Imagine being arrested for a crime you didn’t commit–let alone even know about.

Now, imagine being arrested four times for crimes you didn’t commit.

That was the reality for an Orange County, California man whose ex-girlfriend had been impersonating him online. She had been sending herself messages from an account she created on Facebook in his name threatening to harm and kill her, according to a statement from the Orange County District Attorney’s Office.

Authorities arrested Tyler Parkervest, between the months of September and December 2015, four times in connection to the claims of harassment and stalking. According to the statement, he was subsequently charged with multiple felonies.

Stephani Renae Lawson Gets Jail for Creating Ex’s False Facebook Threats https://t.co/HxC0yJqNjQ via @ocweekly

— OC Weekly (@OCWeekly) December 1, 2016

“The OCDA investigation revealed that the true victim was John Doe and he was not guilty of the crimes,” the statement said.

Stephani Lawson, 25, “pleaded guilty to one felony count of false imprisonment by menace, violence, fraud, or deceit, and one felony count of perjury,” according to the statement.

Lawson created the fake profile and claimed that her ex-boyfriend, referred to as John Doe in the DA statement but identified as Parkervest by The Washington Post, had broken a restraining order, stalked, and threatened her life on multiple occasions. Lawson would report to the authorities that she had been receiving these harmful messages from her ex-boyfriend and subsequently have him arrested.

Lawson drew suspicion after she testified under oath about the messages she had been receiving in May 2016. Something about the evidence and the Facebook messages seemed off for some at the DA’s office. Turns out, the Facebook threats made to her had been sent using her own devices and her own IP address. The Orange County District Attorney’s Office conducted an investigation of the comments she made and of the messages themselves and concluded that she was responsible for the wrongdoing.

After exhaustive attempts, the Orange County DA’s Office was able to obtain cell phone records from T-Mobile and information from Facebook. This information gave the office what they had suspected: it had been Lawson all along.

“The T-Mobile records showed that Lawson disguised herself as Parkervest with a similar Facebook account,” Orange County District Attorney investigator Loren Dawson told the The Washington Post. “Lawson sent herself numerous criminal threats from the phony ‘Tyler Parker’ Facebook account and reported to law enforcement that Parkervest sent her the messages. Lawson had Parkervest arrested four times for crimes that he did not commit.”

Authorities arrested Lawson in Las Vegas on September 28 and dismissed the charges against Parkervest shortly after. She has since been sentenced to one year in county jail, three years of probation, and ordered to pay restitution, according to the Orange County DA.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Woman Impersonates Her Ex on Facebook, Sends Threats to Herself appeared first on Law Street.

A Virginia school district has temporarily banned two classic novels, “To Kill A Mockingbird” and “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” after a parent raised concerns over the racial slurs presented in each book.

Accomack County Public Schools Superintendent Warren Holland confirmed that the two books had been banned to WAVY-TV as a result of a student’s mother complaining at a school board meeting in November. The mother claimed that her son, who is biracial, was deeply troubled by the racial slurs he had to read in the books.

These books are not strangers to challenges and banning by school systems. According to the American Library Association, the two are frequently banned and challenged young adult reading. Racial slurs occur 219 times in Mark Twain’s “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” and 48 times in Harper Lee’s “To Kill A Mockingbird.”

“So what are we teaching our children?” the parent asked  during the meeting. “We’re validating that these words are acceptable, and they are not acceptable by any means.”

Claire Fallon from the The Huffington Post expressed concerns over the ban, writing

Shielding citizens, from youth through adulthood, from the full extent of wrongs perpetrated by Americans and the U.S. government prevents the understanding that could allow for real problem-solving. For example, last year, a survey found that nearly half of Americans don’t believe that the Civil War was primarily motivated by Southerners’ desire to keep slavery, despite a historical consensus that it was. Most Americans don’t support reparations ― or even apologizing for slavery ― and this ignorance about the severity and willfulness of the nation’s past crimes is surely a factor.

Some on social media saw this as a slippery slope.

Banning classic lit. isn’t the answer people. I have heard more offensive crap in rap music. https://t.co/3JQGP3w0F5

— BethM (@BethMcCall84) December 2, 2016

POLL: Should Accomack County Public Schools ban “To Kill A Mockingbird” & Huck Finn? The novels are currently suspended due to racial slurs.

— Katie Collett (@KatieCollettTV) December 1, 2016

Other parents from Accomack County voiced their concerns over the bans.

“Everybody’s read it… it didn’t change a difference in my views at all,” one parent Catherine Glaser told WAVY-TV. “I’d like my son to read those books… my daughter’s mixed, and I don’t have a problem with it, I love those books.”

Nothing is certain, however. The complaint was filed as “a request for reconsideration of learning resources.” The request will go before a committee made up of different school members, such as a principal, librarian, teacher, and parent; and they will make a recommendation to Holland.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Virginia School District Bans Two American Classics over Racial Slurs appeared first on Law Street.

The National Football League suspended a Buffalo Bills player Tuesday for violating the NFL’s substance abuse policy. Offensive tackle Seantrel Henderson was suspended for 10 games. According to what Henderson’s agent Brian Fettner said to the Associated Press, this suspension comes from the player’s use of medical marijuana to treat his Crohn’s disease

The Bills announced the league had notified them on Tuesday of their player’s suspension.

“The league has notified us of the suspension and we are moving forward with our preparations to play the Oakland Raiders this Sunday,” the Bills said in their statement.

This is Henderson’s second suspension of this year; he began the season with a four-game suspension.

Henderson was diagnosed with Crohn’s a year ago, and underwent multiple surgeries on his intestines in the previous offseason.

Disgusted at Seantrel Henderson’s suspension for treating his Crohn’s with prescribed cannabis. #NFL couldn’t care less about player health

— Jake Silver (@jakeofsilver) November 29, 2016

“The reality is, the NFL’s position has been if you need medical marijuana then you’re too sick to play,” Fettner also said. “But that’s just not the case for Seantrel Henderson.”

The NFL’s substance policy does not allow medical exemptions for marijuana use, although it does for some other banned substances.

According to Yahoo, “If he were to fail a third drug test, Henderson would be banned for life, with the ability to apply for reinstatement after a year.”

Henderson has spoken in defense of the drug previously.

“I’ve got doctors telling me this is the No. 1 medicine that would help your disease,” Henderson told The Buffalo News. “You try to tell that to the league and it seems like they didn’t care too much.”

@ZIGGY15X Thankfully @h_seantrel didn’t beat a woman or they might have tacked another game onto the 10 game suspension for mmj.

— Big Bacon Moe (@Mykl0) November 30, 2016

If Henderson chooses to, he could pursue a lawsuit against the NFL.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NFL Bans Seantrel Henderson for Using Medical Marijuana to Treat Crohn’s Disease appeared first on Law Street.

It all started with a simple statement.

“The Obama administration turned a deaf ear to us and frankly, with President-elect Trump, we feel things are going to move in the right direction,” Matthew LeBretton, the VP of public affairs for New Balance, said to the the Wall Street Journal.

LeBretton said it was taken out of context. However, not quickly or loudly enough, as news of New Balance’s supposed public endorsement went viral.

His response was to a question regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); an initiative backed by President Obama, which Donald Trump vehemently opposed. As the only major shoe company still manufacturing its shoes in the states, New Balance said this program would hurt it.

With the statement coming off to many as an endorsement, people became angry, even to the point of burning their shoes and threatening to boycott the business.

@SoleCollector@newbalance good to know. I made a little bonfire tonight pic.twitter.com/yOdCTbQgac

— skreetware (@milftears) November 10, 2016

Videos of social media users lighting their shoes on fire, throwing them out, and even flushing them (kind of) down the toilet were posted all over social media.

. @Therealtesp@newbalancepic.twitter.com/8vdBRXEJzD

— Marcus H. Johnson (@smoothkobra) November 11, 2016

Just as some people responded with anger, others celebrated.

One such person was Andrew Anglin of The Daily Stormer, which hails itself as “America’s #1 Most-Trusted Republican News Source.”

“The official shoes of white people” aka New Balance, is trying to fix its PR disaster after Anglin published an article willing his readers to go out and buy New Balance shoes because “their brave act has just made them the official brand of the Trump Revolution.” This endorsement prompted New Balance to reply, trying to distance itself from some of the views of the alt-right.

pic.twitter.com/lXtWlCFkIV

— New Balance (@newbalance) November 15, 2016

“My statements aren’t political, this is policy related solely to TPP.” LeBretton told Buzzfeed News. “I’ve spoken on the record to The Boston Globe and other sources about our opposition to Obama’s footwear tax and the TPP.”

However, this led to Anglin publishing another article about the brand. This time he restated his endorsement and added that “the only logical thing for the company to do at this point would be to come out aggressively in support of Trump and Republicans and our nationalist agenda to make America great again.”

Additionally, he wrote that New Balance is “being attacked by Jews and others” for their statement in support for Trump, and against the TPP.

New Balance is one of many companies Americans are heavily scrutinizing following the election. Journalists and citizens criticized both Google and Facebook for their roles in fake news dissemination, and social media users have been circulating many other companies’ names for being pro-Trump and places to boycott.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did New Balance Really Endorse Trump? appeared first on Law Street.

As of Monday, two of the largest internet sites have decided to cut off fake news outlets from their advertising services.

These moves are a part of a crackdown on the dissemination of false or misleading news that plagued and possibly influenced the recent presidential election.

With growing criticism of both Google and Facebook, each took a stand to not tolerate these sources any longer. Google said on Monday afternoon that it would no longer allow fake news websites to use its online advertising services, according to the New York Times.

Facebook followed, updating its advertising policy in the Facebook Audience Network to include fake news sites in the section prohibiting misleading or false content.

In a statement to the New York Times, a Facebook spokesperson said, “We have updated the policy to explicitly clarify that this applies to fake news,” and that it will continue to verify people who want to advertise with them.

On Saturday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg took to his Facebook page to discuss the substantial scrutiny that he and his company have received.

In a Facebook post Zuckerberg wrote:

Of all the content on Facebook, more than 99 percent of what people see is authentic. Only a very small amount is fake news and hoaxes. The hoaxes that do exist are not limited to one partisan view, or even to politics. Overall, this makes it extremely unlikely hoaxes changed the outcome of this election in one direction or the other.

In the comments section, one user pointed out that the 1 percent figure seemed awfully low. Zuckerberg clarified his statement, saying that that figure represents the platform as a whole, not individual experiences. Therefore, depending on who or what you follow, you may see more or less fake news on your newsfeed.

Google has also come under fire recently after the top result for the search “Final Vote Count 2016” was linked to the news site 70news, which falsely claimed that Donald Trump had won the popular vote, according to Mediaite.

Google’s top search result for “final election numbers” leads to fake news site with false numbers https://t.co/3DA5ZY6pQk pic.twitter.com/v3GTEvUgW8

— CBS News (@CBSNews) November 14, 2016

One section of the article (falsely) said:

UPDATE 11/14/16: THREE MILLION ILLEGALS VOTED THIS 2016 ELECTION. THAT’S NOT VALID! REMOVE 3 MILLION VOTES FROM HILLARY CLINTON. PLUS THE OTHER VOTE FRAUD. TRUMP BY DEFAULT IS THE WINNER IN THE POPULAR VOTE!

By Monday evening, the article was moved down to the second result. Google relies on algorithms to create search results, and like this example, does not always present accurate information.

With hundreds of different fake or misleading news sites out there, various individuals and groups have compiled their own lists of sites to avoid. Melissa Zimdars, assistant professor of communication at Merrimack College in Massachusetts, said her list “started as a resource for my students, who are learning about journalism/social media/media literacy.” She breaks up outlets by category, ranking their level of falsehood. She also included satirical sites such as the Onion and the Borowitz Report.

A majority of U.S. adults get their news from social media, rather than traditional news sources, according to a Pew Research Center report. Over 40 percent get their news from Facebook specifically.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post You’ll Never Believe Why Your Friends Posted so Many Fake News Stories appeared first on Law Street.

Following Donald Trump’s surprising win on Tuesday, a Ku Klux Klan group announced that it will be holding a celebratory parade, honoring Trump’s victory.

The group will hold the parade on December 3, according to the Loyal White Knights’ website. However, it does not give a specific location other than North Carolina and did not specify a time.

The website says that the celebration is called the “VICTORY KLAVALKADE KLAN PARADE,” and that “TRUMP’S RACE  UNITED MY PEOPLE.”

The KKK announced a victory rally in North Carolina for the President-elect they endorsed. pic.twitter.com/tfac2zOiAQ

— AJ+ (@ajplus) November 11, 2016

The Loyal White Knights are located in Pelham, NC, and the Anti-Defamation League considers them to be one of the most active KKK groups in the country. They have around 150-200 members, and reach 15 different states.

The group also took part in a protest against the removal of the Confederate Flag in South Carolina last year.

This is not the first time that Trump has received praise from the KKK. Former KKK grand wizard David Duke expressed his support for the Republican candidate many times throughout the election.

“He’s made it OK to talk about these incredible concerns of European Americans today, because I think European Americans know they are the only group that can’t defend their own essential interests and their point of view,” Duke told Politico in December 2015. “He’s meant a lot for the human rights of European Americans.”

Additionally, a little over a week before the election, the KKK’s official newspaper, The Crusader, showed its support for Trump with a front page story entitled, “”Make America Great Again.”” The newspaper hails itself as “The premier voice of the white resistance.”

“The Crusader” is the official newspaper of the KKK. #MAGA #DonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/mBTvLOFU9u

— Billy Gee (@billygee12) November 1, 2016

Trump’s campaign has tried to distance itself from the KKK, calling the Klan “repulsive” after being previously criticized for not doing so quickly enough.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ku Klux Klan Plans Trump Victory Parade in North Carolina appeared first on Law Street.

All across the country, students on college campuses protested the election results, which declared Donald Trump the next President of the United States.

Young voters (18-29 years old) voted 55 percent to 37 percent in favor of Democratic Candidate Hillary Clinton. But for voters 65 and over, Trump held the majority of the votes.

With numbers like those it is easy to see how many college students could be unhappy with the way the election went. Students around the country, including many on the West Coast (likely due to the time difference), poured into the streets crying, shouting, and marching against the president-elect.

Some students headed to the bars, while others headed to the streets.

Students could be heard screaming “F— Donald Trump,” as mobs marched arm in arm through campuses, trying to make some sort of sense out of what had happened. Here are a few examples of protests from college campuses around the country:

University of California, Santa Barbara:

UCSB and SBCC students marching to Storke Tower in a peaceful protest in regards to the election results. 11-9-2016/2:04 AM. #NotMyPresident pic.twitter.com/G3sF40bnQh

— Saitama (@heisenchapo) November 9, 2016

University of California, Berkeley:

“The people, United, will never be divided.” UC Berkeley anti-Trump protest at Telegraph and William Street, Oakland. #berkvote pic.twitter.com/4nKvcsLJHG

— Maya Eliahou (@MayaEliahou) November 9, 2016

University of California, Los Angeles:

Sorry that these are getting repetitive. This is a huge, growing group of students. #UCLA pic.twitter.com/dxfOp8QerY

— Tanner Walters (@tannerbwalters) November 9, 2016

These are all different UC’s reacting to the Presidential Election.The revolution has started. #ucsc #ucla #usb #ucd pic.twitter.com/Au4SPFN2DJ

— Wuendy (@whendcalm7) November 9, 2016

Berkeley High School, Berkeley, California:

BERKELEY HIGH SCHOOL WALKOUT #NotMyPresident #TrumpPresident pic.twitter.com/6HAv7jVAH4

— B (@BerenabasG) November 9, 2016

University of Pittsburgh:

UPitt riots part 2 pic.twitter.com/55s46LWf0K

— reilly (@reidaddy) November 9, 2016

Students at UPitt could be heard chanting, “No KKK no fascist USA! No Trump!” and “Whose streets?” “OUR streets!” Along with “Not my president!”

University of Oregon:

Students from the University of Oregon marched through Eugene to protest America’s new president #LifeAsAJStudent pic.twitter.com/kQU97Sdv2i

— phillip (@philllup) November 9, 2016

Students in Washington D.C. went to The White House to protest.

People in Obama and Clinton shirts link arms outside the White House. #ElectionNight pic.twitter.com/fBx6b7eYKB

— The GW Hatchet (@gwhatchet) November 9, 2016

Anti-Trump protestors outside the White House. #ElectionNight pic.twitter.com/vTokvFL6Qt

— The Hoya (@thehoya) November 9, 2016

At different universities, it has been reported that professors have cancelled exams and assignments Wednesday, after students expressed their grief over the outcome of the 2016 election.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post College Campuses React to the 2016 Election with Protests and Anger appeared first on Law Street.

Couples who sued county clerk Kim Davis last year in order to get their marriage licenses have asked U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning to award them $233,058 in legal fees and costs.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling to legalize same-sex marriage, Davis made national headlines for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Rowan County, Kentucky.

Her noncompliance forced several same-sex couples to sue her. The cases went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Davis lost every single step along the way. She additionally spent five days in jail on contempt charges. Her only win came from the Kentucky legislature’s decision in April to remove county clerks’ names from marriage licenses, which is what she wanted after citing religious objections to same-sex marriage.

