# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Could 3D-printing help to tackle homelessness and provide affordable housing to those in need?

Could 3D-printing help to tackle homelessness and provide affordable housing to those in need?

Rural families in the region of Tabasco in south Mexico have been given new homes thanks to a project that is building the world's first 3D-printed neighbourhood. It is the work of US-based non-profit New Story, which has partnered with a 3D-printing technology company to build the 500sq ft homes for a community living in poverty.

Each dwelling has two bedrooms plus a living room, kitchen and bathroom. They have been designed to withstand seismic activity. New Story aims to end global homelessness and is using the 3D-printing technology to build homes quickly at scale. The project will eventually create 50 homes there.

In photos: the world's first 3D-printed neighbourhood

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
World's first 3D-printed neighbourhood built in Mexico - Positive News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Could 3D-printing help to tackle homelessness and provide affordable housing to those in need? Could 3D-printing help to tackle homelessness and provide affordable housing to those in need? Rural families in the region of Tabasco in south Mexico have been given new homes thanks to a project that is building the world's first 3D-printed neighbourhood.

# data[].attributes.body
Personally, I do not think that there should be a U.S State limit at 50. I think that Washington D.C and the territories of Guam, and Puerto Rico should be accepted into the Union.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the midst of a defining moment for the country when millions of protesters have called for justice and equality, ABC News aims to find out if America has reached a turning point with a groundbreaking month-long series of reports examining the racial reckoning sweeping the nation and whether it leads to lasting reconciliation. The unprecedented ABC News programming event "Turning Point," featuring a month-long takeover of "Nightline" and special reporting across all shows and platforms, will confront the systems and institutions that were built to disenfranchise people of color and have shaped this country throughout its history, and showcase the work being done to enact change. "Turning Point" kicks off Tuesday, Sept. 8, on "Nightline."

The special coverage will feature reporting from a powerhouse roster of ABC News anchors, correspondents and multiplatform reporters, including Juju Chang, Byron Pitts, Diane Sawyer, Robin Roberts, Michael Strahan, George Stephanopoulos, David Muir, Linsey Davis, Amy Robach, John Quiñones, Pierre Thomas, Deborah Roberts, Steve Osunsami, Martha Raddatz, Dan Harris, Matt Gutman, Brad Mielke, Cheri Preston, Elwyn Lopez, Alex Presha and more. Plus, special hot topic discussions and segments with "The View" moderator Whoopi Goldberg, co-hosts Sunny Hostin, Joy Behar, Meghan McCain, and Sara Haines and guest co-host Ana Navarro.

"Turning Point" was an award-winning ABC News program and series of specials in the 1990s hosted by some of ABC News' most esteemed anchors-it set the bar for reporting on compelling stories that emerged from "critical moments that changed lives, for better or worse," as the Orlando Sentinel described the show in 1994. With the four weeks of programming, ABC News and "Nightline" will once again deliver its signature series of reporting on a concentrated topic-systemic racism and racial reckoning-asking pointed questions and documenting personal journeys.

"Over the past few weeks and months, there has been a fever pitch echoing across the nation for this country to combat and undo its hundreds of years of systemic racism and inequities," said Marie Nelson, senior vice president of Integrated Content Strategy, ABC News. "With these special 'Turning Point' reports, our viewers will see our commitment to addressing this pivotal moment. This next month ABC News will provide context, history and hope with meaningful and impactful stories across broadcast, streaming, digital, audio and mobile."

The special programming event is produced by "Nightline" and ABC News' Race & Culture unit.

"With the reckoning that has been sweeping across the nation since George Floyd and most recently Jacob Blake, our 'Turning Point' coverage each night for the next four weeks is more vital and relevant than ever," said Steven Baker, executive producer of "Nightline." "Over the course of our reporting, we've been asking ourselves if America has reached a turning point and I'm proud to have 'Nightline' bring these powerful stories that confront this reckoning and hopefully bring us closer to answering that question."

Samples of special coverage include the following:

A "Nightline" three-part series, with special animations narrated by "The View" moderator Whoopi Goldberg, gives a wide-ranging look at reparations, examining what America owes Native Americans, Mexican Americans, and descendants of the enslaved, what some form of "repair" could look like, and the impact it could have in cities like Asheville, North Carolina, that are enacting reparations statutes.

Anchor David Muir and the "World News Tonight" team, through the lens of the racial impact, will report on what America 2.0, post-COVID, could look like, how families are making it work amid an unemployment crisis, and the continued devastating effects on essential workers, schoolteachers, bus drivers and more. The program takes a close look at what the return to school looks like for communities where virtual learning is not an option and so-called pods where families are hiring teachers to come into homes and teach small groups of children. Also, "World News Tonight" will examine how global warming impacts poor communities and how climate change is exacerbating inequality in the U.S. With 2020 predicted to be the hottest year on record, the communities suffering the highest COVID-19 infection and death rates and the worst hardships from its economic fallout will likely confront yet further threats from floods and heatwaves and what measures could help them.

"Good Morning America" co-anchors Robin Roberts, Michael Strahan and George Stephanopoulos will report on the inspiring stories of those working towards inclusivity and equality.

"GMA3" and anchor Amy Robach will profile non-BIPOC who have taken up the fight for social change and justice, explore how racism affects people's mental health, spend time with BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors and hear from Bishop Curry about how love can lead the way out of this moment.

"20/20," with reporting by anchor John Quiñones, profiles Vanessa Guillen's family as they tirelessly advocate for justice. Along the way, Vanessa's parents, Rogelio and Gloria Guillen, and sisters, Mayra and Lupe Guillen, share emotional memories of Vanessa. They also discuss how they learned about her disappearance, the desperate search to find her, the latest on the investigation into leadership at Fort Hood, and overwhelming support across the country.

