

Another reason is that the number of LGBTQ Americans is increasing, especially among the millennial generation, who are becoming a more and more vocal group.

Got a news tip? Want to share your story? Email us .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
More Americans than ever now support same-sex marriage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Democrats also reached an all-time high More and more LGBTQ people are getting married | Photo: Flickr/CityofStPete More Americans than ever - 67% - think same-sex marriage should be legally valid. It's the highest ever reported support for everyone's right to marry, regardless of sexual orientation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tomi Lahren, the 24-year-old conservative host of the show "Tomi" on the Blaze, has fiercely criticized the feminist movement. In her trademark fast-talking rants, the commentator has called modern-day feminists selfish, man-hating "snowflakes" and said that "real women don't wake up and skip work to march for abortions."

Lahren, an avid Trump supporter, has been called incendiary. It is not unusual for her appearances to incite outrage from the left. But over the weekend, her words provoked fury from an unlikely segment of Americans: the right.

Appearing on "The View" on Friday, Lahren admitted that she supports abortion rights, saying it would be hypocritical of her to believe the government should decide what women should do with their bodies.

"You know what? I'm for limited government, so stay out of my guns, and you can stay out of my body as well," Lahren said.

Even the show's hosts appeared shocked to hear her. Across social media, antiabortion advocates said it was impossible for Lahren to be both conservative and in favor of abortion rights. They criticized her interpretation of the Constitution and called her out for seemingly contradicting previous remarks about abortion. Some claimed, as they have before, that by rising to prominence so young she lacked an understanding of political philosophy and ideology.

But the provocative commentator defended herself, tweeting Saturday, "Listen, I am not glorifying abortion. I don't personally advocate for it. I just don't think it's the government's place to dictate."

"I speak my truth," she added on Twitter. "If you don't like it, tough. I will always be honest and stand in my truth."

"Conservatives don't have to exist in a monolith and share the same brain on every issue," Lahren tweeted. "It's okay."

Lahren's viral monologues on her nightly show for the Blaze, created by conservative media personality Glenn Beck, have landed her appearances with Bill Maher and Trevor Noah, lured nearly 4.3 million followers to her Facebook page and invited praise from President Trump. Trump was so taken by one of her recent appearances that he called her to thank her for her "fair coverage" of him.

[Tracking the special treatment media get when they play nice with the White House]

A native of South Dakota and a daughter of military and ranching families, Lahren is the self-proclaimed voice for Middle America and conservative women who feel underrepresented and overlooked by the mainstream media. Trevor Noah called her "the least woke, most awake person" he's ever seen.

Although she's made her name with incendiary monologues, Friday's interview was not the first time Lahren has opened up about more complex, or even moderate, political views.

In a segment about three months ago regarding Lena Dunham's controversial comments on abortion, Lahren admitted that abortion is not her "top issue" and said the abortion rights movement avoids "sounding like straight-up baby killers" by acknowledging that abortion is a difficult choice.

"Boy, wouldn't it be nice if taxpayers didn't have to shell out our hard-earned dollars to pay for the wishful abortions of people like Lena Dunham? Wouldn't it be nice if Planned Parenthood weren't allowed to wheel and deal fetal tissue from abortions it performs?"

Those remarks made Friday's admission, and previous ones, confusing for some. In a New York Times profile in December, she said she favored abortion rights and does not object to same-sex marriage. She declined to call herself spiritual, joking that "spiritual sounds like you worship the grass," but said she believed in God and prays every night. She also criticized organized religion as being "about hierarchy, power, control and greed" yet moments later said, "The institution of religion is important."

Before joining the Blaze, on a show called "The Scramble" that she hosted through her college journalism program, she led panels on many issues with a more moderate stance, including a discussion she moderated about climate change, which she said was an agreed-upon scientific consensus. (She has, in more recent segments on her show, blasted the idea of climate change, calling it simply "bad weather.")

"I have moderate, conservative, and libertarian views," she tweeted over the weekend. "I'm human. I will never apologize, to anyone, for being an independent thinker."

