“Limiting Supreme Courts Act” flops in senate, despite high democrat support and a close 16 to 14 vote

By Abby McGuire

Despite high democrat support, the Senate Judiciary Committee did not pass the “Limiting Supreme Courts Act” into law, illustrating the prevalence of Republican voices in the Senate. The bill would have had massive ramifications for the Supreme Court, altering their term limits from lifelong to a mere 20 years, with the exception of the Chief Justice, who is granted 25 years in office. The majority of support for the bill came from the Democratic Party, notably senators Blumenthal (CT-Sr.), Hirono (HI-Jr.), and Duckworth (IL-Jr.). 

Sen. Blumenthal criticized the current construction of the Supreme Court, citing that politicization is a constant in American politics and arguing that senators should not be afraid of its representation within the court. Sen. Hirono supported Blumenthal’s claims and brought it back to the people, explaining that the American public depends on the Supreme Court to be a strong force and the current status is creating massive distrust. 

Sen. Duckworth critiqued the American approach to the Supreme Court, stating, “If you have nothing to hide, you should not be scared. We need to see that our judges are not kings; they are people too…we should hold officials to the highest standard.”

Halfway through the session, the Judiciary decided to request Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for questioning. The framers of the bill hoped his testimony would emphasize the need for shorter term limits, as he is the subject of controversy due to his affiliation with President Donald Trump. Thomas instead emphasized that he does not support this bill and that judges should be allowed to remain in their stations. When questioned about bribes, Thomas became frustrated and emphasized his humanity apart from his role as a justice and his right to form friendships with other politicians. 

When approached about the act, Judge Thomas declined to comment. 

Senator Mitch McConnell (KY-Sr.) criticized the act, arguing that it will create a judicial climate with too much turnover and that judges will be more willing to act outside of the law due to their reduced time in office. Senator Marsha Blackburn (TN-Sr.) was similarly critical of the bill, arguing that people are voting in presidents who maintain the current limits.

Senator John Kennedy (LA-Jr.) presented the most damning criticism of the Bill, arguing that it is not the role of Congress to decide how the Judiciary branch operates and that it imbalances how many justices are appointed by the president, which could result in court packing.  

Although the voting was slight at 16 to 14, the act was shot down. Nevertheless, the fight for judicial reform within the senate is far from over.

Safeguarding Social Media

By: Eowyn Weiss & Zara Asim (photographer)

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee discussed foreign election interference today, with three bills voted on before three o’clock in the afternoon. One, the Bot Elimination and Ad Investigation Act called for suspending Bot and AI accounts from social media platforms and passed with a resounding majority of 22-8. This bill will create a committee through the Department of Intelligence to investigate suspicious activity on accounts suspected of being bot-run, and require a fine “appropriate” to the size of the yearly revenue of the app itself, though what exactly that meant was never specified. “[The funding] seems a little unorganized and not feasible,” Reisch said while arguing against this bill.

Indiana Senator Todd Young (Republican), Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville (Republican), and Illinois Senator Tammy Duckworth (Democrat), co-sponsors of the bill, expressed their concerns regarding Russian interference with elections. The senators said, “Any interference will lower American comfort with democracy, elections, and their government as a whole.”

These guidelines allow for human error, raising concerns that human-run accounts could be unfairly flagged by the committee. Though the authors insisted the bill would not impact free speech, an amendment allocated funds for a federal system to scan for bots, which will be available to U.S. social media companies.

James E Risch speaks against the Bot Elimination and Ad Investigation Act

Other Congress members however expressed their disapproval of the bill. James  Risch, Senator for Idaho, said that the bill was “unorganized and not feasible,” and “incredibly dangerous to free speech.” Risch insisted that the bill doesn’t direct the rights of the people toward a free election, but rather threatens the sanctity of free speech among Americans on social media apps. 

Despite the complaints, safeguards were put into place and this bill passed with an overwhelming majority and will move on to the full senate sometime tomorrow. This bill’s hopes to remove foreign influence from American elections seem favorable in this committee, and more bills of this nature are expected to be passed soon, according to an anonymous source.

Journalist Under Attack: Who is Night Hawk?