"This Week" co-anchor Martha Raddatz travels on a cross-country road trip, kicking off in Pennsylvania and stretching all the way to Denver, to hear what voters think and feel about the nationwide protests, COVID-19 and the economy-and how that will influence their vote come November. Along the journey, she returned to Ferguson, Missouri, to see how that community has persevered since being rocked by the shooting of Michael Brown in 2014.

"The View," with moderator Whoopi Goldberg, co-hosts Joy Behar, Sara Haines, Sunny Hostin, and Meghan McCain and guest co-host Ana Navarro, will feature special hot topics and segments that address the efforts to reconcile and remedy America's past.

"ABC News Live Prime" anchor Linsey Davis will shine a light on the challenges of everyday Americans across multiple backgrounds, who are struggling with their finances, their vote, and how to cope and deal with this moment of unrest and division.

"Nightline" co-anchor Juju Chang traces the sobering journey of "Brandon" who, after a boyhood mistake with friends, is jailed and eventually deported to Mexico, a country he has not been to since he was born.

"Nightline" co-anchor Byron Pitts spotlights a Christian sleep away camp in Kentucky that gathers kids from different religions, races and socioeconomic statuses with the intention of fostering racial reconciliation through shared activities like the privilege line and having uncomfortable conversations with people they'd otherwise never meet.

ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer revisits her groundbreaking "True Colors" investigation on racial discrimination in everyday life in America.

An exclusive investigation by chief justice correspondent Pierre Thomas, in partnership with ABC Owned Television Stations, looks into traffic stop policing data and the racial disparities that exist in several major cities.

Correspondent Deborah Roberts examines the movement by teachers and students to teach a more thorough and inclusive portrait of American history.

Correspondent Steve Osunsami gives an in-depth look at how individuals and groups are confronting their own or their communities' racist pasts and working to enlighten and bring about change.

"Good Morning America" weekend co-anchor Dan Harris shines a light on the growing wave of progressive prosecutors with a profile of Sussex County District Attorney Rachael Rollins, the first woman of color to hold the position.

ABC News' Investigative Unit delivers a chilling look into homegrown terrorism, the white supremacist movement from the Oklahoma City bombing to the rise in current day hate crimes, and how the government is combatting the threat.

ABC News Digital peers into the history of disenfranchising Black voters in Mississippi, the economics of reparations, burnout felt among Latino health care workers, and whether there is a backlash to racial reckoning. Coverage also includes a look at the relationship police in the U.K. have with their communities, a feature on Black scuba divers who have excavated long-forgotten slave shipwrecks, examinations into "ally-ship," voter suppression, police reform, whether Mexican immigrant essential workers are being left out of the racial reckoning equation, and an assessment on where the presidential candidates stand on race and social reform.

ABC News' flagship daily news podcast "Start Here," hosted by Brad Mielke, will check back in on an overwhelmed funeral home owner in New York who's trying to provide end of life services to her disproportionately affected community of color while dealing with the loss of her husband to COVID. ABC Audio's weekly newsmagazine "Perspective," hosted by Cheri Preston, will have special extended content each week, spotlighting the characters featured across the network. Preston will also focus on issues affecting minority communities with guests and discuss systemic racism, reparations, law enforcement, housing, policing, elections and more.

ABC NewsOne, the affiliate service of ABC News, will feature a profile by multiplatform reporter Elwyn Lopez of a Latina educator who is singlehandedly going above and beyond to ensure students in a mostly Latino Georgia school district don't fall behind during the pandemic. Additionally multiplatform reporter Alex Presha profiles Jawanna Hardy, a U.S. war veteran who, after returning to Washington, D.C., saw the streets were worse than the war zone from which she returned, created "Guns Down Friday" to provide a safe and positive outlet for young people and moms who have lost children to gun violence.

For "Nightline," Steven Baker is executive producer, Eman Varoqua is senior broadcast producer and Candace Smith is series senior producer. Robert Zepeda is senior producer for Race & Culture, Newsgathering. Audrey Taylor is director, ABC News Washington Bureau and Race & Culture special coordinating producer.

ABC programming can also be viewed on demand and on Hulu.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
watch "turning point" - a month-long "nightline" takeover event

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Watch "Turning Point" - A Month-Long "Nightline" Takeover Event | ABC Updates

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The unprecedented ABC News programming event "Turning Point," featuring a month-long takeover of "Nightline" and special reporting across all shows and platforms, will confront the systems and institutions that were built to disenfranchise people of color and have shaped this country throughout its history, and showcase the work being done to enact change.

# data[].attributes.body
- "A landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that U.S. state laws establishing racial segregation in public schools are otherwise equal in quality."

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court refused to overturn election results that had already been certified and submitted.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a one-sentence order, the court refused to overturn election results that had already been certified and submitted.

A "Stop the Steal" rally on Tuesday outside the Supreme Court. Credit... Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused a long-shot request from Pennsylvania Republicans to overturn Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s victory in the state, delivering an unmistakable rebuke to President Trump in the forum on which he had pinned his hopes.

The Supreme Court's order was all of one sentence, and there were no noted dissents. But it was nonetheless a major setback for Mr. Trump and his allies, who have compiled an essentially unbroken losing streak in courts around the nation. They failed to attract even a whisper of dissent in the court's first ruling on a challenge to the outcome of the election.

The court now has three justices appointed by Mr. Trump, including Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whose rushed confirmation in October was in large part propelled by the hope that she would vote with the president in election disputes. But there was no indication that she or the other Trump appointees were inclined to embrace last-minute arguments based on legal theories that election law scholars said ranged from the merely frivolous to the truly outlandish.

