Business
Column: Threats to criminalize out-of-state abortions are a scary reminder of 1850s America
The Fugitive Slave Act was maybe probably the most detested legislation in all American historical past.
A product of the Compromise of 1850, which introduced California into the union as a non-slave state, the act allowed slaveowners, and even purported slaveowners, to pursue escaped slaves throughout state traces, made harboring a fugitive a legal act and required native officers to help the pursuers.
“It was an act with out mercy,” wrote historian Andrew Delbanco in his 2018 e-book about pre-Civil Struggle America, “The Struggle Earlier than the Struggle.”
Could a State bar a resident of that State from touring to a different State to acquire an abortion? In my opinion, the reply is not any primarily based on the constitutional proper to interstate journey.
— Supreme Courtroom Justice Brett Kavanaugh
The act had been crafted within the hope of quelling rising regional conflicts over slavery. But it surely achieved simply the alternative.
Abolitionist Rodney French, a Massachusetts service provider and politician, referred to as it the “most disgraceful, atrocious, unjust, detestable, heathenish, barbarous, diabolical, man-degrading, woman-murdering, demon-pleasing, Heaven-defying act ever perpetrated.”
The act provoked John Brown to assault the federal garrison at Harper’s Ferry, Va. It led to the Dred Scott resolution of 1857, broadly thought to be the worst Supreme Courtroom resolution ever, during which Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote for a 7-2 majority that slaves and their descendants couldn’t declare U.S. citizenship, nor did they’ve any “rights which the white man was certain to respect.”
The Fugitive Slave Act was a federal legislation. But a number of pink states are ready to copy it on their very own books. The quarries this time aren’t Black slaves, however those that help pregnant girls to hunt abortions out of state, together with employers who pay for the journey and others who assist them.
The set off for the brand new legal guidelines is the Supreme Courtroom’s resolution in Dobbs vs. Jackson Girls’s Well being Group, which overturned the constitutional assure of abortion rights established by its resolution in Roe vs. Wade in 1973.
Anti-abortion states have handed or are contemplating legal guidelines that will expose out-of-state medical suppliers to civil or legal legal responsibility for helping in abortions, whereas some pro-choice states have taken steps to protect their suppliers or residents from such actions.
In Texas, those that help girls to get abortions can be weak to civil lawsuits from even out-of-state plaintiffs, who may sue for $10,000 or extra in penalties. Oklahoma and Idaho have handed comparable legal guidelines. Missouri lawmakers are contemplating a statute that will enable lawsuits in opposition to anybody serving to a Missouri resident to get an abortion, together with an out-of-state physician who carried out the process or those that helped the affected person cross the state line. The legislation’s sponsor has stated it’s focused at a Deliberate Parenthood clinic in Illinois opened to serve sufferers from the St. Louis space.
Professional-choice states with protect legal guidelines or insurance policies embrace California, the place Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a legislation on June 24 — the very day that the Supreme Courtroom handed down the Dobbs resolution — immunizing Californians from civil legal responsibility imposed by different states for abortions.
Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland stated the day of the choice that the Division of Justice will defend “healthcare suppliers and people in search of reproductive well being companies in states the place these companies stay authorized.”
Garland famous: “Below bedrock constitutional rules, girls who reside in states which have banned entry to complete reproductive care should stay free to hunt that care in states the place it’s authorized.”
Nonetheless, the post-Roe panorama has thrown legislation and medical follow into confusion nationwide, particularly in anti-abortion states. Pharmacists and medical suppliers have already got restricted affected person entry to medication that can be utilized to induce abortions, even after they’re prescribed for different functions.
In line with Alexandra Band, a New Orleans OB-GYN, Walgreen’s refused to fill a prescription for a affected person for misoprostol, a gastrointestinal drug that may also be used for abortions, “as a result of they may not be certain we weren’t prescribing this for an abortion.” Band stated in an affidavit that she had prescribed the drug to facilitate the insertion of IUD.
The prospect that docs in antiabortion states have been prevented or discouraged from terminating pregnancies to guard the well being of the mom, together with in instances of ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages, prompted the Biden administration to problem a stern warning Monday that any interference with a physician’s judgment in emergency instances, together with whether or not an emergency abortion is indicated, would violate federal legislation, which preempts state legal guidelines.