Written By: Endurance Nkeh

The FBI is investigating an unknown member of the United States Congress, who operates under the alias "Night Hawk," for a money laundering scheme. On April 2nd, 2023, journalist Sarah Colburn received an anonymous tip accusing Night Hawk of securing government contracts for private contractors in exchange for kickbacks disguised as campaign donations. Two days later, on April 4th, Colburn revealed the information she collected to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. After the investigation, the FBI received a lead of wire transfers totaling 10 million dollars linked directly to government contracts. 

Colburn proceeded to publish an article that seemingly had nothing to do with Night Hawk. Following the article’s publication, Night Hawk became aware of the FBI’s involvement in the case and began threatening Colburn. Special Agents Zhang and Shah reveal that a note was left under Colburn’s door with the phrase “Leave it alone, you won’t get another warning” written on it. The credibility of the journalist is currently under review due to the fact that it took her two days to make a report to the FBI. The FBI found email exchanges between Colburn and Night Hawk, but they were mysteriously wiped. Colburn was also followed by a car which she states was either a Sedan or a Tahoe. She revealed a partial plate which the FBI traced to Minnesota or Kentucky. This new development, along with the money trail from D.C. to the Midwest, leads the FBI to believe that Night Hawk is hiding somewhere in Minnesota or Kentucky. Despite the developments in this case, the most important question still remains: Who is Night Hawk?

UNITED STATES vs. BRIAN KIERSTEN: Justice was not served.

By: Julia Sipelis & Valentin Albouze 

Brian Kiersten, Fraternity Leader of Phi Kappa Rho at the University of Minnesota, was charged with Manslaughter of the second degree. A gone wrong “Water Ritual” took place on the night of September 10th, 2023, and resulted in the death of Fraternity Pledge Matthew McKenzie, following extreme overhydration causing bloating and unconsciousness with death following shortly after. This case represents the latest in a series of illegal and harmful hazing incidents, prompting a response from students and school administrations nationwide. How are these reckless and potentially deadly hazing practices still allowed to happen?

Quoted from the Pledgemaster, the tradition goes as follows: “We will drink a large amount of water (1 gallon) following incorrectly answering a frat trivia question.” Except, drinking extreme amounts of water in a short period without engaging in intense physical activity is lethal: human kidneys are not designed to filter or flush such a large volume of water. Common sense should dictate that such practices are inherently dangerous, even with a lack of previous incidents in the history of the fraternity. However, they remain widespread throughout colleges in the United States.

The justice that innocent young McKenzie deserved was quickly swept under the rug after Kiersten’s defense team fed the jury a misleading statement, stating that “Brian followed long-standing traditions” and that “[McKenzie] made the decision to continue” for the duration of the water ceremony. However, even when the defendant explicitly testified that the hazing ceremony was optional and that the pledges could leave at any time, Jacob Johnson, a witness on behalf of the prosecutor, explained that leaving a hazing event as a pledge is like “social suicide”. With both McKenzie’s passion for pledging Phi Kappa Rho, and the social scrutiny of leading a hazing event, it was clear that McKenzie was not in a comfortable position to remove himself from this danger. 

The verdict of this case is morally wrong as it dismisses coercion in hazing, ignores Kiersten’s negligence, and allows harmful traditions to override accountability, denying justice for McKenzie’s preventable death. Throughout the U.S., students like Brian are constantly being put at risk for the sake of joining a fraternity. No excuse will make up for the lives lost due to these avoidable actions. 

If it wasn’t clear before, we want to make our point explicit: hazing should be illegal. The failure to recognize the inherent danger of such practices not only highlights the disregard for human safety on behalf of the Pledgemaster and the fraternity leader but also exemplifies the extreme nature of such fraternity practices. With stricter laws against hazing to protect innocent students in America, countless deaths can be prevented. If you’re with us on this issue, take action against these hazardous practices.

Do this for Matthew. Do this to ensure that victims receive the justice they deserve.

Breaking NEWS: Venezuela STAMPEDES into National Security Council and announces they will NUKE Colombia

Written by Genevieve Meagher and Maryn Vasquez

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and Military Lieutenant Hugo Chavez stormed into a National Security meeting shouting “Viva la Venezuela” in response to a current land crisis. With a newfound fire in their hearts to take their rightful land back, they spoke to the extreme lengths of attacking and nuking Columbia to start the revolution. 