Mr. Trump and his Republican allies have lost about 50 challenges to the presidential election in the past five weeks, as judges in at least eight states have repeatedly rejected a litany of unproven claims - that mail-in ballots were improperly sent out, that absentee ballots were counted wrongly, that poll observers were not given proper access to the vote count and that foreign powers hacked into and manipulated voting machines.

Mr. Trump has not come close - even once - to overturning the results of a single state's election, let alone the results in at least three states that he would need to take a victory from Mr. Biden. And around the country, judges have started to express their frustration with his attempts to have the courts substitute their will for those of voters.

Last month, for instance, the federal appeals court in Philadelphia rejected a different challenge to the results in Pennsylvania in scathing terms.

"Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy," wrote Judge Stephanos Bibas, who was appointed to the court by Mr. Trump. "Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."

"Voters, not lawyers, choose the president," Judge Bibas wrote. "Ballots, not briefs, decide elections."

On Friday, Justice Brian Hagedorn of the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued an even stronger statement in an opinion rejecting a Republican attempt to overturn that state's elections results. "Judicial acquiescence to such entreaties built on so flimsy a foundation would do indelible damage to every future election," he wrote. "This is a dangerous path we are being asked to tread."

On Tuesday night, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Pennsylvania case, the Arizona Supreme Court unanimously rejected a challenge to the vote in that state, saying it had failed "to present any evidence of 'misconduct,' 'illegal votes' or that the Biden electors 'did not in fact receive the highest number of votes for office,' let alone establish any degree of fraud or a sufficient error rate that would undermine the certainty of the election results."

In the Pennsylvania case, the justices said they would not block a ruling from the state's highest court that had rejected a challenge to the state's use of mail ballots on Nov. 3.

The request that the Supreme Court intercede had faced substantial legal hurdles since it was filed long after the enactment of a 2019 statute that allowed mailed ballots and was based on questions of state, rather than federal, law.

In late November, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiffs, led by Representative Mike Kelly, a Republican, on the first ground, saying they could have challenged the 2019 law allowing vote by mail for any reason more than a year ago.

"At the time this action was filed on Nov. 21, 2020, millions of Pennsylvania voters had already expressed their will in both the June 2020 primary election and the November 2020 general election," the court said. "Petitioners failed to act with due diligence in presenting the instant claim. Equally clear is the substantial prejudice arising from petitioners' failure to institute promptly a facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory scheme, as such inaction would result in the disenfranchisement of millions of Pennsylvania voters."

The plaintiffs had asked the state court to nullify mailed ballots after the fact or to direct the state legislature to pick Pennsylvania's electors.

The filing in the U.S. Supreme Court took issue with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's interpretation of state law and sought an order telling state officials not to take further actions to certify the vote in Pennsylvania or "to nullify any such actions already taken" while the plaintiffs pursued an appeal.

The U.S. Supreme Court does not ordinarily second-guess such rulings.

In urging the justices not to intercede, lawyers for the state said the Republicans' requests were "an affront to constitutional democracy."

"Petitioners ask this court to undertake one of the most dramatic, disruptive invocations of judicial power in the history of the Republic," they wrote. "No court has ever issued an order nullifying a governor's certification of presidential election results."

They said there were four flaws in the challengers' arguments. In the U.S. Supreme Court, the challengers said the state law was at odds with federal constitutional provisions governing elections. But they had not squarely made that argument in their main filings in the state courts, and the Supreme Court does not ordinarily decide questions not first decided by a lower court.

Moreover, lawyers for the state wrote, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision turned on a question of state law. That "adequate and independent state-law ground" for the decision, they wrote, bars U.S. Supreme Court review.

They added that the challengers had not suffered the sort of concrete injury that would give them standing to sue and that the 2019 law was not at odds with the state Constitution.

Image

Election workers at the Philadelphia Convention Center, where ballots were being counted in November. Credit... Ruth Fremson/The New York Times

In any event, lawyers for the state wrote, the matter was moot, since the state's election results in favor of Mr. Biden have been certified and submitted. The challengers' remaining argument, they wrote, was that the Supreme Court should simply overturn the state's election results. That request, they wrote, was breathtaking and unconstitutional.

As the court was dismissing the Pennsylvania case on Tuesday, a second election case came before it, an audacious lawsuit filed directly in the court by Texas against four other states. It asked the justices to extend the Dec. 14 deadline for certification of presidential electors.

The suit, filed by Texas's attorney general, Ken Paxton, said Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin had engaged in election irregularities that require investigation, and it asked the court to "enjoin the use of unlawful election results without review and ratification by the defendant states' legislatures."

Legal experts called the suit preposterous. "It looks like we have a new leader in the 'craziest lawsuit filed to purportedly challenge the election' category," Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas, wrote on Twitter.

The Constitution gives the Supreme Court "original jurisdiction" to hear disputes "in which a state shall be party." In such cases, the Supreme Court acts much like a trial court, appointing a special master to hear evidence and issue recommendations. Though the Constitution seems to require the court to hear cases brought by states, the court has ruled that it has discretion to turn them down and often does.

When the court does exercise its original jurisdiction, it is usually to adjudicate disputes between two states over issues like water rights. In 2016, the justices turned down a request from Nebraska and Oklahoma to file a challenge to Colorado's legalization of recreational marijuana. The states said the Colorado law had spillover effects, taxing neighboring states' criminal justice systems and hurting the health of their residents.

Texas asked the justices to put its case on an exceptionally fast track. The court did not adopt the state's proposed schedule but did call for responses by Thursday.

In a blog post, Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, called the Texas filing a "press release masquerading as a lawsuit."

