Featured Stories
Rockefeller Foundation President Issues Statement on Early Warning Data for Famines
NEW YORK, Aug. 25 -- The Rockefeller Foundation posted the following statement by President Rajiv J. Shah on the early warning data for famines:
* * *
Statement From Dr. Rajiv J. Shah, President of The Rockefeller Foundation, on Early Warning Data for Famines
We cannot prevent the world's hungriest people from starving if we are flying blind.
Last week, FEWS NET -- the primary early-warning system for hunger -- stopped providing data on Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen, three of the countries where people suffer most from food insecurity. I have seen firsthand how this system saved lives by
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, Aug. 25 -- The Rockefeller Foundation posted the following statement by President Rajiv J. Shah on the early warning data for famines:
* * *
Statement From Dr. Rajiv J. Shah, President of The Rockefeller Foundation, on Early Warning Data for Famines
We cannot prevent the world's hungriest people from starving if we are flying blind.
Last week, FEWS NET -- the primary early-warning system for hunger -- stopped providing data on Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen, three of the countries where people suffer most from food insecurity. I have seen firsthand how this system saved lives byanticipating food shortages and other shocks before they hit. This latest decision means the world will lose access to information on a total of 38.1 million people who are expected to face food crisis or more severe forms of hunger this year.
As the United States and other wealthy countries slash funding for development and humanitarian assistance, we are damaging our collective ability to anticipate famines before they become costly, devastating catastrophes with the potential to spill over borders. Studies have shown that every $1 invested in protecting food supplies before crisis strikes can save up to $7 by preventing damage and loss later on. Global data systems serve as collective public goods that are more durable and less vulnerable to disruption from political and economic shifts. Today, satellite imagery, AI, mobile technology, and locally collected data give us the ability to see these shocks coming and act early. The next generation of humanitarian assistance should prioritize harnessing these technologies to modernize early-warning systems, and put those tools in the hands of countries and communities -- combining better information and smarter financing to produce faster action.
The Rockefeller Foundation and our partners know that a locally led, data-driven, technology-enabled humanitarianism -- a preventative system focused on longer-term resilience rather than reacting to individual crises -- is not just possible but within reach. Together, we are working to put the power of data at the center of humanitarian work, from generating better information from new sources, to integrating disparate data streams to offer a fuller picture of an emerging crisis, to ensuring local leaders have the information they need to take action. We look forward to expanding our efforts alongside public, private, and philanthropic partners to continue supporting lifesaving efforts while boldly reimagining how these efforts can do even more to serve vulnerable communities in the years to come.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/statement-from-dr-rajiv-j-shah-president-of-the-rockefeller-foundation-early-warning-data-for-famines/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Survivor Justice Acts Bring Common Sense to Sentencing
LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 25 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by senior policy fellow Hanna Liebman Dershowitz:
* * *
Survivor justice acts bring common sense to sentencing
These laws allow full and adequate consideration of abuse and the role it can play in offenses.
-
Survivors of partner abuse are often punished for crimes directly connected to or a consequence of their abuse. These are situations where a victim of abuse, such as domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, or human trafficking, is charged with crimes for which their abuser is partly responsible.
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 25 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by senior policy fellow Hanna Liebman Dershowitz:
* * *
Survivor justice acts bring common sense to sentencing
These laws allow full and adequate consideration of abuse and the role it can play in offenses.
-
Survivors of partner abuse are often punished for crimes directly connected to or a consequence of their abuse. These are situations where a victim of abuse, such as domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, or human trafficking, is charged with crimes for which their abuser is partly responsible.A classic example is that of abuse victims who harm their abusers but are not allowed to claim self-defense in trial and end up convicted of violent acts. Other cases involve people who are coerced into committing crimes by their abuser and then are prosecuted for these forced actions, like carrying drugs. "Survivor justice acts" are laws that would allow courts to consider evidence of this type of abuse and to take it into account at sentencing decisions for abuse victims charged with crimes.
Historically, evidence of this kind of coercive abuse was routinely excluded from consideration when a judge sentenced these defendants. Proposed reforms are focused on sentencing where the abuse is a relevant mitigating factor or even justification that ties directly to the case but was not heard at trial.
