©2020 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. All market data delayed 20 minutes. New Privacy Policy – New Terms of Use (What’s New) – FAQ
73 more people with COVID-19 in St. Louis County — a single-day record
St. Louis County recorded its all-time high of new COVID-19 diagnoses on Friday with 73 people who have recently tested positive.
Previously, the most cases the county recorded in a single day was 50, on Friday, Sept. 18.
The uptick is unrelated to the new COVID-19 saliva testing site at the Duluth Entertainment Convention Center, according to St. Louis County Public Health and Human Services. All but one of the 73 newly diagnosed residents were tested before the site opened Wednesday.
Public Health Division Director Amy Westbrook attributed the uptick to two “troubling” trends: outbreaks in long-term care facilities and a large number of cases linked to college-age students. Eighteen of the 73 newly diagnosed residents live in long-term care facilities around the county, while 19 are young adults between 18 and 24 years old. The cases range in age from under 5 to older than 100.
“What is troubling to us is the intersection of these two populations. College students are part of our general community. They work in long-term care facilities; they work in restaurants; they’re out at restaurants or out at stores,” Westbrook said. “That is what is happening in other parts of the country.”
Of all the cases St. Louis County has recorded in September, 14%, or 88 of them, have been linked to the University of Minnesota Duluth, according to the county. And of all the college students in St. Louis County who have tested positive, 97% of them do not live in campus residence halls.
“It’s certainly not surprising that UMD would make up the majority of cases in this age group, since it is the largest college in the region,” Westbrook said. “But we need all young people to follow the recommended guidelines of social distancing, wearing masks when unable to maintain 6 feet of distance, and staying home when sick.”
Since the UMD campus population consists of more than 12,000 students, faculty and staff, the university expected to see COVID-19 cases after returning to campus, UMD spokesperson Lynne Williams said in a statement.
“The on-campus environment has an abundance of health and safety measures that have proved to be effective at stopping the spread of COVID-19,” Williams said, adding that the 88 student cases make up less than 1% of the campus population.
Westbrook said in 60% of all cases associated with area colleges, the individual reported having contact with a lab-confirmed case.
Lake Superior College in Duluth has recorded eight more students with COVID-19 between Thursday, Sept. 17, and Wednesday, Sept. 23, as well as five more employees, according to the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities’ COVID-19 dashboard. Even if the student or employee has not been on campus, they are still included in the public data.
In the same weeklong time span, Hibbing Community College has recorded two students who have been diagnosed with COVID-19.
The College of St. Scholastica in Duluth is not publicly reporting its COVID-19 cases. Some of the county’s cases have been affiliated with the private institution.
Of the 1,554 St. Louis County residents who have now tested positive since the pandemic began, the county estimates 356 of them are currently requiring isolation. That’s the most active cases confirmed through lab-based testing that the county has ever reported.
Of the 73 new cases reported Friday, 53 are attributed to people who live in the Duluth area. Half of the other 20 cases in rural St. Louis County are linked to long-term care facilities.
Also in Northeastern Minnesota, Itasca County recorded nine more people with COVID-19.
Seven more people in Carlton County have been diagnosed. One more person has been diagnosed in Aitkin County.
Statewide, Minnesota reported 1,191 new diagnoses of COVID-19 and the completion of 28,230 more diagnostic tests.
Six more Minnesotans have died from COVID-19. None of them lived in the Northland.
In Wisconsin, Ashland County is recording another eight people with COVID-19 for the fourth day this week, according to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services.
Douglas County recorded 12 more people with COVID-19 on Friday and Bayfield County recorded three more people.
Wisconsin reported 2,504 more people with COVID-19 on Friday and the completion of 15,079 diagnostic tests. The positivity rate — the percent of tests that came back positive — remains high in Wisconsin at 16.6%. Anything above 5% is considered “too high” by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Nine more Wisconsin residents have died from COVID-19, bringing the state’s death toll to 1,247, or 1.1% of those diagnosed. None of the deaths were recorded in the Northland.
This story was last updated at 6:05 p.m. to clarify that 88 cases are linked to the University of Minnesota Duluth, and updated at 5:05 p.m. Sept. 25 with additional information from UMD. It was originally posted at 11:16 a.m. Sept. 25.