Alan Feuer contributed reporting from New York.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court Rejects Republican Challenge to Pennsylvania Vote

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a one-sentence order, the court refused to overturn election results that had already been certified and submitted. WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused a long-shot request from Pennsylvania Republicans to overturn Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s victory in the state, delivering an unmistakable rebuke to President Trump in the forum on which he had pinned his hopes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Most laws are adopted to keep our communities healthy and safe. But even the most well-intentioned laws can backfire and lead to absurd or unjust outcomes. Unintended consequences can arise even when laws seem reasonable and commonplace. Such unintended outcomes don't just happen at the federal or state level; local laws can sometimes miss the mark as well. The good news is that local governments are closer and more responsive to communities, so equitable change can often be more easily achieved at the local level.

Check out these 10 types of common local laws that may seem like good ideas but can be surprisingly harmful. If these laws exist in your community and are creating unintended negative consequences, you can use the resources in each section to learn more about solutions.

Nuisance laws can backfire, resulting in less safety in communities when residents fear reporting violence to the police and perpetrators gain impunity.

In Missouri, Rosetta Watson called police several times seeking protection from her abusive boyfriend and, as a result, was deemed a nuisance. This designation led to eviction from her home under a local law that bars people from living anywhere in the city for 6 months if they are determined to be a "nuisance." This particular type of nuisance was defined as more than 2 calls to the police about domestic violence within 180 days. There are similar ordinances across the country. Experiences like Rosetta's can cause nuisance laws to backfire, resulting in less safety in communities when residents fear reporting violence to the police and perpetrators gain impunity. To promote community safety for all residents, localities can re-examine both their existing nuisance laws and their enforcement practices.

To learn more about promoting safe homes for everyone, check out the American Civil Liberties Union's guide Safe Homes, Safe Communities.

In Atlanta, Georgia, Raquel Nelson was prosecuted for vehicular homicide after her son A.J. was killed by a drunk driver as the pair crossed the street outside of a crosswalk. Raquel and her family were trying to walk from a bus stop to their apartment, and the nearest crosswalk was one-third of a mile away. And Raquel is not alone in being penalized for living without a car. Many cities, especially suburban developments, were built to support car transportation. But as more car-less residents - such as low-income families - move to neighborhoods designed for cars, they find that their needs are not taken into account.

So what can cities do? A good place to start is factoring in non-car modes of transportation when making decisions. In doing so, cities can create - or retrofit - streets that are safe for everyone, no matter how they get around.

To learn more about making streets safer for people walking, biking, and taking transit, check out A Guide to Building Healthy Streets from ChangeLab Solutions.

3. Fines for Minor Infractions

An important way to assess a law's fairness is to see whether the penalty for violating the law is proportionate to the violation's severity. In general, fines - like any other penalty - are in place for an important reason: to encourage people to follow laws. However, when fines are combined with court costs, numerous add-on fees, and potential late fees, the costs of a citation offense such as a speeding ticket can add up quickly. Failure to pay can then lead to disproportionate consequences ranging from a suspended driver's license all the way to jail time for minor traffic violations. In effect, these cascading fees create a system in which the poor are penalized for being poor, even to the point of serving time in modern-day debtors prisons.

To learn more about the issue and consequences of excessive fines for minor infractions in traffic courts in California and across the country, check out Paying More for Being Poor: Bias and Disparity in California's Traffic System, a report by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area.

Rightly recognizing that our aging water infrastructure needs attention, some cities have turned to for-profit water companies to own or operate public water utilities. While nearly 90% of people get their water from public utilities, water privatization continues to be a hot topic, particularly in small rural communities. Putting a vital public utility like water in the hands of the private sector has serious drawbacks. Risks of privatization include increased costs, limited transparency and public accountability, and poorer service, especially in low-income and rural communities.

In Dillon Beach, California, when a private water provider raised its rates, retiree Marjon Row was forced to choose between making her car payments and paying her water bill. She was paying 4-6 times more for her water than her neighbors in nearby towns. As more cities face tough decisions about their water infrastructure, stories like Marjon's will be important for decisionmakers to keep in mind so that water works for all residents.

To learn more about water policy in your jurisdiction, check out Food and Water Watch's report The State of Public Water in the United States. To learn about how to use policy to get clean water into rural communities, check out Closing the Water Gap: Using Policy to Improve Drinking Water in Federally-Unregulated Drinking Water Systems from ChangeLab Solutions.

5. Occupancy Standards for Rental Housing

Occupancy standards are laws that specify how many people can live in a housing unit. These laws are intended to promote health and safety by controlling dangerous overcrowding in residences. In general, these standards set limits on how many family members can live together in a single housing unit and then set a lower cap for unrelated people living together. The amount of these caps vary widely from city to city. Occupancy standards are not only impractical - because they do not take into account the size of different housing units - but also unfair, because they generally rely on a complaint-based system. Relying on community-generated complaints can cause unfair outcomes because complaints may be motivated by bias such as prejudice against renters or residents of low-income neighborhoods. Occupancy standards also treat unrelated people differently than family members. Unrelated people who live together are often more in more precarious housing situations - for example, when low-income people or students live together to reduce costs.

In Manassas, Virginia, the city council voted to repeal a housing ordinance that restricted the definition of family to immediate family members. In theory, the ordinance was intended to control overcrowding, but in practice, it targeted the many Latino families in Manassas who lived with relatives. Eliminating occupancy limits - like Bend, Oregon, and Sandpoint, Idaho, have done - would increase the amount of inexpensive housing available in a region as well as prevent groups like Manassas' Latino community from being unfairly targeted.

Community-generated complaints can cause unfair outcomes when motivated by bias such as prejudice against renters or residents of low-income neighborhoods.

To learn more about how to use policy to make housing more affordable to more people in your community, check out the National Low Income Housing Coalition's Advocates' Guide to Housing and Community Development Policy. For more about the relationship between health and housing, check out The BLOCK Project from ChangeLab Solutions.