Conservative writers and social media accounts blasted her explanation for her abortion rights stance and criticized her with headlines such as "Flip-flop."

On the conservative blog the Resurgent, Peter Heck compared Lahren to other young stars who grapple with a "meteoric" rise to fame, in a culture that "bizarrely worships youth and beauty."

"There's a reason why it usually doesn't end well when someone who lacks any meaningful or serious understanding of political philosophy and ideology is thrust in front of a camera and promoted as a conservative spokesman," Heck wrote. "They are pitifully unprepared to exercise the disciplines of reason and discernment."

He went on to criticize Lahren's "constitutional" defense of why she supports abortion rights.

"The great conservatives have always understood that the intrinsic worth of the individual was the foundation point of all we believe and espouse," Heck wrote. "Without the right to life, there is no liberty, and there is no happiness to pursue."

One of the most surprising responses was from that of the Blaze founder, Glenn Beck, who tweeted out Heck's article on the Resurgent.

He went on to say on Twitter, "Rule another label out. I am NOT a 'constitutional.' I believe in LIFE, liberty and property. Just an old fashioned 'constitutionalist.'"

people choose to believe what they will, but the proof is in the Blaze coverage of primaries.I do not hire nor fire.more voices not less https://t.co/QfmJgstFGd

- Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) March 20, 2017

More from Morning Mix 'Satirical' Texas bill turns language of antiabortion laws on men An investigation of air quotes, mostly used to discredit the other side's words, not your own, as per Sean Spicer Trump's proverb, Paul Ryan's 'despicable' pint and other St. Patrick's Day mishaps 'Reasons to Vote for Democrats' jumps to the top of Amazon's bestseller list. But its pages are blank.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'I'm pro-choice,' says Tomi Lahren: 'Stay out of my guns, and you can stay out of my body'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tomi Lahren, the 24-year-old conservative host of the show "Tomi" on the Blaze, has fiercely criticized the feminist movement. In her trademark fast-talking rants, the commentator has called modern-day feminists selfish, man-hating "snowflakes" and said that "real women don't wake up and skip work to march for abortions."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It is easier for a woman to get an abortion in conservative US states like Texas, Catholic European countries like Poland and Portugal - and even in parts of Latin America - than it is in Northern Ireland.

Abortion laws in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic are the most restrictive in Europe. Terminations in both jurisdictions are only permissible on the grounds of a threat to the life of the mother.

In most other parts of Europe abortion is allowed without restriction up to between 10 and 14 weeks' gestation. In most countries abortions can be carried out beyond this point, but only on specific grounds.

So, for example, in Greece abortions can be carried out on demand up to a limit of 12 weeks. However, a limit of 19 weeks applies in cases where the pregnancy was the result of rape and 24 weeks where there is a threat to the life or health of the woman and in cases of foetal abnormality that would result in a serious congenital defect.

An exception to these graduated restrictions on abortion is the Netherlands where, the United Nations notes, "abortion is permitted virtually on request at any time between implantation and viability if performed by a physician in a (licensed) hospital or clinic".

Abortion rates in Europe

In Poland abortion is legal in certain circumstances, including where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, in cases of foetal impairment or to avert a danger to the health or life of the pregnant woman. The country has the lowest recorded abortion rate in Europe at just two abortions per 1,000 live births in 2012.

In Finland, Iceland and the UK restrictions are in place yet abortion rates remains relatively high at 174, 223 and 253 terminations per 1,000 live births.

In Catholic Portugal and Spain abortion on demand was introduced as a result of a 2007 referendum in the former and a 2010 law change in the latter.

However, in both countries it remains contentious. In Portugal a recently adopted bill requires women to pay for terminations and to undergo more stringent tests beforehand. In Spain in 2014 the government had to abandon its plans to enact legislation that would have imposed some of the tightest restrictions in Europe.

By far the highest abortion rate recorded in Europe is in Russia, where 551 abortions were recorded per 1,000 live births in 2011 according to figures compiled by the World Health Organisation.