Mount Rushmore name change unlikely, despite proposal
One lawmaker is fighting attempts to change the name of the Mount Rushmore National Memorial monument, after the U.S. Board on Geographic Names fielded at least one suggestion to do so.
A California resident has proposed changing the name of the monument to “Igmu Tanka Paha,” which means “Cougar Mountain,” TribLIVE reported on Friday. It was a name given to the mountain by the Lakota people, who also call it “Tunkasila Sakpe Paha,” meaning Six Grandfathers Mountain.
But a senior researcher for the board told the publication that even if the request for renaming was approved, it would only apply to the mountain – not the monument.
TRUMP DENIES SUGGESTING ADDING HIS FACE TO MOUNT RUSHMORE, BUT CALLS IT ‘A GOOD IDEA’
Further, Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., introduced legislation earlier this summer that would prohibit not only changing the monument’s name, but also bar using federal funds to alter, destroy or remove the likeness or any of the faces on the memorial.
The monument depicts presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.
The idea of changing the name of the South Dakota monument gained momentum in 2015, after the Obama administration changed the name of Alaska’s Mount McKinley to Denali.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
President Trump visited Mount Rushmore for a speech on July 3, in honor of Independence Day.
In August, Trump denied media reports that he suggested he should have his face added to the monument – but also said on Twitter that it sounded “like a good idea.”
Trump has also pushed back against attempts to remove statues and monuments that are considered offensive. Some statues have been toppled or vandalized over the past few months amid social unrest and protests that became widespread following the death of George Floyd.
The president issued an executive order in June aimed at protecting monuments, memorials and statues, which criminalizes the destruction of such structures. Penalties can include fines or jail time.
Google temporarily pausing political ads when polls close over likely delayed outcome
Google announced Friday it will not run advertisements on its platforms referencing November’s elections, including the U.S. presidential race and its results, in the immediate aftermath of polls closing.
Ads claiming victory for President Trump or Democratic rial Joseph R. Biden will accordingly be prohibited on Google’s namesake search engine and YouTube temporarily starting as soon as voting ends this fall.
Google notified advertisers it will be implementing its sensitive event policy after polls close to restrict a range of political ads referencing candidates and issues up for consideration this Election Day.
“Given the likelihood of delayed election results this year, when polls close on Nov. 3, we will pause ads referencing the 2020 election, the candidates or its outcome,” Google spokesperson Charlotte Smith told The Washington Times. “This is a temporary measure, and we’ll notify advertisers when this policy is lifted.”
The sensitive event policy was previously implemented earlier on during the novel coronavirus pandemic to prohibit a broad range of ads referencing the outbreak, as well as after contested elections abroad.
By applying it to content Google broadly categorizes as “election ads,” it will cover ads about candidates for state and federal office, in addition to state-level ballot measures and major political parties.
Facebook announced Wednesday this week it will reject political ads that prematurely claim victory in the election but has not elaborated further. It also plans to ban political ads in the week before Nov. 3.
Millions of Americans are set to cast mail-in ballots this year due to the coronavirus. The disease it causes is contagious and deadly, and health experts discourage people from gathering in groups indoors.
Indeed, federal agencies recently warned the increased use of mail-in ballots may delay learning the outcome of the elections and therefore creates a prime opportunity to sow fear, doubt or confusion.
“Foreign actors and cybercriminals could exploit the time required to certify and announce elections’ results by disseminating disinformation that includes reports of voter suppression, cyberattacks targeting election infrastructure, voter or ballot fraud and other problems intended to convince the public of the elections’ illegitimacy,” the FBI and DHS Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency said Tuesday.
Sources: Trump intends to choose Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court
President Donald Trump intends to choose Amy Coney Barrett to be the new Supreme Court justice, according to multiple senior Republican sources with knowledge of the process.
Read More
Where has Amy Coney Barrett stood on important cases?
Amy Coney Barrett, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals of the 7th Circuit, is reportedly one of the top contenders for President Trump’s nomination to the seat vacated by the death of late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Ginsburg was the face of the liberal bloc on the Supreme Court, meaning that an appointment by Trump and confirmation by the Republican-controlled Senate could potentially significantly shift the ideological balance of the court for years. Barrett’s record, including cases she’s ruled on during her time as an appeals judge and her scholarship as a law professor at Notre Dame, are set to be intensely scrutinized by the media and the Senate Judiciary Committee should Trump choose her.
