Connect with us

Louisiana

Retracted studies the latest in a decadeslong abortion-science fight – Louisiana Illuminator

Published

on

Retracted studies the latest in a decadeslong abortion-science fight – Louisiana Illuminator


Chris Adkins is worried.

The Georgia pharmaceutical sciences professor who sparked an investigation into scientific studies that led to recent news-making retractions is worried about the “appropriate legal action” researchers have vaguely told media outlets they’re pursuing.

But even more than being sued, Adkins is worried it might be too late to correct the scientific record about a key abortion drug in a high-stakes legal case that is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. Because before the three studies produced by an anti-abortion think tank were probed and determined to have “fundamental problems with the study design and methodology,” two of them were directly cited by a federal judge in ruling the plaintiffs had legal standing in seeking to strip mifepristone of federal approval. And now the anti-abortion researchers have claimed the retractions are a result of pro-abortion politics while downplaying their own significant roles in the consequential case.

“The main concern is that now, instead of focusing on the science, it’s going to be contorted and twisted as a political maneuver,” Adkins told States Newsroom in a phone interview. “I don’t mind my name being thrown out there. … But my initial concern was driven purely by the issues I had with the very science and the communication of that science.”

Advertisement

On Feb. 5, academic publisher Sage Journals announced it was retracting three of Charlotte Lozier Institute’s studies about abortion published in the journal “Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology” between 2019 and 2022. Among them was research that questioned the safety of mifepristone, a commonly used abortion and miscarriage medication. The reasons Sage cited included undeclared conflicts of interest involving several of the papers’ authors, who had an affiliation with “pro-life advocacy organizations that explicitly support judicial action to restrict access to mifepristone.” Some of the authors are plaintiffs or expert witnesses in the lawsuit.

While Adkins and California-based epidemiologist and reproductive health expert Ushma Upadhyay work to publish a scientific examination of the now-retracted research and the Supreme Court hearing looms large, experts say the nation’s highest court is unlikely to give serious consideration to the exposed ambiguities in a decision that could have repercussions beyond reproductive health care.

From the beginning, reproductive health, pharmaceutical, and legal experts have warned that an outcome in favor of the anti-abortion medical groups and doctors who sued the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in November 2022 could limit access to mifepristone with a decadeslong record of safety and efficacy — and upend federal drug policy in the process.

“The failure to routinely engage in rigorous vetting processes undermines the integrity of our judicial system and raises concerns about our federal courts’ ability to appraise scientific and medical evidence presented in their courtrooms,” Adkins told States Newsroom in a follow-up written statement.

The Charlotte Lozier Institute, the nonprofit research arm of the anti-abortion powerhouse Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, employs scholars who for decades have produced research used to defend anti-abortion laws. That work included the 2021 article that U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk cited as evidence that plaintiffs had standing to sue and was published exactly one year before they filed suit in Amarillo, Texas, one of the most conservative federal district courts in the country.

Advertisement

A couple months before filing the lawsuit, they registered a nonprofit called the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, which became the lead plaintiff in the case. The principal officer of the Alliance, according to the Internal Revenue Service, is Dr. Donna Harrison, an OB-GYN and the recently retired CEO of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians & Gynecologists (AAPLOG), which is also a plaintiff. Additionally, Harrison is one of the authors of three retracted studies.

The Charlotte Lozier Institute scholars have vigorously defended their research, while downplaying their significant roles in the FDA lawsuit.

“What happened to us has little or nothing to do with real science; it has everything to do with political assassination of good science,” said James Studnicki, Charlotte Lozier vice president and director of data analytics, in a video uploaded to a website the group recently launched to challenge the retractions. Studnicki was the lead author of the three retracted studies and an expert witness for the three red states that tried to intervene in the lawsuit alongside plaintiffs. The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied Missouri, Kansas, and Idaho’s motion to intervene.

Studnicki and Charlotte Lozier Institute senior research associate Tessa Longbons told States Newsroom in a written statement that this is a “baseless ideological attack” and that Sage has never “identified a single substantive objection to the studies.”

Meanwhile they maintain that the Supreme Court can overturn FDA policy on mifepristone on the basis of their work.

Advertisement

“The Supreme Court can rely on our findings,” Studnicki recently told Science magazine.