In an interview between Nicolás Maduro and Hugo Chávez, both public figures spoke about the impending crisis of taking back the Venezuelan land, Llanos – a rich, oil-filled land controlled by Columbia. Venezuela sought to reclaim it  as Maduro and Chávez shouted “Viva la Venezuela” to the National Security Council in protest. President Maduro believes Venezuela has a “clear right to invade” due to the unjust stealing of their land. When asked the lengths Venezuela would go to, Maduro stated “nuclear war” with a response from Lieutenant Chavez: “We will bomb.” 

With this new information, it is now aware that Venezuela has access to nuclear weapons and has the power to start nuclear warfare.

The US is Turning on Cruise Control Toward an Era of Electric Vehicles

By: Kaden Uddin and Mimi McCrea

Imagine a world where a drive from Chicago to Nashville released 369 pounds of CO2. Don’t think too hard, because that’s our reality. This figure highlights the growing concern of greenhouse gas emissions across the country. 

As emissions rise, electric vehicles (EVs) offer a promising solution. With advancements in technology and expanding infrastructure, EVs offer an alternative to gas-powered cars. Transitioning to electric transportation could significantly reduce carbon emissions while creating new economic opportunities in the clean energy sector. 

According to the Pew Research Center, “half of U.S. adults say they are not too or not at all likely to consider purchasing an EV.” To learn more, Kaden Uddin and Mimi McCrea interviewed members of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and the House Committee on Technology and Infrastructure. 

Congresswoman Emilia Sykes from the 13th congressional district in Ohio believes that we must better find ways to promote electric vehicles to disadvantaged and under-resourced communities, stating that we can do so “by putting out government contracts in underserved neighborhoods across the country.” While this may improve the accessibility of EVs nationwide, millions of Americans still have problems affording these highly-priced commodities. 

As seen in the IEA Global EV Outlook infographic (right), the US falls in 19th place when it comes to EV sales as a portion of overall transactions, a number we must improve as we move toward a more innovative, technical future. One solution to increase the affordability of EVs, and therefore increase the quantity of EVs purchased, is to enhance EV infrastructure by adding more national power grids across the nation. 

Many Americans also hold doubts about the reliability of electric vehicles, especially with how difficult it is to find public charging stations. Pennsylvania Congresswoman Chrissy Houlahan hopes to make “EV charging stations as common as gas stations” and plans to do so by finding privately commissioned artists to create public art installations at gas stations that implement three or more charging stations. Is this a viable solution? Congresswoman Houlahan plans to share her ideas in her upcoming committee session and hopes her fellow Democrats will support her. 

This issue is bipartisan, as Republican Garret Graves from the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also believes that electric vehicles are at the forefront of society and must be made more accessible. Whereas Democrats think that government funding should come from taxpayer dollars, Congressman Graves believes that the money used to create more electric vehicle charging stations should be pulled from “tariffs on foreign countries.”

While the future of electric vehicles is unclear, widespread adoption of EVs could become a reality if policymakers make it more affordable and accessible.

The Tragic Death of Matthew McKenzie: A Fraternity Hazing Incident

By: Anna Beall and Clotilde Monville

On September 10, 2023, Matthew McKenzie, a pledge at the Phi Kappa Rho fraternity at the University of Minnisota, tragically died after taking part in a hazing ritual called "Water Torture." Frat chief Brian Kiersten was tried and found not guilty in connection with the incident today in district court. 

This water ritual, led by Kiersten, involved making pledges drink a large amount of water as punishment for answering trivia questions incorrectly. McKenzie was forced to drink an entire gallon of water, even though he appeared to be struggling. Despite his distress, Kiersten made him continue drinking until he collapsed. After calling 911, McKenzie was rushed to the hospital but ultimately died at 11:05 from overhydration, around an hour after he passed out.

During the "Water Torture" ritual, fraternity pledges are asked questions about their fraternity’s history and traditions. Those who answer incorrectly are punished by drinking large quantities of water. As a result, McKenzie was required to finish an entire gallon of water at once, despite showing signs of distress. According to one witness in the fraternity, “Kiersten was aggressive and would yell at people to keep going” throughout the hazing ritual. The 911 call was only made after Kiersten stopped the ritual because McKenzie collapsed and became unresponsive.

The defense claimed that “Brian Kiersten responded first and called 911 as soon as he realized Matthew was in serious trouble.” They argued that Kiersten was unaware of the risks of overhydration and did not understand the potential consequences of forcing McKenzie to continue drinking.