Carrie Severino, the president of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, said that Barrett and the other women on the Trump shortlist may disagree with Ginsburg on the issues, but have the intellectual firepower to fill in for the late legal luminary.
“These are really impressive women,” Severino said. “They’re worthy of following in her footsteps.”
Those on the left, however, have said they worry that Barrett would undo precedents like Roe v. Wade and impose her faith on others.
Here are a handful of the notable stances Barrett has taken that might indicate the effect she could have on the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence.
Gun rights
Perhaps the most high-profile opinion Barrett has written is a dissent in Kanter v. Barr, a case that upheld a Wisconsin law taking gun rights away from non-violent felons. The majority opinion was written by Judges Joel Flaum and Kenneth Ripple, who were appointed by President Ronald Reagan.
“History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns,” Barrett wrote. “But that power extends only to people who are dangerous.”
WHO IS JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT, POTENTIAL SCOTUS CONTENDER
She added: “[W]hile both Wisconsin and the United States have an unquestionably strong interest in protecting the public from gun violence, they have failed to show, by either logic or data … that disarming Kanter substantially advances that interest. On this record, holding that the ban is constitutional as applied to Kanter does not ‘put[] the government through its paces’ … but instead treats the Second Amendment as a ‘second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.'”
Severino lauded the dissent as “bold” and said preserving rights for felons, especially nonviolent ones like the individual at issue in Kanter v. Barr, is something that both sides should be able to get behind.
Eliot Mincberg, a senior fellow at the liberal group People for the American Way, called Barrett’s record on this case and others “extremely troubling in a number of respects,” specifically noting that the judges in the Kanter v. Barr majority were appointed by a Republican.
Due Process
Barrett wrote the majority opinion in the case Doe v. Purdue, a due process and Title IX challenge by a Purdue University student who had been accused of sexual assault, which led to the student losing his Navy ROTC scholarship.
The students in the case were identified as John Doe and Jane Doe to preserve their anonymity. Jane alleged that John had woken her up while they were sleeping together by groping her over her clothes and admitted to her that he had “digitally penetrated” her while she was asleep on a different occasion. John denied all the accusations to the school.
According to Barrett’s opinion, Purdue then allegedly wrote a report that “falsely claimed that [John] had confessed to Jane’s allegations;” refused to let John see evidence in the case; did not allow him to present witnesses; did not let him cross-examine Jane; and later “found him guilty by a preponderance of the evidence of sexual violence.”
In this May 19, 2018, photo, Amy Coney Barrett, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit judge, speaks during the University of Notre Dame’s Law School commencement ceremony at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Ind. Barrett is considered one of the most likely picks to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat of late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. (Robert Franklin/South Bend Tribune via AP)
HOUSE REPUBLICANS URGE TRUMP TO NOMINATE AMY CONEY BARRETT TO SUPREME COURT
The case was dismissed by a lower court, and Barrett was considering whether the claims on their face merited such a quick dismissal or whether the appeals court should order a closer look at the proceedings.
Barrett said, “Purdue’s process fell short of what even a high school must provide to a student facing a days-long suspension,” meaning John’s 14th Amendment due process claim was legitimate. She further found that it was plausible Purdue had violated Title IX, the federal law the prevents sexual discrimination in education, saying that although she was not determining the final outcome of the case and “the factfinder might not buy the inferences that [John is] selling” that the school disbelieved him because of his sex. “But his claim should have made it past the pleading stage.”
Ilya Shapiro of the libertarian Cato Institute, who is the publisher of “Cato Supreme Court Review,” said the opinion shows Barrett “takes seriously the kangaroo courts that a lot of universities set up now in dealing with various kinds of complaints.”
Criminal Law
In the case Rainsberger v. Benner, Barrett authored an opinion in which she denied qualified immunity — a protection for government officials from being sued for judgment calls they make on the job — for a police officer who was alleged to have submitted a document “riddled with lies and undercut by the omission of exculpatory evidence” that led to a man being put in jail for two months.