The Americas

In the US, where abortion laws vary from state to state, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 210 abortions per 1,000 live births in 2012.

States cannot pass laws banning abortion outright and so they impose restrictions, such as waiting periods, to delay women, along with onerous requirements that cause abortion clinics to shut down. Limited access to providers can amount to a de facto ban on abortion.

A law in Texas is a good case in point. The law, now being debated before the US supreme court, may close half of all the state's abortion clinics. Before the law, which the state's Republican legislature passed in 2013, Texas had 41 clinics. Today, the number has dwindled to 20. If the law is fully upheld, only nine or 10 clinics will remain.

More than 5.4 million women of reproductive age live in Texas. If only a few abortion providers were left, some researchers estimate that nearly 2 million women would live more than 50 miles from the nearest abortion clinic. But even with 20 abortion clinics up and running, it is already nearly impossible for many women to have an abortion. In Dallas, Forth Worth, and Austin, women are waiting up to 20 days to be seen by a doctor, at which point the procedure becomes more expensive.

The law is also confusing: abortion providers and pro-choice nonprofit-making organisations have reported getting phone calls from many women wanting to know if abortion is still legal in Texas.

And there is emerging evidence that the law is dangerous. One survey found that between 100,000 and 240,000 women in Texas have tried to perform their own abortions at home with pills or sharp objects.

Latin America

As the most secular and social progressive nation in South America, Uruguay has blazed the trail towards abortion decriminalisation in this predominantly Catholic continent.

After a 25-year campaign by feminist groups, parliament gave its approval in 2012 for terminations of pregnancies up to 12 weeks regardless of circumstances, and up to 14 weeks in cases of alleged rape.

The only restriction is that women seeking such a procedure must first discuss the matter with a panel of at least three professionals, including a gynaecologist, a mental health professional and a social worker. After they explain the risks and alternatives, she must then wait for a five-day "reflection period" before deciding whether to go ahead.

Almost one in 10 chose to continue their pregnancies, but abortions are becoming more common. In 2014, 12 out of every 1,000 women aged between 15 and 45 had an abortion. This was about 20% more than in the previous year.

This contrasts sharply with most other nations in Latin America. In El Salvador, anti-abortion laws are so strict that some women have been jailed for having a miscarriage. In Paraguay, a 11-year-old girl who was allegedly raped by her step-father was forced to give birth against her wishes.

Women's rights activists say Uruguay has been able to move ahead because of the long separation of religion and government.

"Uruguay has been a secular state for over 100 years, since its construction, and the idea of the secular state is very well integrated in society," said Lilián Abracinskas, the director of the pro-choice NGO Mujer y Salud (Woman and Health). "It is also part of the education system. This is a big difference in comparison with the other countries in the region."

Political activism and collaboration has also been important. Verónica Pérez, a political scientist at the University of the Republic, attributed the passage of the law to the campaigns of feminist activists and their close ties to the leftwing parties that controlled parliament and the presidency in 2012. Other leftwing governments in the region have not been as supportive of women's rights.

The new Latin American left aren't necessarily secular and this is an object to decriminalisation

"The new Latin American left aren't necessarily secular and this is an obstacle to decriminalisation," she said. "The Uruguayan process is matched only by the decriminalisation of abortion in the Federal District of Mexico in 2007, where the same combination of factors was present."

Opposition led by Catholic groups has faltered. In 2013, an attempt to overturn decriminalisation through a referendum secured the support of only 9% of voters.

Pérez said free, legal abortion was one of the reasons why Uruguay had the lowest rate of maternal death in Latin America.

Even before the law was changed, the government had relaxed penalties to enable women to initiate non-surgical abortions at home using drugs. Before that, there were an estimated 20,000 hospital admissions a year because of hazardous, illegal abortions.

Rest of world

Abortion laws in Australia vary depending on the state in which a woman resides. There is a lack of routinely collected national abortion statistics.