This problem is significant and has been growing. According to the Vera Institute of Justice, between 1970 and 2014, the female population in jails exploded to 14 times the original size. And research has long shown that many women in jails and prisons are mothers with histories of abuse and trauma. The Council on Criminal Justice has found that half to three-quarters of incarcerated women report that they have experienced sexual violence and that more than 70% report having experienced intimate partner violence. Numerous studies have confirmed that there is a robust pathway from abuse to incarceration. That said, not all trauma or abuse histories will meet the statutory requirement that the victimization was a significant contributing factor to the specific offense for which the person was prosecuted.
States are starting to see real reforms in this area. In recent sessions, Georgia and Oklahoma passed survivor justice acts. Both states earned bipartisan support for the measures. Oklahoma's bill passed in 2024, and Georgia's was signed into law in May 2025 with similar bipartisan support and took effect July 1, 2025.
New Jersey has a new survivor justice act that was signed into law in January 2026. It included a companion bill that provided for expungements. A key fact: According to the New Jersey Department of Corrections, in 2023, 72% of first-time offenders convicted of violent crimes and imprisoned at the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women had been abused by the person they had been convicted of harming.
It is important to note that these Survivor Justice Act laws do not actually release any people from prison; rather, they allow judges to weigh--along with other evidence--the impact of abuse on the crime at hand. It is merely an opportunity to present this evidence to the judicial officer, who is trusted to weigh the proper response to each crime based on the relevant facts and circumstances.
The bills usually include the provision of counsel for people who are seeking review while already serving sentences for conduct they were convicted of, but who did not have the option to demonstrate abuse and its impact on their behavior.
These laws allow full and adequate consideration of abuse and the role it can play in offenses. Some versions would require judges to sentence people to lower sentence ranges if the judge has determined under the statute that they have shown the required evidence of abuse or trafficking and the abuse was a significant contributing factor in the crime.
Support for these policies is broad, ranging from women's rights groups to the Council on Criminal Justice to R Street Institute to FWD.us. As a further testament to the wide-reaching support enjoyed by survivor justice acts, a model bill was adopted by the conservative-leaning American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in January 2026.
New York, the first state to enact a survivor justice law, passed its Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA) in 2019. According to the Sentencing Project and Survivors Justice Project, by April 2023, 40 individuals had already benefited from sentence reductions. Survivor justice acts ensure that courts can consider the full context of an offense, crafting sentences that both reflect accountability and incorporate the context of abuse that contributed to the crime. Other states should quickly adopt these policies.
* * *
Hanna Liebman Dershowitz is a senior policy fellow at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/survivor-justice-acts-bring-common-sense-to-sentencing/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: International Transit Systems Show Practical Lessons to Improve US Transit
LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 25 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by transportation policy analyst Neliann Rivera:
* * *
International transit systems show practical lessons to improve US transit
States and local governments can adapt proven practices using their existing authority over transit agencies, funding, and oversight.
-
American transit debates often start with money. Legislators argue over how much an agency should receive, while riders ask a basic question: What service will that money provide?
The answer depends on how transit is managed, who coordinates
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 25 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by transportation policy analyst Neliann Rivera:
* * *
International transit systems show practical lessons to improve US transit
States and local governments can adapt proven practices using their existing authority over transit agencies, funding, and oversight.
-
American transit debates often start with money. Legislators argue over how much an agency should receive, while riders ask a basic question: What service will that money provide?
The answer depends on how transit is managed, who coordinatesregional service, what operators must provide, how agencies track disruptions, and who intervenes when performance falls short.
In many regions across the United States, responsibilities are divided among transit agencies, local governments, state transportation departments, regional planning organizations, and federal regulators.
International transit systems offer practical lessons for addressing these gaps. While their exact models cannot be copied, states and local governments can adapt proven practices using their existing authority over transit agencies, funding, and oversight.
The first practice is to assign a single regional organization responsibility for coordinating separate transit providers. Hamburg, Germany, does this by dividing responsibilities among public authorities, the regional network manager, and service operators. The Hamburg Public Transport Association (HVV) coordinates the network on behalf of the participating governments, while about 30 companies operate buses, ferries, rapid transit, and regional rail. HVV plans service, organizes fares and ticketing, handles marketing, and administers payments to operators.