Qualified immunity has been a hot topic in recent months as police come under increasing scrutiny for alleged misdeeds on the job, whether that be police brutality or lying on documents as Benner was accused of. Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., briefly pushed a bill to scale back qualified immunity for police earlier this summer — an idea that was widely supported by Democrats.
And 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Don Willett, another member of Trump’s Supreme Court list but who is not under serious consideration for the current vacancy, famously wrote in a 2018 opinion that “To some observers, qualified immunity smacks of unqualified impunity, letting public officials duck consequences for bad behavior—no matter how palpably unreasonable.”
“It would be flatly inconsistent with [the justification for qualified immunity] to imagine a competent officer considering the question whether a lie helpful to demonstrating probable cause is so helpful that he should not tell it,” Barrett said in denying Benner qualified immunity. “That is neither a reasonable question to ask nor a reasonable mistake to make.”
This image provided by Rachel Malehorn shows Judge Amy Coney Barrett in Milwaukee, on Aug. 24, 2018. (Rachel Malehorn, rachelmalehorn.smugmug.com, via AP)
TRUMP MET WITH POTENTIAL SCOTUS NOMINEE AMY CONEY BARRETT, SOURCES TELL FOX NEWS
“The unlawfulness of using deliberately falsified allegations to establish probable cause could not be clearer,” Barrett continued.
In other cases, many of which were outlined by Reason, Barrett has held that just because a woman answers the door to a man’s apartment in a bathrobe does not mean she has the authority to consent to a search of his apartment; that just because a tipster said they saw someone with a gun did not mean police could search a car near the area of the anonymous call; that the “good faith” exception to the rule barring unconstitutionally-obtained evidence from being used at trial could apply to an online child porn case; and dissented from a case in which she said it appeared an Indiana state court had improperly suppressed evidence favorable to a defendant, but she did not want to overturn the decision because “I can’t say… [it] was ‘so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.'”
Abortion
Barrett has been involved with a handful of cases that implicated abortion 7th Circuit. In one 2018 case she dissented from a denial of en banc rehearing — meaning she wanted the entire court to reexamine a decision by three judges — after the 7th Circuit ruled unconstitutional an Indiana law banning abortions for reasons relating to the sex, race or potential disability of the fetus. The law also banned fetuses from being disposed of as medical waste.
Barrett joined a dissent by Judge Frank Easterbrook that labeled the ban on abortions for sex, race and disability reasons “the eugenics statute” and argued the Supreme Court had never ruled on such a law so it should not be automatically considered illegitimate.
This 2017 photo provided by the University of Notre Dame Law School in South Bend, Ind., shows Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett is one of the top contenders to replace late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. (Notre Dame via AP)
(University of Notre Dame Law School, File)
AMY CONEY BARRETT IS NOT ‘WILDLY’ OUT OF MAINSTREAM: BRIT HUME
“None of the Court’s abortion decisions holds that states are powerless to prevent abortions designed to choose the sex, race, and other attributes of children,” the dissent read. “Does the Constitution supply a right to evade regulation by choosing a child’s genetic makeup after conception, aborting any fetus whose genes show a likelihood that the child will be short, or nearsighted, or intellectually average, or lack perfect pitch—or be the ‘wrong’ sex or race? [Planned Parenthood v.] Casey did not address that question.”
For that reason, Easterbrook said, in the opinion Barrett joined, the Supreme Court should weigh in on the “eugenics statute,” rather than the circuit court. The dissent also argued that laws on the disposal of fetal remains had been “held valid” elsewhere in the country and that they are reasonable. For that reason, the dissent read, the 7th Circuit could rehear that part of the case and fix its alleged error.
The Supreme Court in an unsigned opinion later sided with Easterbrook, and by extension Barrett, to uphold the Indiana law on the fetal remains but denied to hear the question on the “eugenics statute” because no other circuit court had heard a case on such a law.
Mincberg noted that the Easterbrook opinion foreshadowed an opinion by JusticeClarence Thomas that referenced eugenics repeatedly.
Barrett in another case with the same parties — Planned Parenthood and the Commissioner of the Indiana State Health Department — also dissented from a denial of rehearing, this time joining an opinion written by Judge Michael Kanne. The opinion did not significantly address the substance of the case — a law regarding parental consent and abortion — but argued that striking down the law before it went into effect is a serious issue that the full court should have decided.
She also heard a First Amendment case on a Chicago law that banned pro-life activists from standing within a certain distance of an abortion clinic to speak with people going into the clinic. The opinion, written by Judge Diane Sykes, noted that the Supreme Court had upheld a similar law previously so the appeals court had no choice but to follow that precedent.
GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH ‘DIDN’T REALLY TIP’ SUPREME COURT BALANCE, TRUMP ADVISORS SAY IN NEW BOOK
Cato Institute’s Shapiro said that abortion backers should not worry about the chance of Roe v. Wade being overturned if Barrett is put on the court.
“She gave a lecture a few years ago at Jacksonville University saying that the core holding or Roe is unlikely to change. And I think that’s right,” he said of Barratt. “On the current court, I don’t see more than one, maybe two votes to overturn Roe and Casey altogether. It’s more about regulations and restrictions that are now being struck down … that with an additional Trump appointee would likely be then upheld.”
Mincberg disagrees: “Her pre-judicial comments on Roe v. Wade … I think it’s pretty clear that she would meet the President Trump … anti-Roe v. Wade litmus test, which particularly when replacing Justice Ginsburg would be harmful to millions of Americans.”
Immigration
Barrett has for the most part sided with the Trump administration on immigration cases. In Cook County v. Wolf, a case on the Trump administration’s controversial “public charge” rule allowed immigrants who were likely to use welfare to be barred from getting visas, Barrett said the rule was a “policy choice,” that should not be resolved in litigation.
In Yafai v. Pompeo, Barrett backed a State Department decision to deny a visa to the wife of an American citizen for allegedly trying to smuggle in children, despite the fact that the parents said their children had died in a drowning accident. The decision was reconsidered but the wife was still not given a visa.
Barrett said that the fact the denial was reconsidered, under the law and Supreme Court precedent, fulfilled the legal requirements the State Department had to meet. In a decision on whether or not the full court should rehear the case, she said that the State Department was given significant discretion and that the appeals court could not require more evidence than a simple citation of what law the decision was made under.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
“[A higher] standard may be desirable but imposing it would be inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent,” Barrett wrote. “The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a citation to a statutory provision suffices to show a legitimate and bona fide reason for denying a visa application. It is free to revisit that precedent, but we are not.”
Death Penalty
Barrett spent a long time in academia, primarily as a professor at Notre Dame, which is her alma mater. She co-authored an article called “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases,” which examines the competing obligations of Catholics when asked to rule in a death penalty case. It suggested there might be some instances in which a Catholic judge should recuse himself or herself from such proceedings.
“Catholic judges must answer some complex moral and legal questions in deciding whether to sit in death penalty cases. Sometimes (as with direct appeals of death sentences) the right answers are not obvious. But in a system that effectively leaves the decision up to the judge, these are questions that responsible Catholics must consider seriously,” she wrote along with John H. Garvey, who is now the president of the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.
“Judges cannot — nor should they try to — align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge,” the article says. “They should, however, conform their own behavior to the Church’s standard. Perhaps their good example will have some effect.”
According to SCOTUSBlog, Barrett said in her 2017 confirmation hearing that she would not completely disqualify herself from all capital cases and that when she clerked for late Justice Antonin Scalia that she assisted him on death penalty cases that came before the court.