In August, the judge dismissed the couples’ cases against her on grounds that the matter had been resolved by the action in the legislature. However, lawyers for the couples argued that Davis still refused to do her job as county clerk when she went against the Supreme Court’s ruling, forcing them to then sue her in order to obtain those licenses.

Davis’ legal team is requesting that the judge deny the couples’ requests for legal fees. According to the Lexington Herald-Leader, Roger K. Gannam of Liberty Counsel–the religious advocacy group that is representing Davis–filed  a response on behalf of Davis Monday. He wrote that since the couples that filed against Davis did not prevail in their cases, they have no grounds to make someone else pay their legal fees.

Similarly, Rowan County filed its own response that stated the county government should not be told to pay any of the fees because Davis was acting individually– in her public official capacity–and not on behalf of the county.

“County clerks are not employees of the county, but instead are the holders of elective office pursuant to the Kentucky Constitution,” wrote  Rowan County attorney Jeffrey C. Mando.

William Sharp, legal director of the Kentucky ACLU and one of the lawyers for the couple, said in a statement:

Courts recognize that when successful civil rights plaintiffs obtain a direct benefit from a court-ordered victory, such as in this case, they can be entitled to their legal expenses to deter future civil rights violations by government officials.

Additionally, if Davis and her legal team are forced to pay the bills, they won’t be able to use popular crowdfunding site GoFundMe, after it changed its policies to prevent fundraising for “campaigns in defense of formal charges or claims of heinous crimes, violent, hateful, sexual or discriminatory acts.”

Whatever Davis decides to do next, it will probably continue to stir up controversy that keeps her in the public’s eye.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kim Davis Wants to Avoid Paying Same-Sex Couples’ Legal Fees appeared first on Law Street.

Hulk Hogan will be receiving at least $31 million to settle his privacy case against Gawker, after the media company published his sex tape, according to court documents.

This feud between Gawker, its founder, Nick Denton, and Terry Bollea–Hogan’s real name–has been going on since the $100 million defamation case was filed in 2012.

The privacy in question pertained to a sex tape of Hogan and Heather Cole, who was the wife of Hogan’s best friend Bubba “the Love Sponge” Clem at the time, that Gawker featured on its website. While it did not play the entire video, it played over a minute and a half chunk of it, while other news sites only showed stills and discussed the video.

Gawker named the story, in its usual gossipy way, “Even for a Minute, Watching Hulk Hogan Have Sex in a Canopy Bed is Not Safe For Work but Watch it Anyway.” The story not only included part of the video, but offered a graphic play-by-play of the sex tape for those who didn’t want to watch. Hogan claimed that he was secretly filmed.

The subsequent case forced Gawker to file for bankruptcy after a jury awarded Hogan $140 million in March. Peter Thiel, Silicon Valley billionaire, was secretly funding Hogan’s case against Gawker.

Thiel explained in a New York Times article in August why he funded Hogan’s case:

In 2007, I was outed by the online gossip blog Gawker. It wasn’t so many years ago, but it was a different time: Gay men had to navigate a world that wasn’t always welcoming, and often faced difficult choices about how to live safely and with dignity. In my case, Gawker decided to make those choices for me. I had begun coming out to people I knew, and I planned to continue on my own terms. Instead, Gawker violated my privacy and cashed in on it.

Denton broke the news on his blog, with a piece titled “A hard peace,” where he wrote, “After four years of litigation funded by a billionaire with a grudge going back even further, a settlement has been reached. The saga is over.”

He then goes on to discuss how “three true stories” are going to be taken down.

Denton said he was confident that the appeals would overturn the original judgement.

“I will continue to work on topic forums, still convinced that the internet can bring people together in shared understanding rather than just triggering conflict between them,” Denton wrote. “Hulk Hogan’s retirement will be comfortable.”

In August, Univision acquired Gawker Media for $135 million. While Gawker itself has since been shut down, websites like Gizmodo, Jalopnik, Jezebel, Deadspin, Lifehacker, and Kotaku still publish content.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Gawker to Pay Hulk Hogan $31 Million in Settlement appeared first on Law Street.

Innocent Googlers just trying to figure out the definition of “pathological lying” were subjected to internet trolling on Monday, when users edited its Wikipedia page to include presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s picture.

Everyone Google the words – Pathological Lying – right now. This is what I got – no joke. pic.twitter.com/jX7m1krIE3

— Brett R. Smith (@BrettRSmith76) October 31, 2016

Typically when Google users put in their search query, the first result is often a brief section of the query’s corresponding Wikipedia page. Because of this feature, the first search result users saw alongside the Wikipedia page for “pathological lying” was Hillary Clinton’s photo.

The Wikipedia revision history for the “pathological lying” page shows the many different users who meddled with the article. The first of these changes occurred on October 28, by an anonymous user who “Added the only person who has a proven track record for being a Pathlogical [sic] liar. References can be easily looked up on wikileaks, most media sites, and thru [sic] congressional hearings.”

IP addresses are used to identify anonymous users who make changes or additions to Wikipedia posts. From a search on the internet, the aforementioned user’s IP address was located in Bedminster Township, New Jersey at the time of the search, only 10 minutes from the Trump National Golf Club Bedminster. Interesting.

On October 29, a different anonymous user added the photo of Clinton to the page. This IP address is located in Boise, Idaho, where Clinton is far behind Trump in multiple polls.

Users went back and forth reverting each other’s edits until October 31 when moderators locked the page until November 3, citing “persistent vandalism.”

As of November 1, moderators had locked the page until after the election, writing, “Changed protection level of Pathological lying: make protrection [sic] consistent with other articles being attacked, until after the election.”

In similar fashion, the first result when users search “45th U.S. president” is the Wikipedia page for “United States presidential election, 2016,” which briefly showed a picture of only Trump. Wikipedia moderators also chose to lock this page due to a wave of recent edits.

@triplejHack What in the Wide World of Sports is going on with Google!? pic.twitter.com/PJHC23CzDK

— Dilo on Fire (@FireDilo) October 31, 2016

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Rigged Election, A Rigged Search Engine, and Rigged Wikipedia appeared first on Law Street.

During a stop in Charlotte, North Carolina last week, presidential candidate Donald Trump laid out his plans to a predominantly white crowd, for what he is calling a “new deal for black America.”

His platform calls for better education, an increased police presence, proposed designation of “blighted communities” with a “disaster designation” to spark change and rebuild these communities with an emphasis on bringing back businesses.

Trump has said previously that black communities are at their worst in history, a comment that didn’t sit well with many people of color. At this rally he echoed those concerns, describing the cities as places where “you walk to the store to buy a loaf of bread, maybe with your child, and you get shot, your child gets shot,” but discussing it in a way that lumps all African Americans into one group.

He also prefaced his discussion on inner cities and African Americans by saying that “we’re going to work on our ghettos.”

Help me out there. Did Trump just say “we’re going to work on our ghettos” before mentioning inner cities, violence and African Americans? pic.twitter.com/v9KqZSLbh6

— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) October 27, 2016

Some of his new proposals included tax holidays used to help cities, arguing for foreign companies to invest in these blighted communities, and bringing in direct funding to urban areas.

While discussing the need for more police patrolling the streets, Trump said that the problem is a lack of police for African American communities rather than too many police, connecting the former to a increase in murder rate in cities.

“Whether you vote for me or not, I will be your greatest champion,” Trump said. “We live in a very divided country, and I will be your greatest champion.”

Additionally, he blamed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for starting a “war on police,” but did not discuss the other side, police brutality, an issue that carries importance for black voters.

After 70yrs of ignoring our struggle, Trump’s got a “new deal” for African Americans?
Hmm.Let’s examine some old deals he/GOP have shared pic.twitter.com/E2YYJ5rvkw

— T. Fisher King (@T_FisherKing) October 27, 2016

In a recent CNN/ORC poll, Trump has attracted just 20 percent of the nonwhite vote. According to Gallup, in the 2012 election, Barack Obama garnered 95 percent of the black vote.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Unveils “New Deal for Black America” appeared first on Law Street.

What do you get when you put cute animal videos next to hard political news? A nice way to take your mind off of the craziness of this election, that’s what!

The writers over at The Washington Post must be having a hard time coping with the stress of the election, and they seem to feel that most Americans are as well.

Because of the increasing anxiety leading up to November 8, WAPO has unveiled a series of videos intended to help people relax–a much needed distraction from fiery rhetoric and constant insults.

One of the videos features a koala bear getting its belly rubbed for around 45 seconds.

The videos are all titled “Election-free video: No Trump, no Clinton. Just [insert cute or amazing thing here],” and there are currently five of them on the Post’s video channel Relax 2016.

They begin each video with an aggressive flashing of election coverage clips all over the screen. Then the video suddenly cuts to all black, adding the text “And now, The Washington Post presents something else entirely.”

Are cute animals not really your thing? How about drone footage of Versailles?

WAPO said on October 19, “From now until Election Day, The Washington Post Video team will share daily politics-free videos to help you de-stress from the calamities of this election season.”

Their latest video features a polar bear playing in a kiddie pool filled with ice.

People on  social media seem to really be enjoying these posts as well.

@washingtonpost love your non election video of zen & a koala getting a belly rub. ❤ from your mates Down Under. https://t.co/UgtxNsX8c4

— Danielle Lonnon (@DameDivaDan) October 19, 2016

This is very important. https://t.co/xO56cgA297

— Eric Geller (@ericgeller) October 18, 2016

A reminder: The world is actually wonderful — Election-free video: Just a beautiful jellyfish. https://t.co/v9dkngj9R6

— Doubtful News (@DoubtfulNews) October 18, 2016

It is hard to speculate what other videos they plan to put out, but whatever they come up with will probably  be much better than listening to nonstop election coverage.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Washington Post is Stressed Out by This Election appeared first on Law Street.

Halloween is a frightening time of the year, although it does not normally send university students to counseling.

The University of Florida said in a statement last week that it will be offering counseling students to students who are offended by Halloween costumes.

“Some Halloween costumes reinforce stereotypes of particular races, genders, cultures, or religions,” the statement says. “Regardless of intent, these costumes can perpetuate negative stereotypes, causing harm and offense to groups of people.”

The school then provided contact information for different resources around campus. One of the resources, the U Matter, We Care program, describes itself as “UF’s umbrella program for UF’s caring culture and provides students in distress with support and coordination of the wide variety of appropriate resources,” according to its website.

Additionally, students have access to a 24/7 counselor reachable by phone and a service to mediate situations of bias. According to the statement, “the Bias Education and Response Team at the University of Florida is able to respond to any reported incidents of bias, to educate those that were involved, and to provide support by connecting those that were impacted to the appropriate services and resources.”

Over the past few years, Halloween costumes have become a large issue on college campuses, with many people feeling as though costumes appropriate their culture or reinforce negative stereotypes.

This year, costumes such as the “Kim the Hostage” costume and another depicting a gorilla holding a plastic baby, have come under intense scrutiny, as they reference graphic events.

They made a Kim K hostage costume …………… pic.twitter.com/arLpoiV6uS

— Nathaniel (@swallowship56) October 13, 2016

Some people, however, voiced their concerns over the services the university is providing.

Our country is doomed. “The school is offering counseling to those who may be offended by costumes this season.”https://t.co/h6It6mTjx3

— Matt Lewis (@Mac_Tampa) October 15, 2016

University of Florida is offering counseling to anyone upset by a halloween costume. In other news, the 4th Horseman just saddled up

— Andy Lambert (@AndyLambertAndy) October 15, 2016

The university encouraged students to be aware of the costumes that they choose to wear on Halloween, adding, “Thank you for being mindful of these values, and have a fun and safe Halloween.”

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post University of Florida to Offer Halloween Counseling to Offended Students appeared first on Law Street.

Even if Donald Trump is not successful in November, his legacy of questionable rhetoric will live on in the lives of young American children.

Educators around the country have been sharing their experiences with students participating in a wide range of discriminatory actions, even students as young as third graders. These actions range anywhere from students telling others that they will be deported to quoting Trump’s infamous “Build the wall!” phrase to predominantly Hispanic groups of kids.

The Southern Poverty Law Center came out with a comprehensive report in April detailing what it calls the “Trump Effect.”

The report found:

It’s producing an alarming level of fear and anxiety among children of color and inflaming racial and ethnic tensions in the classroom. Many students worry about being deported

Other students have been emboldened by the divisive, often juvenile rhetoric in the campaign. Teachers have noted an increase in bullying, harassment and intimidation of students whose races, religions or nationalities have been the verbal targets of candidates on the campaign trail.

In a statement, the National Education Association said, “Since Trump entered the race for president last year, educators have witnessed a steady increase in bullying and harassing behavior that mirrors his words and actions on the campaign trail.”

In Fairfax County, Virginia, a mom took to Facebook to talk about her third grade child’s experience at school.

Evelyn Momplaisir wrote on Facebook:

I just got a call from my son’s teacher giving me a heads up that two of his classmates decided to point out the ‘immigrants’ in the class who would be sent ‘home’ when Trump becomes president. They singled him out and were pointing and laughing at him as one who would have to leave because of the color of his skin. In 3rd grade . . . in Fairfax County . . . in 2016!

Her claim was confirmed by Fairfax County school officials, according to the Washington Post, and they are working to address the situation.

In Indiana, students from predominantly white Andrean High School shouted “Build the wall!” at students from heavily Hispanic Bishop Noll Institute during a basketball game. Students from Andrean HS also waved a picture of Trump.

This newfound freedom to express pent up bigotry has been shown by adults at Trump rallies screaming at peaceful protesters and minorities. It is also shown by Trump himself, who can often be heard shouting “Get ’em out!” or singling out minorities in the audience at his events. And now it is bleeding into schools. The SPLC identified many cases of hateful speech directed at students, like a teacher’s report of a fifth-grader saying “that he was supporting Donald Trump because he was going to kill all of the Muslims if he became president!” Additionally, a Latino kindergarten student reportedly asked his teacher if the wall has been built yet because his classmates have told him that he will be deported and trapped behind it.

These instances have prompted the NEA to launch an ad campaign against Trump, particularly focusing on his role in the discrimination and bullying of students in schools around the country.

While kids may not be watching all of the debates, or even closely following the campaigns, this has shown that Trump’s rhetoric is having an impact on the way America’s kids treat one another.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The “Trump Effect” is Impacting Kids appeared first on Law Street.

A new law that allows Pennsylvania drivers to go through some red lights went into effect on Sunday.

Dubbed the “Ride on Red” law, Act 101, sponsored by Rep. Stephen Bloom (R-Cumberland), allows drivers across the state to go through red lights under specific situations using common sense and caution.

Governor Tom Wolf signed the bill into law in July.

The legislation states that in instances when the light is unresponsive or broken, drivers can legally cross the intersection. Originally the legislation was meant for motorcyclists, but was later expanded to include all vehicles.

Often times motorcycles do not trigger the sensors that are under the pavement, therefore never alerting to the light that it needs to change to green. This law is meant to aid in these malfunctions.

The law, however, does not specify how much time a driver must wait before proceeding, but is intended for drivers to treat it like a stop sign, and waiting for a safe time to cross.

I can see it now…. person at light, man its been 30 second I’m going thru it. In to on coming traffic…….. https://t.co/xFUJ6j9cUA

— Pandora CrossBones (@Pandora_Cross) September 18, 2016

“I was seeking to provide a safe and responsible legal alternative to prevent riders from being trapped in perpetuity at a locked malfunctioning red light,” Bloom said in a statement. “This issue was brought to my attention by a local rider and I’ve learned it’s a frequent problem for riders throughout the Commonwealth. This bill doesn’t give riders or anyone else a free pass to run red lights, but it does provide them with a sensible safe option under established standards already in place for other types of signal malfunctions.”

Suddenly, all the lights seem to be defective. https://t.co/wMcSqqj5a9

— cablebandit (@cablebandit) September 18, 2016

The department will also be conducting evaluations on red light enforcement systems.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Pennsylvania Drivers Can Now Go Through Some Red Lights appeared first on Law Street.

Missouri is joining 10 other states by implementing a constitutional carry law, prompting The New York Times to dub it the “Shoot-Me State.”

Republican Missouri lawmakers overwhelmingly voted for less restrictions–a win for gun-rights advocates, overriding Democratic Governor Jay Nixon’s veto on SB 656 last week.

Citizens of Missouri will be able to carry concealed weapons without a permit, background check, or safety training under the new law. The law also institutes Stand Your Ground initiatives, known for lowering the standard for deadly use of a firearm by allowing gun owners to claim self-defense based on perceived feeling of threat.

“Missouri wants to let people carry guns with no training, even when you play Pokemon they start you off w/training” https://t.co/eg7R59haJv

— aka ✯ phil (@fak3r) September 16, 2016

Missouri:The Shoot-Me State: stand your ground, guns to people with violent records, how dumb can we get? https://t.co/qCW50H97IT

— Alexander Stille (@a_stille) September 16, 2016

Damn mfs can carry guns w/ out a license or no papers or age limit on January first in Missouri… Mfs been doing it but now it’s legal

— #SteveeeDriveee (@DaddyZae_) September 16, 2016

The Republican controlled legislature has continuously clashed with the Democratic governor, overriding a record number of the governor’s vetoes Wednesday at 13, adding to the already 83 overrides since he took office in 2009.