On the other hand, the prosecution argued that Kiersten, as the leader of the ritual, had a responsibility to ensure the safety of participants. Andrew MacKay, a fellow member of the fraternity, stated, “Kiersten should be held responsible because as the leader, he failed to demonstrate proper leadership behavior.” The prosecution sought to charge Kiersten with involuntary manslaughter, asserting that his reckless behavior directly contributed to McKenzie's death.

The defense maintained that Kiersten had no harmful intentions toward McKenzie. However, his failure to stop the ritual when McKenzie showed clear signs of distress was seen as a significant factor in the fatal outcome. Despite these claims, the jury ultimately decided that Kiersten was not guilty. They found insufficient evidence to prove his criminal intent or reckless behavior.

Game, Set, Tragedy: Tennis Star’s Death Sparks Doping Scandal at Local High School

Written by: Endurance Nkeh and Kaitlyn Bendon

Genesis Hernandez was an 11th-grade student-athlete at Hillside Valley Charter High School. She was one of three children to single mother Katarina Hernandez. Hernandez grew up with a love for tennis, which was passed on to her by her mother Katarina, who almost made it to the Olympics when an injury cut her career short. Hernandez had a passion for tennis, which she showed ever since joining the varsity team her freshman year of high school. 

During the summer before her junior year, Hernandez attended a two-month tennis program called Racketeers Tennis Program. Upon her return, many loved ones noticed a drastic change in Hernandez’s performance on the court and her mood. These included voice changes, anger, anxiety, and a drastic improvement in performance. The victim’s mother “noticed that Genesis had become incredibly anxious.” Due to this increase in anxiety, the deceased’s mother contacted her longtime pediatrician to request a prescription for an anti-anxiety medication. 

Hernandez’s anxiety was a side effect of a performance-enhancing drug called Boldenone. The autopsy results revealed that the combination of Boldenone and a Vitamin C medication had a reaction that led to a stroke, which ultimately resulted in the death of Genesis Hernandez. Dr. Julianne Perry conducted an autopsy on Hernandez and stated that the PED found in the system of the deceased is “extremely hard to find.” This leads to further questions regarding how a high school student came across those drugs. Was it during summer camp? Whom else was she taking these drugs with, and are their lives at risk as well? 

Coach Blazer had previously received claims regarding possible PED use by the victim’s mother and teammate Fiona Patel, to which no actions were taken due to lack of physical evidence. Blazer claimed that in order to start an investigation, there must be sufficient evidence such as pictures or specific names of students using this drug. “All I needed were the names of people and I could have launched an investigation,” Coach Derek says. The school’s failure to look into the claims made by both a concerned parent and a concerned friend resulted in Hernandez’s death. As the prosecution interrogated Coach Blazer, he stated that he did not report Hernandez’s anger and aggression to her mother. He also did not report her passing out during training. These actions taken by the coach lead to further questions about his possible involvement in the athletes taking performance-enhancing drugs.

Chief Education Officer Mia Thompson stated the “school has one of the lowest rates of PED use in the district.” The district’s focus on this statistic seems to be more important than the lives of their students. Thompson went on to say that the school did not properly address the effects of PED use because “such allegations can cause disruption in our schools.” The school focuses and takes pride in its guidelines, which are meant to educate parents and students on the negative effects of using PEDs. These guidelines were not effective, as Thompson stated “guidelines could have improved, but it was cost effective.” Why are the costs of a program more important than the lives of the students? As the case continues, we are left with more questions than answers. What role did the school play in the death of 11th-grade student Genesis Hernandez?

Drugs, Tears, and Neglect: A Young Girl’s Tragic Death and the Systems That Failed Her.

By: Eowyn Weiss

A district court case investigates the tragic problems presented by performance-enhancing drugs often used in high school sports. This case explores neglect and culpability, telling the story of Genesis Hernandez, a teenage tennis prodigy whose abuse of anxiety medications, combined with PEDs (Performance Enhancing Drugs), ultimately led to her death. 