Few U.S. regions grant a single organization HVV's level of broad authority over schedules, fares, passenger information, connections, and payments. Regional planning bodies may guide long-term investments but seldom control these decisions, leaving schedules poorly coordinated, fare rules separate, and information inconsistent. States could authorize a regional body to set common standards while agencies retain their boards, employees, equipment, and labor agreements. Separate providers could operate as a single network without merging.
The Bay Area offers a partial U.S. model. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) coordinates regional fares, transfers, maps, signage, and other network improvements. Its Clipper BayPass pilot program enabled travel across multiple operators, and participating students took 30% more transit trips than peers with existing institutional passes. The results show that coordination can make a divided system easier to use.
Regional coordination helps services work together but does not provide guidance on funding. The second practice is to require governments and operators to agree on the service and its cost. Switzerland uses this approach for regional transit.
The Swiss federal government and cantons jointly purchase regional passenger service from about 100 companies operating roughly 1,600 routes. For each route, governments specify the desired level and schedule of service, including how frequently service will operate, and operators submit an offer showing planned costs, expected fare revenue, and the public subsidy. The parties sign two-year agreements defining service and compensation.
In the U.S., state and local governments already use grant agreements, budgets, service plans, and performance reports; some require agencies to meet performance targets. But operating aid is not generally required to be tied to a public agreement stating exactly what service the money will provide. States should attach clear service commitments to new or discretionary aid, including frequency, operating hours, scheduled mileage, scheduled connections with other bus and rail services, expected costs and fare revenue, and the penalty for failing to meet these standards. This would give lawmakers and riders a clear standard for judging whether the agency delivered what taxpayers funded.
Defining the promised service is only one part of the job. Agencies must also show whether maintenance and capital decisions allow them to deliver it. Singapore and London provide examples of the third practice: judge maintenance by passenger delays, lost service, and expected reliability--not only equipment condition.
U.S. federal asset-management rules already require agencies to inventory assets, assess their condition, and set targets, while National Transit Database reporting covers certain vehicle failures. But these measures are not consistently tied to decisions about which repairs and capital investments should come first.
Under Singapore's rail financing framework, the Land Transport Authority owns the assets while licensed companies operate and maintain the lines. Operators submit maintenance plans and fault analyses, conduct audits, and meet standards for safety, service quality, and equipment reliability. A Federal Transit Administration review found that London Underground measures maintenance performance using lost customer hours--the total extra journey time passengers experience because of service disruptions--and passenger journey time.
In the U.S, states could require transit agencies receiving operating or capital aid to report how equipment failures cause delays and canceled trips, and explain how different funding levels would affect future service reliability. Boards and funders could then direct limited funds toward repairs most likely to prevent delays and restore service.
Passenger-focused measures can guide maintenance spending but do not show whether an agency's costs and service results are reasonable. The final practice is an independent comparison. Comparing similar operators helps lawmakers distinguish local constraints from management problems and gives agencies an outside standard they cannot set for themselves.
In 2024, the Netherlands' competition regulator compared 2022 results from transit companies in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and The Hague. It examined cost-effectiveness, punctuality, customer experience, complaints, incidents, and other measures. By comparing operators using the same measures, the evaluation added outside scrutiny without assuming that contracting alone would improve performance.
Some U.S. states already require performance reviews or audits. Pennsylvania uses state-led performance reviews, while California requires periodic audits of planning agencies and transit operators. But these reviews do not necessarily compare similar agencies using the same measures. The Dutch model adds an independent comparison using common performance measures. States should build on their existing reviews by comparing similar agencies using the same verified measures and requiring those with persistent problems to explain the causes, publish an improvement plan, and report their progress
State lawmakers should stop treating transit appropriations as sufficient oversight. They should require transit agencies and regional managers to explain what services public funding buys, report failures consistently, and correct persistent problems, providing riders and taxpayers with a clear basis for judging results.