Nixon vetoed the legislation in June, stating that citizens who previously may have been denied a permit or would have been denied a permit due to the background check will now be able to carry a concealed gun, according to The New York Times.

Democratic lawmakers have stated that this law will negatively affect minority communities.

“What I don’t want to get to is the point where there is a trigger-happy police officer or bad Samaritan like Zimmerman who says, ‘Black boy in the hood. Skittles. Let’s shoot,'” Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal, who represents University City, said to the AP, referencing the killing of Trayvon Martin.

On the contrary, Republican lawmakers say that this law will ensure that law-abiding citizens can adequately protect themselves and their families.

The National Rifle Association supported the bill and released a statement following its override.

In addition, concerns about law enforcement were discussed, opponents of this bill were worried that these new provisions will make officers less safe.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Missouri Lawmakers Override Governor’s Constitutional Carry Veto appeared first on Law Street.

What was supposed to be a night of roasting Rob Lowe turned into a brutal attack on Ann Coulter, the infamous conservative pundit known for her inflammatory comments.

On Monday night, Comedy Central aired its long-awaited roast centered on Lowe, famous for his sex tape, DirecTV commercials, failed pilots, and occasional notable acting along the way. While many of the jokes jabbed at Lowe’s involvement with a 16-year-old and his acting career, the attention shifted and the rest of the roasters took their swings at Coulter.

Coulter showed up to do a promotional spiel on her new book, ‘In Trump We Trust.’ When it finally came time for her to talk about it, she was met with boos from the audience.

Coulter sat seemingly lifeless as each insult came, like a frog in a pot of boiling water unaware that it’s being slowly burned alive.

Here are 10 of the best insults sent her way:

1. Rob Lowe

“Why is Ann Coulter here tonight? Because the right-to-lifers wanted everyone to see what an abortion looks like up close.”

2. Pete Davidson

“Ann Coulter, if you’re here, who is scaring the crows away from our crops?”

It’s not going to be a good night for Ann Coulter #LoweRoast pic.twitter.com/LRuTG4w6Gi

— Nate (@BarstoolNate) September 6, 2016

3. Nikki Glaser

“Ann Coulter has written 11 books — 12 if you count ‘Mein Kampf'”

4. Peyton Manning

“I just realized I’m not the only athlete up here. As you all know, earlier this year Ann Coulter won the Kentucky Derby.”

5. Jewel

“As a feminist, I can’t support everything that’s being said up here tonight. But as someone who hates Ann Coulter, I’m delighted.”

6. Nikki Glaser

“The only person you will ever make happy is the Mexican who digs your grave.”

7. David Spade

“Ann seems stiff and conservative, but she gets wild in the sheets — just ask the Klan.”

8. Jewel

“Jeff Ross is going to party like its 1999, Ann Coulter is going to vote like its 1899.”

9. Jimmy Carr

“Ann Coulter is one of the most repugnant, hateful bitches alive — but it’s not too late to change, Ann. You could kill yourself.”

10. David Spade

“Is Pete white? Is he black? Ann Coulter needs to know so she can decide if she hates him”

Then it was Coulter’s time to speak, and she continued to plummet.

Audience reaction to Ann Coulter on the Rob Lowe roast are about perfect pic.twitter.com/SkI00cyLgZ

— CJ Fogler (@cjzero) September 6, 2016

After that really rough night for Coulter, this post feels more like a eulogy.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Top 10 Ann Coulter Insults from the Comedy Central Roast of Rob Lowe appeared first on Law Street.

Gay Christians will soon be able to find love on some of the most popular religious dating sites. Spark Networks Inc., owner of ChristianMingle.com and other religious dating sites, has agreed to allow gays and lesbians to use its services after the company was sued under discrimination claims. Two men, Aaron Werner and Richard Wright, filed a class-action lawsuit after they noticed that same-sex options were not available on some of the websites that Spark operates.

New users on Christian Mingle were previously required to specify if they were a man seeking a woman or a woman seeking a man. Because of this, the two men felt that they were barred from using the website. California’s anti-discrimination law, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, states that business establishments must provide equal accommodations regardless of a person’s sexual orientation.

Christian Mingle has lost its suit and must include gays. Christian radio stations will soon be forced to play YMCA by the Village People.

— Mike S. Adams (@MikeSAdams) July 4, 2016

According to the conditions of the settlement, Spark will change their gateway homepages to allow users to just specify if they are a man or a woman. Spark also agreed to create a more comprehensive and tailored matching service for users seeking same sex relationships within the next two years. In addition, Spark will pay the men $9,000 each, along with $450,000 in legal fees to their respective attorneys.

The complaint names some of the other dating sites owned by Spark that the men claim also violate anti-discrimination law: LDSSingles.com, CatholicMingle.com, BlackSingles.com, and AdventistSinglesConnection.com. However, popular Jewish-dating site JDate.com was not included in the lawsuit.

“I am gratified that we were able to work with Spark to help ensure that people can fully participate in all the diverse market places that make our country so special, regardless of their sexual orientation,” one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Vineet Dubey, said in a statement in The Wall Street Journal.

Some people on Twitter expressed their anger, stating that this ruling is a violation of religious freedom.

Christian Mingle is legally forced to cater to gay partner matching despite violating religious beliefs. What happened to the 1st amendment?

— Pissed Off Parker (@LongJohn_30) July 1, 2016

@charliekirk11. The judge is flat wrong. These gay men do not deserve compensatory damages. This dating site is for straight Christians only

— Tinpocket (@echoco2002) July 3, 2016

Although there have been many road blocks put in the way of gay Americans, this ruling signals progress is being made.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Gay Christian Singles Can Now Mingle on Dating Sites appeared first on Law Street.

This post is part of Law Street’s continuing analysis of the recent Supreme Court rulings. To read the rest of the coverage click here.

Abortion Restrictions: Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt

The decision: In a 5-3 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down Texas’s restrictive regulations on abortion clinics. Justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy joined Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan to provide the majority necessary to overturn Texas’s House Bill 2. The ruling concluded that the restrictions placed an undue burden on women seeking an abortion.

History of the law:

In 2013, Texas legislators passed HB2, which placed many restrictions on abortion clinics, such as:

• Requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital that is no more than 30 miles away.
• Requiring that an abortion facility meets the same minimum standards as ambulatory surgical centers.

HB2 has caused roughly half of the abortion clinics in Texas to close, leaving many women, especially in rural areas of the state, without reasonable access to an abortion.

Whole Woman’s Health, a private abortion provider, sued the state of Texas over these restrictions. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had previously upheld the law.

What were the arguments?

Texas legislators argued that these regulations were added to make women safer when getting an abortion. They also argued that these restrictions did not impose a burden on women seeking an abortion.

However, opponents of the legislation argued there is no evidence that these regulations will lead to increased safety without imposing serious consequences on women. In addition, opponents argued that an abortion is no more dangerous than many other medical procedures that are not subject to such strict regulations.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American Osteopathic Association all filed an amicus brief saying that HB2’s ambulatory surgical center requirement “imposes medically unnecessary demands on abortion facilities and serves no medical purpose.”

What about all of the other states’ regulations?

Several states around the country have laws similar to Texas’s (although some are currently blocked) and if they are deemed similar enough, they will most likely be thrown out or will suffer intense hurdles in order to become lasting laws.

However, lawmakers have found ways to increase restrictions on abortions even after other landmark abortion cases, so time will tell if this ruling will make a large impact nationwide.

Strong opinions on both sides

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito offered dissenting opinions. However, unlike Thomas, who would’ve upheld the previous ruling, Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts would have sent it back to the lower courts for further discussion.

“The Court has simultaneously transformed judicially created rights like the right to abortion into preferred constitutional rights, while disfavoring many of the rights actually enumerated in the Constitution,” Thomas wrote in his scathing dissent.

On the other side, Breyer wrote in the majority opinion that the Texas restrictions “vastly increase the obstacles confronting women seeking abortions in Texas without providing any benefit to women’s health capable of withstanding any meaningful scrutiny.”

Ginsberg offered up a concurring opinion as well.

“Given those realities, it is beyond rational belief that H.B. 2 could genuinely protect the health of women, and certain that the law ‘would simply make it more difficult for them to obtain abortions,'” she wrote. “When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners, faute de mieux, at great risk to their health and safety.”

You can read the full opinion here.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Strikes Down Texas Abortion Restrictions appeared first on Law Street.

“I think Orlando, Florida, is a little safer tonight…The tragedy is more of them didn’t die…I’m kind of upset he didn’t finish the job!”

Those were the words preached by Verity Baptist Church Pastor Roger Jimenez to his congregation in Sacramento, California, in the wake of the Orlando shooting, the worst mass shooting in U.S. history.

Sacramento pastor says Orlando nightclub shooter should have killed more gay people https://t.co/HFXkbES4ZK pic.twitter.com/EMGpvVp5uD

— Matthew Keys (@MatthewKeysLive) June 14, 2016

As a result of Jimenez’s sermon, the church’s landlord is respectfully asking it to leave. Harsch Investment Properties indicated to the church that it would not be renewing its lease in March 2017, and asked the church to consider moving out of the Northgate Business Park prior to that date with no penalty.

Harsch released a statement detailing its decision and the reasoning behind it.

“Like all Americans, we grieve for the fallen and injured,” the statement said. “In the 66 years since our company was founded, we have stood for the rights of all individuals, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation, to live their lives and follow their dreams.”

The Verity Baptist Church gained widespread attention after its June 12 sermon was posted online, where Jimenez celebrated the 49 tragic deaths at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. His statements generated anger and prompted protests on Sunday, June 19.

TEACH LOVE NOT HATE – what protestors at Verity Baptist Church chanting as church goers leave the service @FOX40pic.twitter.com/1EUpyNxIHE

— Sara Zendehnam (@szendehnam) June 19, 2016

Harsch asked that the protests be peaceful and that protestors make sure to have the proper permits and be respectful to the other tenants in the business park.

“We have many places of worship and other religious organizations in the properties we manage,” the statement said. “Like all our tenants, their occupancy rights are protected in their leases, but we will not tolerate tenants who advocate hatred and the taking of innocent lives.”

Jimenez told The Sacramento Bee that his sermon was not meant to incite violence against the LGBT community.

“All I’m saying is that when people die who deserve to die, it’s not a tragedy,” Jimenez told The Bee.

His comments received backlash from Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson.

The hateful comments made by a preacher in Sacramento do not reflect Christian values and have no place in our society. #standwithorlando

— Kevin Johnson (@KJ_MayorJohnson) June 14, 2016

A group of 700 pastors known as the Sacramento City Pastors Fellowship issued a statement regarding Jimenez’s comments, according to The Sacramento Bee, saying:

These comments, applauding the death of innocent people, are completely contrary to the Bible’s teaching and God’s heart…His statements do not represent Jesus nor hundreds of Sacramento pastors whose hearts have been broken and are praying for the loved ones so tragically affected by this cowardly act.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Church Asked to Move After Offensive Sermon Goes Viral appeared first on Law Street.

On a quiet Thursday afternoon about 3,000 of Bernie Sanders’ supporters packed into a skatepark outside of RFK Stadium in Washington, DC to watch him rally once again–many likely thinking that this could be their final time to see him before he suspends his campaign.

Image Courtesy of Scott Zimmerman

What was different about Thursday’s speech was, well, nothing. Filled with his normal rhetoric and fiery and inspirational pushes for equal rights and justice for all Americans, Sanders caught the attention of the crowd and continued to push his idea of the “political revolution.”

.@BernieSanders said exactly the right thing. Get through DC, take a break, get with HRC, get to work beating Trump.

— Steve Schale (@steveschale) June 9, 2016

Unfortunately, Sanders did not stray from his talking points and discuss his Thursday meeting with President Barack Obama where he reportedly indicated that he is willing to back the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. He also didn’t bring up the president’s endorsement of Clinton, which occurred just hours before he spoke. He made no mention of any of those events and no mention that it is time to unify as Democrats…instead saying that the results from California aren’t even all in yet.

So if @BernieSanders ultimately wins California (might still happen) & then Washington DC … DNC in Philly will be interesting.

— Ben Goren (@BanGaoRen) June 10, 2016

However, amidst all of the impassioned speeches and cheers from the crowd, you could sense the feeling of denial in Sanders’ voice, and you could feel that it was his last stand.

Instead of using the time and the platform to urge his supporters toward unification of the party, he further polarized them. Chants of “Never Hillary” echoed through the crowd as he spoke about big money in politics. But he is doing his supporters a grave disservice by telling them that there is still hope. The naiveté of the situation is troubling, and is going to leave a lot of die-hard supporters left feeling even more so that the entire system was against them.

Image Courtesy of Scott Zimmerman

Of the many people I met in the crowd, few said they are willing to switch to Clinton. Some said they would even vote for Trump, and many others said they just wouldn’t vote.

Sanders stressed that women (along with other groups) did not used to have the right to vote, yet now his silence–or in some cases contradictory rhetoric–is being inferred by many of his supporters as a signal to not exercise that privilege. By not owning up to the idea that his campaign is coming to a close, he is further hurting Clinton’s chances against Trump. As the Democratic party continues to be divided, it is hard to imagine what November will look like between Clinton and Trump.

Today, as D.C. votes, it will most likely be Sanders’ last day in the race. Even if he does not drop out, it will still signify a deficit that will not be overcome no matter how many times Sanders tries to say more people voted for him. There’s a message here for Sanders: you joined the presidential race to catalyze institutional change, but that does not mean that you can just pretend that there is a secret outcome that has been robbed from you.

Bernie Sanders refuses to concede the Democratic nomination to Hillary Clinton https://t.co/VB3QxknsOf by @yamiche pic.twitter.com/Byh5UHccBT

— NYT Politics (@nytpolitics) June 13, 2016

If Sanders chooses to stay and continues to cause division, votes will be split between the Democratic nominee and other parties, giving more power to Trump. So, if Sanders really want to see his political revolution happen, he may need to get a grip and work with Clinton this round until he gets his shot.

Image Courtesy of Scott Zimmerman

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bernie Sanders’ Rhetoric is a Disservice to his Supporters appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, Hillary Clinton made history and secured the amount of delegates necessary to be the Democratic nominee. But while she celebrated her win, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders vowed to continue his fight for the White House.

And Sanders’ subsequent comments are a bit of a shame. While there are some positives to him continuing in the race, there are also some very powerful negatives.

First off, I think it is important to note that Sanders is playing a game that he is familiar with: while yes, he is an Independent, he has been in politics for almost four decades. When votes started going Clinton’s way, he claimed that the election was rigged and riled up his supporters over the notion that the system was out to exterminate him. He talked about superdelegates like they had never existed in previous primaries, and complained that they are undemocratic–while now saying that he is going to win the nomination by flipping superdelegates–something that he has yet to accomplish.

Image Courtesy of [Gage Skidmore via Flickr]

In addition, it is troubling that Sanders, who hails himself as a revolutionary, ignored the fact that Clinton had just made history as the first woman to receive a major party nomination, stubbornly refusing to even bring it up during his speech Tuesday night.

When the Associated Press announced that Clinton had enough delegates to clinch the nomination, anger poured onto social media from Sanders’ supporters who felt that once again, everything was against them–even basic math. His supporters called out that this announcement was a breach of journalistic integrity…because how dare the AP do the research and talk to every superdelegate (who according to Sanders supporters, apparently don’t even count at this point)? The superdelegates will be decided in July, they wrote, adding that there is so much time for the superdelegates to flip and that the AP was just in the pockets of the establishment.

@AP_Interactive @AP STOP REPORTING FALSE FACTS. You should be ashamed of the reporting you’re doing. Superdelegates don’t count until July.

— Jacob Sever (@JacobSever) June 8, 2016

Some of these people probably supported the superdelegate situation in 2012 when now-President Barack Obama was in the same position, and Clinton had conceded. That race was closer mathematically than this one.

The AP ultimately decided to issue a statement regarding the findings, in which the AP sasses the critics who claim the news organization just made everything up–implying that those critics do not understand how the American political system works.

We are at the point in this election where Sanders has the opportunity to do something incredibly influential for his many supporters: show them that sometimes you lose, but you need to get back up and keep fighting in other ways. He can either teach them to fall with grace, or to reject a system that probably isn’t going to be systematically changed anytime soon and stop participating forever.

Vox’s Matthew Yglesias put it well when he said:

Those lessons, clearly visible from Sanders’s own career, are that big change is hard and if you try for it you are likely to lose, but just because you lost is no reason to give up. It’s also no cause to whine about how you’ve been cheated or take refuge in denial that it’s truly over. You need to dust yourself off, move on to the next thing, and try to win more votes in the future.