Abortion is either prohibited altogether or is legal only where a woman's life is in danger in many parts of Africa.

The Center for Reproductive Rights maintains a database of abortion laws worldwide which can be viewed at www.worldabortionlaws.com.

* This article was edited on 12 January 2016 to clarify the abortion laws in the United States
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Abortion laws around the world: from bans to easy access

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It is easier for a woman to get an abortion in conservative US states like Texas, Catholic European countries like Poland and Portugal - and even in parts of Latin America - than it is in Northern Ireland. Abortion laws in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic are the most restrictive in Europe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Donald Trump Guts Planned Parenthood With New Abortion Rule | The Beat With Ari Melber | MSNBC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Abortion rights are basic human rights for women | The 30

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Between 2010-15, state governments adopted over 290 different laws restricting access to abortion. They did this with the hope that the Supreme Court would defer to state's regulations to make it much more difficult for women to have abortions.

But the court's ruling in Whole Women's Health today reflects that there are not five votes to uphold such laws. With Justice Kennedy joining the four liberal justices, there are only three votes on the Court to uphold laws restricting access to abortion, and for now the future of abortion rights seems secure.

The Texas law, one of many adopted that are referred to as "targeted restrictions of abortion providers," required that any doctor performing an abortion have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles and that all places where abortions are performed have surgical quality facilities, even if no surgical abortions are performed there. This would have, a ccording to one estimate, closed 75% of all the facilities where abortions are provided.

The federal district court issued a preliminary injunction, finding that the law likely was unconstitutional as creating an impermissible undue burden on a woman's right to abortion: there was no evidence that it protected women's health (a woman experiencing complications at an abortion facility would be taken to the local emergency room), and there was no need for surgical level facilities.

Indeed, the district court found that the Texas law was adopted with the purpose -- and would have the effect -- of keeping women from having access to abortions.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed. The Fifth Circuit said that it is for the state legislature, not the judiciary, to assess whether the law protects women's health.

And now the Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision, reversed.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the opinion for the court, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. The court stressed that in deciding whether a law imposes an undue burden on abortion, it is for the judiciary to balance the justifications for the restrictions against its effect on the ability of women to have access to abortions.

The court concluded that the Texas law would greatly limit the ability of women in Texas to have access to abortions, without any evidence that the restrictions were necessary to protect women's health.

In one sense, the court's decision is narrow and is just an analysis of this particular law, including a detailed analysis of the facts surrounding it. But the case sends a much broader message.

The court was clear that the judiciary must carefully scrutinize laws restricting abortion that were adopted with the purported justification of protecting women's health. The majority rejected judicial deference to the legislature.

The laws recently adopted to restrict abortion are about keeping women from having access to abortion, though often it is claimed, like in Texas, that they are about the safety of abortion procedures. The court's ruling in Whole Women's Health makes it likely that these many targeted restrictions of abortion provider laws will be struck down.

Perhaps most important, the case reflects a willingness on the part of Justice Anthony Kennedy to invalidate abortion restrictions.

When Kennedy first came on the court, it was widely thought that he would vote to overrule Roe v. Wade. In fact, in the first abortion case where he participated, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, in 1989, he joined with Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Byron White -- the two dissenting justices in Roe -- in an opinion that would have overruled Roe v. Wade.

But in 1992, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Justice Kennedy was part of a five-justice majority to reaffirm Roe. Since then, however, in every abortion case, Justice Kennedy has been with the conservative majority in voting to uphold restrictions on abortions. For example, in Gonzalez v. Carhart, in 2007, Justice Kennedy wrote the court's opinion upholding the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Obviously, if Justice Kennedy had voted with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito to uphold the Texas law, it would have been a 4-4 split and the Texas law would have gone into effect. Justice Kennedy's vote means not only that the Texas law is invalidated, but also that there are only three reliable votes on the court to uphold restrictions on abortion.

If a Democratic nominee, such as Merrick Garland, replaces Justice Scalia, and especially if a Democrat fills other likely vacancies on the court in the next several years, the constitutional right of women to have access to abortions will be secure for the foreseeable future.