Experts also have said they don’t believe the retractions will affect the Supreme Court’s ultimate decision.

“There’s been a lot of people who’ve been criticizing the science used [by plaintiffs] as junk science. And I think this is just further proof that it’s junk science,” Drexel University law professor and reproductive rights advocate David Cohen told States Newsroom. “That being said, I think that the judges will find a way to support the view that they feel like they want to reason towards, and two studies disappearing is not going to change that.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Advertisement

A case that hinges on science

It took about four years before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved mifepristone in 2000 as part of a two-drug abortion regimen for first-trimester abortions: The mifepristone is taken first to block the hormone progesterone, followed by the ulcer medication misoprostol which causes the uterus to contract. After nearly two decades of data showing the regimen has a high rate of efficacy and a low rate of serious adverse events, the federal agency lowered the dosage and loosened restrictions.

But the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine asked federal courts to order the FDA to revoke its approval of mifepristone, or at minimum roll back more recent changes authorizing its availability via telemedicine and at pharmacies.

Advertisement

The case began with an initial victory for plaintiffs in district court, when Kacsmaryk ruled to suspend mifepristone’s FDA approval. The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the full drug suspension, but upheld the lower court decision to reinstate outdated restrictions. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case March 26.

Going back to the pre-2016 regimen in practice would mean shortening the gestational window the drug can be used, from 10 to seven weeks. It would require three in-clinic appointments and prohibit telemedicine and pharmacy dispensation. The old regimen also calls for a higher dose of mifepristone, which goes against current recommended guidelines.

Reproductive health experts say these FDA rollbacks would limit access to even more people, now that abortion is banned or heavily restricted in nearly half the country.

As States Newsroom has previously reported, the plaintiffs’ submitted evidence that mifepristone is a high-risk drug includes a small number of studies produced by a small anti-abortion medical community, along with anecdotes by the doctor plaintiffs. Defendants, in contrast, have submitted hundreds of studies.

Adding to this pool of research is a brand-new study in “Nature Medicine,” co-authored by Upadhyay, an associate professor at the University of California San Francisco, which found a low rate of serious abortion-related adverse events for patients who took medication abortion via telemedicine.

Advertisement

But none of that has stopped the plaintiffs’ legal team, the powerful Christian right Alliance Defending Freedom (a funding source for the Charlotte Lozier Institute and co-plaintiff AAPLOG), from asserting publicly and in court that mifepristone is dangerous. One of the plaintiffs’ key claims that stems directly from the 2021 paper is that emergency room visits within 30 days following a medication abortion increased 500% from 2002 to 2015.

In this study, researchers looked at Medicaid data in 17 states between 1999 and 2015. They tracked patients who had had a procedural or a medication abortion and counted each time they went to an emergency department in the 30 days following those abortions.

Upadhyay said among her main concerns with the 2021 paper is that the researchers inflated their findings, and appear to conflate all emergency department visits with adverse events. She said they lumped in people going in for just observation to make sure bleeding is normal with people who needed significant intervention.

“A national study found more than 50% of ER visits after abortion involve observational care only — indicating that an adverse event did not occur. But even a visit that involves an aspiration procedure to treat retained products of conception after an abortion is not considered a true complication. It is expected that about 3-5% of people who have a medication abortion will require an additional procedure to complete the abortion,” Upadhyay told States Newsroom in a follow-up written statement. “Studnicki et al. sensationalize and obfuscate the growth in ER visits after medication abortion. The authors downplay that their data demonstrates the vast majority of postabortion ER visits were not abortion-related (based on ICD-9 codes) and abortion-related ER visits were uncommon.”

The Charlotte Lozier authors defended their study design in a rebuttal to Sage, and argued that abortion complications are typically underreported. “The ER visit can be for any number of complications and is, therefore, a broad proxy indicator for abortion-related morbidity,” they wrote.

Advertisement

Adkins said also problematic was how the authors communicated their findings, ultimately concluding “mifepristone abortion is consistently and progressively associated with increased morbidity.”

“You know, scientists, we get so enrapt, and enveloped in our work, that we forget that the very language we use to describe our work is sometimes foreign to others,” Adkins said. “We have a duty to communicate our findings in a way that is accurate, honest, and can be interpreted by all. That’s difficult. And I think that the Studnicki articles, I think there are portions of it that take advantage of that to generate misinterpretation, and that is then turned around and used to fuel these lawsuits.”