If Sanders continues to hold onto, and reiterate to his supporters, that he will be able to pull off a miraculous win at the convention, then he is lying to his fanbase. Not only will he find difficulty in persuading Clinton’s superdelegates (who supported her before Tuesday) to switch to his side, but he would also need a whole lot of them to do so in order to make up for his deficit. However, the one thing he does have going for him is that people will listen to him, they will be fired up, and they will believe that he actually can win this–even if it is a far-reaching idea.

Yglesias added:

People who’ve already emotionally invested themselves in the Sanders campaign — already gone to rallies and argued with uncles and called out corporate media shills on Twitter — are going to be highly predisposed to align themselves with whatever tactical notions Sanders puts out there.

Not to mention that Sanders’ last ditch effort for delegates looks an awful lot like college students around the country scrambling to get an A in a class that they have a C in walking into the final: “Hmm…let’s see…I just need to pull off a 170 percent on the final to get an 89.5 in the class…I can do that!”

Unlike Sanders, however, college students, at some point, concede to their studies and focus on another subject that they know they will get a better grade in.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Should Bernie Sanders Stay in the Race? appeared first on Law Street.

The leader of the The Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) recently proposed a bill that would allow husbands to “lightly beat” their wives if they need to as a form of punishment.

The proposal, written by Maulana Muhammad Khan Sherani, makes no mention of “forceful beating”– because that would just be too illogical of an idea.

The CII is a 20-member group that councils the legislature on the religious aspects of the law. The council advises as to whether or not laws fall in line with the Islamic ideology, however, its recommendations are not binding.

The bill was drafted in response to another bill created to protect women from abuse. The CII wrote that the Punjab Women Protection bill was “un-Islamic.”

According to The Express-Tribune, a Pakistani news source, the bill states:

A husband should be allowed to lightly beat his wife if she defies his commands and refuses to dress up as per his desires; turns down demand of intercourse without any religious excuse or does not take bath after intercourse or menstrual periods.

The bill also calls for a light beating when a woman does not wear her hijab, interacts with strangers, and speaks too loudly, according to The Express-Tribune.

In addition, Dawn reports that the proposal states that women are also barred from getting birth control without spousal consent and mothers must breastfeed for a minimum of two years, among other bans and requirements.

The announcement of this proposal sparked protests on Twitter, and one photographer took it upon himself to document women’s reactions.

Pakistani photographer Fahhad Rajper created a photo album with the hashtag #TryBeatingMeLightly to show that Pakistani women are willing to put up a fight in opposition of the bill. The hashtag trended on Twitter, inspiring users from all around the world to join in on the discussion.

#TryBeatingMeLightly and I will break your jaw in thousand pieces.

— ® آخری دَرویش (@Dervishious) May 30, 2016

“#TryBeatingMeLightly is an initiative to empower women amongst us who work towards individual and collective betterment,” Rajper told Buzzfeed. “It’s an opportunity for those to voice their opinions who can’t or don’t. The women around me, at my home, in my friend circle and in the industry that I love.”

Here are some of his photographs:

#TryBeatingMeLightly I’ll break that hand you raised, remaining damage? I’ll leave it upto Allah.
Shagufta, Doctor. pic.twitter.com/esqM7qlCc4

— Fahhad Rajper (@FahhadRajper) May 30, 2016

#TryBeatingMeLightly and take a punch in the ass!
Amber Zulfiqar, Travel and Lifestyle Blogger. pic.twitter.com/pWUJXXlQHK

— Fahhad Rajper (@FahhadRajper) May 29, 2016

#TryBeatingMeLightly, you won’t survive to see the morning.
Sumbul Usman, Social Media Manager pic.twitter.com/d5KfM5Fzmy

— Fahhad Rajper (@FahhadRajper) May 29, 2016

#TryBeatingMeLightly -I’ll run a car over you with my 7years of driving experience!
Priyanka Pahuja,Digital Marketer pic.twitter.com/depoCpINJ6

— Fahhad Rajper (@FahhadRajper) May 29, 2016

#TryBeatingMeLightly, I’ll become the destruction you will never forsee.
Adeeqa Lalwani, Digital Storyteller. pic.twitter.com/jWW9jFARGy

— Fahhad Rajper (@FahhadRajper) May 29, 2016

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) released a statement condemning the “ridiculous” recommendations.

“It is difficult to comprehend why anyone in his right mind would think that any further encouragement or justification is needed to invite violence upon women in Pakistan,” the HRCP said.

The HRCP also discussed its confusion as to why the CII’s recommendations had not been questioned before. The answer to this may be in part due to a lack of social awareness. But thanks to an expanding social media presence, thousands of women have come forward to condemn and fight against the recommendation.

“HRCP would like to know why the CII’s obsession with women, its attempts to ensure subservience of the female gender and to keep women from attaining equal standing in society have not been called into question so far,” the HRCP said.

The CII, while a highly influential body, can only make suggestions. It is up to the Pakistani legislature to decide whether or not citizens must legally abide by them.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #TryBeatingMeLightly: Hashtag Voices Outrage at CII’s Disciplinary Proposal appeared first on Law Street.

First it was Dennis Rodman who won North Korea’s admiration and now it’s a U.S. presidential candidate. Republican candidate (and presumptive nominee) Donald Trump has a strange list of endorsements, from a KKK leader, to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and now a North Korean state-run media outlet.

A DPRK Today editorial published Tuesday complimented the businessman, calling him a “wise politician” and a “far-sighted candidate” who will be instrumental in reuniting the Korean Peninsula.

Trump, “the Dennis Rodman of American politics,” gets a critical North Korean endorsement. Should I laugh or cry? https://t.co/6d1RzNI4gR

— Sean Watson (@seanwatson24) June 1, 2016

The editorial referenced foreign policy proposals Trump discussed during a speech regarding U.S. troops in South Korea. Trump floated the idea of withdrawing troops from Japan and South Korea if those nations do not provide more compensation to pay for the costs of housing and feeding U.S. troops.

The North Korean editorial welcomed this idea. “Yes do it, now … Who knew that the slogan ‘Yankee Go Home’ would come true like this?” said Han Yong Mook, who described himself as a Chinese North Korean scholar, in the editorial. “The day when the ‘Yankee Go Home’ slogan becomes real would be the day of Korean Unification.”

#Trump2016 endorsements growing!
• GOP Base
• KKK & white supremacist orgs
• Putin
• N. Korean dictatorhttps://t.co/9yvvz7yDtG

— TheAverageBlackMan (@TheAvgBlackMan) June 1, 2016

The editorial also urged Americans not to vote for Hillary Clinton. Han discussed the idea of Seoul cutting off payments to the U.S. in order to urge troops to move out of the country. “The president that U.S. citizens must vote for is not that dull Hillary–who claimed to adapt the Iranian model to resolve nuclear issues on the Korean Peninsula–but Trump, who spoke of holding direct conversation with North Korea,” Han said.

Some have seen the back and forth between the two as propaganda, and just a stunt to help Trump gain more traction.

“He’s the Dennis Rodman of American politics — quirky, flamboyant, risk-taking. At the moment he’s also an outsider,” John Feffer, director of Foreign Policy In Focus, told NK News. “But Pyongyang is hoping that either he’ll be elected (and follows through on his pledges) or that his pronouncements will change the political game in the United States and influence how the Democratic party and mainstream Republicans view Korean issues.”

In an interview with Reuters in May, Trump suggested that if elected president, he would be willing to negotiate directly with the North Korean dictator. However, the North Korean leader declined the invitation.

“It’s for utilization of the presidential election, that’s all. A kind of a propaganda or advertisement,”So Se Pyong, North Korea’s ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, told Reuters. “This is useless, just a gesture for the presidential election.”

It is time we all start accepting the real possibility of Dennis Rodman as Trump’s Sec. of State https://t.co/ixpJGbkY5R

— Josh McDaniel (@jmcdanielnews) June 1, 2016

Maybe next we will be hearing from Bashar al-Assad or Fidel Castro for a Trump endorsement, because it really feels like anything can happen at this point.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post North Korean State Media Praises Trump: Who’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

Oklahoma has done it again, ladies.

Oklahoma law does not criminalize someone who forces an intoxicated or unconscious person to engage in oral sex.

A Tulsa County judge dismissed a case in November involving two high school students after a 17-year-old boy reportedly offered a ride home to a 16-year-old girl. She had been heavily drinking and court documents show that her BAC was at 0.34, which would constitute alcohol poisoning. She was taken back to her grandmother’s house where she was completely unconscious and taken to the hospital. She later woke up to sexual assault testing and the boy’s DNA was found on her body.

He was initially charged with forcible sodomy and first-degree rape.

The boy claimed their encounter was consensual, but the girl claimed that she had no memory of it happening.

According to the court, “Forcible sodomy cannot occur where a victim is so intoxicated as to be completely unconscious at the time of the sexual act of oral copulation.”

The case was appealed, but the appeals court affirmed that the state could not prosecute the boy for his actions.

“The plain meaning of forcible oral sodomy, of using force, includes taking advantage of a victim who was too intoxicated to consent,” Benjamin Fu, the Tulsa County district attorney leading the case, told The Guardian. “I don’t believe that anybody, until that day, believed that the state of the law was that this kind of conduct was ambiguous, much less legal. And I don’t think the law was a loophole until the court decided it was.”

The defense attorney, Shannon McMurray, argued in the Oklahoma Watch that the court was right because intoxication cannot be substituted for force.

“There was absolutely no evidence of force or him doing anything to make this girl give him oral sex other than she was too intoxicated to consent” McMurray said.

This ruling has acted as a catalyst for the public to urge change to the law. Lawmakers as well are pushing to close this gap and make sure that this cannot be used in the future to dismiss a case.

One Oklahoma State Representative, Scott Biggs, R-Chickasha, said that he plans to amend the bill in order to include unconscious victims under the forcible sodomy law.

Oklahoma: it isnt rape if you’re drunk. So I can get drunk and rob people and it’ll be okay then? maybe steal a car?https://t.co/yM2YK4cW8z

— Lynsie Lee (@LynsieLee) April 28, 2016

WTF IS WRONG WITH OKLAHOMA???? OK court: oral sex is not rape if victim is unconscious from drinking https://t.co/AKf2vyKP7q#YesAllWomen

— Jeska Dzwigalski (@JeskaD) May 1, 2016

While the verdict shocked many, it wasn’t surprising to all.

“It’s not surprising, although unfortunate, that this is how it came down,” Rebecca O’Connor, the vice president for public policy of the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network told The New York Times. “It’s also not unique to Oklahoma. This sort of gray area of law can lead to unfortunate consequences.”

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oklahoma Court: It Isn’t Rape if She is Too Intoxicated appeared first on Law Street.

The parents of 19-month-old Ezekiel Stephen were found guilty of letting their child die after he contracted bacterial meningitis in 2012.

David Stephan, 32, and Collet Stephan, 36, who live in Lethbridge, Alberta in Canada, walked out of an emotional courtroom Tuesday after hearing their fate. They won’t, however, be held in custody, and will return to court in June for their sentencing hearing.

They were charged with “failing to provide the necessaries of life,” under Section 215 of the Canadian Criminal Code.

The courtroom was overtaken with emotions when the verdict was read. Collet began to sob, as did multiple people in the courtroom and on the jury bench.

The maximum sentence the Stephans could get for not providing these necessaries of life would be five years in prison, but according to some lawyers, that doesn’t seem like a likely scenario.

“It’s not like they were not feeding their child or they were purposely withholding medication that they knew would assist the child but didn’t,” Shannon Prithipaul, former president of the Criminal Trial Lawyers Association, said to CBC News.

The jury comprised of eight women and four men was told that the parents took Ezekiel to a naturopathic clinic when he was too stiff to sit up in his car seat and had to lay on a mattress instead.

This is what Crown wants Canadians to learn from trial of Ezekiel Stephan’s parents (he’d died of meningitis) pic.twitter.com/enHFgsu0wb

— Kate Adach (@KateMedia) April 27, 2016

“They definitely, definitely loved their son but as stated in our closing arguments, unfortunately sometimes love just isn’t enough,” Crown prosecutor Lisa Weich said to the Toronto Sun. “Parents still have to follow a standard of care as set by criminal law.”

The parents faced criticism following Ezekiel’s death because of their decision not to vaccinate him.

According to the CDC, “The most effective way to protect you and your child against certain types of bacterial meningitis is to complete the recommended vaccine schedule [sic].”

The CDC also said there are roughly 1.2 million cases of bacterial meningitis per year worldwide.

In addition, “Without treatment, the case-fatality rate can be as high as 70 percent, and one in five survivors of bacterial meningitis may be left with permanent sequelae including hearing loss, neurologic disability, or loss of a limb.”

The parents testified that they did not understand the severity of his condition and thought that he had the croup or the flu. The CDC also reported “[the parents] treated him for 2½ weeks with remedies that included hot peppers, garlic, onions and horseradish and a product from a naturopathic doctor aimed at boosting his immune system.”

The Stephans finally called 911 when Ezekiel had stopped breathing and he was taken to the local emergency room and later flown to Alberta Children’s Hospital in Calgary, where he was later pronounced brain dead and taken off of life support.

“I was in tears like everybody else,” said Eric Sveinson, brother-in-law, to the Toronto Sun. “I was angry, frustrated. We’re very disheartened and very disappointed and hope that the world can see that a beautiful family was unjustly charged today.”

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Anti-Vaccine Parents Found Guilty of Not Providing ‘Necessaries of Life’ appeared first on Law Street.

Doctors who perform abortions may be about to have their licenses revoked in Oklahoma if Republican Governor Mary Fallin signs off on SB 1552.

The bill passed through both houses of the legislature last week in a vote of 59-9 with 33 abstentions, and is now awaiting the governor’s approval. Fallin has not indicated, however, if she will sign it or not.

Doctors who perform abortions would be barred from obtaining or renewing their medical licenses. However, this bill does make exceptions in the cases of saving the mother’s life–but leaves out cases of rape and incest.

“Oklahoma politicians have made it their mission year after year to restrict women’s access vital health care services, yet this total ban on abortion is a new low,” Amanda Allen, Senior State Legislative Counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which advocates for abortion rights, said in a statement on the organization’s website.

Democratic Representative Emily Virgin, who opposed the bill, was concerned with the effect this bill would have on the number of physicians in the state. “We already have a severe physician shortage in Oklahoma, so are you at all concerned about physicians leaving Oklahoma if this bill becomes law?” she asked the bill’s co-sponsor, Republican Representative David Brumbaugh. He responded, saying, “There’s no way that this will impact the medical community, and we’ve checked through that.”

He was later challenged on the idea that the passage of this bill could lead to legal issues. In fact, the bill itself actually has a clause at the end discussing what would happen in the event that the Constitutionality of this law is challenged:

In the event that any provision of this act is challenged in court in any action alleging a violation of either the Constitution of the United States of America or the State of Oklahoma, the Office of the Attorney General shall determine the amount of state or local funds expended to defend such action. Such determination shall include the number of hours of time spent by any public employee in such defense multiplied by the rate of compensation paid to such employee, as well as the costs of any outside counsel paid for such purpose, and shall include both direct and indirect costs. The Office of the Attorney General shall report such amounts for each calendar quarter to all members of the Legislature.

“Do we make laws because they’re moral and right, or do we make them based on what an unelected judicial occupant might question or want to overturn,” Brumbaugh asked. “The last time I looked, that’s why I thought we had a separation of power.”

The bill also makes it a felony to perform an abortion:

No person shall perform or induce an abortion upon a pregnant woman unless that person is a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of Oklahoma. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not less than one (1) year nor more than three (3) years in the State Penitentiary.

Planned Parenthood responded on Twitter:

Not content with intruding in your personal decisions, OK gynoticians now want to revoke med licenses of doctors. https://t.co/8oRoRsBQfg

— Planned Parenthood (@PPact) April 23, 2016

Brumbaugh also added during the debate, “If we take care of the morality, God will take care of the economy.” We’ll have to see if the rest of Oklahoma, particularly Governor Fallin, is swayed by that argument.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bill To Revoke Licenses of Doctors Performing Abortions Passes Oklahoma Legislature appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, the Mississippi Senate voted not to make domestic abuse a valid reason for getting a divorce. Senate Bill 2418, passed in the house but died in the senate after additional amendments were added.

The state currently has 12 grounds for divorce, and domestic abuse would have been the 13th. Some of the established grounds that warrant divorce are impotency, adultery, habitual drunkenness, and mental illness.

In addition, one of the grounds is “Habitual cruel and inhuman treatment.” This seems as if it would satisfy concerns of domestic violence because it is cruel and inhumane treatment. However, as vague as it is, it may not have been effective enough, which is a reason why legislators introduced the amendment.

It is the word “habitual” that raised concerns for legislators like state Sen. Sally Doty, a Republican representing Brookhaven, Mississippi.

“I said it in committee, and I won’t back down from it. I think one instance of domestic violence is enough for me,” Doty told the Jackson Free Press. She added, “I don’t think you should have to say, ‘Oh no, he beat [me] up again,’ and then we’ll see if it doesn’t work out.”

The state senate initially passed the bill, but when the house added a provision to allow divorce after separation for at least two years, it failed to make its way to the governor’s desk. Mississippi is only one of a few states that require fault for a divorce.