The decision in Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt thus could be the beginning of a new era of greater judicial protection of abortion rights.

Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the School of Law at the University of California, Irvine, is the author of "The Case Against the Supreme Court." The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Between 2010-15, state governments adopted over 290 different laws restricting access to abortion. They did this with the hope that the Supreme Court would defer to state's regulations to make it much more difficult for women to have abortions. But the court's ruling in Whole Women's Health today reflects that there are not five votes to uphold such laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Solution To Prevent School Shootings: Arming Teachers? | The View

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
cnn florida shooting we call bs nra - Google Search

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Barack Obama wiped away tears at the White House as he expressed grief over the children killed in the Connecticut massacre and promised "meaningful action" to prevent similar shooting rampages in the future.

Barack Obama wiped away tears at the White House as he expressed grief over the children killed in the Connecticut massacre and promised "meaningful action" to prevent similar shooting rampages in the future.

Obama has promised to act on gun control after earlier shooting incidents but subsequently done nothing implement any changes. Over the last four years of his presidency, restrictions on guns - in particular concealed weapons - have become more relaxed and gun sales soared.

There have been five major shooting sprees since he has been president, three of them this year. This one is different because the majority of the victims in the school in Newtown are young children, but the most recent opinion polls have shown overwhelming opposition to gun restrictions.

Obama, speaking in the White House press room, said the loss of innocent lives had broken hearts. "As a country, we have been through this too many times. Whether it's an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago - these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children.

"And we're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics."
Just minutes earlier, he broke down while delivering the statement. He said: "The majority of those who died today were children - beautiful little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old." Choking up, tears welling in his eyes, he paused for what seemed like an interminable time, though it was only 10 seconds.

He went on: "They had their entire lives ahead of them - birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own." He then had to pause again.

Such emotion from the president is unusual, at odds with Obama's reputation for being overly cool. Twice during the statement, he wiped away tears as they began to form. The only other time he has been seen to cry in public was last month, when he spoke to campaign workers at the end of the White House election.

As a mark of respect for the dead, he ordered flags across the country to be flown at half-staff.

Minutes after Obama spoke there was strong response from the most high-profile figure in the country advocating gun control, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, who called for an end to what he described as this madness.

"President Obama rightly sent his heartfelt condolences to the families in Newtown. But the country needs him to send a bill to Congress to fix this problem. Calling for 'meaningful action' is not enough. We need immediate action," Bloomberg said.

"We have heard all the rhetoric before. What we have not seen is leadership - not from the White House and not from Congress. That must end today."

New York governor Andrew Cuomo took a different view. In a statement paying tribute to the victims of "this senseless and horrific act of violence", Cuomo said: "While we don't have all the facts and our focus must be on the victims, this is yet another senseless and horrific act of violence involving guns. We as a society must unify and once and for all crack down on the guns that have cost the lives of far too many innocent Americans. Let this terrible tragedy finally be the wake-up call for aggressive action and I pledge my full support in that effort."

Early in his political career, Obama championed modest gun controls, but since his run for president he has largely avoided the issue.

Earlier on Friday, Obama's spokesman Jay Carney provoked a backlash from gun control activists when he said that the day of the Connecticut school shooting was not an appropriate one for a discussion about gun laws.

Carney, asked at the daily press conference whether the shooting would raise gun control up the president's agenda, said there would be a day for discussion on the policy issue. "But I don't think today is that day," he said.

Gun control advocates flooded websites and Twitter, complaining that if this was not a day for discussion, when would be a better time.

Bloomberg, who is co-chair of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, rounded on Carney. "We heard after Columbine that it was too soon to talk about gun laws. We heard it after Virginia Tech. After Tucson and Aurora and Oak Creek. And now we are hearing it again. For every day we wait, 34 more people are murdered with guns. Today, many of them were five-year-olds," Bloomberg said.