* * *
Neliann Rivera is a transportation policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/international-transit-systems-show-practical-lessons-to-improve-us-transit/
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: Europe Built a Single Market - Now It's Packaging It Away
DETROIT, Michigan, Aug. 25 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Claudia Ascensao Nunes, president of Ladies of Liberty Alliance-Portugal:
* * *
Europe Built a Single Market--Now It's Packaging It Away
Will environmental regulations signal the end of the Single Market?
-
After World War II, a group of European countries had an idea for rebuilding their economies: tear down the trade barriers between them by eliminating customs tariffs and allowing goods, people, services, and capital to move freely. The idea of a single market eventually became reality
... Show Full Article
DETROIT, Michigan, Aug. 25 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Claudia Ascensao Nunes, president of Ladies of Liberty Alliance-Portugal:
* * *
Europe Built a Single Market--Now It's Packaging It Away
Will environmental regulations signal the end of the Single Market?
-
After World War II, a group of European countries had an idea for rebuilding their economies: tear down the trade barriers between them by eliminating customs tariffs and allowing goods, people, services, and capital to move freely. The idea of a single market eventually became realityand grew into one of Europe's greatest achievements of the 20th century.
Starting in 1993, a small business owner in any EU member state could sell to another member state without having to face new bureaucratic or financial barriers at every border.
The potential size of a new business was no longer determined by the size of the country where it was based.
Today, the European Commission estimates that the Single Market has increased the European Union's GDP by 3-4% and created 3.6 million jobs since its creation. A study by Bertelsmann Stiftung estimated that integration increases European citizens' incomes by an average of about Euros840 ($974) per person per year.
Yet the benefits created by this integration, and the freedom that made these benefits possible, began to come under threat on August 12, 2026, quietly and through an apparently harmless packaging regulation.
The Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) will force sellers, both European and foreign, to comply with a complex set of rules that may be manageable for large brands but suffocating for small businesses.
The most problematic requirement is that sellers shipping packaged products to an EU country where they are not established must appoint a local authorized representative. That representative will act on behalf of the seller before that country's recycling authorities. The representative must register the company in the national Extended Producer Responsibility, or EPR, system, file annual reports on the packaging the company places on that market, and charge a service fee of between Euros200 ($232) and Euros500 ($580).
The process of appointing a representative in one country is both bureaucratic and expensive. Doing so across several countries can become impractical for small sellers, who lack the scale to spread these fixed costs across a large volume of sales, especially since the PPWR does not provide a volume-based exemption.
Several businesses are already announcing the suspension of shipments to other EU countries or disabling shipping options to the EU altogether. The German company Copiaro, for example, suspended shipments to other EU member states while continuing to ship to European markets such as Switzerland, Norway, and the United Kingdom, which are outside the EU's regulatory framework.
We are therefore returning to something resembling the old national markets, with barriers to entry.
The entire model of cross-border trade for small businesses risks being undermined in the name of environmental protection. Yet if larger companies, which produce far more packaging waste, are the ones best able to absorb these costs, we are facing a contradiction. Packaging regulations can shield large sellers from competition by smaller businesses, creating a more closed and concentrated market.
Europe may become greener by becoming poorer. European entrepreneurship is being strangled, and small business owners are paying the price.
In the United States, a similar measure, but with a different purpose and an explicitly protectionist aim, ended the de minimis exemption for low-value shipments. Until 2025, packages worth less than $800 could enter the US market with little bureaucracy and without paying customs duties. It was a crucial gateway for small sellers around the world (and allowed American consumers to purchase goods from around the world via online retailers).
When the exemption was eliminated, the impact affected large platforms such as SHEIN and Temu, but fell even more heavily on smaller operators and, consequently, on consumers. American consumers began paying more for low-value goods, generating an estimated loss of between $11 billion and $13 billion, with lower-income households particularly affected.
Despite the different motivations behind these interventionist measures on both sides of the Atlantic, the result is the same: economic freedom is being squeezed.
In Europe, this regulation arrives at a time when the bloc's relevance is already under serious pressure.
Although the Single Market accounts for roughly 18% of global economic output, Europe is losing ground to direct competitors in technology and digital business, in part because of its growing regulatory burden.