Pharmaceutical professor Chris Adkins and epidemiologist and reproductive health expert Ushma Upadhyay are working to publish a scientific examination of the now-retracted research used to challenge federal approval of the abortion medication mifepristone. (Courtesy Chris Adkins)

Based on Adkins’ concerns, Sage re-examined the peer review process and found that one of the initial peer reviewers was an associate scholar with the Charlotte Lozier Institute. The publisher then enlisted a statistician and two reproductive health experts to newly peer review the Charlotte Lozier articles.

“Following Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, we made this decision with the journal’s editor because of undeclared conflicts of interest and after expert reviewers found that the studies demonstrate a lack of scientific rigor that invalidates or renders unreliable the authors’ conclusions,” reads Sage’s public note on the retractions.

As part of their rebuttal to the retractions, the Charlotte Lozier team has said the process is double-blind, so the researchers couldn’t have known who the peer reviewer was.

Advertisement

Studnicki was on the journal’s editorial board until last fall, but the journal’s editor-in-chief dismissed him after the journal and Sage decided to retract the papers.

“The editorial board members at HSRME (Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology) act as ambassadors of the journal and in turn, of the Publisher to help uphold the highest standards of quality and integrity in scholarly publishing,” Dr. Gregory M. Garrison wrote Studnicki in an email dated Nov. 14, 2023, and shared by Charlotte Lozier. “In light of the decision to retract three research articles where you are an author, I believe that your term as editorial board member must now come to an end.”

The Charlotte Lozier team has insisted the retraction of their research is based on politics rather than science. But research experts say retraction is a high bar to clear, and journals are reluctant to retract in fear of lawsuits.

Ivan Oransky, who teaches medical journalism at New York University and co-founded the blog Retraction Watch, told States Newsroom that retractions are slightly on the rise because of the rise of fraudulent paper mills. But he said a lot of mediocre science goes under the radar unless someone brings it to the attention of the journal.

“There are an awful lot of other papers that should also probably be retracted,” Oransky said. “If you were to hold all papers to the same actual standards, far more would be retracted.”

Advertisement

Conflicts of interest

In their Assault on Science website, the Charlotte Lozier team refers to Adkins, an associate professor and director of assessment at South University School of Pharmacy* in Savannah, Georgia, as someone who “supports abortion.”

As Adkins told States Newsroom last year, the fall of Roe v. Wade on his birthday coupled with a baby on the way made him more concerned about reproductive rights. But the once conservative Texan said he had never formally advocated for abortion access. In his spare time, he reads FDA news, which is how he eventually fell down a rabbit hole trying to understand how this research was produced and whether it was ideologically biased.

After reaching out to the journal and publisher, Adkins started consulting with reproductive health experts and earlier this year was invited to sign onto an amicus brief filed in the FDA case, of over 300 reproductive health researchers, defending the science behind mifepristone. Adkins maintains that his major issue in this case is the lack of quality in the science used by plaintiffs.

“My decision to notify Sage was prompted following a federal district judge’s citation of the 2021 article, wherein language was used that was inconsistent and inaccurate relative to the cited work,” Adkins told States Newsroom. “I believe it is both a professional obligation and a right to bring attention to legitimate concerns within scientific and medical literature; this practice is not ‘activism’ — instead, it is the self-correcting feature of scientific progress.”

The Charlotte Lozier researchers have objected to a larger accusation of an ideological conflict of interest, arguing that many authors of reproductive health articles that have been published in Sage journals also advocate for abortion access.

Advertisement

But Sage defended its retraction decision.

“Investigations are often initiated from readers’ complaints, as was the case in this matter regarding an issue of the presentation of data, and in the course of the investigation the undisclosed conflicts of interest became glaring,” Sage attorney Ronni Sander wrote to Charlotte Lozier attorney David A. Shaneyfelt in a letter dated Nov. 21, 2023, published on the Assault on Science website. “However, the substantive findings by the reviewers were most significant in the determination that retraction of the articles was necessary under COPE … guidance.”

Upadhyay says she agrees that most authors, including herself, are biased toward certain policy outcomes but are called as scientists to follow the science rather than their biases.