His co-chair in the Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Boston mayor Thomas Menino, echoed him. "Now is the time for a national policy on guns that takes the loopholes out of the laws, the automatic weapons out of our neighborhoods and the tragedies like today out of our future," Menino said.

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, joined in the calls for action. "Another day, another horrific shooting eating away at our collective peace of mind. This time at a school in Connecticut. We are better than this this. What matters is not what we do after the sensational tragedies. It's what we do between them - to make the voice of the American public heard," Gross said.

The National Rifle Association, which would almost certainly seek to block any legislation that would introduce significant gun restrictions, was lying low on Friday, as it normally does after shooting sprees.

An NRA public affairs spokeswoman, in response to a question about the Connecticut shooting, said: "Until the facts are thoroughly known, the NRA will not be making any comment.

In spite of Bloomberg's call for congressional action, the Republican House speaker, John Boehner, avoided any mention of action in his statement, confining himself to an expression of sympathy.

"The horror of this day seems so unbearable, but we will lock arms and unite as citizens, for that is how Americans rise above unspeakable evil," Boehner said.

There was a public outcry after the Columbine school shooting spree in 1999 and the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, the worst single incident in recent US history, claiming 33 lives. Calls for gun control were renewed last year when congresswoman Gabby Giffords was shot in Arizona, and again this year, though to a much lesser extent, when 12 were killed in Aurora, Colorado.

Obama, two months after the Giffords shooting, promised "sound and effective steps that will actually keep those irresponsible, law-breaking few from getting their hands on a gun in the first place". The only measure to surface was more intensive background check but even this modest measure has so far failed to emerge from the Justice Department.

On Friday, Giffords' husband, former astronaut Mark Kelly, called for immediate action. In a statement, he said: "As we mourn, we must sound a call for our leaders to stand up and do what is right. This time our response must consist of more than regret, sorrow, and condolence. The children of Sandy Hook elementary school and all victims of gun violence deserve leaders who have the courage to participate in a meaningful discussion about our gun laws - and how they can be reformed and better enforced to prevent gun violence and death in America. This can no longer wait."

Debate about gun laws was largely absent from this year's White House race, with Obama unwilling to provoke the gun lobby. The Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said he saw no need to change any of the laws, even to restore a limited restrictions on automatic assault rifles. Obama agreed.

Both Romney and Obama had in the past supported limited gun controls but both dropped this in the face of polls showing widespread support for the right to carry guns.

A Gallup poll last year, only months after the Giffords shooting, found a record low in support for gun controls, just 26%. When Gallup first asked the question in 1959, there was 60% support.

During the campaign, when Carney was asked about Obama's position, he said the main focus of president, who four years earlier had supported a ban on assault-weapons, was to protect the second amendment, the constitutional protection for gun ownership.

Bills introduced into Congress in recent years to restrict guns have gone nowhere. In fact, laws around the country have been more lax, allowing people to carry concealed weapons and giving them more freedom about places they can take them into, including legislatures. In Florida, one million people have permits allowing them to carry concealed weapons.

Four Republican-dominated legislatures - Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Alabama and Tennessee - are considering allowing employees to take guns to work.

Bloomberg News reported this month that gun manufacturers Smith & Wesson recorded record sales for its most recent quarter, up 48% from a year earlier.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Obama promises 'meaningful action' after Newtown school shooting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Barack Obama wiped away tears at the White House as he expressed grief over the children killed in the Connecticut massacre and promised "meaningful action" to prevent similar shooting rampages in the future. Barack Obama wiped away tears at the White House as he expressed grief over the children killed in the Connecticut massacre and promised "meaningful action" to prevent similar shooting rampages in the future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
PALM BEACH, Fla. - President Trump spent his Easter morning here on an anti-immigrant tirade, declaring Sunday that there would be no deal to legalize the status of undocumented immigrants known as "dreamers" and threatening to exit the North American Free Trade Agreement unless Mexico increases border security.

Trump thrust the future of millions of undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children into peril by promising "NO MORE DACA DEAL," and he directed congressional Republicans to pass tough anti-immigration legislation.