A decade ago, Europe still had a significant presence among the world's largest publicly traded companies by market capitalization. Today, only a handful remain in the global top rankings. Almost none of the world's leading startups are born in the bloc.
The PPWR is the latest catalyst for this decline, directly penalizing the foundation of Europe's economy: microenterprises and small businesses.
In its blind pursuit of becoming the world's greenest continent, Europe risks becoming its most stagnant, driving entrepreneurship away.
The European Union wants to lead the future through regulation, even if doing so comes at the cost of undermining the very Single Market that made European economic integration possible.
* * *
Claudia Ascensao Nunes is a Portuguese writer and political commentator. She is the President of Ladies of Liberty Alliance - Portugal and a columnist featured in both national and international publications. Claudia collaborates with Young Voices and focuses on economic freedom, European policy, and transatlantic cooperation. She has over 20,000 followers on X (formerly Twitter), where she shares insights on politics, liberalism, and cultural issues.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/europe-built-a-single-market-now-its-packaging-it-away/
FFRF Supreme Court Brief Pushes Back on Religious Preschool Discrimination Claims
MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 25 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
FFRF Supreme Court brief pushes back on religious preschool discrimination claims
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has filed a friend-of-the-court brief (https://ffrf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/25-581-Amicus-Brief.pdf) before the U.S. Supreme Court to refute a specious argument by a Catholic church that seeks to discriminate in a publicly funded preschool program.
Colorado voters overwhelmingly approved creating a fund for a statewide, voluntary, universal preschool program
... Show Full Article
MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 25 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
FFRF Supreme Court brief pushes back on religious preschool discrimination claims
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has filed a friend-of-the-court brief (https://ffrf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/25-581-Amicus-Brief.pdf) before the U.S. Supreme Court to refute a specious argument by a Catholic church that seeks to discriminate in a publicly funded preschool program.
Colorado voters overwhelmingly approved creating a fund for a statewide, voluntary, universal preschool programin 2020. In 2022, the state adopted the Early Childhood Act, which established rules for the program, including a nondiscrimination requirement. St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton, Colo., is arguing that the nondiscrimination requirement "excludes" it from the program because it forbids discrimination against LGBTQ+ 4-year-olds or 4-year-olds with LGBTQ+ parents in accordance with Catholic doctrine. The church contends that the nondiscrimination requirement is not a neutral and generally applicable law because preschools are allowed to prioritize seats for children with disabilities and low-income children. This, it says, is an exemption to the requirement that undermines the state's nondiscrimination interests comparable to their desire to discriminate against LGBTQ+ parents and children. The Trump administration has filed a brief backing the church.
FFRF asserts that the church's argument fundamentally and deliberately misconstrues disability and income nondiscrimination. Nondiscrimination law reflects the reality that to treat people with disabilities and those who are low-income exactly the same as others often perpetuates inequality rather than resolving it. Ensuring actual equality for people with disabilities and those who are low-income is not an "exemption" from nondiscrimination requirements, but instead is fully aligned with the legal landscape.
"To argue that ensuring equality for preschool students with disabilities or students whose families are low-income is comparable to LGBTQ+ discrimination is like comparing apples and durians," FFRF's brief states. "One is a popular air freshener scent while the other would quickly empty a room."
FFRF's brief points out that mandating religious exemptions whenever any secular exemption is allowed would create a chaotic system and would require lawmaking to a degree that legislatures are not prepared to handle. The First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause does not give an individual the ability to avoid compliance with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability." The fact that Colorado allows preschools to prioritize serving low-income preschoolers and preschoolers with disabilities does not undermine Colorado's interests in nondiscrimination.
"Americans with disabilities have fought long and hard to be able to participate as full members of society," FFRF's brief asserts. "Petitioners' argument threatens to callously use those efforts towards inclusion to instead nullify anti-discrimination laws across the country."
States have historically required nondiscrimination requirements for private organizations to participate in public funding programs. The petitioners complain that the nondiscrimination requirement at issue in this legislation was "targeted" to burden their religion. In reality, most public funding programs have strings attached to ensure they achieve their goals.