6. Criminalizing Food Sharing

Cities have many good reasons for enforcing robust food safety standards. However, a subset of food safety laws restrict people from sharing food with community members who are homeless. These laws range from requiring a permit to share food in public spaces to making food safety regulations so stringent that food-sharing groups no longer have the capacity to comply. For example, certain food safety laws may require food handler permits or restrict food service to only hot meals in designated locations. Such laws have the effect of making it harder to be homeless rather than helping to solve the problem. Limiting food sharing - especially when coupled with anti-vagrancy measures - often ends up penalizing the homeless and those who seek to help them.

To learn more about policy solutions to help feed the homeless, check out the National Coalition for the Homeless' report Share No More: The Criminalization of Efforts to Feed People in Need.

Tobacco possession/use/purchase (PUP) laws for youths are a set of laws that penalize youth for having tobacco products. PUP laws have the right idea of preventing young people from using tobacco products. But the laws target the youths themselves rather than the adults who sell to them or the industry that aggressively markets to young people and then profits from their addiction. The effectiveness of PUP laws is also questionable; research shows that PUP laws don't actually do much to discourage youths from smoking. PUP laws can also be unfair to less-resourced community members. They risk stigmatizing and penalizing young people, in addition to frequently being disproportionately enforced among youths of color.

Youth PUP laws are one of the most common types of tobacco control laws and continue to be introduced across the country. Cities that want to support their young people in being healthy and drug-free can reconsider any existing PUP laws and think creatively about alternatives to curb youth tobacco use, including enforcement of other tobacco control laws. Possible solutions include strong prevention and education programs, enacting laws to raise the cost of tobacco products, and restricting the sale of common "starter" products like menthol and other flavored tobacco.

To learn more about strategies to keep your community tobacco-free, check out the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids' Tobacco Control Policies and Tobacco Retailer Licensing resources from ChangeLab Solutions.

8. School Discipline Policies

Children who are experiencing disciplinary or behavioral issues need support and corrective guidance rather than removal from the school environment.

As these policies have proliferated, national rates of suspensions, expulsions, and schools referring incidents to law enforcement have also risen. And these experiences have long-term effects both on children and communities. Excluding students from school is a predictor of whether kids will later come into contact with the criminal justice system, a process known as the school-to-prison pipeline and a phenomenon that affects students of color disproportionately.

To learn more about equitable ways to improve safety in schools, check out Fix School Discipline (a project of Public Counsel) and the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania's End Zero Tolerance.

9. Minimum Parking Requirements

Many communities require developers to build minimum amounts of parking for new buildings - both residential and commercial. This practice is increasingly criticized because it subsidizes drivers at the expense of healthy, sustainable communities. By increasing local reliance on cars, parking minimums increase traffic and pollution, encourage sprawl, and hurt walkability. Parking minimums also drive up housing costs: If new housing units must be accompanied by parking spots, this increases the cost of building and decreases the supply of housing. And in communities with high housing needs, every dollar spent on parking is a dollar not spent on housing. For example, in developing affordable housing, building 1 parking space per unit increases costs approximately 12.5%, and 2 parking spaces per unit can increase costs by as much as 25%.

In Los Angeles County, California, the majority of buildings were constructed after parking minimums went into effect. The county now has a whopping 200+ square miles of parking, and the city continues to struggle with traffic congestion as well as affordability. To combat these types of problems, cities can do away with their parking minimums; they can also consider going a step further and converting existing parking spaces to other uses, particularly uses that are friendly to non-car transportation.

To learn more about parking management strategies, check out Richard Willson's article " Parking Management for Smart Growth" in ACCESS Magazine.

While not a local law, preemption earns a spot on this list because of its increasing influence on whether and how local governments can pass laws necessary to protect public health and advance health equity. Preemption is a legal doctrine that allows a higher level of government to limit or even eliminate the power of a lower level of government to regulate a certain issue. As with any other tool, the impact of preemption depends on when and how it's wielded.

Preemption has rapidly become the tool of choice for many state legislatures to hinder local government's power to create laws that improve people's lives.

For example, floor preemption, which sets a baseline standard, ensures that everyone enjoys the benefits of a law while preserving local authority to provide additional protections. Laws such as the federal Fair Housing Act and Fair Labor Standards Act help establish baseline protections that apply nationwide while leaving options open for stronger regulation. Even ceiling preemption, which sets maximum standards that no lower level of government can go beyond, can be beneficial in the right context. Consider, for example, the need for state laws that prevent local governments from hindering efforts to increase access to affordable housing. States may limit local governments' authority to further regulate and ultimately deny certain multi-unit housing developments.

However, it is clear that preemption has rapidly become the tool of choice for many state legislatures to hinder local government's power to create laws that improve people's lives. States have preempted many important local laws promoting health and health equity. For example, Alabama preempted Birmingham's minimum wage increase; Wisconsin preempted Milwaukee's paid sick leave law; and Texas preempted both Travis County's immigrant sanctuary status and the City of Austin's law prohibiting landlords from discriminating based on a tenant's source of income (eg, federal housing assistance). In the face of preemption issues, cities can organize to preserve and protect local democracy and their ability to tailor policy solutions to their communities. Such efforts are critical to ensure that cities remain places of innovation where local governments and the people they represent have the power to pass their own laws to effect positive change.
This piece is part of the Want to learn more about equitable, health-promoting law and policy? Follow us on and , and join our email list for updates on all of ChangeLab Solutions' work. Building Healthy, Equitable Communities Series and is the first of our policy posts exploring the often unexpected ways that laws and policies can help - or hinder - community health. Take a deeper dive into the topic of health equity through archived recordings of the companion webinar and conversation with an expert panel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Local Laws That May Be Doing More Harm Than Good

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most laws are adopted to keep our communities healthy and safe. But even the most well-intentioned laws can backfire and lead to absurd or unjust outcomes. Unintended consequences can arise even when laws seem reasonable and commonplace. Such unintended outcomes don't just happen at the federal or state level; local laws can sometimes miss the mark as well.