454 new COVID-19 cases confirmed in Massachusetts, 10 additional deaths
454 new COVID-19 cases confirmed in Massachusetts, 10 additional deaths
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health reported an additional 454 confirmed cases of COVID-19 on Friday, bringing the statewide total to 127,317.There were 15,854 new molecular tests conducted, with a 2.86% daily positive rate. State health officials also confirmed 10 new COVID-19-related deaths across Massachusetts, bringing the state’s confirmed coronavirus death toll to 9,160.About 3.7 million molecular tests for COVID-19 have now been administered in the state to more than 2.16 million individuals. Click here to see a graphical look at COVID-19 data.Latest town-by-town breakdown released by state In its weekly report, which was released Wednesday, the DPH said 111,479 total patients have been released from isolation in Massachusetts, meaning they are considered to have recovered from the coronavirus.As of Friday, 389 patients with the coronavirus were hospitalized in Massachusetts, a increase off 14 patients from what state health officials reported Thursday.Of those patients who are currently hospitalized, 78 were reported to be in an intensive care unit. PHNjcmlwdCBpZD0iaW5mb2dyYW1fMF85MTUyMTg3My03NmRhLTQ0ZmUtOTA0Ny1mMTllZWFlZGFjNmQiIHRpdGxlPSJDb3JvbmF2aXJ1cyBpbiBNYXNzYWNodXNldHRzIiBzcmM9Imh0dHBzOi8vZS5pbmZvZ3JhbS5jb20vanMvZGlzdC9lbWJlZC5qcz9yeXoiIHR5cGU9InRleHQvamF2YXNjcmlwdCI+PC9zY3JpcHQ+New data is published daily around 4 p.m. with the exception of Wednesday’s daily and weekly reports, which are published around 6 p.m.
BOSTON —
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health reported an additional 454 confirmed cases of COVID-19 on Friday, bringing the statewide total to 127,317.
There were 15,854 new molecular tests conducted, with a 2.86% daily positive rate.
State health officials also confirmed 10 new COVID-19-related deaths across Massachusetts, bringing the state’s confirmed coronavirus death toll to 9,160.
About 3.7 million molecular tests for COVID-19 have now been administered in the state to more than 2.16 million individuals.
- Click here to see a graphical look at COVID-19 data.
- Latest town-by-town breakdown released by state
In its weekly report, which was released Wednesday, the DPH said 111,479 total patients have been released from isolation in Massachusetts, meaning they are considered to have recovered from the coronavirus.
As of Friday, 389 patients with the coronavirus were hospitalized in Massachusetts, a increase off 14 patients from what state health officials reported Thursday.
Of those patients who are currently hospitalized, 78 were reported to be in an intensive care unit.
New data is published daily around 4 p.m. with the exception of Wednesday’s daily and weekly reports, which are published around 6 p.m.
Paper-bag ban passed by New Jersey legislature would be first in nation
The New Jersey Legislature on Thursday passed a sweeping bill that would make the state the first in the country to ban single-use paper bags at supermarkets.
The bill, which would also prohibit single-use plastic bags and limit the use of polystyrene takeout boxes and in some cases plastic straws, now heads to Gov. Phil Murphy.
The governor’s office could not immediately be reached for comment Friday. But his spokesman, Mahen Gunaratna, told The New York Times that Murphy supports the legislation.
“The governor is proud to support the strongest bag ban in the nation,” the spokesman said. “This bill will significantly reduce the harm that these products cause to our environment.”
Environmentalists in the state praised the legislation as an important measure to help curb pollution from plastic, paper, and polystyrene.
“New Jersey Assembly voted to pass the strongest single-use ban on plastics in the country to prioritize our wildlife and our communities over endless plastic waste polluting our waterways,” Doug O’Malley, the director of Environment New Jersey, said in a statement.
Eight other states have passed bans on the use of single-use plastic bags in supermarkets, including New Jersey neighbor, New York state, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Some of these states have temporarily eased their bans amid the pandemic due to concerns over the possible transmission of coronavirus through reusable bags.
New Jersey’s bill would ban single-use plastic and paper bags at supermarkets
It would also prohibit any business that sells or provides food for consumption on or off their premises from providing polystyrene takeout containers or foam cups that hold more than two ounces of liquid, and requires that plastic straws be given to customers only upon request.
Murphy in 2018 vetoed a bill that would have added a 5-cent fee on single-use plastic carryout bags.
“I cannot support this bill,” Murphy said in a statement at the time. “While well intentioned, the approach reflected in this bill strikes me as incomplete and insufficient.”
Republican lawmakers opposed the bill, saying it would harm small businesses already hurt by the pandemic.
“This bill impacts manufacturing plants in New Jersey and New Jersey jobs during this terrible economic and pandemic time,” said Dennis Hart, the executive director of the Chemistry Council, which represents plastics manufacturers.
Massachusetts AG charges 2 over handling of coronavirus outbreak in veterans home
The Massachusetts attorney general has charged two former leaders of a veterans‘ home where 76 people died from the coronavirus, alleging that leadership mishandled the situation.
A grand jury on Thursday indicted Superintendent Bennett Walsh and former Medical Director Dr. David Clinton on charges of neglect, stemming from their decision in March to combine two dementia units.
The decision saw the facility pack residents who tested positive for COVID-19 into the same space as those with no symptoms, Attorney General Maura Healey said.
“We allege that the actions of these defendants during the COVID-19 outbreak at the facility put veterans at higher risk of infection and death and warrant criminal charges,” Healey said in a statement Friday.
Walsh and Clinton were each indicted on five counts for “wantonly or recklessly” committing or permitting bodily injury and abuse, neglect, or mistreatment of an elderly or disabled person.
The charges come three months after a scathing independent report said “utterly baffling” decisions made by Walsh and other administrators allowed the virus to spread unchecked. Healey said Walsh and Clinton were the ones ultimately responsible for the decision to combine the two units, which she said led to “tragic and deadly results.”
THANKSGIVING GATHERINGS AMID CORONAVIRUS SHOULD BE SMALL, CDC SAYS
More than 40 veterans were packed into a unit that usually held 25 beds, and some veterans slept in the dining room due to overflow. The move was prompted by staffing shortages, according to Reuters.
Walsh has defended his response, saying state officials initially refused in March to send National Guard aid even as the home was dealing with dire staffing shortages.
Authorities began their investigation into the Soldiers’ Home, a state-run facility, after learning of “serious issues” with infection control measures. A social worker raised concerns about combining the two dementia units, but was told “it didn’t matter because (the veterans) were all exposed anyway and there was not enough staff to cover both units,” investigators said.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
“We believe this is the first criminal case in the country brought against those involved in nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Healey told a news conference.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Trump pitches ‘platinum plan’ to Blacks; would designate KKK, Antifa as terrorist organizations
President Trump proposed a second-term agenda for Black America on Friday that would designate the KKK and Antifa as terrorist organizations, make lynching a national hate crime and boost investment in Black communities by nearly $500 billion.
At a speech in Atlanta, the president outlined his “platinum plan” for Blacks, calling it a “contract with Black Americans” for the next four years. He accused Democratic nominee Joseph R. Biden of pandering to Blacks at election time.
“For decades, Democrat politicians like Joe Biden have taken Black voters for granted,” Mr. Trump said. “They made you big promises before every election — and then the moment they got to Washington, they abandoned you and sold you out. The Democrats will always take Black voters for granted until large numbers of Black Americans vote Republican.”
Mr. Trump won about 8 percent of Black voters in 2016. Some of his campaign advisers predict the president will receive 20 percent or more support from Blacks in November.
The president also pledged to make Juneteenth a national holiday. The date of June 19 commemorates the day in 1865 when Blacks in Texas learned of the abolishment of slavery, the last state for the news to reach. Mr. Trump said he will create a national clemency project “to right wrongful protections.”
The president said his plan would increase access to capital in Black communities, give Black churches the ability to compete for federal resources, and help to create 3 million new jobs for the Black community.
“I want to share what you have to gain by voting Republican on Nov. 3. I stand here to offer you solutions,” Mr. Trump said. “No one in Washington politics today has done more to hurt Black Americans than Joe Biden.” He said, “Joe Biden cares more about the citizens of foreign countries than he does about Black Americans living in our own country.”
Mr. Biden said in a statement that Black Georgians “have been hit particularly hard” by the coronavirus crisis, and he faulted Mr. Trump’s leadership.
“Three thousand Black Georgians have died, 430,000 Black Georgians are uninsured, and 11.8 percent of Black Georgians have been left jobless,” Mr. Biden said. “And, in the midst of this global health pandemic and economic crisis, President Trump is still working to tear down the Affordable Care Act and take away protections for Georgians with preexisting conditions.”
Mr. Biden said if elected, “I will work to advance racial equity across the American economy and build back better. I promise to fight for Black working families and direct real investments to advance racial equity as part of our nation’s economic recovery.”