There is another fundamental problem with the petitioners' approach. People acting in bad faith use religion as a cloak. Questionable religious exemption claims are still asserted against laws across the country. In 2019, a religious preschool argued that the ministerial exception should apply to its teachers in response to an action filed by California to require the preschool to provide its teachers with rest breaks, meal breaks and overtime pay. Religious exemption claims have been made in the last 20 years against such things as minimum wage laws, workplace harassment laws, laws prohibiting discrimination against pregnant women, laws providing for evolution-based science education, and even the crimes of kidnapping, sexual assault and corporal punishment, among others.
For these reasons, the state/church watchdog maintains in its amicus brief that the petitioners' arguments should be rejected and that the U.S. Supreme Court should affirm the decision of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"The Supreme Court should put a stop to improper religious discrimination claims that are untethered from reality," says FFRF Legal Director Patrick Elliott. "If churches want public money, they have to follow the same rules as everyone else."
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case on Nov. 3.
* * *
Amicus curiae Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is the largest national association of freethinkers, representing atheists, agnostics, and others who form their opinions about religion based on reason, rather than faith, tradition or authority. Its two primary purposes are to educate the public about nontheism and to defend the constitutional separation between state and church. FFRF and its members are concerned that religious exemptions within government-funded programs would allow believers to discriminate and inflict harm on others in violation of fundamental civil rights protections.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-supreme-court-brief-pushes-back-on-religious-preschool-discrimination-claims/
[Category: Religion]
FFRF Ends Ga. School District's Annual Prayer Walks
MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 25 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
FFRF ends Ga. school district's annual prayer walks
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has successfully halted a Georgia public school district's promotion of Christian "prayer walks."
A concerned student informed the state-church watchdog that Laurens County Schools had organized and promoted a "prayer walk" every year before the start of school. Per a promotional post from the district's official Facebook account, the 2026 devotional gatherings occurred on Aug. 5 and 6 at each of
... Show Full Article
MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 25 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
FFRF ends Ga. school district's annual prayer walks
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has successfully halted a Georgia public school district's promotion of Christian "prayer walks."
A concerned student informed the state-church watchdog that Laurens County Schools had organized and promoted a "prayer walk" every year before the start of school. Per a promotional post from the district's official Facebook account, the 2026 devotional gatherings occurred on Aug. 5 and 6 at each ofthe district's schools. The flyer for the events invited students and families to "join us for a time of WORSHIP and PRAYER as we walk the halls of our campus and each school to pray over the staff and students who will enter these buildings."
The student who contacted FFRF explained the alienating effect of the district's religious promotion: "I go to this school district because it is public, free, and doesn't/shouldn't officially endorse any religion. I constantly feel uncomfortable because I follow a spiritual path different from everybody else. ... I just wish I could get my education without having religion shoved down my throat."
FFRF commends the student who spoke up about the district's religious promotion. Students have the right to pray individually or participate in genuinely private religious activities, but public school districts must not organize, promote or endorse religious worship.
"The district displayed blatant favoritism toward religion over nonreligion and Christianity over all other faiths by using official social media to invite the entire school community to participate in school-sponsored Christian prayer walks through each of the District's schools," FFRF Staff Attorney Sammi Lawrence wrote to Superintendent Otha Hall.
FFRF reminded the superintendent that the district serves a diverse population that includes not only Christian students, families and employees, but also those who are nonreligious as well as members of minority faiths. When the district continually organizes, promotes, and invites students to participate in "WORSHIP and PRAYER" at an annual on-campus Christian event, it sends an exclusionary message to students who are non-Christians, such as our complainant. Up to 26 percent of Georgians are nonreligious, and more than half of Generation Z (those born after 1996) is non-Christian, including 43 percent who are nonreligious.
Thankfully, the district's legal representative confirmed that the district has taken corrective action.
"The social media post referenced in your letter has been removed," Aparesh Paul recently responded. "Additionally, district administration has reviewed with school administrators issues and obligations arising from the Establishment Clause, including an appearance of endorsing or promoting religion or religious activity."
FFRF is pleased to have stopped the exclusionary practice.
"We're glad Laurens County Schools took this complaint seriously, removed its promotion and reminded administrators that public schools exist to educate, not to indoctrinate," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "Public schools must make certain that all of their events and promotions are secular, which ensures they are welcoming to all students."