Violation may topic docs, hospitals or clinics to the lack of the Medicare privileges or to civil penalties, Well being and Human Companies Secretary Xavier Becerra stated.
A key problem within the abortion combat is whether or not anti-abortion states can regulate the travels of their residents or attain past their state traces to control actions elsewhere. With Roe vs. Wade overturned, legislation professors from three Pennsylvania universities observe in a draft paper, “we now have already seen the beginnings of those battles.”
Among the many signposts is Texas’ notorious SB 8, an anti-abortion legislation that permits anybody, even exterior Texas, to convey civil go well with in opposition to anybody in Texas who “knowingly” aids or abets the efficiency of an abortion the state deems unlawful, together with by paying for or reimbursing the prices of an abortion.
A mannequin legislation promoted by the Nationwide Proper to Life Committee would criminalize transporting a minor throughout state traces to acquire an abortion or abortion medication with out her dad and mom’ consent, “no matter the place an unlawful abortion happens.” Missouri legislators are contemplating a legislation that will impose civil legal responsibility on anybody serving to a Missouri citizen journey out of state for an abortion.
In Texas (once more), a bunch of state legislators styling themselves the Texas Freedom Caucus engaged in a outstanding bout of saber-rattling with a July 7 letter to Sidley Austin, a significant Dallas-based legislation agency, threatening the agency with civil or legal motion as a result of it has “determined to reimburse the journey prices of workers who go away Texas to homicide their unborn youngsters.”
The letter stated that by “facilitating” unlawful abortions, it’s “exposing itself and every of its companions to felony legal prosecution and disbarment.”
The legislators stated they’d be introducing a invoice to “prohibit any employer in Texas from paying for elective abortions or reimbursing abortion-related bills — no matter the place the abortion happens, and whatever the legislation within the jurisdiction the place the abortion happens,” classifying these actions as legal offenses. Sidley Austin hasn’t responded publicly to the letter.
Though freedom to journey across the nation would appear to laypersons to be an unimpeachable constitutional proper, authorized consultants are divided on whether or not the Structure really forbids states to implement legal guidelines “focusing on out-of-state abortions or abortion journey,” wrote Pennsylvania legislation professors David S. Cohen of Drexel College, Greer Donley of the College of Pittsburgh and Rachel Rebouché of Temple College.
Supreme Courtroom Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in his concurring opinion in Dobbs, implied that the suitable to journey is sacrosanct, no matter its goal: “Could a State bar a resident of that State from touring to a different State to acquire an abortion? In my opinion, the reply is not any primarily based on the constitutional proper to interstate journey.”
Kavanaugh cited the due course of clause of the 14th Modification to help his view. Justice Clarence Thomas, nonetheless, in his personal concurring opinion, threw chilly water on Kavanaugh’s. “The purported proper to abortion,” he wrote, “is just not a type of ‘liberty’ protected by the Due Course of Clause.” He referred to as the very thought “farcical.”
Just one Supreme Courtroom ruling handed down after Roe vs. Wade touched on the difficulty of regulation of out-of-state abortion guidelines. This was a 1975 case involving a weekly distributed on the College of Virginia with an commercial for abortion companies in New York, the place they had been authorized.
Virginia courts discovered that the newspaper violated a state legislation prohibiting publications from encouraging abortions. The Supreme Courtroom discovered not solely that the Virginia legislation infringed on the suitable of free speech, however that “Virginia possessed no authority to control the companies supplied in New York” or to “forestall its residents from touring to New York to acquire these companies.”
Nothing would forestall the present Supreme Courtroom from revisiting the 1975 case, simply because it reconsidered Roe vs. Wade. The ruling, in response to the Pennsylvania professors, “is dated, depends partly on the now-overturned Roe, and targeting the First Modification.”
Due to this fact, they wrote, “this space of legislation is ripe for reassessment as soon as interjurisdictional abortion prosecutions happen.” Nor will anti-abortion states or prosecutors anticipate a inexperienced gentle from the Supreme Courtroom earlier than testing the legislation’s limits; “they may simply do it. … States will proceed as if they’ve the ability, ready for courts to name their bluff.”
It can stay as much as the federal authorities to observe these limits and impose federal tips the place obligatory. Garland’s promise is a vital first step and the steerage issued Monday by the Division of Well being and Human Companies an encouraging follow-up.