“As a health-care researcher, I have an interest in expanding access to abortion, because I believe abortion is healthcare,” Upadhyay said. “So everyone is going to come to a question with their own set of beliefs. … For me, the conflict of interest is more about the fact that Studnicki was on the editorial board and that the peer reviewers [it was only one peer reviewer, according to Sage] were from the same institution. And most importantly, that they can approach the research question with scientific integrity … that they acknowledge their bias but they still stick to scientific rigor. And that they did not do.”

And while the authors did declare that they were affiliated with the Charlotte Lozier Institute, they did not disclose the extent several of them are directly involved in the mifepristone lawsuit. Or that they received funding from the law firm suing the FDA.

Advertisement

The Alliance Defending Freedom in 2021 donated more than $27,000 to the Charlotte Lozier Institute and $25,000 to AAPLOG. Among the Charlotte Lozier’s “core activities” reported in its 2022 tax filing include producing white papers and studies cited in the case that overturned Roe v. Wade and in post-Roe cases since: “After the Court’s ruling in June 2022, CLI provided expert commentary and information in media and policy forums across the nation, contributing to the restoration of protective laws in place before the 1973 Supreme Court rulings in Roe and Doe.”

The filing also specifically references the research published in their 2021 paper: “Leveraging millions of data points from Medicaid claims data, Charlotte Lozier Institute scholars identified a dramatic spike in abortion pill related emergency room visits.”

Influence of the retracted science

Upadhyay says that even if the retractions ultimately have no legal impact on the case, they matter.

“There’s a court of public opinion,” Upadhyay told States Newsroom. “If the public is made aware that this article was retracted and yet this article is part of the reason the plaintiffs have standing, I think that it will become even more clear that the ultimate decision the Supreme Court makes, if they do rule against access to mifepristone, it will become more clear that that decision was not based in science. So I still think it’s important that it was retracted before the deliberation.”

Attorneys for the Alliance Defending Freedom have said the retractions should have no bearing on the case.

Advertisement

“ADF has never relied on these studies for the issues that are currently before the Supreme Court,” ADF Senior Counsel Erik Baptist told States Newsroom in a written statement. “So this will not have any impact on the court’s consideration.”

However, ADF cited the research frequently to make its claims that mifepristone is a risky drug. “The number of chemical abortion-related emergency room visits increased by over five hundred percent between 2002 and 2015,” reads an ADF primer on the case. “Women can face severe bleeding and life-threatening infections — requiring emergency medical treatment, surgeries, blood transfusions, and hysterectomies — as well as the inability to have future successful pregnancies.”

Kacsmaryk in turn cited the 2021 paper to argue plaintiffs’ standing “because they allege adverse events from chemical drugs can overwhelm the medical system.” He cited the 2022 paper using the same dataset in affirming plaintiffs’ claims that loosening FDA regulations has led to “‘many intense side effects’ and ‘significant complications requiring medical attention.’” The 2022 paper was cited just one day after the reactions in a brief filed by the intervening states.

The researchers themselves claim they have been influential.

“Sage is targeting us because we have been successful for a long period of time,” Studnicki says in his video uploaded to the Charlotte Lozier’s Assault on Science website. “These findings have been used in a legal action in many of the states. We have become visible. People are quoting us, and for that reason we are dangerous. And for that reason, they want to cancel our work.”

Advertisement



Source link

Louisiana

Louisiana State Police arrest 18-year-old in Vidalia crash t…

Published

on

Louisiana State Police arrest 18-year-old in Vidalia crash t…


VIDALIA, La. — Louisiana State Police arrested 18-year-old Gregory Steele early Sunday morning on two counts of vehicular homicide, one count of underage operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, one count vehicular negligent injuring and one count careless operation, according to Concordia Parish Jail records.

Steele, 18, a white male, was arrested in connection with an accident that occurred at approximately 1:54 a.m. on Sunday morning on Minorca Road in Vidalia. Two passengers in the vehicle were killed. Steele and another passenger were able to escape the vehicle.



Source link

Continue Reading

Louisiana

On this Mother’s Day, three Louisiana mothers grieve the deaths of eight of their children, seven killed by their own father | CNN

Published

on

On this Mother’s Day, three Louisiana mothers grieve the deaths of eight of their children, seven killed by their own father | CNN


Christina Snow bends down and whispers something in her daughter’s ear as the 11-year-old lies in a white casket, eyes closed as if she were simply asleep.