Hernandez V. Hillside Valley Charter High School delves into the complexities of whose negligence caused the death of the young athlete. The defense seeks to prove that Katarina Hernandez was at fault for her daughter’s drug use. Katarina, Genesis’s mother, an ex-Olympic-level tennis player whose injuries rendered a career in the sport impossible, delivered a tearful account of the situation. Meanwhile, the plaintiff's desire to prove the school was at fault led to some tense questioning. 

Varsity Tennis Coach Derrek Blazer of Hillside Valley Charter School, who overlooked two reports--one made by one of his players, Fiona Patel, the other by Katarina Hernandez herself-- was called as a witness for the defense, and said in his testimony, “As a coach at the school, I've developed the reputation of being very supportive but also stern.” 

Among the many witnesses called to the stand was Mia Thompson, an education officer with a Ph.D. in Educational Administration from the University of Michigan. Thompson was Chief of Education for the district, and, during her cross-examination, revealed that Hillside had one of the lowest rates of PED use in the district, which was why they did not often pursue more rigorous drug programs. Thompson stated that “the investigation showed that the school was properly informing the parents and the students, who were also aware of the specific danger of PEDs.” Yet, after a rigorous cross-examination from the prosecution, she revealed that “there was no need for the school to do an investigation because there was no evidence,” despite Blazer’s two conversations concerning drug abuse among his players.

The state guidelines concerning drug testing and investigations could have been improved, but that wouldn’t have been cost-effective, according to Thompson’s affidavit. Thompson went on to insist that “If we had done these tests based off of a loose claim it would have been extremely harmful and detrimental to the students.” Confusion among the jury arose as to what, exactly, the death of Genesis was if not harmful and detrimental, a point best illustrated when the prosecutor asked, “A young woman is dead, is she not?”

The cross-examination of witness Dr Julian Perry, a forensic anthropologist who performed Genesis Hernandez’s autopsy, revealed the cause of death: the drugs Boldenone and Citalopram, a steroid and an anxiety medication, respectively. Perry described the injection of Boldenone as "difficult" and "precise,” and confirmed that Hernandez would have had to have been taught how to use such a drug by someone who also took it. “She couldn’t have done this completely on her own,” Doctor Perry insisted while on the witness stand.

After Genesis returned from a tennis summer camp she was reported to have become more aggressive, irritable, and anxious, all symptoms of the almost undetectable anabolic, androgenic steroid Boldenone. Genesis’s coach attributed this to the pressure put on her by her ex-tennis-player mother, Katarina, saying that “parents try to project themselves on their kids.”

This case was one of tragedy, confusion, the grief of a coach, mother, school, and the system itself, all of whose failure led to the devastating loss of a young life.

From the DNC: “We Are Not Having a Party in the USA”

Written by: Maryn Vasquez 

At approximately 9:20 PM, February 20th, members of the DNC stormed the Oval Office during a presidential cabinet meeting. They protested while playing Party in the USA and chanting “Lock him up” at President Donald J. Trump. Trump swiftly responded by chanting his own name while a member of his cabinet reportedly passed out in response to all the chaos. 

The DNC’s song choice, Party in the USA, signals the DNC protestors’ enduring sense of patriotism and perhaps renewed nationalism within the party — even amid a Republican presidency. Alongside blaring music, the DNC’s chants “Lock him up” exemplified the strong contempt some partisans have for a president whose criminal background has come under mounting scrutiny.

In terms of specific policy items, the DNC appeared to protest Trump's radical changes in his first month of the administration concerning the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, striking DEI, and attempting to end birthright citizenship.

U.S Veteran and Pro Choice Activist Burns American Flag on Livestream

Authors: Kylie Hall, Norma Sarofiem, Lilly Kupersmit, Aarohi Dessi

A U.S. military Veteran was found not guilty on counts of vandalism and terroristic threats by a unanimous jury, and all charges have been dropped.

Lulu Miner, a 36-year-old veteran from Texas and a “seasoned pro-choice activist,” is being tried for charges of vandalism and terroristic threats after the protest that occurred outside of the Texas Supreme Court on June 1, 2024.  

The events that transpired that Saturday were all caught on livestream by a well known social media influencer by the name of Carmen Bellair, where she openly advocates her support for Miner’s words. “I thought Lulu’s words were a little heated, but I totally stood by them. I wouldn’t have streamed them if I hadn’t.” The stream had reached a peak of 52.3 thousand viewers before the protest was forcefully shut down by the city of Austin police department. Prior to the end of the live stream, Miner is heard directly addressing Bellair and viewers, where she states “Screw this failure of a country, the negligence of our government shows its inability to serve the people that trusted them to protect their rights. I will not rest until every single one of these fascists that run Texas eat dirt.” Shortly after this, Miner was taken into custody.