# data[].attributes.body
A law that should exist

Death Penalty for Intentional Homicide
- my opinion, if one person tries to murder or have any harmful intentions to where it leads to a loss, they should be sentenced depending on what has happened already.

# data[].attributes.body
One issue I feel that needs more attention is current state of the United States Space Program. For years, NASA has been underfunded, despite being less than 0.5% of the U.S Federal Budget.

# data[].attributes.body
"Do not live with expectation. If you expect something to happen and it doesn't, it'll disappoint you heavily. Allow things that are meant for you to come to you, but you have to work hard in order to get it."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Capitol was on high alert for a potential attack on Thursday.

Two U.S. officials said that the Capitol Police will be asking for a 60-day extension of the National Guard and that it's being reviewed.

A third official said a formal request from the Capitol Police has not yet arrived at the Pentagon, though they are aware it is pending.

The move comes as the Capitol was on high alert after threats of another possible attack plot tied to March 4.

There are currently more than 5,000 National Guard members still in the city from a peak of 25,000 present for security at the Jan. 20 inauguration.

The scheduled end of the current mission for the remaining troops is March 12.

The need for the National Guard presence -- armed behind high fences topped with razor wire -- has become a focus of debate over how much security is needed around the Capitol going forward.

Michigan Democratic Rep. Elaine Slotkin put out a statement Thursday morning raising questions about how that's being determined.

"No one likes seeing the fortress-like security around the Capitol. And no one wants to again have a security problem in and around this symbolic place. But whether an extension has been requested or the mission is indeed terminating on March 12, it's critical that members of Congress get a briefing on what's behind these decisions," she said.

"We all have the same goal: to get back to the point where Capitol Police is capable of protecting us without the Guard's help, and all parties feel confident we can protect the people's business," she said.

Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, blasted the request in a statement late Thursday.

"Keeping the Capitol Complex safe -- and open to the public, as it has been forever -- is a federal civilian law enforcement responsibility. We can and should make improvements to how the Capitol Police protect the building, and there are plenty of options available to us, such as changes to the U.S. Capitol Police force structure, availability of a non-military quick reaction force and mobile fencing," he said.

"What this solution should not look like is keeping the National Guardsmen here indefinitely, as has been rumored. This is not their job or their mission-and the image this would paint on the world stage is concerning," Inhofe added.

Asked about whether the National Guard needs to remain at the Capitol for two more months, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that "decisions about security are made by the security leadership here, and we'll see what that ask is."

"We should have them here as long as they are needed, and the silliness of this being Inauguration Day ... falls into the realm of let's not waste our time on it," she said. "We have to have what we need, and when we need it, and in the numbers we need it. But that's a security decision."
ABC News' Benjamin Siegel and Trish Turner contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Capitol Police to ask that National Guard stay for another 60 days

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Capitol was on high alert for a potential attack on Thursday. Two U.S. officials said that the Capitol Police will be asking for a 60-day extension of the National Guard and that it's being reviewed. A third official said a formal request from the Capitol Police has not yet arrived at the Pentagon, though they are aware it is pending.

# data[].attributes.body
Knows:
- Democrat parties are considered to be left-sided while Republican parties are considered to be right-sided
- There are three branches of the government: Legislative Branch, Executive Branch, Judicial Branch
- I know what the 10 Amendments are
Want to know:
- I want to know what other peoples opinions are on the quote "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others" (especially teachers and celebrities)
- How the 10 Amendments came to be
- What exactly could happen if Government was never established

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
US Republicans have voted to oust a top lawmaker, Liz Cheney, from her leadership post over her criticism of former President Donald Trump.

The Wyoming lawmaker, daughter of ex-US Vice-President Dick Cheney, has held the third-ranking post in the House of Representatives since 2019.

On Tuesday she said her party could not stand for truth if it upheld Mr Trump's false claims he won the 2020 election.

House Republicans will probably replace her this month with a Trump loyalist.

The move is seen as a sign Mr Trump's grip on the party is stronger than ever six months after he lost the election.

What happened at the vote?

Ms Cheney's fate was decided in less than 20 minutes by House Republicans behind closed doors on Wednesday morning.

Colleagues reportedly applauded her leadership tenure, but Ms Cheney drew boos when she spoke during the session and said: "We cannot let the former president drag us backward and make us complicit in his efforts to unravel our democracy."

The ballot was not recorded but lawmakers cast an overwhelming voice vote in favour of removing Ms Cheney from her post.

Immediately following her removal, she told reporters: "I will do everything I can to ensure that the former president never again gets anywhere near the Oval Office."

Ms Cheney has repeatedly condemned Mr Trump over his unfounded claims the 2020 vote was stolen from him.

Fellow Republican lawmakers say she is relitigating the past while they want to move on and focus on the next election.

Reacting to the news of Ms Cheney's removal from leadership, Mr Trump released a statement attacking her as "a bitter, horrible human being" and "a talking point for Democrats".

The Democratic leader of the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, lavished praise on Ms Cheney as a leader of great courage, patriotism and integrity".

Why was Cheney in trouble?

Her political fall from grace stems from the aftermath of the Capitol riots on 6 January, when Trump supporters stormed Congress.

She was one of 10 members of her party who voted days later with Democrats to impeach the then-president for incitement of insurrection. He was acquitted in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Accusing her of disloyalty, rank-and-file House Republicans held a vote a month later on unseating Ms Cheney from her role as party conference chair.

But the party's leader in the lower chamber, Kevin McCarthy, advised colleagues at the time against removing her. She survived the secret ballot by 145-61. Since then she has continued to upbraid Mr Trump.