HHS Secretary Becerra cited the federal Emergency Medical Therapy and Lively Labor Act because the governing regulation in all instances during which emergency care is required.
The legislation mandates that every one sufferers “obtain an acceptable medical screening examination, stabilizing therapy, and switch, if obligatory, regardless of any state legal guidelines or mandates that apply to particular procedures,” he acknowledged.
The federal statute preempts any state legislation that will be extra restrictive. Its definition of stabilizing therapy “may embrace medical and/or surgical interventions (e.g., abortion, elimination of 1 or each fallopian tubes, anti-hypertensive remedy, methotrexate remedy and many others.), regardless of any state legal guidelines or mandates.”
If a doctor decides that abortion is the correct stabilizing therapy, Becerra’s letter states, “the doctor should present that therapy.”
A lot for state efforts to show girls, pregnant or in any other case, into property whose conduct could be criminalized or subjected to civil legal responsibility. The federal authorities has begun to attract the road. State legislators and prosecutors who attempt to cross it try to impress a brand new Civil Struggle, though the primary one didn’t prove effectively for the provocateurs, or for the entire nation.
The federal government sued Southwest Airlines on Wednesday, accusing the airline of harming passengers who flew on two routes that were plagued by consistent delays in 2022.
In a lawsuit, the Transportation Department said it was seeking more than $2.1 million in civil penalties over the flights between airports in Chicago and Oakland, Calif., as well as Baltimore and Cleveland, that were chronically delayed over five months that year.
“Airlines have a legal obligation to ensure that their flight schedules provide travelers with realistic departure and arrival times,” the transportation secretary, Pete Buttigieg, said in a statement. “Today’s action sends a message to all airlines that the department is prepared to go to court in order to enforce passenger protections.”
Carriers are barred from operating unrealistic flight schedules, which the Transportation Department considers an unfair, deceptive and anticompetitive practice. A “chronically delayed” flight is defined as one that operates at least 10 times a month and is late by at least 30 minutes more than half the time.
In a statement, Southwest said it was “disappointed” that the department chose to sue over the flights that took place more than two years ago. The airline said it had operated 20 million flights since the Transportation Department enacted its policy against chronically delayed flights more than a decade ago, with no other violations.
“Any claim that these two flights represent an unrealistic schedule is simply not credible when compared with our performance over the past 15 years,” Southwest said.
Last year, Southwest canceled fewer than 1 percent of its flights, but more than 22 percent arrived at least 15 minutes later than scheduled, according to Cirium, an aviation data provider. Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, Alaska Airlines and American Airlines all had fewer such delays.
The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In it, the government said that a Southwest flight from Chicago to Oakland arrived late 19 out of 25 trips in April 2022, with delays averaging more than an hour. The consistent delays continued through August of that year, averaging an hour or more. On another flight, between Baltimore and Cleveland, average delay times reached as high as 96 minutes per month during the same period. In a statement, the department said that Southwest, rather than poor weather or air traffic control, was responsible for more than 90 percent of the delays.
“Holding out these chronically delayed flights disregarded consumers’ need to have reliable information about the real arrival time of a flight and harmed thousands of passengers traveling on these Southwest flights by causing disruptions to travel plans or other plans,” the department said in the lawsuit.
The government said Southwest had violated federal rules 58 times in August 2022 after four months of consistent delays. Each violation faces a civil penalty of up to $37,377, or more than $2.1 million in total, according to the lawsuit.
The Transportation Department on Wednesday also said that it had penalized Frontier Airlines for chronically delayed flights, fining the airline $650,000. Half that amount was paid to the Treasury and the rest is slated to be forgiven if the airline has no more chronically delayed flights over the next three years.
This month, the department ordered JetBlue Airways to pay a $2 million fine for failing to address similarly delayed flights over a span of more than a year ending in November 2023, with half the money going to passengers affected by the delays.
California government’s plan to phase out heavy-duty diesel trucks and diesel locomotives has been derailed.
The ambitious plan aimed at reducing local pollution and global greenhouse gases required special waivers from the federal government. The Biden administration hadn’t granted the waivers as of this week, and rather than face almost certain denial by the incoming Trump administration, the state withdrew its waiver request.