One interesting issue with the proposed legislation is that it only discusses physical domestic violence. In instances of emotional, financial, or mental abuse, the amendment would not have been able to have helped.

“I’m in favor of anything that helps our women and children, make life easier, and help them get through the process faster,” Lorine Cady, Founder and Executive Director of House of Grace, said to WREG.

Domestic abuse is a significant issue for many Americans. According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV):

• 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men have been victims of [some form of] physical violence by an intimate partner within their lifetime.
• 1 in 5 women and 1 in 7 men have been victims of severe physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime.

In addition, NCADV also notes, “1 in 7 women and 1 in 18 men have been stalked by an intimate partner during their lifetime to the point in which they felt very fearful or believed that they or someone close to them would be harmed or killed.”

Women and men who find themselves in the position of an abusive and/or violent relationship have a difficult time getting away from their partner. Streamlining the divorce process and making it clearer would be a small step to addressing the issue, giving an individual the tools they need to legally get away from an abusive marriage.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mississippi Bill Aimed to Help Domestic Abuse Victims Seek Divorce Fails appeared first on Law Street.

In the context of campus sexual assault becoming more of an epidemic sweeping colleges across the country, one first-year student asked presidential candidate John Kasich how he as president will help women “feel safer and more secure regarding sexual violence, harassment and rape.”

Kasich turned away, making jokes to the audience about how he needs to leave, almost trivializing the St. Lawrence University student’s question.

He responded by explaining the efforts that Ohio has taken to provide support to victims on college campuses, like access to confidential reporting, rape kits, and the opportunity for victims to “pursue justice after you have had some time to reflect on it all.”

He then hit her with a kicker: don’t go to parties with alcohol.

Let’s unpack this statement. First of all, no woman should feel afraid just by simply going to a party with alcohol. If women do, and if telling women not to go to parties is even in the realm of something someone thinks, shouldn’t that warrant some sort of drastic preventative change?

However, Kasich did not address the root issue of how universities and colleges can solve the issue of sexual assault, rather he perpetuated the idea that it can only be prevented if women do not put themselves in situations where they could be sexually assaulted (which really is a wide variety of situations…so should women stop going to school, too?).

Rather than direct this conversation toward precautionary measures, Kasich tried to fix the issue by naming reactionary measures. The suggestions he stated at the beginning are great, but do not actually fix the issue of women (and men) being sexually assaulted in the first place.

A woman should be able to attend college parties totally naked, dance on tables & drink lots of alcohol w/o being raped or assaulted #Kasich

— James McHale (@JamesMcHaleUK) April 15, 2016

A 2007 study for the National Institute of Justice showed “… the vast majority of incapacitated sexual assault victims (89 percent) reported drinking alcohol, and being drunk (82 percent), prior to their victimization.”

Obviously alcohol does play a role in a lot of sexual assaults, especially on college campuses, but does that mean that one necessarily causes the other? Not quite, according to a report from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

Although alcohol consumption and sexual assault frequently co-occur, this phenomenon does not prove that alcohol use causes sexual assault. Thus, in some cases, the desire to commit a sexual assault may actually cause alcohol consumption (e.g., when a man drinks alcohol before committing a sexual assault in order to justify his behavior).

Women should not be afraid to be around people drinking, period. In addition, alcohol doesn’t rape, people rape. And while it may play a factor, it is not an excuse for Kasich’s comments.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Kasich to College Women: “Don’t Go To Parties With Alcohol” appeared first on Law Street.

Throw out your colanders and get rid of all of your spaghetti, a Nebraska judge ruled that Pastafarianism is not a real religion.

Stephen Cavanaugh, a Nebraska inmate, sued Nebraska prison officials seeking $5 million in 2014, arguing that his religion should be treated like every other religion. He claims that he was mocked and harassed over his belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He also claims that prison staff would not provide accommodations for his religion, as they do with others, by refusing to allow him to meet for worship services, to wear religious clothing and pendants, and to receive communion.

Pastafarianism is the belief that the earth was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM), who made it much like it is today. Members of the church say that heaven “has a Beer Volcano and Stripper Factory.” They also dress like pirates. Communion is taken by eating “a large portion of spaghetti and meatballs.”

“Fremont Solstice Parade 2008: Flying Spaghetti Monster” courtesy of Mark Atwood via Flickr

In his ruling, released on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Gerrard wrote, “FSMism” is a “parody intended to advance an argument about science, the evolution of life, and the place of religion in public education,” rather than a religion explicitly outlined by federal law.

Cavanaugh is currently serving a four to eight-year sentence in the Nebraska State Penitentiary for assault and weapons charges.

This is not the first time that members of the FSM church have retaliated for not being treated like practitioners of a legitimate religion. There have been multiple cases of followers fighting for the right to wear the symbolic colander on their heads in driver’s license photos and to have the church’s flag on government property.

At the center of the controversy is the question of whether or not Pastafarianism should be considered a legitimate religion. Some lawmakers have argued that it isn’t, like in the case of Cavanaugh, but some scholars are hard-pressed to deny it that right.

“There’s an infinite number of things that some people at one time or another have believed in, and an infinite number of things that nobody has believed in,” evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote in Wired. “If there’s not the slightest reason to believe in any of those things, why bother? The onus is on somebody who says, I want to believe in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, or whatever it is. It is not up to us to disprove it.”

In the age of religious freedom, the dismissal of religion by members of other religions seems contradictory. If the basis of religion is proof, then it is not quite certain how any religion can meet the criteria.

Lindsay Miller of Lowell, Massachusetts was denied the right to wear a pasta strainer on her head in her license photo. Headgear is not approved, unless for specific religious circumstances in Massachusetts, so Miller appealed. She was ultimately allowed to wear her strainer.

Pastafarian, Lindsay Miller allowed to wear strainer on her head in driver’s license photo, citing religious freedom! pic.twitter.com/y6MwWSTv3t

— John Zelaski (@jzelaski) November 18, 2015

“The First Amendment applies to every person and every religion, so I was dismayed to hear that Lindsay had been ridiculed for simply seeking the same freedoms and protections afforded to people who belong to more traditional or theistic religions,” Patty DeJuneas, a member of the Secular Legal Society, said in a statement released by the American Humanist Association.

Ultimately, the state of Nebraska felt, “The essence of this action… is that prison officials believe the Plaintiff is not sincere in his religious beliefs about a flying lump of spaghetti that first created ‘a mountain, trees, and a midget.'”

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Flying Spaghetti Monster, a Religious Impasta? appeared first on Law Street.

In November 2014, an article was published by Rolling Stone, titled “A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA.” The author, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, reported about a supposed gang-rape that happened to a girl named “Jackie” at an on-campus fraternity at the University of Virginia.

The article quickly drew national attention and outcry, not only to the fraternity, but also to UVA, because of a named official who reportedly shunned “Jackie” from reporting the sexual assault.

Students protested, demonstrated, and some even vandalized the fraternity house. The Inter-Fraternity Council and the university’s president suspended fraternal activities until January 2015.

The first issue with the story that did not resonate well with readers was the lack of additional sources. The story was written from one point of view, which for the purpose of fairness and accuracy is not how a journalist should go about writing an article. In addition, a simple verification of facts would’ve lead to either more concrete evidence or a lack there of (which was later found to be the case).

The Washington Post published a piece detailing the discrepancies and doubts that they had found with the story, after doing small verifications. Police also conducted a thorough investigation and were unable to find evidence to support what “Jackie” said had happened.

There was no party that night. There was no boy named “Drew” who was a fellow lifeguard and Phi Kappa Psi fraternity member. None of it was true. So why would she lie?

Associate Dean Nicole P. Eramo is seeking roughly $8 million worth in damages in the case against Rolling Stone, its parent company, and Erdely. She argues that she was pegged as the villain and that she was targeted by not only Jackie, but by Rolling Stone as well.

On April 7, Jackie testified under oath, after being ordered by a judge to do so. Although, what she said is confidential and was sealed immediately.

What we do know from this case was that it was a grave disservice to not only the university and the fraternity, but also to the one in five women who will be sexually assaulted during their time in college. This article perpetuated the myth that many of those who report sexual assaults are just lying about what happened to them.

Every day on campuses around the country women and men are sexually assaulted, and many are choosing or are advised not to report their incidents. It is unfortunate that this story, of all of the stories about campus sexual assault to be published, was fabricated.

This also brought up the ethical dilemmas of adhering to a source’s desire to remain confidential and/or requests that other sources not be contacted regarding the incident. Jackie argued that she feared retaliation from her assailants if they were contacted, and Erdely agreed to keep them out of the discussion. However, as the Columbia Journalism Review found in a comprehensive investigation on the magazine, these errors could have been easily caught through simple verification without giving the details of the story away to another source.

Jackie’s lawyers had argued that her testifying would cause her to have to relive the pain and be re-victimized by the process. However, the judge denied the motion and ruled that she had to testify, hopefully to shed some light and understanding on what went wrong in late 2014.

Throughout this entire process many people have tried to figure out who “Jackie” really is. She is the main character in the story, and the person who created the haunting details that were later proved false…so shouldn’t her name be out there too? Some think yes and some think no. Somehow, she has been able to keep her anonymity, unlike the high profile names and organizations that were made public in the article.

The dean of the Columbia Journalism School, Steve Coll, told The Washington Post,

It’s an unusual situation, and I understand the argument on the other side, but I would not name her … She never solicited Rolling Stone to be written about. She’s not responsible for the journalism mistakes. To name her now just feels gratuitous, lacking sufficient public purpose. That could change depending on how the legal cases unfold, but that’s my sense now.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ‘A Rape on Campus’ Back in the Spotlight appeared first on Law Street.

With many states and cities around the country passing legislation to increase the minimum wage to $15, most recently in California and New York, it is easy to be really excited. It has become a hot topic in the election and #Fightfor15 has been gaining traction among many groups around the country.

However, there are some issues that we need to keep in mind as we consider going from $7.25 to $15 an hour. Here are some of the most pressing:

Not all states are created equal

Obviously in many places in the U.S., it is almost necessary for lower skilled workers to earn a livable wage, especially if that is the only money their family is bringing in. However, not all states have the same cost of living, so a federal minimum wage may not be the best idea. According to Reihan Salam of Slate:

This makes poor consumers worse off [in Mississippi] in a direct sense, in that they can purchase less with their earnings. And if consumers are at all sensitive to prices, at least some of them will choose to spend less on labor-intensive goods and services now that they are more expensive. That could reduce the number of minimum wage jobs available.

Not every state needs to pay their workers as much in order to live comfortably, especially for jobs that pay minimum wage. In addition, a salary (or any earned money) in one state isn’t equal to another state when it comes to what you can get with it.

This discrepancy, though, could also pose issues because while raising minimum wage in some places to $15 and not other places could cause businesses to move across state lines to be able to spend less money.

It could cost people their jobs

It is estimated that under a $15 minimum wage, around half a million jobs will be cut by employers. Obviously, this is dependent on the area as well because in certain states or cities companies can afford to pay more or fewer workers.

In economic terms, human labor is considered a good or service, which means that when the price increases, the demand drops. The more we ask companies to pay their lower-level employees, the fewer they will be able to pay with the funds they have allocated to go to payroll, thus, they will either hire fewer people or nix some jobs.

If a firm has $500 an hour to go toward employees and they pay at $7.25/hr, they can pay 68 employees (68.9). If they pay them $10.10/hr, which is what the proposed federal minimum wage is, they can pay 49 employees. This is only a drop of 19 employees. However, if a firm is forced to pay $15/hr, they will only be able to pay 33 employees with $500; a loss of 35 employees. These numbers are obviously different depending on context, but the core economic principle still stands. If something costs more, demand will go down. People could be out of jobs.

Companies may look for cheaper options

There are places in the U.S. that have already begun looking at robots and machines to replace the work of humans because the price of human labor has been increasing too much for some places. This is no surprise, though, this has been happening for years.

According to a recent study by Oxford University, automation may claim as many as 47 percent of current jobs by 2033.

In addition, they are becoming more cost-effective. According to The Boston Consulting Group (BCG), robots in auto manufacturing have been operating at a cost barely over federal $7.25/hr minimum wage. The rise of machine work is expected to speed up as the wages across the nation increase rapidly.

The idea of a proposed $15/hr minimum wage is an amazing thought–but it is just that–a thought. A livable minimum wage is ideal, especially for those who only have one source of income, but the wider consequences could cause issues for the very people that the raise is intended to help, and we need to keep those issues in mind moving forward.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is a $15 Minimum Wage Really What is Best for the Country? appeared first on Law Street.

As reported previously on Law Street, Oregon and California recently passed legislation to allow women seeking certain hormonal contraceptives to bypass a doctor and a prescription and speak with a pharmacist instead in an effort to make contraception more accessible for women.

Women in Oregon were able to start getting these contraceptives prescription-free in January.

As of Friday, the law in California has now been enacted and women can begin to use this service.

Advocates believe that this will make it easier and less costly for women to obtain contraception. The issue of unintended pregnancy has been at the forefront of many discussions now because of the heavy debate on abortion. According to the Guttmacher Institute, almost half of all pregnancies in the U.S. (6.1 million) are unintended. Fifty-four percent of unintended pregnancies in the U.S. resulted from a non-use of any method of contraception.

Obviously, one of the best methods to prevent unintended pregnancy is using some form of contraception. Unfortunately, for some women it is not just as easy as picking it up from their local pharmacy. In most cases, a woman must see a doctor in order to get the prescription they need–costly and sometimes inconvenient or impossible for some women.

There is one key difference between California’s and Oregon’s laws. There is no age-restriction for women seeking contraception in California but in Oregon you must be 18 or older and have obtained your first prescription from a doctor.

Other positive steps were taken this week when the FDA loosened regulations on the abortion-inducing pill mifepristone, now allowing women to request a medication-induced abortion up to 70 days after conception, rather than the previous 49 days. The second drug is also now allowed to be taken at home rather than in the doctor’s office.

This news comes at a time when many clinics have been forced to shut down around the country due to strict abortion laws in many states. The Supreme Court has been hearing testimony, debating the issue and will decide on the constitutionality of these key legislations. But for now, the FDA’s decision is a step in the right direction to lessening the burden on women in some of these states where legislatures are trying to outlaw legal abortion.

There is good news coming out of other parts of the West, too. In Colorado, a program was started in 2011 that aimed to have long-lasting contraception, like IUDs and implants, accessible and free to teenagers. Through this program, by 2013, the rate of teenage pregnancy had dropped 40 percent. However, due to the initial funding running out, Gov. John Hickenlooper asked the state for funding to continue the program. Republican lawmakers said no, but the program has survived through private grants and donations, which was an unexpected win for health providers in the state. As a lot of abortion providers are forced to shutter in many parts of the state, these small reproductive rights victories are key.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Reproductive Rights Breakthroughs in Oregon and California appeared first on Law Street.

In an interesting twist of events on Saturday, Robert De Niro, Tribeca Film Festival’s co-founder, decided to pull controversial documentary, Vaxxed: From Cover-Up To Catastrophe, that accuses the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of covering up the link between vaccines and autism. He initially defended the screening just one day before.

De Niro issued a statement discussing his decision to pull the film:

“My intent in screening this film was to provide an opportunity for conversation around an issue that is deeply personal to me and my family. But after reviewing it over the past few days with the Tribeca Film Festival team and others from the scientific community, we do not believe it contributes to or furthers the discussion I had hoped for.” 

The film’s Director Andrew Wakefield, and producer Del Bigtree said:

“Robert De Niro’s original defense of the film happened Friday after a one-hour conversation between De Niro and Bill Posey, the congressman who has interacted directly and at length with the CDC Whistleblower (William Thompson) and whose team has scrutinized the documents that prove fraud at the CDC.”

The issue at hand here is whether or not De Niro is simply censoring another opinion because it is different than his. Those opposed to the decision argue that it is censorship and believe that this is just another way the media wants to shut down unpopular opinions.

Wakefield, an anti-vaccine advocate and former gastroenterologist (his license has since been revoked by Britain’s General Medical Council, according to CBS News), was the author of a widely discounted study published in the Lancet medical journal in 1998 but was retracted in 2010. The study claimed there was a link between the MMR vaccine and the development of autism, but many organizations, such as the CDC and WHO, have since discredited the claim.

However, where do we draw the line between censorship and saying that these ideas are false and there is no reason to give them validity?

What it comes down to is whether or not the opinions being shared hold some sort of validity, because if it doesn’t, then it is probably wrong. Yet, we find that people still hold these beliefs, and begin to pass them off as true.

If the science says you’re wrong, there is no point to screening this film because the discussion is already over. Would it make sense to show a conspiracy theory documentary about 9/11 or The Holocaust? No, because the discussion is over and there is no reason to argue in circles with someone who believes, despite all evidence, that they are correct.