An hour after he wished Americans a "HAPPY EASTER," Trump fired off three tweets in which he vented, sometimes in all caps, about immigration laws he derided as "ridiculous" and "dumb" and about border enforcement he deemed dangerously lax.

In his first of the immigration-related tweets, Trump wrote, "Border Patrol Agents are not allowed to properly do their job at the Border because of ridiculous liberal (Democrat) laws like Catch & Release. Getting more dangerous. 'Caravans' coming. Republicans must go to Nuclear Option to pass tough laws NOW. NO MORE DACA DEAL!"

It was Trump who last fall canceled the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which was begun in the Obama administration to provide temporary protection to dreamers.

"A lot of people are coming in because they want to take advantage of DACA," Trump told the traveling press pool. "They had a great chance. The Democrats blew it."

The president added, "Mexico has got to help us at the border. . . . They flow right through Mexico; they send them into the United States. It can't happen that way anymore."

Trump in the past has promised to show "great heart" in dealing with DACA. In his comments Sunday, he appeared to be confused about the rules of the program. To qualify, immigrants must have lived in the United States since 2007, have arrived in the country before age 16 and have been younger than 31 on June 15, 2012. No one arriving in the country after that date is eligible.

After canceling DACA, Trump said he would like to reach a deal with Congress to protect dreamers from deportation in exchange for funding to build his long-promised wall at the U.S.-Mexico border. The president, however, went on to reject immigration proposals from congressional Democrats in recent months.
[Immigration bills fail in Congress, leaving 'dreamers' in limbo]
"Catch and release" is not a law but shorthand for immigration officials freeing up detention center space by allowing immigrants to remain at large if they are not seen as security risks. The Trump administration has frequently claimed that the policy ended when the new president took office.

But detention centers have continued releasing low-risk immigrants, as the backlog of immigration court cases reaches the hundreds of thousands. On March 5, Attorney General Jeff Sessions informed immigration court judges that they could rule against asylum seekers without full hearings, which conservatives see as a way, in the long term, to open more space in detention centers.

Trump - who has spent his time in Palm Beach hanging out with family, playing golf with friends and watching television - may have tweeted in response to commentary on Fox News, which he is known to view regularly.

"Fox & Friends" aired a segment earlier Sunday morning about Central American migrants traveling through Mexico en route to the United States. It carried the headline: "CARAVAN OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS HEADED TO U.S."

Trump's Sunday comments may have been mere musings by an impassioned "Fox & Friends" viewer and may not signal a substantive shift in administration policies. Still, White House officials have long said Trump's tweets are official presidential statements, and he has been known to use Twitter to preview formal policy pronouncements.

Trump sent his tweets on the fourth and final day of his vacation in Florida, where he has been staying at his private Mar-a-Lago Club with a small coterie of aides. White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly did not travel with him, but senior policy adviser Stephen Miller, a proponent of hard-line immigration policies, has been with Trump.

Trump was back on the same theme Monday. In a series of tweets, Trump said Mexico must exert "absolute power" to block migrants from entering Mexico possibly en route to the U.S. border, declared DACA "dead," and again called on U.S. lawmakers to streamline voting rules to pass tougher border measures.

"Mexico has the absolute power not to let these large "Caravans" of people enter their country," Trump tweeted. "They must stop them at their Northern Border, which they can do because their border laws work, not allow them to pass through into our country, which has no effective border laws....."

"Congress must immediately pass Border Legislation, use Nuclear Option if necessary, to stop the massive inflow of Drugs and People. Border Patrol Agents (and ICE) are GREAT," Trump wrote minutes later, "but the weak Dem laws don't allow them to do their job. Act now Congress, our country is being stolen!"

In Florida, the president also has been spotted spending time - both over dinner Friday at Mar-a-Lago and on Saturday at the nearby Trump International Golf Club - with Fox host Sean Hannity. An outspoken immigration hard-liner, Hannity is a Trump booster and informal presidential adviser, in addition to hosting a radio show and prime-time Fox show.