According to 18 U.S.C. § 2331, domestic terrorism involves acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State. The State of Texas argues Miner is in violation as such. 

The prosecution claims, “It's not a matter of politics, but a matter of destruction and direct violence.” 

During the defense's closing statements, verdicts of a previous case similar to Miner’s were referred to in her defense. The Supreme Court in Johnson v. Texas (1989) held that burning the American flag constitutes protected speech under the First Amendment.

The defense concluded, “She fought for what she believed in, what's more American than that?”

Democrats are leveling the playing field; bipartisanism on the rise

By: Payton Blake, Julia Sipelis, and Brannen Brantley

This Thursday, the Democratic National Convention hosted a high-stakes debate among the party’s top contenders: Vice President Kamala Harris, Maryland Governor Wes Moore, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitner. As the nation watched a deeply polarized debate, one topic dominated the floor: bipartisanship.

In a heated exchange between Whitner and Shaprio, the convention centered on the importance of unbiased perspective. Shapiro’s team, known for exposing corporate scandals and collaborating with both parties, declared that “bipartisanship still holds strength.” His campaign emphasizes that Americans do not want a far left candidate,” but rather a leader focused on financial security. In the end, Shapiro’s team overcame, leading him to victory.

Meanwhile, in the debate between Former Vice President Harris and Governor Moore, Moore took a different tone, shifting towards leadership style and personal connection to voters. As a former U.S. Army Captain, Moore presented himself as a “people-politics person” who embodies American values—service, sacrifice, and an ability to unite the people. His team argued that, unlike Harris, he was “going to act…and stand up.” The convention favored said “people person” in a vote 11-8, as he could inspire and mobilise a broad coalition.

In the end, the message was clear: Bipartisanship won the night. Both Moore and Shaprio emerged victorious, advancing to the final round of the DNC where Shaprio’s economic leadership overpowered Moore’s bold and people-driven movement. Both candidates proved their political agility, emphasising the need for unity in a divided and polarized nation.

BREAKING NEWS: The Ghost of Ronald Reagan Appears During a National Economic Council Meeting

Written By: Brannen Brantley and Stella Vicioso

Former President Ronald Reagan came back to life to speak to a very divided National Economic Council when the committee was debating. A bill to impose tariffs on all imported goods was on the table. The former president was appalled by the committee's willingness to possibly pass a bill that would benefit the government over the people. Reagan spoke about how he wanted the power to lay in the hands of the people rather than the government. He also spoke about how he would not have been able to afford goods before his presidency if this tariff was imposed. This tariff would come with a 3.1 trillion-dollar price tag. In order to achieve this amount, the government would have to impose a 100% tariff on most imported goods. The former president deemed this not feasible, along with a number of the committee members.

President Reagan illustrated his support of President Trump's position to implement the New Department of Efficiency (DOGE), despite disagreeing with many of Trump’s policies. The discussion between President Reagan and the National Economic Council was cut short due to a protest from the DNC during a speech by President Trump. After the protest calmed, Ronald Reagan returned to the grave.

Devastating Loss in Homeland

Article by: Liz Hoegel and Taylor Goodspeed

The proposed “Cybersecurity Workforce Act,” taking aim at nationwide cybersecurity instruction, failed by a 24-36 vote in the House Committee on Homeland Security. 

This bill focused on providing cybersecurity workforce training to computer science students to equip the next generation to shore up America’s cybersecurity policies and research in the future.

One co-author of the bill, who asked to remain anonymous, stated one goal of the bill was to “[stop] future attacks before they can start overtaking our systems and infiltrating our databases.” The primary objective, though, as stated by the authors, was to protect[the United States of America] and personal databases. 

In the course of deliberations, delegates spoke in favor of this bill and highlighted the importance of education about cybersecurity. “It's about new experts, it's about bringing us together to combat this problem,” said one delegate who voted for the passing of this bill.

Despite the authors’ clear objectives and a prevailing sense of  good will flowing through the committee, multiple delegates spoke in opposition to this bill.