On the morning before Mother’s Day, Sariahh Snow’s small, lifeless body is one of eight – all children – lined in open white caskets along the front of a church hall in Shreveport, Louisiana.

Except for the low murmur of church organ music drifting through the sanctuary, Snow’s muffled sobs momentarily silence an audience of hundreds who have gathered to grieve alongside the three mothers whose children were all fatally shot by the same man: the father of seven of the eight killed and an uncle to the eighth.

The shocking act of violence, which also left two of the mothers seriously wounded, marked the nation’s deadliest mass shooting in more than two years, a catastrophe so staggering it forced an already grief-stricken country to once again confront the deadly collision of a mental health crisis and America’s unrelenting access to guns.

Advertisement

“This is not a Shreveport mourning,” Congressman Cleo Fields said in his tribute. “This is a nation mourning.”

Now remembered as the “Eternal 8,” Jayla Elkins, 3; Shayla Elkins, 5; Kayla Pugh, 6; Layla Pugh, 7; Mar’Kaydon Pugh, 10; Sariahh Snow, 11; Khedarrion Snow, 6; and Braylon Snow, 5, were killed in the April 19 shooting.

As grieving attendees lined up to pay respects to the children, one woman shut her eyes after peering at one of the children, Kayla, who wore a white dress, her fingernails carefully painted pink. Just behind her body stood a photograph from when she was still alive, her sweet, wide eyes impossible to reconcile with the stillness of the tiny body in the casket.

Inside the funeral pamphlet, Kayla is described by her family as “K-Mae,” a sweetheart with a big smile who never asked for much, but when she did, melted hearts. She loved “going to school, playing with her sisters, brothers, and cousins, and being outside running, jumping and even wrestling with those she loved.”

The seven other entries read as sweetly. Sarriah was described as “sunshine,” a creative, smart, and loving girl. Khedarrion loved helping his family and adored his principal. Braylon was sweet and gentle. Mar’Kaydon, or “K-Bug,” was a cheerful child who loved telling his grandmother what he learned at school every day. Jayla, also known as her family’s “little J-Bae,” taught her family “more about unconditional love, strength and resilience than words could ever express.” Shayla was warm and quiet. Layla adored her siblings and cousins so much she “would stand up for them no matter how big the other person was.”

Advertisement

It’s a tragedy that sends chills racing down your spine and leaves a lump in your throat. Throughout the hall, people clung tightly to one another, wiping away each other’s tears. Children filled the pews — sweet, innocent and suddenly feeling even more precious to everyone there.

The Saturday funeral service was carried by the reverberating melody of gospel music that rattled through the hall like waves, sending prayer hands into the air and tears spilling from the eyes of loved ones and strangers alike.

But there were smiles too; and white, pink, blue, and purple bloomed in the crowd of black funereal clothes, woven among bright dresses, pressed shirts, ribbons and flowers.

“Lord, we ask right now a special prayer for Summer Grove School. Lord God, we pray for Lynnwood Public Charter School,” Pastor Al George said during his tribute, praying for the two schools the children had attended.

“We pray for all of those teachers, those principals; Lord, they need you right now. Those students need you right now. They’re going to school and see empty desks; Lord God, they need you right now.”

Advertisement

Some of the funeral attendees were family, friends and teachers, and many were complete strangers – people who drove more than 12 hours just to stand witness to the unimaginable loss of children they had never met.

“I had to get here,” Kelvin Gadson told CNN. He had arrived a day earlier, having driven from South Carolina, and attended an open viewing of the caskets at a funeral home – the first time the mothers were able to see their children’s bodies.

But Gadson wasn’t just there to honor the children lost. He came for the children still here, the ones now carrying images no child should ever have to carry. With him were two costumes: Minnie and Mickey Mouse. The kids could pose with them as a distraction from what they’d just witnessed.

“They come out scared. But I’m really here because this violence has to stop. It’s killing our children, our precious babies,” Gadson, the founder of Giving a Child a Dream Foundation, told CNN. “My mission is about preventing gun violence.”

Little ones who came out of the casket viewing with their parents wore expressions of confusion and shock after witnessing eight bodies that didn’t look so different from their own.