Trump's tweets baffled some Democrats, who had seen the president distinguish between DACA recipients and other immigrants who are in the country illegally.

"Time and time again, the president has walked away from bipartisan proposals that are exactly what he asked for," said Drew Hammill, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "When an agreement to protect the Dreamers is reached, it will be despite this president rather than with his leadership."

Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) said on Twitter that Trump had once again revealed a racial animus behind his immigration policy. "The mask of deceptions and lies with which Trump has tried to gaslight the country for months just fell away: 'no more DACA deal.' " Beyer tweeted. "His true position was always anti-immigrant."

Rep. Luis V. Gutiérrez (D-Ill.), a leading advocate for a DACA deal in the House, tweeted that Trump had "demonstrated his complete ignorance" on immigration policy.

"Everyone who qualifies for DACA must show they lived in US almost 11 years ago," he wrote. "Apparently every day is April Fool's Day at White House."

Conservative reaction to the tweets was relatively muted, and no Republican member of Congress had a comment or statement Sunday afternoon. At Breitbart, the tweets were reported as Trump refusing to "negotiate a deal between the GOP establishment and Democrats," in "a return to his 'America First' immigration agenda."

On Facebook, the conservative author Ann Coulter, who had condemned Trump for not securing border wall funding so far this year, urged the president to show and not tell.

"Try to get a message to the commander in chief for that wall," she wrote.

But some Republicans joined the chorus of criticism. Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a GOP primary opponent of Trump in 2016 and possibly again in 2020, tweeted in response: "A true leader preserves & offers hope, doesn't take hope from innocent children who call America home. Remember, today is Easter Sunday. #DACA #Hope"

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), a supporter of immigration reform who represents Miami and is retiring this year, took a sarcastic approach: "Such a strong message of love and new beginnings from @realDonaldTrump on Easter Sunday."

By calling for Republicans to use the "Nuclear Option" to pass tough immigration measures, Trump seemed to urge a parliamentary procedure by which Senate Republicans could pass legislation with a simple majority of 51 votes as opposed to the 60-vote majority required to end debate and bring a vote to the floor.

But in mid-February, just 36 of the Senate's 51 Republicans backed an immigration bill that mirrored White House demands. Congressional negotiations on DACA stalled just weeks later, when the Supreme Court upheld a decision that prevented the Trump administration from denying new program renewals.

The court's move effectively nixed a March 6 deadline that the administration had set for ending DACA. Before leaving for Easter recess, Congress passed an omnibus spending bill with no DACA fix, even though advocates saw that as the best must-pass vehicle for one.

Trump lashed out at Mexico in his second of the three tweets Sunday. He threatened to "stop" NAFTA unless Mexican authorities do more to secure the border with the United States.

Trump wrote: "Mexico is doing very little, if not NOTHING, at stopping people from flowing into Mexico through their Southern Border, and then into the U.S. They laugh at our dumb immigration laws. They must stop the big drug and people flows, or I will stop their cash cow, NAFTA. NEED WALL!"

And in the third tweet, the president wrote, "These big flows of people are all trying to take advantage of DACA. They want in on the act!"

Trump's tweets come amid tense negotiations over NAFTA between his administration and that of Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto. A call between the two men in February became testy after Trump refused to publicly affirm Peña Nieto's position that Mexico will not pay for the wall's construction, leading the Mexican leader to cancel a planned visit to Washington.
[After testy call with Trump over border wall, Mexican president shelves plan to visit White House] Weigel reported from Washington. Brian Murphy contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'No more DACA deal,' Trump says as he threatens to 'stop' NAFTA if Mexico doesn't better secure border

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PALM BEACH, Fla. - President Trump spent his Easter morning here on an anti-immigrant tirade, declaring Sunday that there would be no deal to legalize the status of undocumented immigrants known as "dreamers" and threatening to exit the North American Free Trade Agreement unless Mexico increases border security.