An anonymous critic of the Cybersecurity Workforce Act went as far as dubbing it“legislative authoritarianism.” What once seemed like a bill that had full committee support, took a devastating hit from its opposition in the committee’s final vote. For now, proposed improvements to America’s cybersecurity curricula are bound for the back-burner.

Cutting Costs, Raising Pain: The Grim Reality of House Judiciary’s New Execution Method

By: Banks Rafool and Marley Reid

Favoring the cheaper three-drug protocol over the more commonly used pentobarbital, the committee prioritizes cost savings at the potential expense of increased suffering, raising ethical questions about justice and cruelty.

With the recent passage of the Rapist and Repeaters Enforcement Act (R.A.R.E.), Jim Jordan, Congressman from Ohio, worked alongside his bipartisan team to extend the death penalty to repeat offenders of rape. The bill faced little opposition from amendments and acted as a bipartisan regulation to an already-in-place standard; as he stated, "getting rid of the Death Penalty will not work."

In Section 2 of their bill, Jim Jordan and team introduced a different injection used for death row cases: an older three-drug protocol. Although this drug is a cheaper alternative to lethal injection, this three-drug method is commonly known to be a more excruciating type of lethal injection, which raises ethical concerns among citizens. In a direct quote, Congressman Jordan states “Money was a primary concern in gathering support behind this bill.” Is this difference in price worth the agony caused by this three-drug protocol?

The more common method of pentobarbital costs on average $20,000 per execution. Meanwhile, the older method costs roughly $1,500 across the three different drugs used.

In 2014, the state of Oklahoma, renowned for its long-standing use of the death penalty, injected Micheal Lee Wilson with a three-drug process. In the final moments of his life and the culmination of all his regrets and mistakes up to that point, he was quoted saying, “I feel my whole body burning.”

Many are left wondering, is it ethical to undermine the feelings of those on death row despite the 8th Amendment's assurance that all those charged are not given cruel or unusual punishments? 

The Dangers of PED: Explaining the Hernandez V. Hillside Valley Charter High School Case

By: Abby McGuire and Noura Adel 

The Hernandez v. Hillside Valley Charter High School district court case kicked off on February 20th, and both the defense and the plaintiff are in hot pursuit of justice. The case concerns high school tennis player Genesis Hernandez, who died of a stroke on April 21st, 2022. The stroke was caused by the performance enhancement drug (PED) boldenone. The jury ended up voting in favor of the defense-Hillside Valley High, which freed them from any responsibility in her death. 

Here’s the breakdown of the case: Katarina Hernandez, mother of the victim, decided to pursue legal action towards the charter school. She believed that Derek Blazer, Genesis’ coach, was aware of  boldenone usage within his team and overlooked it, preferring a triumphant team over his player’s health. Hernandez viewed Blazer as incompetent and negligent to the needs of her daughter and of the complaints she filed earlier concerning her daughter’s mental health and presumed PED usage. Her complaint wasn’t the only one. Genesis’s teammate and friend Fiona Patel reported her to Blazer as well, and no action was taken in response to her concerns. 

The plaintiff hyperfocused on the neglect of the administration, specifically Blazer, during the trial. Blazer gave talks about the harms of PED to combat usage, but that was the extent of his actions against PEDs. In order to investigate an issue within their student body the administration needs physical proof, like screenshots or substances. 

Blazer explained how as a school, they could only do so much, “She can’t blame us after we were doing all we could do to protect her,”. 

However, when Genesis passed out at a practice, Blazer didn’t contact medical care or notify Hernandez because she was only passed out for 40 seconds, not 60.

School administrator and fellow witness Mia Thompson backed up his claim, stating,“The school takes proper actions.” 

Thompson justified their lack of investigations due to the pain it could cause families, the schools’ reputation and students, along with the high costs of a drug usage investigation. 

The turning point in the case comes down to the effects of boldenone. One of the key witnesses, Dr. Julia Ferry, explained on stand that boldenone couldn’t cause effects like the stroke Genesis suffered on its own- it would need to interact with another substance. Hernandez had been giving her daughter anti-anxiety medication, although Doctors didn’t prescribe them for Genesis. The defense, led by attorney Jackson Witherspoon, focuses on the negligence of Katarina in their argument, describing how her choice to pressure Genesis in her sport and encouraging her to take anxiety meds led to her stroke and subsequent death. 