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With more than 40,000 members across the country, including over 600 members in Georgia, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-ends-ga-school-districts-annual-prayer-walks/
[Category: Religion]
AIDS Foundation of Chicago Issues Commentary: Recent Decline in HIV Diagnoses in Chicago is Great News - and Requires Context
CHICAGO, Illinois, Aug. 25 (TNSrpt) -- The AIDS Foundation of Chicago issued the following commentary by President and CEO John Peller:
* * *
Recent decline in HIV diagnoses in Chicago is great news - and requires context
Recently released preliminary data from the Chicago Department of Public Health shows significant declines in new HIV and AIDS diagnoses citywide in 2025. Although these figures are preliminary and not yet finalized, they would represent the lowest levels of new diagnoses recorded since the 1980s, the outset of the HIV epidemic. Notably, the city recorded a 38% drop in new
... Show Full Article
CHICAGO, Illinois, Aug. 25 (TNSrpt) -- The AIDS Foundation of Chicago issued the following commentary by President and CEO John Peller:
* * *
Recent decline in HIV diagnoses in Chicago is great news - and requires context
Recently released preliminary data from the Chicago Department of Public Health shows significant declines in new HIV and AIDS diagnoses citywide in 2025. Although these figures are preliminary and not yet finalized, they would represent the lowest levels of new diagnoses recorded since the 1980s, the outset of the HIV epidemic. Notably, the city recorded a 38% drop in newHIV diagnoses and a 22% drop in AIDS diagnoses from 2024. New diagnoses among Latine Chicagoans declined substantially, decreasing from 50% of diagnoses (408) in 2024 to 38% of diagnoses (171) in 2025. In addition, 92% of people living with HIV who are connected to care are virally suppressed, which means they have better health outcomes and cannot transmit HIV to others. This shows that strategies to engage people with care are working.
Taken together, this is great news and gives us hope at a challenging time when our movement and our mission have been under attack by the federal government. Despite these encouraging trends, we need to remember that this data is preliminary ("provisional" in public health speak), meaning it will change when more complete numbers are reported later this year.
In addition to its preliminary nature, the data requires caution and context due to social and political factors. Declines in new diagnoses were not equitably distributed, and Black Chicagoans were most impacted by HIV in 2025, which underscores the need for continued focus on this community and commitment to dismantling structural racism in health care access.
2023-2024 saw a significant rise in new HIV and AIDS diagnoses, especially among members of the Latine community in Chicago, and 2025 shows a significant decline. We don't have data to explain the causes of the rise in diagnoses among Latine Chicagoans, or last year's decline. However, we cannot ignore the potential impact of immigration enforcement on willingness to engage in HIV testing and medical care for our Latine neighbors. We have heard from our own Latine clients, regardless of immigration status, that they have been reluctant to go to the doctor or have missed appointments due to fears of being detained by ICE. Service providers report declines in the number of Latine patients who are engaging with care. These fears of immigration enforcement and disruptions to care have also impacted Black Chicagoans.
The Trump administration has canceled grants and other funding for many HIV service providers across the city, making access to prevention, testing, and care more difficult for people to access. Threatened and actual funding cuts sow confusion, which may also discourage people from seeking care.
We know that we have the tools to end the HIV epidemic, and these provisional numbers, especially with regard to viral suppression, show that our strategies are working. As we await final numbers for 2025, understanding their context is important. It is possible we could see an increase in the final numbers or in future years because of the social and political barriers to care that have arrived with the Trump administration. We must remain resolute in our work to end the HIV epidemic and dismantle the structural factors that fuel it. As Dr. Ravikiran Bhairavabhotla, CDPH Deputy Commissioner for Syndemic Infectious Diseases Bureau, said in the city's media release, "[W]e can't be complacent to mistake progress with success."
* * *
REPORT: https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/cdph/infectious_disease/STI_HIV_AIDS/reports/2026/2025-HIV-Midyear-Data-Brief-ax.em.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://www.aidschicago.org/recent-decline-in-hiv-diagnoses-in-chicago-is-great-news-and-requires-context/