The final straw for many party colleagues seems to have been her anti-Trump broadside last week in a Washington Post op-ed. After its publication, Mr McCarthy and his deputy, Republican whip Steve Scalise, began taking steps to oust Ms Cheney.

Mr McCarthy was recently caught on a hot mic telling a Fox News presenter: "I've had it with her. You know, I've lost confidence."

A counterpoint to Trumpism

Liz Cheney was 10 years old when the first Star Wars film premiered. Forty-four years later, she's playing Obi-Wan Kenobi to Donald Trump's Darth Vader, telling him that if he strikes her down, she will become more powerful than he can possibly imagine.

With her ouster from House Republican leadership on Wednesday morning, the first part is done. Now it's up to Ms Cheney to build an anti-Trump movement that makes the second part a reality.

Unlike some other Republican officeholders who challenged Mr Trump and then faded into the relative obscurity of corporate boards, minor book deals and occasional talk show appearances, Ms Cheney is planning an ambitious campaign to support politicians who chart a course away from Mr Trump and his continued efforts to rehash and re-litigate his 2020 electoral defeat.

She is putting herself forward as a reliably conservative counterpoint to Trumpism, and she has the congressional voting record to back that up.

For the moment, Republicans - at least in the House of Representatives - seem to think fealty to Mr Trump is more important than ideological purity. Ms Cheney is betting her political future that this won't always be the case.

Who could replace her?

Elise Stefanik, a four-term congresswoman from upstate New York, is the current favourite to succeed Ms Cheney.

Soon after the vote to remove Ms Cheney, Ms Stefanik quickly signalled her interest in a letter to colleagues, pledging to "unify our message as a team and win the majority in 2022".

A former critic of Mr Trump, the 36-year-old has morphed over the last couple of years into one of his staunchest allies.

He repaid her loyalty on Monday with an endorsement.

However, not everyone in the party supports Ms Stefanik, with some complaining that her voting record in the House is too liberal.

Chip Roy, a member of the hardline conservative Freedom Caucus, set forth his opposition to Ms Stefanik in a memo to colleagues on Tuesday.

"Let us contemplate the message Republican leadership is about to send by rushing to coronate a spokesperson whose voting record embodies much of what led to the 2018 ass-kicking we received by Democrats," the Texas congressman wrote.

What next for Cheney?

She is now fighting for her political life back in her constituency, where her party has already voted at the state level to censure her for voting to impeach Mr Trump.

At least five Republicans have filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission to run against her in 2022.

Of the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Mr Trump, nine in total now face primary challengers from within their party to unseat them from Congress next year.

In an interview with NBC News shortly after the vote, Ms Cheney called her removal "the opening salvo" in a fight "to bring back our party to substance and principles".

Of the primary challenges she faces in Wyoming, she said: "Bring it on."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Liz Cheney: Republican ousted from leadership for challenging Trump election claims

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
US Republicans have voted to oust a top lawmaker, Liz Cheney, from her leadership post over her criticism of former President Donald Trump. The Wyoming lawmaker, daughter of ex-US Vice-President Dick Cheney, has held the third-ranking post in the House of Representatives since 2019.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
international relations and national security

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Israeli forces in violent confrontations with Palestinians outside Jerusalem's Al Aqsa mosque after Gaza ceasefire | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Israeli security forces used stun grenades and rubber bullets against Palestinians outside the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, where thousands of worshipers had been attending Friday prayers, puncturing a half-day of calm brought on by a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.

# data[].attributes.body
One example of showing respect is when interacting with an elder or superior. When working, I honor who is above me, because of their ability to make it to where they are today.

One quote about respect is from Albert Einstein, who says, "I speak to everyone in the same way, whether he is the garbage man or the president of the university".

To me, respect is a form of honor and humility. Respect is a positive feeling towards someone that is based on a persons abilities or achievements.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Myanmar security forces on Thursday arrested one of the main leaders of the campaign against military rule after ramming him with a car as he led a motorbike protest rally, friends and colleagues said.

Opponents of the Feb. 1 coup that ousted an elected government led by Nobel peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi have kept up their campaign against the military this traditional New Year week with marches and various other shows of defiance.

"Our brother Wai Moe Naing was arrested. His motorbike was hit by an unmarked police car," Win Zaw Khiang, a member of a protest organising group, said on social media.

Wai Moe Naing, a 25-year-old Muslim, has emerged as one of the most high-profile leaders of opposition to the coup.

Earlier, Reuters spoke to him by telephone as he was setting off to lead the rally in the central town of Monywa, about 700 km (435 miles) north of the main city of Yangon.

Video posted on social media showed an oncoming car swerving into a group of motorbikes.

A spokesman for the junta could not be reached for comment.

Monywa has been one of main centres of the pro-democracy campaign with big rallies day after day and repeated crackdowns by the security forces.

Some colleagues said they feared for Wai Moe Naing's safety.

The Swedish embassy said it was following his case and urged that all detainees be allowed proper health care and their human rights be respected.

The U.S. Embassy also condemned the reported incident.

"This appalling act further demonstrates why the people of Myanmar do not accept the military regime," the embassy said in a post on Twitter.

PROTESTING MEDICS

In Yangon, security forces detained Myo Aye, director of the Solidarity Trade Union of Myanmar, activist Ei Thinzar Maung said on Facebook. Myo Aye has also played a major role in organising the protests.

State media said a famous actor, Zin Wine, and singer Po Po, both known for their support of the democracy movement, had also been arrested.

The coup has plunged Myanmar into crisis after 10 years of tentative steps toward democracy, with, in addition to the daily protests, strikes by workers in many sectors that have brought the economy to a standstill.