That means the far-reaching regulations issued by the California Air Resources Board in 2022 to ban new diesel truck sales by 2036 and force fleet owners to take them off the road by 2042 won’t be enforced. Known as the Advanced Clean Fleets rule, the idea was to replace those trucks with electric and hydrogen-powered versions, which dramatically reduce emissions but are currently two to three times more expensive.
“While we are disappointed that U.S. EPA was unable to act on all the requests in time, the withdrawal is an important step given the uncertainty presented by the incoming administration that previously attacked California’s programs to protect public health and the climate and has said will continue to oppose those programs,” CARB Chair Liane Randolph said in a prepared statement.
Environmentalists reacted with deep disappointment.
“To meet basic standards for healthy air, California has to shift to zero-emissions trucks and trains in the coming years. Diesel is one of the most dangerous kinds of air pollution for human health,” Paul Cort, director of Earthjustice’s Right to Zero campaign, said in a prepared statement. “We’ll be working tirelessly in the coming years — and calling on Gov. [Gavin] Newsom, state legislators, and our air quality regulators to join us — to clean up our freight system and fix the mess [U.S.] EPA’s inaction has created.”
The trucking industry is pleased at the result, but hopes to continue working with California on environmental issues.
“This rule was flawed, and was not reflective of reality,” said Matt Schrap, chief executive at the Harbor Trucking Assn. “Ideally this is an opportunity to take a step back and look at a program that would be more sustainable.”
Trucking representatives had filed a lawsuit to block the rules, arguing they would cause irreparable harm to the industry and the wider economy. Train operators said no zero-emission locomotives exist on the commercial market.
Schrap said “the most important thing is the EPA could have issued the waiver and they didn’t.”
The EPA said it acknowledges California’s withdrawal of the waiver requests “and as a result is taking no further action on CARB’s prior requests and considers these matters closed.”
President-elect Donald Trump is a champion of the fossil fuel industry, making it unlikely that his administration would have approved the California waivers. The state could, however, pursue waivers at some point in the future.
Under the federal Clean Air Act, California is allowed to set its own air standards, and other states are allowed to follow California’s lead. But federal government waivers are required. Most of California’s waivers have been granted, including approval in December of a California ban on new sales of gas-powered cars and light trucks by 2035.
Bezos, Zuckerberg and Coke at the inauguration
Corporate America had already raced to donate big sums to Donald Trump’s record-breaking inaugural fund. Now some of its leaders appear eager to jockey for prominent positions at the inauguration next week.
It’s a new reminder that for some of the nation’s biggest businesses, forging close ties to a president-elect who is promising hard-hitting policies like tariffs is a priority this time around.
Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg are expected to be on the inauguration dais, according to NBC News, alongside Elon Musk and several cabinet picks.
The presence of Musk isn’t a surprise, given the Tesla chief’s significant support of and huge influence over Trump. But the other tech moguls have only more recently been seen as supporters of the administration. (Indeed, Bezos frequently sparred with Trump during his first presidential term.)
It’s the latest effort by Bezos and Zuckerberg to burnish their Trump credentials. At the DealBook Summit in December, Bezos — whose Amazon has faced scrutiny under the Biden administration and whose Blue Origin is hoping to win government rocket contracts — said that he was “very hopeful” about Trump’s efforts to reduce regulation.
And Zuckerberg recently announced significant changes to Meta’s content moderation policy, including relaxing restrictions on speech seen as protecting groups including L.G.B.T.Q. people that won praise from Trump and other conservatives. On the inauguration front, Zuckerberg is also co-hosting a reception alongside the longtime Trump backers Miriam Adelson, Tilman Fertitta and Todd Ricketts.
Both tech moguls have visited Mar-a-Lago since the election, with Zuckerberg having done so more than once.
Coca-Cola took a different tack. The drinks giant’s C.E.O., James Quincey, gave Trump what an aide called the “first ever Presidential Commemorative Inaugural Diet Coke bottle.”
More broadly, business leaders want a piece of the inauguration action. The Times previously reported that the Trump inaugural fund had surpassed $170 million, a record, and that even major donors have been wait-listed for events.
Others are throwing unofficial events around Washington, including an “Inaugural Crypto Ball” that will feature Snoop Dogg, with tickets starting at $5,000, The Wall Street Journal reports.
It’s a reminder that C.E.O.s are reading the room, and preparing their companies for a president who has proposed creating an “External Revenue Service” to oversee what he has promised will be wide-ranging tariffs.