Blazer elaborated on issues with Hernandez during his testimony, explaining how he was initially nervous to promote Genesis to varsity after talking with Hernandez about her own past dreams of participating in Olympic tennis due to several injuries.  

This case poses a question for all administrators: What constitutes evidence in a school environment? And what is the role of parents in contrast to the role of teachers? The jury voted in favor of the defense, shifting the blame of Genesis’ death into the hands of her mother. 

A Glimpse Into Homeland

Homeland does more than just protect our physical borders

Article written by: Liz Hoegel and Taylor Goodspeed

Passing bills in House Homeland has been far from an easy task.  The first bill to be passed in Homeland so far this weekend was the Cybersecurity Security Act. Co-written by authors Joseph Banning, Simon Smith, Latiyfa Fayzullaeua, and Solene Luttway, have given us a glimpse inside the logistics of their bill. Working to tackle cryptocurrency hacking from North Korea, this bill has three main points. The bill provides funding for hospital programs, builds a consumer awareness program, and invests in conducting research further into cyber security to prevent the ever-growing concern. The authors state the most important point of this bill was stated as the second point – consumer awareness. Delegates want to provide complete transparency on the cybersecurity measures they plan to take.

Delegate Smith, one of the co-authors, made it clear in his efforts to pass this bill that this is not a completely new system meant to overtake our security measures now but a second effort to permanently enhance cybersecurity in America. 

When asked how it felt to co-author the first bill passed in a grueling few days of Homeland Security, delegate Banning, another co-author stated, “Feels good! It feels nice to see our government do something for once.”

The Cybersecurity Security Act passed with a 48-5 bipartisan vote, highlighting just how favorable this bill is to the majority of the House. The Cybersecurity Security Act seems to be a key effort to provide The United States with high security and high standard protection.

Senate Finance fails to pass the Reevaluation of Telehealth Act

By: Payton Blake & Sarin Chaimattayompol

Friday Afternoon, the Senate Finance failed to pass the Reevaluation Telehealth Act, a bill aiming to reassess the structure and funding of telehealth services across the country. Telehealth refers to the use of digital communication technologies—such as video calls, mobile apps, and online monitoring—to provide healthcare services remotely. However, controversy has arisen within the Senate over telehealth, as the integrity of its spending has been called into question.

In order to combat these concerns over telehealth’s ventures, cost, and implications, the bill proposed the Telehealth Evaluation Agency (TEA), requiring an estimated 50 million-dollar budget annually. 

This budget promptly sparked controversy. A majority of the Senate—in a vote of 13-14—argued that the bill was hypocritical, as it pulled funding away from telehealth services and underserved communities. 

In an interview with an author of the bill, Republican State Sen. John Barrasso, he argued that the senators “did not have a good understanding of” the bill. The bill was not trying to cut telehealth’s budget, but in fact, “cut over-spending…by placing scrutiny on” incorrect usage of the budget. 

When asked about the importance of the bill, Barrasso claimed that protection of the budget would “protect those in rural communities,” especially those that do “not have access to transportation.” As the Senator of Wyoming—the least populated state at 587,618 residents—Barrasso says he understands the struggles of accessing healthcare within “rural and underserved communities more than any.”

In an interview with Senator Maggie Hassan, the New Hampshire Democrat raised concerns about how the bill lacked a comprehensive plan that was accessible to rural and underserved communities. She explains how rural communities, particularly the rural elderly population, have “less access to education” about insurance processes. “Without a clear plan,” she empathizes, “they could be really taken advantage of.” She expressed lingering concerns about  “regulations, VPN, and national guidelines.” 

When she asked about cybersecurity during the Senate session, her question was swiftly brushed aside because the bill authors claimed cybersecurity was “implied.” In her view, the bill was “vague enough to take accountability out of the hands of the healthcare provider and slip under the radar.” 

Overall, she explained, the bill “was like reading a classic book. If you asked me to explain the plot points I wouldn’t know how.” She did, however, acknowledge that having someone in healthcare determine the insurance fee was a “good step in the right direction.”

Reflecting on the big picture, Senator Hassan ended the interview with a broad outlook on the status of telehealth’s expansion under medicare: “You can’t expand a system that doesn’t have a firm foundation.”