An activist group, the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners, says the security forces have killed 715 protesters since the overthrow of Suu Kyi's government.

Earlier on Thursday, soldiers opened fire in the city of Mandalay to disperse protesting medical workers and one man was killed and several wounded when security forces fired in a nearby neighbourhood, media reported.

Some medical workers have been at the forefront of the campaign against the coup, which for many people has dashed hopes of a more open society after tentative steps towards democracy since the military initiated reforms a decade ago.

State television announced that 20 doctors were among 40 people wanted under a law that makes it illegal to encourage mutiny or dereliction of duty in the security forces. Some 200 people are now wanted under the charge.

The military says the protests are dwindling but thousands joined protests marches and motorbike rallies in several towns, according to pictures posted by media outlets.

The United States and other Western countries have imposed limited sanctions focused on the military and called for the release of Suu Kyi and others detained by the new authorities.

Leaders of Southeast Asian neighbours, which have been trying to encourage talks between the rival Myanmar sides, are due to met in Indonesia on April 24 to discuss the situation, Thai PBS World reported.

Junta leader Senior General Min Aung Hlaing is due to attend, the broadcaster said, on what would be his first known trip abroad and contact with foreign leaders since he seized power.

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Myanmar security forces arrest prominent leader of anti-coup campaign

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Myanmar security forces on Thursday arrested one of the main leaders of the campaign against military rule after ramming him with a car as he led a motorbike protest rally, friends and colleagues said. Opponents of the Feb.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Washington - President Biden on Wednesday urged Americans who haven't yet gotten vaccinated to get the COVID-19 shot, announcing new incentives by the administration and private businesses across the country. It's never been easier to get vaccinated, Mr. Biden said, as he aims for 70% of American adults to have at least one dose of the coronavirus vaccine by July 4.

Right now, 52% of American adults are fully vaccinated, the president said, and he encouraged young people to get their shots. Those who get vaccinated this week can be fully vaccinated by the week of July 4, the president said. The president warned that fall could see an increase in cases and deaths in places where not enough people have gotten vaccinated, and insisted that the COVID-19 vaccine is not a partisan matter.

"Getting the vaccine is not a partisan act," he said. "The science was done under Democratic and Republican administrations. Matter of fact, the first vaccines were authorized under a Republican president."

Mr. Biden also warned young people that the virus could be with them for months, affect their social lives and have harmful effects on their long-term health.

"Do it for yourself. Do it to protect those more vulnerable than you," he said.

The president is deeming June a "national month of action" to boost vaccinations by the upcoming holiday and outline an "all-of-America approach" to getting more shots in arms, including by tapping into national organizations, community- and faith-based partners, businesses, social media influencers, celebrities, athletes, colleges, young Americans and scores of volunteers.

To make it easier for Americans to get inoculated against COVID-19, four of the country's largest child care providers - KinderCare, Learning Care Group, YMCAs and Bright Horizons - will provide free child care to parents and caregivers getting their shots or recovering from side effects, the White House announced. Thousands of Albertsons, CVS, Rite-Aid and Walgreens pharmacies will also remain open late every Friday in June beginning next week. And Uber and Lyft are already offering free rides to and from vaccination sites.

The Biden administration is also launching a "We Can Do This" nationwide tour, led by Vice President Kamala Harris, to reach unvaccinated Americans. Harris will travel to the South, while first lady Dr. Jill Biden, second gentleman Doug Emhoff and other Cabinet members will head to communities across the country. The White House is rolling out a "Shots at the Shop" initiative to engage Black-owned barbershops and beauty salons to support outreach efforts, as well as a COVID-19 College Challenge to boost vaccinations among young people.

During the campaign to boost vaccinations, the White House has launched partnerships with private-sector companies to make it easier for Americans to get their coronavirus shots. In addition to partnering with ride-sharing companies Uber and Lyft to provide free rides to vaccination sites, brewer Anheuser-Busch announced Wednesday it is teaming up with the White House to help meet Mr. Biden's July 4 vaccination goal.

As part of its "Let's Grab a Beer" initiative, the company will give Americans of legal drinking age a free beer when the U.S. reaches the White House's benchmark of 70% of adults partially vaccinated by July 4.

Other companies providing incentives for customers who get their shots include Doordash, a restaurant delivery service, which is giving $2 million in gift cards to the National Association of Community Health Centers; Major League Baseball teams, which have on-site vaccinations at games and award free tickets to fans who get vaccinated; and Microsoft, which is providing thousands of Xboxes to Boys and Girls Clubs in hard-hit communities that run promotions and seminars about the need to get inoculated.

States, too, have rolled out their own initiatives to incentivize residents to get their COVID shots. Ohio health officials reported a spike in people getting their vaccines after Governor Mike DeWine announced the state would award five vaccinated residents $1 million each to boost vaccination rates. West Virginia is giving $100 savings bonds to residents between the ages of 16 and 35 who get their shots, while the first 100,000 Minnesota residents who receive their first dose of a coronavirus vaccine before June 30 will be eligible for rewards.

Mr. Biden announced in early May his target of 70% of adults partially vaccinated and 160 million U.S. adults fully vaccinated by July 4. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 62.8% of the U.S. adult population have received at least one dose of their vaccines, while 51.7% of American adults are fully vaccinated. Seventy percent of adults in 12 states have already received at least one shot, and more than 28 states and the District of Columbia have fully vaccinated at least half of their adult populations.
Weijia Jiang contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Biden pushes vaccination campaign as July 4 deadline nears

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Washington - President Biden on Wednesday urged Americans who haven't yet gotten vaccinated to get the COVID-19 shot, announcing new incentives by the administration and private businesses across the country. It's never been easier to get vaccinated, Mr. Biden said, as he aims for 70% of American adults to have at least one dose of the coronavirus vaccine by July 4.