David Urban, a longtime Trump adviser who’s hosting a pre-inauguration event, told The Journal, “This is the world order, and if we’re going to succeed, we need to get with the world order.”
-
In other Trump news: The president-elect is expected to appear via videoconference at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, which starts on Inauguration Day, according to Semafor.
HERE’S WHAT’S HAPPENING
Investors brace for the latest inflation data. The Consumer Price Index report, due out at 8:30 a.m. Eastern, is expected to show that inflation ticked up last month, most likely because of climbing food and fuel costs. Global bond markets have been rattled as slow progress on slowing inflation has prompted the Fed to slash its forecast for interest rate cuts.
More Trump cabinet picks will appear before the Senate on Wednesday. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, the choice for secretary of state, is expected to field questions about his views on the Middle East, Ukraine and China, but is expected to be confirmed. Russell Vought, the pick to run the Office of Management and Budget, will most likely be asked about his advocacy for drastically shrinking the federal government, a key Trump objective. And Sean Duffy, the Fox Business host chosen to lead the Transportation Department, will probably face questions on how he would oversee matters including aviation safety and autonomous vehicles, the latter of which is a priority for Elon Musk.
Meta plans to lay off another 5 percent of its employees. Mark Zuckerberg, the tech giant’s C.E.O., told staff members to prepare for “extensive performance-based cuts” as the company braces for “an intense year.” The social media giant faces intense competition in the race to commercialize artificial intelligence.
A new bill would give TikTok a reprieve from a ban in the United States. Senator Ed Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, said he planned to introduce the Extend the TikTok Deadline Act, which would give the video platform 270 additional days to be divested from its Chinese parent, ByteDance before being blacklisted. It’s the latest effort to buy TikTok time, as the app faces a Jan. 19 deadline set by a law; President-elect Donald Trump has opposed the potential ban as well.
A question of succession
JPMorgan Chase and BlackRock, the giant money manager, just reported earnings. (In short: Both handily beat analyst expectations.)
But the Wall Street giants are likely to face questioning on a particular issue on Wednesday: Which top lieutenants are in line to replace their larger-than-life C.E.O.s, Jamie Dimon and Larry Fink.
Who’s out:
-
Daniel Pinto, who had long been Dimon’s right-hand man, said he would officially drop his responsibilities as JPMorgan’s C.O.O. in June and retire at the end of 2026. Jenn Piepszak, the co-C.E.O. of the company’s core commercial and investment bank, has become C.O.O.
-
And Mark Wiedman, the head of BlackRock’s global client business and a top contender to succeed Fink, is planning to leave, according to news reports.
What Wall Street is gossiping about JPMorgan: Even in taking the C.O.O. role, JPMorgan said that Piepszak wasn’t interested in succeeding Dimon “at this time.” DealBook hears that while she genuinely appears not to want to pursue the top job, the phrasing covers her in case she changes her mind.
For now, that means the most likely candidates for the top spot are Marianne Lake, the company’s head of consumer and community banking; Troy Rohrbaugh, the other co-head of the commercial and investment bank; and Doug Petno, a co-head of global banking.
The buzz around BlackRock: Wiedman reportedly didn’t want to keep waiting to succeed Fink and is expected to seek a C.E.O. position elsewhere. (So sudden was his departure that he’s forfeiting about $8 million worth of stock options and, according to The Wall Street Journal, he doesn’t have another job lined up yet.)
Fink said on CNBC on Wednesday that Wiedman’s departure had been in the works for some time, with the executive having expressed a desire to leave about six months ago.
Other candidates to take over for Fink include Martin Small, BlackRock’s C.F.O.; Rob Goldstein, the firm’s C.O.O.; and Rachel Lord, the head of international.
But Dimon and Fink aren’t going anywhere just yet. Dimon, 68, said only last year that he might not be in the role in five years. And Fink, 72, said in July that he was working on succession planning: “When I do believe the next generation is ready, I’m out.”
The S.E.C. gets in a final shot at Musk
Another battle between Elon Musk and the S.E.C. erupted on Tuesday, with the agency suing the tech mogul over his 2022 purchase of Twitter.
It’s unclear what happens to the lawsuit once President-elect Donald Trump, who counts Musk as a close ally, takes office. But the agency’s reputation as an independent watchdog may be at stake.