An open discussion of opinions is a valuable tool for gaining a comprehensive understanding of an issue. However, when some opinions are simply not valid, it gives off a sense of balance in the ideas, which leads to the balance fallacy. This is an issue that reporters face every day–do we give equal weight to both sides as we are taught, even if one side is more valid than another? An example of this is the coverage of climate change. If both sides are given equal weight in a story, this may lead to a false understanding by the public that discounted claims are well supported by professionals or experts in their respective fields.

An example of this is the coverage of climate change. If both sides are given equal weight in a story, that may lead to a false understanding by the public that discounted claims are well-supported by professionals or experts in their respective fields.

The Toronto Star’s Vinay Menon put it well saying:

“This isn’t about free speech. It’s about costly ignorance. It’s about living at a time when diseases like measles were close to eradicated from much of the developed world and then returned. It’s about knowing when a “conversation” is called for and when there is nothing left to say. It’s about drawing a line between bad science and dangerous science.”

Ultimately, the decision to keep “Vaxxed” from the big screen was a wise one.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ‘Vaxxed’ is Axed from Tribeca appeared first on Law Street.

What if heroin overdoses were not classified as accidents, but as homicides?

That is what one Pennsylvania coroner is starting to do.

According to Penn Live, in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, coroner Charles E. Kiessling wants to call the issue like it is. Rather than have the death be classified as either a suicide or accidental, labeling heroin overdose deaths as homicides holds the drug dealers accountable for their actions.

“If you are selling heroin to someone and they die, isn’t that homicide?” he said to Penn Live. He added that ruling the deaths as accidental downplays the true severity of the situation.

This issue has garnered both positive and negative comments. Some argue that this will become a slippery slope where car dealers are blamed for car accidents. However, as explained in Penn Live, a coroner’s report is not legal finding, therefore a death being classified a homicide on the report does not mean in the eyes of law enforcement it will immediately be taken that way.

This same argument has been presented in previous years regarding fast food chains and obesity. In one 2002 case against McDonald’s, two teenagers blamed the fast food chain for their obesity, arguing that they were not provided with the necessary nutritional information. Lawyers for McDonald’s made the case that it was really a case of a lack of individual responsibility.

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention handbook states that a death should be designated a homicide if it is from “… a volitional act committed by another person to cause fear, harm, or death. Intent to cause death is a common element but is not required for classification as homicide.”

The second part of their definition is crucial because in these cases of heroin overdoses, there may not be explicit intent to kill.

The coroner’s decision comes as heroin related deaths are increasing across the state, along with a personal connection after he said he pronounced a friend’s son dead from heroin, according to Penn Live.

“This hit me very personally,” Kiessling said to Penn Live. “I don’t care if I offend people. Drug dealers are murderers and belong in state prison.”

A hole in the slippery slope argument, though, comes when opponents argue that then a doctor would need to be charged with homicide if one of their patients overdosed on prescription medicine. However, unlike drug dealers, doctors have licenses and their medicines are administered in methodical and specific amounts, making it more difficult for patients to overdose accidentally. When it comes to drugs, the buyer may not even know what chemicals are in the drugs and this unknown lends itself to issues.

With that being said, is it really plausible to call all drug dealers “murderers?” The same language can be used as was used by McDonald’s lawyers: it is the individual’s choice to consume certain foods or drugs, meaning that drug dealers shouldn’t be held liable for what happens to their consumers.

With any overdose, the situation is very sensitive, and the classification of the death could mean different implications for not only police but also for the families of the victims.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Pennsylvania Coroner Labels Heroin Overdoses ‘Homicide’ appeared first on Law Street.

As a journalism student, especially one interested in politics, I am constantly surrounded by election news, so I pride myself on being educated and informed on all of the presidential candidates. So, something that really strikes a chord with me is when people my age (college-aged) tell me that they are going to refrain from voting.

Obviously, my first question is “why?”

I recently saw the post and video below on my Facebook timeline. It got me thinking that I know an awful lot of people who complain about politicians, “the system,” and everything going on in this campaign who have told me that they are simply not going to vote.

It is no surprise that voters ages 18-24 rarely make it out to the polls. According to a Census Bureau Report, in the 2012 presidential election 38 percent of eligible 18-24-year-olds actually voted.  To put that in perspective, approximately 61.8 percent of all eligible Americans voted. Seem low? It is. The least represented group at the polls is 18-24-year-olds.

In the 2012 election, 69.7 percent of eligible voters aged 65 and over voted. Now, I know we all have that aunt or uncle whose views are too radical to even listen to at the dinner table at family gatherings…so why give their voice more validity and weight if you have a chance to be a part of a different opinion?

The difference between the voting rate of young people aged 18-29 and their eligibility rate was -5.8 percent. Voting is a civic duty, and by not voting we are only distancing ourselves from a government that we want because we don’t allow our voices to be heard.

Tomorrow is the Missouri Primary! Polls across the state will be open from 6AM-7PM #Election2016 pic.twitter.com/pOrE39qS5s

— The University News (@TheUNews) March 14, 2016

Here are some of the most common explanations young eligible voters have for not voting:

“I hate all of the candidates.”

I hear this often as a reason not to vote. My response: if you hate all of the candidates so much, do something about it! Don’t just complain on Twitter, go out and vote and make your voice heard. Write-in, vote for third-party candidates, do something! Because at least you can say that you had a part in the process.

don’t sit on here and preach about who you want to become president and who would be best for president if you ain’t get up and vote

— (@OGTatum_) March 16, 2016

I know people who hate the Maryland governor but didn’t feel like voting in the gubernatorial election against him. There’s no use in complaining now if you didn’t even feel like being a part of the process in the first place.

In the 2014 election (midterm), a sad 36 percent of eligible voters actually turned out to vote (which isn’t completely unusual for midterm, but lower than previous years), according to the U.S. Census Bureau cited in The Washington Post. Of the voters who didn’t hit the polls, 28 percent said they were just ‘”too busy.”

“I’m just not that into politics” or “I don’t know much about the candidates.”

This is another popular reason I hear. But you can be “not into politics,” while still keeping yourself informed. I know plenty of students who despise politics, yet keep up on the race because they know it is important to know what is going on. You don’t have to read every single article about the candidates or even keep up on the immediate news to check up every once in a while to see where the candidates stand and what they have been saying. Simple Google searches will take you to the stances of every candidate.

Obviously, not all political quizzes were made equal, but ISideWith isn’t too bad if you want to get a feel for who you may share views with.

“My vote doesn’t even count for much, who cares?”

This is probably my least favorite excuse not to vote. Most frustrating is that there are a lot of people who truly don’t believe their vote counts. Whether that be because of the way our system is set up, or just a misconception about how powerful a vote is, it isn’t a good way to think about voting. A lot of people feel this way, which means a lot of people will not vote purely because they think they don’t have any stake in who becomes president. While the impact of a single vote may not seem like much, the impact of many single votes not being casted adds up. A silent majority is still a majority, just not one whose opinion counts when it matters most.

“I’m voting for Donald Trump.”

Oh, okay, yeah, don’t worry about even heading out to the polls then.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Millennials Need to Vote in the Presidential Election appeared first on Law Street.

Ted Cruz–he’s just your typical guy running for president of the United States. Or is he? He was born in Canada and is really only eligible because his mother is American. I think I’m going to need a birth certificate for this one…

But Cruz continues to captivate the masses with his allegedly non-human features, such as his melting-off-the face waxy skin, lizard-like appearance, and disturbing alien-like facial expressions.

Some on the internet are seriously doubting his humanity…but that’s fine, right? After all, an alien can run for president as long as they’re not illegal.

He Makes Unusual Facial Expressions

@kevinmaisto you forgot that Ted Cruz is a lizard pic.twitter.com/CnIdqQ3MoF

— // CJ // (@CJZOLANSKI) February 7, 2016

One of the ideas floating around theiInternet is that Ted Cruz is simply a lizard man in a human suit, and I really can’t say that I don’t believe it. Look at that face. If that is a normal human facial expression, then I have seriously been sending some mixed signals over the years.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 5 Times We May Have Doubted Ted Cruz’s Humanity appeared first on Law Street.

Lawmakers in many states still seem to be having a hard time coping with the idea of not only same-sex marriage, but that same-sex couples should receive equal rights.

Kentucky, Alabama, and Georgia are not the only states to seemingly reject the principle of the SCOTUS decision last year, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage, but they are the three most recent examples. If we tried to actually discuss all of the different states’ provisions following the Supreme Court ruling, it would take hours to read this. According to the Human Rights Campaign, last year more than 100 anti-LGBT bills were filed in 29 states.

Kentucky and Georgia are two states that have recently passed religious liberty legislation through one or both of their houses. Kentucky’s bill, SB 180, passed through the senate with a 22-16 vote and is now awaiting its fate in the house. Georgia’s HB 757 passed through both the senate and the house and has been sent to the governor’s desk. The governor, Nathan Deal, has expressed that he will not sign the bill into law in its current form. Meanwhile Alabama is changing around marriage laws following the 2015 Obergefell decision.

Religious liberty laws prohibit the local or state government from infringing on businesses’ rights to deny services to people who violate their religious beliefs. Such legislation is usually written in a way that does not explicitly mention the LGBT community, but this aim is implied by the swift wave of new legislation following same-sex marriage’s effective nationwide legalization and recent cases of businesses refusing service to same-sex customers based on their religious beliefs.

Many cases about businesses and state officials refusing services to same-sex couples have been brought to court recently, including: in May 2014, a Colorado bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage citing religious beliefs, and the infamous Kim Davis of Rowan County, Kentucky, who was jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

Kentucky

Kentucky’s recent legislation was created to enhance the state’s 2013 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The new legislation clarifies that businesses cannot be punished in certain cases for violating pre-existing local ordinances that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

The bill’s sponsor, Republican Albert Robinson of London, said the legislation is designed to protect everyone’s religious liberties…but critics worry it doesn’t extend to civil liberties.

Robinson spoke on the senate floor and said that businesses should have the freedom to refuse service if they are required to “use their skills to provide a customized service celebrating something that violated one of the tenets of their faith.”

But religious liberty legislation has a history of causing economic problems for the states that enact it. Last year following the passage of Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the state saw a loss of  a dozen conventions resulting in a $60 million loss in revenue, according to a document prepared by Visit Indy obtained by the Associated Press.

Georgia

In Georgia, where a similar bill has passed through both houses in the state legislature, the effects of its possible passage are causing some businesses to plan on relocation.

Telecommunications firm 373K, which was founded by Kelvin Williams and is located in Atlanta, is one of the outspoken businesses against the bill. Williams, who is gay, said he and his employees supported the decision to relocate to possibly Delaware or Nevada if the bill passes.

“For the past year we’ve been building a global carrier network. We have to start hiring more,” Williams said to CBS News. “I can’t always find the perfect person in Georgia. I might have to reach out across the world. Would I want to move to Georgia if someone else offered me a job after this? The answer was no.”

Alabama

Alabama is a bit of a different situation, but still relevant for the discussion of anti-LGBT proposals. Recently, the Alabama Senate passed a bill that would do away with marriage licenses and change to contracts that are filed with the state. Alabama (like many other states) was previously having the issue of some county probate judges who had stopped giving marriage licenses altogether in order to avoid giving them to same-sex couples.

Openly gay Representative Patricia Todd, who opposed the bill, deemed it unnecessary and said that the judges should just do their jobs, according to the Associated Press.

There is no way to tell how this will affect other aspects of the law, especially when it comes to divorce. If one aspect of the marriage system is altered in the eyes of the state, other things will likely need to change as well. For example, will divorce procedure need to be changed? How is that going to work? There is really no way to tell how this is going to change the system, all to alleviate the pain and burden on a few officials who refuse to do one of their explicitly stated jobs. If any of these bills are enacted into law, it will be interesting to see the outcome and the potential economic and social consequences that could arise.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s 2016 and Some State Lawmakers are Still Trying to Fight LGBT Equality appeared first on Law Street.

According to one Idaho sheriff, the Idaho legislature shouldn’t have anything to do with making a statewide rape kit collection and tracking system because most rape accusations are just plain false.

A new bill, which is heading to the desk of the governor now, would standardize how medical clinics collect evidence from suspected sexual assaults, and would create and enforce a timeline for law enforcement agencies to send evidence for testing at a state forensic lab.

DNA collected from rape kits goes into a nationwide database in order to check for matches. Rape kits contain semen, saliva, or blood found on the victim during an examination. Agencies would need the approval of their county prosecutor if they do not believe a kit should be tested.

Idaho Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter has not yet indicated whether or not he will sign the bill. But Bingham County Sheriff Craig Rowland told Idaho Falls television station KIDK, according to OregonLive, that this new measure prohibits members of law enforcement from doing their jobs. Rowland said:

They need to let us decide if we’re going to send the kit and when we send the kits in. Because the majority of our rapes — not to say that we don’t have rapes, we do — but the majority of our rapes that are called in, are actually consensual sex.

These comments add to the systematic issue of law enforcement not always taking rape victims seriously.

“This bill sends a clear message that victims are to be taken seriously,” said Democratic Senator Maryanne Jordan to the AP. “The DNA evidence in these kits can be a powerful tool in solving these crimes.”

This new measure aims to streamline the process by bypassing skeptical police by requiring that clinics send their kits for testing, unless the victim or county prosecutor say otherwise.

“It’s hard to know if a claim is false if the kits don’t get tested,” Ilse Knecht, policy and advocacy director for the Joyful Heart Foundation told the AP. “Each one of these kits represents a survivor. … We need to take their claim seriously, treat them with respect and use the evidence.”

According to a Vox report, 2 to 8 percent of rape allegations are actually false. The six point discrepancy comes from different understandings of what rape is. Therefore, depending on where and who is doing the reporting and investigating, many cases are not considered rape, leading to discrepancies amongst state and national agencies.

“The heated public discourse about the frequency of false rape allegations often makes no reference to actual research,”–this is according to a ten-year study done by Violence Against Women. “When the discourse does make reference to research, it often founders on the stunning variability in research findings on the frequency of false rape reports. ” The study found that the range for false rape allegations was between 2 and 10 percent.

Only 32-33 percent of rapes are even reported, according to the Department of Justice, cited in a report by RAINN (Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network), and only two out of every 100 rapists will spend any time in jail. With numbers like that, legislation that aims to give a voice and legitimacy to each victim is vital.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Idaho Sheriff: Rape Kit System ‘Unnecessary’ Because Most Accusations are False appeared first on Law Street.

California passed landmark ‘right to die’ legislation last October that will allow terminally ill patients to receive life-ending drugs from their doctors. Now, those who want to request these drugs have an official date when they can do so. California joins Vermont, Oregon, Washington, and Montana to become the fifth state to pass this type of legislation.

The End of Life Option Act will go into effect on June 9, per the 90-day waiting period after the legislative “extraordinary session” adjourned Wednesday.

“Now that the Second Extraordinary Session has been adjourned, terminally ill Californians will finally be able to exercise this right in the State of California,” Senate Majority Leader Bill Monning said. “Californians will no longer have to leave the state, their families, and their friends if they choose to exercise the end of life option in their final days of life.”

The law requires those seeking end of life treatment to be cleared by two physicians who agree that the patient has six months or less to live. It also requires patients to be able to swallow the medication themselves and affirm in writing that they will do so 48 hours prior to taking the medication. This ensures that the individual is aware of the decision that they are making.

This issue gained notoriety following the case of Brittany Maynard, a 29-year-old California woman with terminal brain cancer who moved to Oregon in order to legally end her life in 2014. She created a video documenting her experience leading up to her death and impassioned many lawmakers and citizens to consider the issue. 

Opponents of the law, however, believe that this legislation could lead to premature suicides. The Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF), an advocate against legalizing assisted suicide, cites many reasons and alternatives that can be done instead of turning to right to die laws:

It is legal in every U.S. state for an individual to create an advance directive that requires the withdrawal of treatment under any conditions the person wishes and for a patient to refuse any treatment or to require any treatment to be withdrawn… And perhaps least understood, for anyone who is dying in discomfort, it is currently legal in any U.S. state to receive palliative sedation, wherein the dying person is sedated so discomfort is relieved during the dying process. 

The group also argues that the legalization of assisted suicide will lead to premature suicides of individuals suffering from mental health issues. It is important to note, though, that an individual requesting these services must be cleared by two physicians certifying that they are terminally ill, not just suffering from certain mental health problems.

“We are looking ahead at measures to protect people from abuse,” Marilyn Golden–a policy analyst at DREDF–told the Associated Press, “and to explore and inform doctors, nurses, and pharmacists that they don’t have to participate.”

Her statement is true; religious institutions, like Catholic hospitals, can opt out and ban their physicians from administering medications for assisted suicide, according to the law.

However, many were very happy with the outcome, which was long awaited. “It gives me a great peace of mind to know that I will not be forced to die slowly and painfully,” Elizabeth Wallner said in a statement from Compassion & Choices, an aid-in-dying advocacy group. She is a single mother with stage four colon cancer that has spread to other organs.

Christy O’Donnell, a former LAPD Sergeant and activist who worked hard to get the legislation passed, died of lung cancer last month. Senator Monning thanked her and others who helped support the bill now that the legislation is scheduled to take effect. “I really believe we use today to mark and dedicate the memory… of some true champions,” Monning said.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California Becomes Fifth State to Pass Right to Die Legislation appeared first on Law Street.