Advertisement

One of the children was Micheal Thomas.

“I’m kind of scared of funerals. I’m scared of the dead bodies, and they were pretty kids,” the 10-year-old said, sounding wiser than his years. “They were little. I wish I knew them, we would’ve been playing basketball, football, it would’ve been so fun.”

His friends at school don’t talk about the children as much as he does, he said. Then he points to his little brother, who hides behind his legs and clings tightly to him. “I care because imagine that was your kid. If it was my brother, I would be dying; I would be down bad.”

One day, he said, he will meet them in heaven and tell them, “Hey! How you doing? I’m doing good. You broke my heart, but I was talking about you.”

He hasn’t cried about seeing their bodies but he knows he will. The tears “don’t want to come,” but when they do, he promised he won’t push them back.

Advertisement

Plastic trucks and ribbon-wrapped dolls

Days after the shooting stunned Shreveport, a whirlwind of police lights, camera crews and grieving relatives swarmed the neighborhood where the killings unfolded, the streets vibrating with sirens, the air shrouded in questions and disbelief.

But today, the home sits almost unbearably silent.

The main road leading to the Cedar Grove house where the children were killed is under construction. Jagged pieces of cement push through the dirt as orange and white caution cones warn drivers of danger. While less than half a mile away, innocent children received no warning at all before encountering the worst danger imaginable.

Eight balloons sway weakly in the wind above a makeshift memorial – eight crosses staked into the damp ground, covered in handwritten messages. Toys cover the lawn: stuffed animals, plastic trucks, dolls still wrapped in ribbons, left behind for children who will never come outside to claim them.

Besides the permanent stain the massacre has left on the neighborhood, it remains, in many ways, still beautiful — homes resting in the midst of lush green grass, children playing on porches, and neighbors blasting Michael Jackson as a family gathers around a table outside.

Advertisement

A young girl sits slouched in a chair, chin in her hands, bored. It is a neighborhood that, in quieter moments, feels almost like childhood nostalgia made real — fragile, ordinary, and proof of how quickly innocence can be shattered.

In front of the memorial, a small gray cat sits in the rain before wandering to the front door of the gray and white home, curling near the entrance where blood had been spattered just weeks earlier. The gunman was identified as 31-year-old Shamar Elkins. Shreveport Police Cpl. Chris Bordelon told CNN affiliate KSLA the shootings were “domestic in nature.”

As the shooting unfolded, some of the children tried to escape out the back, a state representative said at an earlier news conference. Bullet holes could be seen in the back door of one of the homes.

Every now and then, a car slows to a crawl before pulling over beside the memorial, the people inside sitting silently behind fogged windows, perhaps reminiscing, perhaps praying, perhaps simply trying to make sense of a loss too enormous to truly understand.

Not far from the now empty home, stripped of the laughter and the innocent chaos of excited children that once filled every room and hallway with life, the three mothers, dressed in all white, sit side by side before the eight caskets.

Advertisement

Keosha Pugh — sister of Shaneiqua Pugh, the gunman’s wife — walked into the funeral leaning on a cane, a painful reminder of the injuries she suffered after jumping from a roof with her daughter, Mar’Kianna, while fleeing the gunfire. The fall shattered her pelvis and hip. Shaneiqua Pugh escaped physically unharmed, but Snow was shot in the face during the attack.

All three mothers carried the visible weight of trauma throughout the service. Their legs trembled beneath them, their hands and heads shook with anxiety, and at times Snow, in tears, curled into the arms of friends and loved ones.

Prayers were recited over the bodies of their babies after horse-drawn carriages carried the children slowly into the cemetery as mourners followed behind, some arms carrying flowers and others carrying young children.

Roses were gently laid across the caskets before eight white doves were released into the sky, their wings unfurling into the clouds — a cruel irony beside the eight young lives below, cut short before their stories ever had the chance to unfurl at all.

Among the mourners was Dollie Sims, who had met the children when their father brought them to her community programs. She recalls being struck by how deeply loved they were. When she learned of their killing, she said she was stunned and retraumatized.

Advertisement

“This was reliving the gun violence of my son, who was shot 15 times walking down the street. This is surreal, and as a parent, I think all of us out here are just devastated because what makes this situation so traumatic is that it was by their father, who struggled with mental illness,” Sims said, donning a white fur coat and dress as she waited for the family to arrive at the cemetery.