A recap: The S.E.C. accused Musk of violating securities laws in his $44 billion acquisition of the social media company.
The agency said that Musk had failed to disclose his Twitter ownership stake for a pivotal 11-day stretch before revealing his intentions to purchase the company. That breach allowed him to buy up at least $150 million worth of Twitter shares at a lower price — to the detriment of existing shareholders, the agency argues.
The S.E.C. isn’t just seeking to fine Musk. It wants him to pay back the windfall. “That’s unusual,” Ann Lipton, a professor at Tulane Law School, told DealBook.
Alex Spiro, Musk’s lawyer, called the latest action a “sham” and accused the agency of waging a “multiyear campaign of harassment” against him.
The showdown sets up a tough question for the S.E.C. Will Paul Atkins, the president-elect’s widely respected pick to lead the agency, drop the case? Such a move could call the bedrock principle of S.E.C. independence into question.
Jay Clayton, who led the agency during Trump’s first term, earned the respect of the business community for running it in a largely drama-free manner. It was under Clayton that the S.E.C. sued Musk over his statements about taking Tesla private.
Musk, who is set to become Trump’s cost-cutting czar and is expected to have office space in the White House complex, has called for the “comprehensive overhaul” of agencies like the S.E.C. The billionaire said he would also like to see “punitive action against those individuals who have abused their regulatory power for personal and political gain.”
-
In related news: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau sued Capital One, accusing it of cheating its depositors out of $2 billion in interest payments.
THE SPEED READ
Deals
-
DAZN, the streaming network backed by the billionaire businessman Len Blavatnik, is closing in on funding from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund as the kingdom continues to expand its sports footprint. (NYT)
-
The Justice Department sued KKR, accusing the investment giant of withholding information during government reviews for several of its deals. KKR filed a countersuit. (Bloomberg)
-
OpenAI added Adebayo Ogunlesi, the billionaire co-founder of the infrastructure investment firm Global Infrastructure Partners, to its board. (FT)
Politics and policy
Best of the rest
We’d like your feedback! Please email thoughts and suggestions to dealbook@nytimes.com.
Stacey Abrams-founded groups slapped with historic fine for campaign finance violations
Gas exchange and lactate threshold are valid indicators of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise, rat study finds
Wolf Man
Movie Review: A family is torn apart under Brazil’s dictatorship in ‘I’m Still Here’
Takeaways From Marco Rubio’s Senate Hearing
Colorado Rockies game no. 116 thread: Zac Gallen vs José Ureña
Why Marjorie Taylor Greene was ‘kicked out’ of the Freedom Caucus according to Rep. Buck
See it: Tesla crashes into Columbus convention center at 70 mph
Fox News Politics: Georgia the whole day through
Death of missing Oregon girl found in stream ruled homicide
Takeaways From Marco Rubio’s Senate Hearing
Stephen Miller preps House Republicans for Trump's immigration overhaul in closed-door meeting
NATO Chief Mark Rutte calls for 'shift to a wartime mindset'
LA fires are still raging, but forecasters expect calmer winds in the coming days
Pilots Battling L.A Fires Face Heat, Turbulence, and High-Pressure Risks
-
Health1 week agoOzempic ‘microdosing’ is the new weight-loss trend: Should you try it?
-
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25822586/STK169_ZUCKERBERG_MAGA_STKS491_CVIRGINIA_A.jpg "Meta is highlighting a splintering global approach to online speech")
Technology6 days agoMeta is highlighting a splintering global approach to online speech
-
Science4 days agoMetro will offer free rides in L.A. through Sunday due to fires
-
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25821992/videoframe_720397.png "Las Vegas police release ChatGPT logs from the suspect in the Cybertruck explosion")
Technology1 week agoLas Vegas police release ChatGPT logs from the suspect in the Cybertruck explosion
-
Movie Reviews1 week ago‘How to Make Millions Before Grandma Dies’ Review: Thai Oscar Entry Is a Disarmingly Sentimental Tear-Jerker
-
Health1 week agoMichael J. Fox honored with Presidential Medal of Freedom for Parkinson’s research efforts
-
Movie Reviews1 week agoMovie Review: Millennials try to buy-in or opt-out of the “American Meltdown”
-
News1 week agoPhotos: Pacific Palisades Wildfire Engulfs Homes in an L.A. Neighborhood