For the second time since 2015, West Virginia Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin (D) vetoed a proposal to allow people 21 and older to carry hidden guns without permits or training.

The West Virginia House voted 64-33 less than 24 hours after the governor’s decision to override the bill. It then went to the Senate, where in a 23-11 vote Saturday, the Senate voted to override the veto as well.

Permitless concealed carry coming to West Virginia after legislature overrides governor’s veto https://t.co/sJ118RaOgu

— The Washington Times (@wtimesnation) March 7, 2016

The law will go into effect in 90 days.

House Bill 4145 will get rid of the state’s current permit and training program for citizens carrying concealed weapons in West Virginia for anyone 21 and older. However, permits will still be required for those between 18-21.

According to the bill, it “establish[es] that criminal penalties for carrying a concealed deadly weapon without state license or other lawful authorization apply only to persons under twenty-one years of age and prohibited persons.”

Those excluded from the rule include those with diagnosed substance-abuse problems, multiple alcohol-related driving infractions, alcohol addiction, or serious criminal records.

Gov. Tomblin released this statement after his veto:

West Virginia’s law enforcement officers have dedicated their lives to keeping us safe and helping us in times of need, and it’s disheartening that the members of the Legislature have chosen not to stand with these brave men and women – putting their safety and the safety of West Virginians at risk. It’s unfortunate that the concerns of officers from every law enforcement branch in the state, including the West Virginia State Police and university campus police officers, have been ignored by today’s action.

What made this veto different than the previous one in 2015 is that the legislature had more time in order to override the governor’s decision. In West Virginia, it only takes a simple majority to override vetoes, thus making it easier with ample time.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) asked the legislature to reconsider swiftly following the governor’s decision.

It is already legal in West Virginia to carry a gun openly, like in a holster, without a permit. This bill will just make concealed weapon carry legal without a permit for citizens over 21.

Citizens ages 18-20 would need to participate in a training program involving live firing in order to get a permit.

There are a handful of other states that do not require permits.

According to The Washington Post, “Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Wyoming and Vermont don’t require a permit at all for concealed carry in public. Vermont has never had such a requirement; Alaska went permit-free in 2003; Arizona in 2010; Wyoming in 2011 (limited to residents); and Arkansas in 2013.”

Some of these programs do away with background checks, which are highly favored by Americans.

In a Quinnipiac poll released in 2014, it found that 92 percent of Americans surveyed favored background checks for all gun buyers. In 2013 the number was 89 percent.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post West Virginia Legislature Overrides Veto Allowing Permitless Concealed Carry appeared first on Law Street.

I was so distracted during Trump’s speech that I almost missed it entirely. No, it wasn’t from looking at videos on my computer or even using my phone…it was because I was fixated on Chris Christie, nestled in the back left-hand corner of the TV screen, who looked far from okay.

Presidential hopeful Donald Trump addressed a crowd in Florida after garnering some lofty Super Tuesday wins. Former presidential hopeful and current governor of New Jersey Chris Christie introduced Trump, but it wasn’t the introduction that made observers concerned for Christie’s safety.

It was in the time after he spoke, while Trump gave his spiel, when it happened. Christie stood behind Trump, expressionless, gazing off into the distance as if to ponder why he had made the decision to speak at the rally.

.@ChrisChristie just gave what looked like a coerced confession.

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) March 2, 2016

Chris Christie trying to figure out how the hell this happened to him https://t.co/5buKrSM9pG

— Nick Robinson (@Babylonian) March 2, 2016

He looked like he was forced to be there, and his strange mannerisms quickly manifested themselves into a meme all over Twitter–trending with #FreeChrisChristie.

Washington Post’s Alexandra Petri put it best:

“Chris Christie spent the entire speech screaming wordlessly. I have never seen someone scream so loudly without using his mouth before. It would have been remarkable if it had not been so terrifying.”

— Matt Viser (@mviser) March 2, 2016

So lifeless, yet so full of regret.

Many have likened his appearance and strange facial expressions to that of a hostage video.

My gooodness Chris Christie looks like he’s appearing in a hostage video. #SuperTuesday

— Mark D. Levine (@MarkLevineNYC) March 2, 2016

Gonna need Chris Christie to hold up a copy of today’s newspaper to prove this is not a prerecorded hologram hostage video

— Tim Mak (@timkmak) March 2, 2016

Christie endorsed “Mr. Trump” this past Friday, a move that shocked many after he had been so critical of the front-runner’s tactics and rhetoric.

As a man who had once said Trump was running not for commander-in-chief but instead for “entertainer-in-chief,” his comments Tuesday night were, to put it mildly, a complete 180.

There’s just one question on Chris Christie’s mind. #SuperTuesdaypic.twitter.com/sSDnCXgxBE

— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) March 2, 2016

Maybe it’s because the New Hampshire Union Leader recently apologized for endorsing Christie, or because six New Jersey newspapers just asked for his resignation. Maybe we’ll never know. Regardless of what was really going through his head during the speech, we are worried about you Chris Christie.

SEE IT: The many faces of @GovChristiehttps://t.co/GzmrwggTfzpic.twitter.com/T4Vod1wjwk

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) March 2, 2016

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Chris Christie Okay? appeared first on Law Street.

Loyal, compassionate, obedient, and unconditionally loving: these two new presidential hopefuls seem to be everything this country needs.

Sick of the GOP and the Democratic Party? Sick of politicians in general? If so, you might want to check out the Canine Party.

Meet Butler Blue III and Georgetown Jack, two bulldogs who represent their respective universities (Butler University and Georgetown University). They have teamed up to run for the presidency this year.

The duo unveiled their campaign in a video posted to Youtube, and it is arguably the best (almost) three minutes of the entire election season so far.

“Take for instance, a homegrown set of Midwestern values matched with a West Coast kid turned Washington insider,” the narrator says in the video. “…or Butler Blue’s courage to speak his mind for the good of all and Georgetown Jack’s enduring composure, demonstrating unparalleled grace under pressure.” The video highlights their strengths–the narrator talks about “one’s unmatched goal oriented drive coupled with the other’s innovative efficiency.” It also states that “it’s clear the individual strengths of Butler Blue and Georgetown Jack speak for themselves, yet the combined power of this doggy duo speaks for America.”

While a dog has never held the presidency, many have resided in the White House, making it difficult for voters and opponents to discredit their legitimacy. This isn’t even the first time an animal has run for office. For example, the mayor of Talkeetna, Alaska who has been in office since 1997 is a cat named Mayor Stubbs. Duke, an eight-year-old dog, is the elected mayor of Cormorant, Minnesota.

I support the #CanineParty! No bones about it, @GeorgetownJack is the right choice. pic.twitter.com/GNHqg3GREy

— Chris Grosse (@Chris_Grosse) February 27, 2016

During an election season filled with surprise candidates who are favored because of their “distance” from politics, it would be no surprise to see these two candidates running up the polls and chasing the bone that is the presidency.

Huge #CanineParty endorsement coming in this morning from @zeldathebulldog! https://t.co/hfF2k7pnklpic.twitter.com/xzqWWE85Te

— Butler Blue III (@ButlerBlue3) February 29, 2016

In addition to these two pups, apparently the bulldog mascot of Drake University is also running for president, which he announced in November.

THIS IS IT! I’m announcing my official candidacy 4 President of the United States of America.#VoteGriff #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/EZHuQAv9Qw

— Griff the Mascot (@DrakeUGriff) November 14, 2015

We’re not sure which pup is planning on taking the presidency and who will be taking the VP position, but the strategic approach of running as a pair will definitely give them (two) legs up on the rest of the competition.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Georgetown, Butler Bulldog Mascots Strong Contenders for 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

This election year is the year of the conspiracy: Antonin Scalia’s lack of autopsy prompted some to think he was murdered by President Barack Obama, Donald Trump is supposedly part of the Democratic Party’s attempt to  infiltrate the GOP to make it destroy itself, and now some people are theorizing that Ted Cruz is none other than the Zodiac Killer.

The Zodiac Killer… we all know him as the infamous and mysterious serial killer who wreaked havoc in California in the 1960s and early 70s–who killed five people for sure but may have killed as many as 37. The killer also sent letters to California papers with coded messages, referring to himself as “Zodiac.”

A tweet in 2013 seems to be the origin of the theory, according to the Daily Dot, which traced the meme.

#CPAC Alert: Ted Cruz is speaking!! His speech is titled: ‘This Is The Zodiac Speaking’

— Red Pill America (@RedPillAmerica) March 14, 2013

As Cruz became more famous so did the theory. There is even a hashtag dedicated to the similarities between the two: #ZodiacTed.

Wake up America #ZodiacTedpic.twitter.com/l7qqqXpDQk

— Griffin (@NotGriffinNope) February 2, 2016

This was an amazing moment from the #GOPDebate tonight. #ZodiacTedpic.twitter.com/4DUgyxAo2k

— Bill Wetzel (@billthebutcher2) February 26, 2016

People are starting to finally ask the real questions, like: if he isn’t the Zodiac killer, then why hasn’t he denied it?

If Ted Cruz isn’t the Zodiac Killer, then why hasn’t he denied it? https://t.co/jCm2uRWOux#ZodiacTedpic.twitter.com/3EWcxDoecx

— Esquire Magazine (@esquire) February 25, 2016

Public Policy Polling, a polling firm that made a name for itself by adding funny questions onto the end of its surveys, included a question about Ted being the Zodiac Killer in a recent poll in Florida.

We are finding many Floridians can not rule out the possibility, although few are convinced of guilt https://t.co/OPsWIl97Sy

— PublicPolicyPolling (@ppppolls) February 25, 2016

According to PPP, nearly 40 percent of respondents think it’s possible that Cruz is the famous serial killer–10 percent believe for sure that they are one in the same, and 28 percent just aren’t sure yet. On the other hand, 62 percent of Floridians don’t believe he is the Zodiac Killer (well, +/- the 3.1 percent margin of error).

Maybe they just haven’t seen the evidence yet.

Unfortunately, as the Washington Post reports, Ted Cruz is probably too young to be the Zodiac Killer. The first confirmed killing was back in 1968 when Cruz was a young negative two years old–according to his released birth certificate. But those things can be modified, right?

Ted Cruz also just wasn’t in the right place at the right time. He was born in Canada and the killings took place in California. And as a youngin, creating a cipher would probably have been far too advanced. However, what if the cipher was really just a bunch of baby babble? (Is that why it still hasn’t been broken?!)

I have no choice, though, to say that Ted Cruz is likely NOT the Zodiac Killer, but until he denies it, we really can’t rule it out completely.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ted Cruz Hasn’t Denied that He is the Zodiac Killer appeared first on Law Street.

Campaign season is upon us, and that means plenty of rallies and debates…and hilarious protest signs. Each of the candidates is bound to have someone show up to a rally donned in a creative outfit or holding an angry sign to expose the candidates’ supposed wrong doings (or in one case, their secret acting career in “The Office”). Nonetheless, protesters never cease to amaze us with their bizarre connections and the unique ideas for protests. Here are some of our favorites from this year’s election cycle so far:

Ted Cruz likes Nickelback

NICKELBACK Employee of the Month. January 2016.#Election2016#Nickelback4Presidentpic.twitter.com/L4j2Y7hKbX

— Nickelback (@Nickelback) January 12, 2016

Obviously, if Ted Cruz likes Nickelback, that disqualifies him as a legitimate candidate for the presidency. Will he really be taken seriously by other world leaders? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves now.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 5 Best Campaign Rally Protest Signs of 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The Republican presidential candidate that many had previously hailed as the most moderate GOP contender signed a bill Sunday to prohibit the Ohio state health department from contracting with entities that perform or promote abortions.

John Kasich, the Governor of Ohio and presidential hopeful, fulfilled his promise to defund Planned Parenthood, even though the healthcare provider is not specifically named in the bill. However slashing funds is one way that lawmakers plan to get rid of the healthcare provider, which just happens to refer patients to and provide abortion services.

The law will prevent roughly $1.3 million in funding from the Ohio State Health Department from going to STD/HIV testing, general health screenings, and prevention of violence against women. 

@CNN @JohnKasich pic.twitter.com/1xZb2a42uX

— Venisha (@Venishhhha) February 22, 2016

It should be noted that state and federal laws already prohibit taxpayer funds from going towards abortion services, except in the cases of rape, incest, and “therapeutic” abortions (medical diagnosis to save the mother via abortion).

@CNN @JohnKasich How about letting the women in this country dictate things?

— Bomber Doobie (@Bomber_Doobie) February 22, 2016

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards responded to the news, not surprisingly, unhappy and disappointed.

“It’s clear Kasich has no regard for women’s health or lives, and will stop at nothing to block health care for the tens of thousands of Ohioans who rely on Planned Parenthood,” Richards said in a statement. She added that it would have “devastating consequences for women across Ohio.”

While many see Kasich as the great moderate of the election season, his voting record when it comes to abortion says otherwise. As the Huffington Post has reported:

Just months after becoming governor, Kasich signed a bill banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy unless the fetus is nonviable. In 2013, Kasich signed a budget that stripped roughly $1.4 million in family planning funds from Planned Parenthood, required abortion providers to perform ultrasounds on patients seeking abortions and allowed rape crisis centers to be stripped of their public funds if they referred victims to abortion providers, among other measures. The budget also blocked public hospitals from entering into transfer agreements for medical emergencies with abortion clinics, threatening clinics with closure if they couldn’t get a private hospital to enter into those agreements. Because private hospitals often have religious affiliations, this arrangement often wasn’t possible.

In all, nearly half of Ohio’s abortion clinics have closed since Kasich took office.

Kasich’s gubernatorial office spokesman Joe Andrews responded in a statement with:

The Ohio Department of Health has at least 150 other sub-grantees and contractors for the affected grants and projects addressing such issues as new born babies, infant mortality, expectant mothers, violence against women, and minority HIV/AIDS,” the statement said. “ODH will reallocate funding from ineligible providers under the new law to other currently eligible providers, ranging from local health departments and community organizations to hospitals and universities. These organizations will be required to submit proposals in order to receive funding.

The issues that arise from Kasich’s signing of the bill go past clinics not having proper funding. This goes as far as to cause issues with insurers and hospitals. As Cleveland.com reports, “…the Columbus Public Health department said it would be unable to contract with any Columbus hospital because they either provide abortion services, contract with abortion clinics, or refer patients to abortion services.”

In addition, Texas is a great example of what can happen when you remove a major women’s health service from Medicaid plans. Recently, women in Texas stopped using the most effective forms of contraceptives, and the birth rate rose (on the taxpayer’s tab), according to a study done by researchers from the University of Texas at Austin. According to researchers, the number of claims for long-acting contraception dropped by more than a third and births paid for by Medicaid shot up by 27 percent.

Of course, there is no way of saying definitively that this will happen in Ohio as well, but it would not come as a shock. As Guttmacher Institute’s Elizabeth Nash stated, “It’s one of the states people look to, to see what the next restriction is going to look like.”

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ohio Governor John Kasich Signs Bill that Will Defund Planned Parenthood appeared first on Law Street.

What does this Florida teenager advertising his medical services while sporting a lab coat and stethoscope not have? A medical degree.

Malachi A. Love-Robinson, an 18-year-old, even had his own medical office in West Palm Beach, Florida.

Officials arrested Love-Robinson Tuesday after the Palm Beach Narcotics Task Force (PBNTF) and the Florida Department of Health investigated complaints that the “doctor” was practicing medicine without a license, according to a statement released by the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office.

Just because you saw a season of Grey’s Anatomy doesn’t mean you could practice medicine. https://t.co/tw8QUXjtsj pic.twitter.com/dCBZX8CYCU

— PBSO (@PBCountySheriff) February 16, 2016

The sheriff’s office also said that Love-Robinson had been investigated previously and was cited by the Department of Health for practicing medicine without a license this past October. According to Brad Dalton, the spokesman for the Florida Department of Health, Love-Robinson was worked at New Birth New Life, a treatment office specializing in addiction recovery, in Boynton Beach, Fla. Practicing medicine without a license is considered a third-degree felony in Florida.

The police were apparently tipped off by a member of the public who told the authorities that “a person who was portraying himself as a 25-year-old doctor was actually an 18-year-old,” Brad Dalton told the New York Times. According to his profile on HealthGrades.com, which has since been taken down, he was listed as a 25-year-old.

Love-Robinson posted bail on Wednesday and on Thursday he told ABC News, “I’m not portraying as an M.D. I never said I’ve gone to school to be an M.D.” He also claims that he has a Ph.D., but would not say where it is from or what field it is in.

The statement from the sheriff’s office says that Love-Robinson “performed a physical exam on an undercover agent and offered medical advice.” The point in time when Love-Robinson crossed the line to provide medical care and advice was when police were able to intervene, Dalton told CNN.

According to New Birth New Life’s website, Love-Robinson is listed as having not only a Ph.D. but also two certifications: HHP-C, which is a holistic health practitioner certification, and AMP-C, which is unclear.

There are two other employees listed, an operations director and a program director. The program director, Sandra J. White, is titled “Dr.,” but it is unclear if that title stems from the honorary doctorate of divinity that she received according to her bio on the NBNL website, or if from an educational institution.

The bio for Michelle L. Newsome, the operations director, says, “[Newsome] is looking forward to many years here at NBNL Medical Center and hopes to enjoy each and every one of them.”

Love-Robinson was also accused of forging and cashing stolen checks from an 86-year-old woman in January and was charged with Grand Theft, Uttering a Forgery, and Naturopath without a License, according to an update posted to the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office Facebook page.

The elderly women reportedly filed a forgery and fraud report after she was notified that her bank account had no money in it. “The victim obtained copies of her checks and learned that three had been forged and cashed by Dr. Love-Robinson without her consent or knowledge,” the post said.

Love-Robinson disagrees with the police and is unhappy that he was forced to close down his practice following the accusations. “I’m not trying to hurt people,” he told the New York Times. “I’m just a young black guy who opened up a practice who is trying to do some good in the community. If that is a negative thing, we have a lot more work to do in the community than to single out me.”

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Florida Teen Still Not a Doctor, But Still Pretending appeared first on Law Street.

The Virginia House of Delegates passed a bill Tuesday to grant protections for private businesses holding religious views that refuse service to gay and transgender individuals, along with individuals who have sex outside of marriage.

But House Bill 773, titled the Government Non-Discrimination Act, does exactly the opposite of its intended purpose, at least depending on who you are talking to. 

The bill states,

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a government entity shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, in whole or in part, on the basis that such person believes, speaks, or acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that (i) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, (ii) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage, or (iii) the male sex and the term “man” and the female sex and the term “woman” refer to an individual’s biological sex as determined at birth.

Under this act, state agencies are denied the ability to reduce or cancel funding, contracts, and entitlements; alter tax treatment, or deny other benefits based on beliefs held by private entities such as believing marriage is solely between a man and a woman, sex is only for marriage, and that the terms man and woman are only based on biological sex.

If a company holds these views but doesn’t act on them, then it is not seen as as much of an issue. Saying, “I don’t agree with your lifestyle but we are still going to give you our services” is not as bad as “We are not going to serve you because you are X,Y, or Z.” The problem lies in that this act enables companies to openly discriminate and refuse service to specific groups of people and be completely protected from punishment from the government. Therefore, it seems that something aimed to be nondiscriminatory to one group is completely discriminatory to another.

The bill’s patron–Del. C. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah, said that this bill is another way to protect businesses from the movement to push religion out of the public life, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Virginia Nondiscrimination Bill Discriminates, Passes House of Delegates appeared first on Law Street.

The University of Missouri assistant professor who sparked nationwide controversy for yelling at a student reporter is in the spotlight and raising ethical questions yet again.

Assistant communications professor Melissa Click can be seen on a recently released Columbia Police Department video cursing at a cop who is attempting to clear a road for cars during the Mizzou homecoming parade in October. The footage was taken with two cops’ body cameras.

The footage, first published by the Columbia Missourian, shows Click as a part of a group of student demonstrators who were linked arms blocking the road. The cop can be seen trying to usher the group off of the road and onto the sidewalk in order to allow the parade to continue.

In November, Click, a communications teacher, was captured on video calling for a student journalist to be ejected from a protest site on campus. She requested “some muscle” to help her kick the student out. This incident caused many to call for her dismissal from the university.

So why are her actions especially troublesome and still being talked about now?

Well, what is increasingly frustrating while watching the 12-minute video from November is that the protest as a whole was completely overshadowed by the actions of the professor and the students that she didn’t wish to correct. Instead of a commendable peaceful protest being documented and praised, that message was lost in the actions of few.

Click, while not the center of the entire video, played a vital role in the fact that she did not aid the student reporters by allowing them to do their job. She of all people should have been able to understand their rights just as she understood the rights of the protesters.

All of a sudden the possible headline of “Peaceful Activists Protest for Black Lives Matter Movement,” turned into “Professor Needs Muscle to Block Student Journalists.” And that is really a shame.

The lack of trust of the media is understandable, but should you really shut out someone for trying to accurately document your protest just because they are a journalist? Is it worth the negative backlash from the country just to push a student reporter around whose ‘agenda’ is just to take photos from the event? Not only did the actions of those shown in the video hinder their cause, but it shed such a poor light on the university and the protesters, when it didn’t have to.

What is even more of a shame is the lack of understanding of basic rights. Students were screaming that the photographer, Tim Tai, had to back up and could not legally be there and photograph the event. He was surrounded and barricaded from what was going on and at times pushed by protesters. The right that the students were citing as to why they should be left alone to protest is the same right that allows the journalists to be there documenting what is going on. In addition, they were in public space–which grants the photographer and videographer the right to document freely.

What strikes me most are the ethical dilemmas that come with this debate. As a teacher who is up for tenure, a heavily sought-after academic position, Click will surely be hearing about these two incidents during her deliberations. I hope the board members ask themselves, can she be an effective communications professor if she has gotten herself into these communications conundrums? How can she teach a topic that she herself doesn’t seem to have mastered in her practice? It is certainly hard to support her in her communications endeavors when she curses at cops and calls for the obstruction of the media from a protest on public property.

Check out the November incident in full below (I highly recommend watching the entire video):

And check out the video of the October incident below:

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mizzou Teacher Melissa Click Seen Cursing at Cops, Raises Ethical Concerns Again appeared first on Law Street.

America’s grandma is at it again. And like most of our grandmas, she also doesn’t know how to effectively communicate over email.

It seems she has found herself in a bit of a conundrum yet again.

A woman named Maddi has taken the Internet by storm this week after posting an aggressive, yet intimate email she claims she was sent by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. The email said,

After tonight’s results roll in, keep this in mind: most of the country casts their primary ballots by the middle of March. We absolutely, critically need to make sure Hillary comes out on top in the states that lie ahead.

Okay, so not too bad. Not too aggressive…yet. And then,

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #ImNotKiddingMaddi: Read My Article Now appeared first on Law Street.

In a close vote, Phoenix City Council members voted last week to ban the opening prayer at city council meetings, in an effort to block a group of Satanists who offered to lead the next service.

According to The Arizona Republic, in a 5-4 vote on Feb. 3, the city council decided to switch from an opening prayer to a moment of silence instead of allowing the Satanic Temple to give the invocation at the Feb. 17 meeting. This decision caused controversy and criticism by many who viewed this as a win for Satanists.

@HuffingtonPost Duh, that’s EXACTLY what the Satanists wanted in the first place. Way to play right into their hands, Phoenix.

— Jess Gofa-Kierselv (@noplaneson911) February 5, 2016

“If they don’t want to accept, constitutionally what must happen is that all voices must be taken down from the public forum,” Stu de Haan, a member of the temple, said to The Arizona Republic. “It’s basically all voices must be heard or none at all.”

When news of the Satanic Temple’s intent to give the prayer was made public, it went viral. More than a hundred people packed the city council meeting last week, with many offering emotional testimony opposing the Satanists.

“I am not for the silent prayer,” said Pastor Darlene Vasquez during the meeting, reported The Arizona Republic. “I want those who believe in the one true God to pray. It breaks my heart to hear what is going on.”

However, the Satanist group has argued that the public’s view is skewed. According to de Haan, the group does not believe that Satan exists, but rather they believe in Satan in less literal terms. On the Satanic Temple’s website it says that they strive for “benevolence and empathy among all people.” They are described as non-theists, contrary to popular belief. 

“This is what that Satanist group wants,” Councilman Sal DiCiccio told The Arizona Republic. “A moment of silence is basically a banning of prayer. It’s to agree to the Satanic goal to ban prayer.”

PHX votes to ban prayer 5-4. Sad day for Phoenix

— Sal DiCiccio (@Sal_DiCiccio) February 4, 2016

Mayor Greg Stanton was one of the five members of the council who voted in favor of the moment of silence.

“The First Amendment to the Constitution is not ambiguous on this issue,” Stanton told The Arizona Republic. “Discriminating against faiths would violate the oath that all of us on this dais took. I personally take that very, very seriously.”

@HuffingtonPost – Good…one less way that religion will find its way into the public forum. #SeparateChurchAndState

— WhenRightIsWrong (@Right_All_Wrong) February 5, 2016

“This is an issue that will come up in homogeneous communities when a member of a minority religion takes advantage of the invocation and it tends to generate a backlash,” Gregory Lipper, a senior attorney at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told The Washington Post. “Most local governments are used to a steady drumbeat of Christian clergy delivering Christian prayers. We’ve seen this same issue with Muslim prayer-givers and Wiccan prayer-givers around the country.

The group decided to move to neighboring cities, asking if the Satanic Temple could give the opening prayer at other city council meetings.

The Satanic group is scheduled to give a similar opening prayer at the Scottsdale City Council meeting on April 5, according to city spokesman Kelly Corsette.

Scottsdale is only a little over 20 minutes away from Phoenix, and the closest of the cities they decided to reach out to. The other cities the temple had submitted requests to were Tuscon, Sahuarita, and Chandler.

Scottsdale Mayor Jim Lane told The Arizona Republic that the city is inclusive of different religions and that the point of the invocations is to facilitate positive discussion about the community.

@NYDailyNews wouldn’t be a city council meeting without satanists !

— john kennedy (@GaspejohnJohn) February 4, 2016

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Satanic Temple Pushes Phoenix to Ban Prayer at City Council Meetings appeared first on Law Street.

President Barack Obama made an appearance at an American mosque on Wednesday for the first time in his presidency, a symbolic act during a time when anti-Islamic rhetoric is growing. The mosque, at the Islamic Society of Baltimore, was at one time just a small gathering place but has now grown into one of the largest Islamic communities in the Mid-Atlantic.

“If we’re serious about freedom of religion—and I’m talking to my fellow Christians who are the majority in this country—we have to understand that an attack on one faith is an attack on all faiths,” Obama said to the crowd gathered at the mosque.

Obama stressed the importance of unity among all Americans, especially amongst different faith communities. Obama also praised the Muslim community for its contribution and role in America’s history. The United States is home to 1.8 million Muslim adults and 2.75 million Muslims of all ages, according to the Pew Research Center.

“Muslim Americans keep us safe,” said Obama. “They are our police. They are our firefighters. They’re in [the Department of] Homeland Security.”

This is not the first time a president has visited a mosque. George W. Bush visited one shortly after the 9/11 attacks, whereas Obama has only been to mosques outside of the country.

During his presidency, Obama has been asked by many different Muslim groups to visit mosques as well as to publicly denounce the comments made by 2016 presidential candidates and the growing Islamophobia in general. However, it was not until Wednesday–seven years into his presidency–that President Obama first stepped foot inside an American mosque.

This trip is a bit more complicated for Obama than it was for George W. Bush. The President has been constantly criticized for being a “closeted Muslim,” making his visit in light of those conspiracy theorists a tricky thing to work around. A CNN/ORC poll done in September found that 29 percent of Americans said that they believe that Obama is a Muslim; among Republicans, it was 43 percent.

Rush Limbaugh, conservative radio host, often refers to Obama as “Imam Barack Hussein Obama,” putting more of the emphasis on the words “Imam” and “Hussein.” He has also asked, “…why can’t we call Imam Obama America’s first Muslim president?”

Timing is a key factor for his recent visit. This election cycle has brought out increased Islamophobia among Americans and shown how polarized the issue of terrorism really is.

During this election cycle more than one Republican presidential candidate has spoken out against Islam altogether:

“Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering.” – Donald Trump, Nov. 2015

“It’s not about closing down mosques. It’s about closing down any place — whether it’s a cafe, a diner, an internet site — any place where radicals are being inspired.” – Marco Rubio, Nov. 2015

“[There is] a fundamental foundational problem in Islam of embracing issues of freedom of conscience and religious persecution.” – Rick Santorum, Sept. 2015

“I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.” – Ben Carson, Sept. 2015

In reference to the alleged Muslim “no-go zones” in Europe, former candidate Bobby Jindal said, “If we’re not careful the same no-go zones you’re seeing now in Europe will come to America.”

The refugee issue has also caused candidates Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz to propose that preference should be given to Christian refugees, claiming that Christians are at no risk of committing violent crimes.

In contrast, here is what the Democratic candidates have been saying:

“I don’t think we’re at war with all Muslims. I think we’re at war with jihadists…you can talk about Islamists who also are clearly jihadists.” – Hillary Clinton, Nov. 2015

“It’s always playing one group against another. That’s how the rich got richer while everybody else was fighting each other. Our job is to build a nation in which we all stand together.” [in response to islamophobic rhetoric] – Bernie Sanders, Oct. 2015

During a time when the anti-Muslim rhetoric is growing, not only among presidential candidates but also in the general public, the President’s visit was crucial in his effort to combat the nonacceptance and fear felt by many Muslim-Americans.

Here is the full video of President Obama’s speech:

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post President Obama Visits an American Mosque For the First Time appeared first on Law Street.

We are constantly bombarded with headlines talking about presidential candidate Donald Trump as the frontrunner of the Grand Old Party, and we often ask “why?” and “what are people thinking?” and “when is he going to go away?” You know, causal questions. We all see the percentages, but how many people across the county really like Trump?

Only 33 percent, apparently.

According to the most recent two-week average from Gallup, 33 percent of Americans surveyed nationwide had a favorable view and 60 percent had an unfavorable view of the businessman, who has risen in the polls and garnered a hefty amount of media attention because of his fiery attitude and defiance of political norms and correctness.

In Gallup’s findings, Editor-in-Chief Frank Newport explains that Trump, “has a higher unfavorable rating than any nominated candidate from either of the two major parties going back to the 1992” (1992 was the first year Gallup recorded favorability percentages).

While Trump’s number seems a bit extreme, some of the other candidates aren’t too far behind.

Across all Americans, Hillary Clinton’s unfavorable rating is at 52 percent; Jeb Bush, 45 percent; Chris Christie, 38 percent; Ted Cruz, 37 percent; Marco Rubio, 33 percent; Bernie Sanders, 31 percent; and Ben Carson, 30 percent.

Check out a graph of some of the other ratings (modern and historical) below:

Data courtesy of Gallup.

This puts Trump’s net favorability in the negatives at -27 percent, and according to Gallup, is higher than Clinton and Bush’s net -10 percent favorability.

“The bottom line is that Trump now has a higher unfavorable rating than any candidate at any time during all of these previous election cycles,” said Newport. “That conclusion takes into account the fact that unfavorable ratings tend to rise in the heat of a general election campaign as the barbs, negative ads and heightened partisanship are taken to their highest levels.”

In the 1992 election, Bill Clinton’s highest unfavorable rating was 49 percent, while opponent George H.W. Bush’s unfavorable rating was higher and closest to Trump’s at 57 percent. In 2008, Barack Obama’s unfavorable rating ratings maxed at 37 percent and in 2012 raised to 48 percent.

The moral of the story is that if we blame Obama for everything now and he still had lower unfavorable ratings then, who knows what the world will become if a man like Trump becomes president. So, don’t believe everything you read about how much everyone likes Trump–it’s not technically true. 

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Donald Trump is the Most Unfavorable Presidential Candidate In Recent Years appeared first on Law Street.

Republican presidential candidate and outspoken opponent of abortion, Carly Fiorina, reportedly benefitted financially while on the board for a company producing vaccines using fetal stem cells taken from aborted fetuses, according to corporate documents obtained by Al Jazeera America.

Fiorina served on the board of directors for Merck & Co., an international pharmaceutical company, from April 1999 to December 2000, according to SEC filings for both 1999 and 2000. She was paid at least $83,000 for her two years and was eligible for an additional $1,200 for each board meeting she attended.

Fiorina has been very open when discussing her stance on abortion. During one of the first Republican debates in September, she challenged Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and everyone in America to watch a non-existent portion of the–at the time—shocking sting videos created by the Center For Medical Progress, a known anti-abortion group.

On January 25, two of the activists from the videos were indicted in Texas for issues regarding purchasing human organs and an additional charge for tampering with a government record.

Fiorina has continuously said on and off the debate stage that she wants to defund Planned Parenthood, a non-profit that provides healthcare services, including abortion, but declined to comment on whether it is worth shutting down the government for, which has been a big budgetary issue brought up by many candidates during this election cycle.

Other candidates have also discussed using fetal stem cells from aborted fetuses. Presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz R-Texas has supported the John Paul II Medical Research Institute, which conducts ALS research that “respects human life,” according to a statement made on Cruz’s Facebook page. 

According to the Los Angeles Times, during Fiorina’s 2010 run for the California Senate, she was seemingly in favor of using aborted fetal stem cells for vaccines. During a 2010 debate she clarified her stance, saying, “It is when embryos are produced for the purposes of destruction, for the purposes of stem cell research that I have a great deal of difficulty.”

It is unknown as to whether or not Fiorina was aware that aborted fetal stem cells were being used to make the vaccines, but it’ll probably be brought into the discussion on one of the stages at the next Republican debate scheduled for February 6.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Carly Fiorina Earned Money from Company that Uses Aborted Fetal Stem Cells appeared first on Law Street.