Her son, who survived, was 19 years old at the time of the shooting.

“This should open the eyes to Shreveport, Louisiana, and Louisiana period, about gun violence and its seriousness, and what we need to do to help this situation to make it safer … We need to advocate and support other families and show up and try to find a way to make it better to keep the next family safe.”

Sims believes the full impact of the tragedy has not fully hit the mothers who have not yet been given time to grieve, she said.

“Mother’s Day is just going to be the beginning of them realizing that those babies aren’t there anymore.”

Advertisement

A few blocks away from the cemetery, Sharon Pouncy had up a folding table beside the road to sell Mother’s Day gift baskets. She lost her own child years ago, she said, after he became sick.

“I want these mamas to know that every mother is holding them in their hearts today,” Pouncy said from the driver’s seat of her truck. She’s wearing a Minnie Mouse shirt – unbeknownst to her, the character is a favorite of the children she had come to honor.

“We know your pain. Once you feel that loss, it never really goes away, you just …” She pauses, and a sad smile flickers across her face. “Well, you just find a way to live with it forever.”

At the same time three mothers lay their babies into the earth; another mother, years into her own journey of grief, finds herself thinking of her baby too.

A man pulls over and points to a basket he’s interested in buying. A card pokes out from a pile of teddy bears: “I love you, Mom.”

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Louisiana

Officials say Louisiana’s black bear bounty could boost hunting this year

Published

on

Officials say Louisiana’s black bear bounty could boost hunting this year


BATON ROUGE, La. (Louisiana Illuminator) – Louisiana is set to once again nearly double the number of black bears hunters can legally bag starting later this year.

The number of bear tags issued to hunters will increase from 26 in 2025 to 42 this year, according to the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission announced Thursday. Hunters are still limited to one bear each, so the increased count clears the way for more people to pursue the animals.

Black bear hunting season, which resumed in Louisiana two years ago, is scheduled for Dec. 6-20 this year.

The number of black bear tags could change based on continuously updated population counts, said John Hanks, large carnivore program manager for the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, during the meeting. This, in part, is because the commission also ratified an expansion to where black bears can be hunted. Once restricted to only about a third of the state, hunting tags are being made available across more of Louisiana.

Advertisement

Most tags will be available in Bear Management Area 4 in the northeast corner of the state, where 20 will be awarded through a hunter lottery. The area encompasses all of Madison, Franklin, Tensas, West Carroll and East Carroll parishes and smaller portions Catahoula and Richland parishes.

Other parts of the state will have fewer tags, ranging from two to eight per bear management area.

A map of the Bear Management Areas in Louisiana.(Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries)

The state brought back black bear hunting in 2024 after banning the practice in 1987, citing successful conservation efforts. The Louisiana black bear was listed as a federally threatened species in 1992 and taken off the list in 2016 as its population grew.

The first season saw 11 bear tags issued, and hunters took 10 bears, eight males and two females. The state increased its tag count to 26 last year, when hunters took 10 males and six females.

Wildlife and Fisheries estimates there are roughly 1,500 black bears in the state.

Advertisement

There are three types of black bear hunting permits in Louisiana: general permits, for people hunting on private lands with the owner’s permission; wildlife management area permits, for those hunting in public areas the state manages; and private landowner permits, for those who own at least 40 acres in areas where bear hunting is allowed.

Out-of-state landowners could also soon be able to join in on the black bear hunting season in Louisiana.

A bill by state Rep. Neil Riser, R-Columbia, is moving through the Louisiana Legislature that would allow non-residents who own land to apply for bear tags to hunt on their own property. It has gained House and Senate approval and awaits the governor’s signature.

Applications for this year’s Louisiana bear hunting lottery will be accepted July 28 through Aug. 28. Applicants must pay for a non-refundable $25 bear hunting license and a $50 permit fee, which goes toward the state’s bear conservation programs. Hunters can apply for multiple types of permits but can only win one.

Louisiana Illuminator is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Louisiana Illuminator maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Greg LaRose for questions: info@lailluminator.com.

Advertisement

Copyright 2026 Louisiana Illuminator. All rights reserved.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending