Wildfire Tears Through Southern California Community After Burning Dozens of Homes

CAMARILLO, Calif. — A fast-moving wildfire fueled by heavy winds was tearing through a community northwest of Los Angeles for a second day Thursday after destroying dozens of homes and forcing thousands of residents to flee when it exploded in size in only a few hours.

The Mountain Fire prompted evacuation orders Wednesday for more than 10,000 people as it threatened 3,500 structures in suburban communities, ranches and agricultural areas around Camarillo, California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement. The fire was at 0% containment late Wednesday, according to the Ventura County Fire Department.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The National Weather Service said a red flag warning, which indicates conditions for high fire danger, would remain in effect until 6 p.m. Thursday. Winds were expected to decrease significantly by Thursday night, the weather service said.

Officials in several Southern California counties urged residents to be on watch for fast-spreading blazes, power outages and downed trees amid the latest round of notorious Santa Ana winds. There were more than 30,000 customers without power statewide early Thursday, including about 3,000 in Ventura County and about 4,000 Los Angeles County, according to poweroutage.us.

Flames consumed homes amid billowing smoke and firefighters worked to extinguish blazes and douse homes with water as fires approached.

The Mountain Fire was burning in a region that has seen some of California’s most destructive fires over the years. A thick plume of smoke rose hundreds of feet into the sky Wednesday, blanketing whole neighborhoods and limiting visibility for firefighters and evacuees.

The fire grew from less than half of a square mile (about 1.2 square kilometers) to more than 16 square miles (41 square kilometers) in little more than five hours. Late Wednesday, it was about 22 square miles (57 square kilometers), the Ventura County Fire Department said in a social media post. Efforts to battle the blaze continued through the night on the ground and with night flying helicopters.

At least 800 firefighters were assigned to the blaze and hundreds more were arriving from around the state, the department said. Damage estimates were expected to begin Thursday, but the department said numerous structures were impacted.

First responders pleaded with residents to evacuate. Deputies made contact with 14,000 people to urge them to leave as embers spread for miles and sparked new flames.

The Ventura County Office of Education announced that more than a dozen school districts and campuses in the county were closed Thursday and a few were already expected to be closed Friday.

Ventura County Fire Captain Trevor Johnson described crews racing with their engines to homes threatened by the flames to save lives.

“This is as intense as it gets. The hair on the back of the firefighters’ neck I’m sure was standing up,” he said during a news conference Wednesday afternoon.

Two people suffered apparent smoke inhalation and were taken to hospitals Wednesday, fire officials said. No firefighters reported significant injuries.

Officials said they were using all resources, including water-dropping helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft dropping fire retardant, but it was still burning out of control. Andrew Dowd, a Ventura County fire spokesperson, said he did not have details of how many structures had been damaged.

Meanwhile to the south, Los Angeles County Fire Department crews were scrambling to contain a wildfire near Malibu’s Broad Beach as authorities briefly shut down the Pacific Coast Highway as flames burned near multimillion-dollar properties. Residents were urged to shelter in place while aircraft dropped water on the 50-acre (20-hectare) Broad Fire. By late Wednesday, the fire was at 60% containment and its forward progress was stopped, the Los Angeles County Fire Department said in a statement. Fire officials said two structures burned.

With predicted gusts up to 50 mph (80 kph) and humidity levels as low as 9%, parts of Southern California could experience conditions ripe for “extreme and life-threatening” fire behavior into Thursday, the weather service said. Wind gusts topped 61 mph (98 kph) on Wednesday.

Forecasters also issued red flag warnings until Thursday from California’s central coast through the San Francisco Bay Area and into counties to the north, where strong winds were also expected.

Utilities in California began powering down equipment during high winds and extreme fire danger after a series of massive and deadly wildfires in recent years were sparked by electrical lines and other infrastructure. On Wednesday, more than 65,000 customers in Southern California were without power preventatively, and upwards of 20,000 in Northern California.

Wednesday’s fires were burning in the same areas of other recent destructive fires, including the 2018 Woolsey Fire, which killed three people and destroyed 1,600 homes near Los Angeles, and the 2017 Thomas Fire, which destroyed more than a thousand homes and other structures in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. Southern California Edison has paid tens of millions of dollars to settle claims after its equipment was blamed for both blazes.

source https://time.com/7173733/southern-california-wildfire-evacuations-homes-burn/

What Trump’s Win Means for His Legal Cases

Donald Trump’s remarkable political comeback, culminating in his election to a second term as President, is poised to reshape the trajectory of his numerous legal challenges, many of which have dogged him for years. With the power of the White House, Trump stands to effectively shield himself from the legal accountability he has long sought to avoid—at least for the duration of his presidency.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

He now becomes the first convicted felon to ascend to the presidency, and his sentencing in that New York case is set for later this month, setting up another unprecedented challenge for the judge. Trump has long framed the criminal and civil cases against him as politically motivated attacks orchestrated by his adversaries, particularly Democrats, and has used the legal scrutiny as a rallying cry to bolster his base. But with his electoral victory, he now possesses enormous leverage to sideline or completely derail those cases.

Here’s what Trump’s election win means for his legal cases.

Federal cases

At the heart of Trump’s most pressing legal troubles are two major federal cases: one involving the alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and the other surrounding his alleged mishandling of classified documents. These cases, brought by special counsel Jack Smith, have been some of the most consequential against a former President in U.S. history.

However, Trump’s path to avoiding these charges now seems clearer than ever. The Justice Department is part of the Executive Branch under the President, though it traditionally operates with a degree of independence from the Oval Office. Trump has already signaled that he’ll fire Smith from his post right away if he hasn’t already vacated it. The new attorney general appointed by Trump would have the power to end both investigations and dismiss the charges against him. It’s a move that would deliver a fatal blow to the case accusing Trump of attempting to subvert the 2020 election, which includes a complex web of charges stemming from the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot.

In the federal case brought against Trump in Washington, D.C., for his role in attempting to overturn the 2020 election, Trump’s legal team has already succeeded in pushing the trial’s timeline past the election. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan had initially set a fast-moving schedule for the case, but Trump’s attorneys have sought repeated delays. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this summer that presidents have broad criminal immunity for certain official acts while in office, the case is in a precarious position. It remains unclear whether Chutkan, who has made it clear she is determined to move forward with the case, will have the legal means to proceed with a trial once Trump takes office again. If the case is postponed or derailed, it would be a major victory for Trump, allowing him to avoid any legal reckoning during his second term.

As for the classified documents case, a previous ruling by Trump-appointed judge Aileen Cannon—who dismissed part of the case on the grounds of legal overreach by the Justice Department—suggests that further legal maneuvers by Trump’s team could once again stall or dismiss the charges.

It’s an unresolved legal question whether a President could pardon himself.

State cases

Beyond federal charges, Trump faces an array of state-level legal battles, including charges in Georgia for attempting to overturn the 2020 election and a felony conviction in New York for his role in a hush-money payment to former adult film star Stormy Daniels.

In Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis’s case has already been delayed for months due to an unexpected legal twist: the revelation that she had a romantic relationship with a key prosecutor on the case. Though courts initially allowed the case to proceed, Trump’s legal team has seized on the argument that a sitting President cannot be prosecuted for state-level crimes. Legal experts believe Trump will use the weight of his office to argue that, under the doctrine of presidential immunity, he cannot be held accountable by a state prosecutor while in office. 

The ongoing legal battles in New York, where Trump was convicted earlier this year of 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up hush-money payments, are similarly on hold. Trump’s lawyers have already delayed his sentencing multiple times, and they are likely to seek a further postponement or challenge the verdict, citing his status as President-elect. The sentencing, currently scheduled for Nov. 26, presents a critical juncture for Trump’s legal future. Should New York Supreme Court judge Juan Merchan, who presided over Trump’s Manhattan trial, proceed with sentencing, he will face the daunting task of determining how to handle the legal consequences of a criminal conviction for a sitting or soon-to-be sitting President.

Trump’s defense is likely to argue that any court action, including a prison sentence, should be delayed until after his presidency, citing constitutional duties and the complexities of executive responsibilities. Even if Merchan opts for non-prison penalties, such as home confinement or community service, Trump’s legal team is expected to argue that such sanctions would be impractical or unconstitutional while he is serving in office. Ultimately, Merchan’s decision could set a significant precedent—both for Trump’s legal accountability and the broader question of how the legal system deals with a president entangled in criminal charges.

Civil cases

While the criminal cases may be delayed or dismissed outright, Trump still faces significant civil litigation, particularly in relation to the defamation and sexual abuse cases brought by E. Jean Carroll and other plaintiffs. In New York, Trump was ordered to pay $83 million in damages for defamation, and he has also been found liable for inflating the value of his business assets, resulting in a $450 million penalty.

Trump is also facing lawsuits from U.S. Capitol Police officers and members of Congress for his role in stoking the attacks on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Several police officers were injured by the mob and are suing Trump for damages.

While Trump may have a degree of immunity from criminal prosecution, that same protection does not exist for civil lawsuits. Civil plaintiffs have successfully pursued damages from sitting Presidents in the past. In fact, during his first term, Trump was forced to pay a $2 million penalty as part of a settlement over the misuse of funds from the Trump Foundation—a rare case where a President faced private financial penalties while in office.

The question now is whether these civil cases, too, will be delayed by his return to the White House.

The legal questions will continue

What Trump has managed to do is craft a multifaceted legal strategy that exploits the intersections of law and politics. He has used his criminal and civil cases to fuel his political narrative, portraying himself as a victim of a partisan justice system. At every stage, he has delayed, appealed, and deflected in ways that no ordinary defendant could, turning his legal battles into campaign fodder.

Trump has benefited from a confluence of favorable decisions, from sympathetic judges to an increasingly conservative Supreme Court majority, including three Justices that he appointed. The high court’s recent ruling that Presidents enjoy broad immunity from criminal prosecution has given Trump an additional layer of protection against the legal system.

But even with Trump’s huge legal shield, some questions remain. Will state prosecutions, particularly in Georgia, find a way to push forward after he leaves office? Will civil plaintiffs be able to force him to pay damages after his term ends? While Trump has managed to delay accountability in the short term, his legal future beyond his presidency remains uncertain.

For now, Trump’s election victory provides him with an escape from the most pressing legal threats. The political system has once again proven to be both his greatest asset and his greatest protection, suggesting that, at least for the next four years, Trump will operate with relative impunity—shielded by the office he once held and now returns to with an even greater mandate.

source https://time.com/7173454/donald-trump-win-legal-cases-2024/

What Trump’s Win Means For Crypto

This election cycle, the crypto industry poured over $100 million into races across the country, hoping to assert crypto’s relevancy as a voter issue and usher pro-crypto candidates into office. On Wednesday morning, almost all of the industry’s wishes came true. Republican candidate Donald Trump, who has lavished praise upon Bitcoin this year, won handily against his Democratic opponent Kamala Harris. And crypto PACs scored major wins in House and Senate races—most notably in Ohio, where Republican Bernie Moreno defeated crypto skeptic Sherrod Brown. 

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

As Trump’s numbers ascended on Tuesday night, Bitcoin hit a new record high, topping $75,000. Crypto-related stocks, including Robinhood Markets and MicroStrategy, also leapt upward. Enthusiasts now believe that Trump’s Administration will strip back regulation of the crypto industry, and that a favorable Congress will pass legislation that gives the industry more room to grow. 

Trump’s crypto embrace

Many crypto fans supported Trump over Harris for several reasons. Trump spoke glowingly about crypto this year on the campaign trail, despite casting skepticism upon it for years. At the Bitcoin conference in Nashville in July, Trump floated the idea of establishing a federal Bitcoin reserve, and stressed the importance of bringing more Bitcoin mining operations to the U.S. 

Read More: Inside the Health Crisis of a Texas Bitcoin Town

Perhaps most importantly, Trump vowed to oust Gary Gensler, the chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), who has brought many lawsuits against crypto projects for allegedly violating securities laws. Gensler is a widely-reviled figure in the crypto industry, with many  accusing him of stifling innovation. Gensler, conversely, argued that it was his job to protect consumers from the massive crypto collapses that unfolded in 2022, including Terra Luna and FTX. 

Gensler’s term isn’t up until 2026, and it’s unclear if Trump has the authority to fire an SEC chair. But if Trump succeeds, a change to SEC leadership could allow many more crypto products to enter mainstream financial markets. For the past few years, the SEC had been hesitant to approve crypto ETFs: investment vehicles that allow people to bet on crypto without actually holding it. But a judge forced Gensler’s hand, bringing Bitcoin ETFs onto the market in January. Now, under a friendlier SEC, ETFs based on smaller cryptocurrencies like Solana and XRP may be next. 

Many crypto enthusiasts are also excited by Trump’s alliance with Elon Musk, who has long championed cryptocurrencies on social media. On election night, Dogecoin, Musk’s preferred meme coin, spiked 25% to 21 cents. 

Impact in the Senate

Crypto enthusiasts are also cheering the results in the Senate, which was the focus of most of the industry’s political contributions. Crypto PACs like Fairshake spent over $100 million dollars supporting pro-crypto candidates and opposing anti-crypto candidates, in the hopes of fomenting a new Congress that would pass legislation favorable to the industry. Centrally, lobbyists hoped for a bill that would turn over crypto regulation from the SEC to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), a much smaller agency.

Read More: What Donald Trump’s Win Means for the Economy

Crypto PACs particularly focused their efforts in Ohio, spending some $40 million to unseat Democrat Brown, the Senate Banking Committee Chair and a crypto critic. His opponent Moreno has been a regular attendee at crypto conferences and vowed to “lead the fight to defend crypto in the US Senate.” On Tuesday night, Moreno won, flipping control of the Senate. 

Defend American Jobs, a Crypto PAC affiliated with Fairshake, claimed credit for Brown’s defeat on Tuesday. “Elizabeth Warren ally Sherrod Brown was a top opponent of cryptocurrency and thanks to our efforts, he will be leaving the Senate,” spokesperson Josh Vlasto wrote in a statement. “Senator-Elect Moreno’s come-from-behind win shows that Ohio voters want a leader who prioritizes innovation, protects American economic interests, and will ensure our nation’s continued technological leadership.” 

Crypto PACs notched another victory in Montana, where their preferred candidate, Republican Tim Sheehy, defeated Democrat Jon Tester.

Read More: How Far Trump Would Go

The rise of prediction markets

Finally, crypto enthusiasts celebrated the accuracy of prediction markets, which allow users to bet on election results using crypto. Advocates claimed that prediction markets could be more accurate than polls, because they channeled the collective wisdom of people with skin in the game. Critics, on the other hand, dismissed them as being too volatile and based in personal sentiment and boosterism. 

For weeks, prediction markets had been far more favorable toward Trump than the polls, which portrayed Trump and Harris in a dead heat. (For example, Polymarket gave Trump a 62% chance of winning on Nov. 3.) And on election day, before any major results had been tabulated, prediction markets swung heavily towards Trump; the odds of Republicans sweeping the presidency, house and senate jumped to 44% on Kalshi. 

In the last couple months, bettors wagered over $2 billion on the presidential election on Polymarket, according to Dune Analytics. It’s still unclear whether prediction markets are actually more accurate than polls on average. But their success in this election will likely make their presence in the political arena only increase in years to come. 

Crypto’s future in the Trump era is far from guaranteed. Crypto prices are highly susceptible to global events, like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as well as larger macroeconomic trends. Fraudulent crypto projects like FTX, which thrived in deregulated environments, have also tanked prices in years past.

And it’s unclear how dedicated Trump actually is to crypto, or whether he will follow through on his pledges to the industry. “If he doesn’t deliver on these promises quickly, the euphoria could turn to disappointment, which has the potential to result in crypto market volatility,” Tim Kravchunovsky, founder and CEO of the decentralized telecommunications network Chirp, wrote to TIME. “We have to be prepared for this because the reality is that crypto isn’t the most important issue on Trump’s current agenda.” But for now, most crypto fans believe that a “bull run,” in which prices increase, is imminent.

Andrew R. Chow’s book about crypto and Sam Bankman-Fried, Cryptomania, was published in August.

source https://time.com/7173421/what-donald-trump-election-win-means-for-crypto/

How the 10 Abortion Ballot Initiatives Fared in the 2024 Election

The 2024 election was a mixed bag for abortion rights.

Voters in seven states moved to protect abortion access by passing ballot initiatives that will amend their state constitutions to include protections for reproductive rights. But similar measures in three other states failed—a blow to abortion-rights supporters. And the country ultimately decided to reelect the man who has claimed credit for the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade: former President Donald Trump.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Measures meant to protect abortion rights passed in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, and New York, but failed in Florida, Nebraska, and South Dakota. This election saw the highest number of statewide abortion-related ballot measures in a single year, surpassing the previous record of six in 2022. The results break a previous trend—before this year, voters had sided with abortion rights every time the issue has been on state ballots since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision two years ago.

Many polls have shown that most Americans support abortion rights, but 21 states have either banned or restricted abortion since the Dobbs decision that overturned the constitutional right to abortion. As state lawmakers have taken steps to curtail abortion rights, advocates have turned to state ballot initiatives to try and protect access. The majority of the statewide abortion-related measures that appeared on the ballot this year were citizen-led initiatives.

Here are the results of the statewide abortion-related ballot measures in 2024.

Arizona

In the battleground state of Arizona, voters approved a measure that will establish “a fundamental right to abortion under Arizona’s constitution,” allowing abortions until fetal viability or later if an abortion is needed to protect the pregnant person’s life or health.

Nearly 62% of voters supported the measure, while about 38% voted against it, with about 60% of votes counted as of 9:40 a.m. ET on Wednesday. The Associated Press called the race at 3:31 a.m. ET on Wednesday. 

Currently in Arizona, abortion is banned after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies. But the newly-passed amendment is expected to upend the state’s existing restrictions on abortion.

Colorado

Voters in Colorado supported a ballot measure that will enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution, with more than 61% voting in favor and nearly 39% voting against it, as of 5:40 a.m. ET on Wednesday when about 73% of votes were counted. The AP called the race at 10:26 p.m. on Tuesday.

The state already allows for abortion at any stage of pregnancy, but supporters of the measure have said that the amendment will ensure that future state lawmakers wouldn’t be able to roll back abortion rights. The amendment will also repeal a nearly 40-year-old ban on state and local government money being used to pay for abortion services.

Florida

In Florida, a measure that would have amended the state constitution to guarantee the right to abortion up until fetal viability or when necessary to protect the health of the pregnant person, failed. The measure needed the support of at least 60% of voters to pass, but fell short, with about 57% of Floridians voting in favor and nearly 43% voting against, as of 9:49 a.m. ET on Wednesday when about 99% of the votes were counted. The AP called the race at 9:06 p.m. ET on Tuesday.

Florida has banned abortion beyond six weeks of pregnancy, which is before many people know they’re pregnant. The restriction carries some exceptions, such as when the life of the pregnant person is at risk. With the failure of the proposed amendment, the state’s existing six-week ban will remain in place.

The lead-up to Election Day was contentious for the ballot initiative. Those behind the measure launched an extensive campaign to reach voters, sharing the stories of many people who were unable to receive care because of the state’s restrictions. But state officials tried to keep the initiative off the ballot and repeatedly attacked the campaign.

Lauren Brenzel, director of the campaign behind the ballot measure, said at a press conference Tuesday night that the vote breakdown showed that the majority of Florida voters supported it, even though the measure ultimately failed. Brenzel called on Florida politicians to repeal the six-week ban, given the vote breakdown.

“They are tired of women dying because of abortion bans. They are tired of women being forced to give birth to children who died in their arms because of abortion bans,” Brenzel said. “A bipartisan group of voters today sent a clear message to the Florida legislature.”

Maryland

Maryland voters passed a measure that will enshrine the right to reproductive freedom in the state constitution. The AP called the race at 9:28 p.m. on Tuesday. About 74% of Maryland voters supported the measure and nearly 26% rejected it, as of 4:34 a.m. ET on Wednesday, when about 76% of votes were counted.

Unlike most of the other statewide abortion-rights measures this year, this initiative was placed on the ballot after a vote from Maryland’s Democratic-controlled legislature. Abortion is already legal in the state until fetal viability—or after that if necessary to protect the pregnant person’s life or health, or if the fetus has a serious abnormality—but, as with the initiative in Colorado, supporters have said that this amendment will prevent the possibility of state lawmakers restricting access in the future.

Missouri

In a major win for abortion-rights supporters, Missouri voters decided to amend its state constitution to guarantee the right to abortion until fetal viability, with exceptions after that if the pregnant person’s life or physical or mental health is at risk. Nearly 52% of voters backed the measure, while 48% rejected it, with about 99% of the vote counted by 9:34 a.m. ET. on Wednesday. The AP called the race at 11:24 p.m. on Tuesday.

The newly-passed amendment is expected to invalidate Missouri’s existing near-total ban on abortion, which is one of the strictest in the country.

Montana

In Montana, more than 57% of voters supported amending the state constitution to guarantee the right to abortion until fetal viability, or after that if necessary to protect the pregnant person’s life or health. The measure passed, since it only needed a simple majority, with nearly 43% of voters rejecting it, as of 9:47 a.m. ET on Wednesday, when about 87% of the votes were counted. The AP called the race at 6:01 a.m. ET on Wednesday.

Abortion is currently legal until fetal viability in Montana, and the Montana Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that abortion is protected under the state constitution. But state lawmakers have tried to restrict abortion in the past few years, and reproductive rights advocates have said that the measure would protect abortion rights if lawmakers continue those attempts in the future.

Montana voters previously weighed in on reproductive healthcare in 2022, when they rejected a legislative referendum that would have further restricted abortion by classifying an embryo or fetus as a legal person entitled to medical treatment if they are born prematurely or in the rare case that they survive an attempted abortion.

Nebraska

Unlike the other states voting on the issue this year, Nebraska had two competing abortion-related measures on the ballot.

Ultimately, voters backed the measure that will amend the state constitution to include a ban on abortion in the second and third trimesters, with exceptions for medical emergencies, rape, or incest. About 55% of Nebraskans voted in favor of the measure, while nearly 45% voted against it, as of 6:52 a.m. ET on Wednesday, when about 99% of votes were counted. The AP called the race at 1:02 a.m. on Wednesday.

The other initiative, which would have enshrined the right to abortion until fetal viability in the state constitution (with exceptions beyond that in situations when an abortion is necessary to protect the pregnant person’s life or health), failed, with more than 51% of voters rejecting it and nearly 49% supporting it, as of 6:52 a.m. ET on Wednesday, when about 99% of the votes were counted. The AP called the race at 3:27 a.m. ET on Wednesday.

In Nebraska, abortion is currently prohibited beyond 12 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for rape, incest, and to save the pregnant person’s life. The failure of the abortion-rights initiative allows the state’s existing restriction to remain in place, and the passing of the anti-abortion amendment will enshrine the restriction into the state’s constitution.

Nevada

Voters in Nevada took the first step to enshrining the right to abortion until fetal viability, or later when necessary to protect the pregnant person’s life or health, in the state constitution. About 63% of voters supported the abortion-rights measure and about 37% rejected it, as of 5:09 a.m. ET on Wednesday, when about 84% of the votes were counted. The measure only needed a simple majority to pass, but voters will need to approve it again in 2026 in order to officially amend the state constitution. The AP called the race at 3:21 a.m. ET on Wednesday.

Nevada currently allows abortions until the 24th week of pregnancy.

New York

New York will amend its state constitution to include equal rights protections, such as declaring that no one should be discriminated against because of “pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.” Nearly 62% of people voted in favor of the measure, while almost 39% voted against it, as of 9:49 a.m. ET on Wednesday, with about 88% of the vote counted. The AP called the race at 9:31 p.m. ET on Tuesday. New York was the only other state, in addition to Maryland, that had a legislative abortion-related initiative on the ballot.

Abortion is allowed until fetal viability in New York. The New York initiative didn’t explicitly mention abortion, but was a broad equal rights amendment that included protections for reproductive healthcare, as well as factors like ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

South Dakota

South Dakota voters rejected a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would have guaranteed the right to abortion in the first trimester. The measure needed a simple majority to pass, but only about 40% voted in favor, while nearly 60% voted against it, as of 9:55 a.m. ET on Wednesday, when about 90% of the votes were counted. The AP called the race at 2:49 a.m. ET on Wednesday.

The initiative would have also amended the state constitution to allow the state to regulate abortion in the second trimester only if “reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman,” and permit the state to regulate or prohibit abortion in the third trimester except in situations where abortion is necessary to protect the pregnant person’s health or life.

Because the measure failed, South Dakota’s near-total abortion ban will remain in place.

source https://time.com/7173410/abortion-ballot-results-2024-election/

The 1994 Campaign that Anticipated Trump’s Immigration Stance

Since his first campaign announcement in 2015, Donald Trump and the GOP have sought to appeal to some Americans’ worst fears, scapegoating immigrants for every problem facing the nation. If his rise to power hinged on this ugly rhetoric, it has only gotten worse over the years. In the 2024 election, immigrants have been portrayed as barbarians who eat cats and dogs—or as animals themselves. Making anti-immigrant appeals to win votes is nothing new, however. The playbook from which Trump is drawing was written 30 years ago in California.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

In November 1994, immigrants and their families found themselves under siege as California voters overwhelmingly passed into law Proposition 187, a ballot initiative that sought to deny basic social services—such as healthcare and education—to undocumented immigrants and their families.

The lessons of that moment are defining for our own. In the Prop 187 campaign, politicians and activists learned that anti-immigrant politics could deflect from the real problems people faced, all in an effort to galvanize voters. Meanwhile, opponents of the nativist movement also learned how difficult it is to counter such rhetoric and policies, even when they have truth on their side.

California, today overwhelmingly Democratic and progressive, may seem an odd setting for launching a virulently anti-immigrant campaign—especially given the state’s long history and economic dependence on immigration. But before the state earned its liberal reputation, it was a key launchpad for the conservative movement. It was California where Ronald Reagan’s political rise began in the 1960s, where the modern English-only movement gained momentum, and where reactionary ideologies found mainstream support during the Cold War thanks to the rise of sunbelt conservatism.

Read More: Trump Declines to Rule Out Reviving Family Separations During CNN Town Hall

At the same time, the state had long been a destination for immigrants of color—Mexican, Filipino, and Japanese, among others—all vital to the agricultural industry that has always drawn foreign workers. In the 1970s, ’80s, and ’90s, agricultural centers like the San Joaquin and Salinas Valleys and cities like Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco attracted economic and political refugees from Mexico and Central America, seeking jobs, stability, and opportunity. While their work helped expand the Golden State’s economy, many were undocumented.

As their numbers grew, however, so did a reaction against them. In the 1970s, California legislators, led by Dixon Arnett, sought to criminalize the hiring of undocumented people—hoping to stem the tide of migration. The resulting legislation was ruled unconstitutional but it set the stage for a growing nativist assault.

Then, in 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which increased border enforcement, imposed penalties on employers who hired undocumented people, and legalized some three million undocumented people, including many Californians. During the debates, Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.) pushed to include the admission of temporary workers on an annual basis. He spoke out against immigration raids, which he “deplored,” since immigrants “[did] the work when Americans [would not] take the jobs.”

But IRCA did not stop unsanctioned migration. California continued to grow into a “new Ellis Island” that attracted immigrants—documented and undocumented alike—from Mexico, Latin America, and Asia.

Anxiety about the “browning” of the state only grew. By the early 1990s, nativists were in full panic mode, alarmed at California’s rapidly changing demographics. Simultaneously, the state also became engulfed in social and economic crises: racial unrest following the beating of Rodney King and the acquittal of the police officers who perpetrated it; military base closures at the Cold War’s end that led to the loss of thousands of jobs; and a nagging economic recession.

Many Californians initially blamed Pete Wilson, who had become California’s governor in 1991. Poll numbers appeared to predict certain defeat in his bid for reelection in November 1994.

Then Wilson made a political calculation that embracing anti-immigrant sentiment would turn his political fortune around.

Prop 187 was the brainchild of a group united against what they deemed “illegal immigration.” This included Dick Mountjoy, an assemblyman representing Monrovia; Alan Nelson, the former commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) under President Reagan; Harold Ezell, a former regional director for the INS; Ron Prince, an Orange County accountant; and Barbara Coe, founder of The California Coalition for Immigration Reform.

Although Wilson had long recognized the importance of immigration to the state’s fortunes, he gladly became the face of Prop 187. It worked, too. He polled better as he saturated the airwaves with ads that depicted immigrants as criminals, invaders, and threats.

Read More: Trump’s Asylum Rhetoric Is Rooted in the Mariel Boatlift

Communities mobilized against the proposition. Anti-187 activists, led by Latino civil rights leaders like Dolores Huerta, spread the message that anti-immigrant rhetoric was not about illegality. It was about racial anxiety. As one activist put it, “They’re playing games with us… it’s wrong and it’s racist.”

Latino rights advocates understood what the passage of the initiative would mean for their communities, including immigrants and U.S. citizens: that the very color of their skin or the language they spoke would make them targets of harassment, discrimination, and violence.

With the backing of religious leaders, civil rights figures, other ethnic solidarity groups including Asian Americans who also recognized 187 as an existential threat, and labor unions, they fought back. They organized voter registration drives, made phone calls, and took to streets to protest.

It wasn’t enough. With the backing of a political machine, the coalition in favor of Prop 187 weaponized economic and racial anxieties against undocumented immigrants, whom they claimed were taking their jobs, bringing crime, and costing the state’s taxpayers millions each year.

Wilson won re-election, and Proposition 187 passed by a two-to-one margin. White Californians provided the largest margins of support, though by smaller margins Black and Asian American voters also approved it. The only major ethnic group to oppose it was Latinos. They rejected the measure in almost mirror image numbers, which can be attributed to the power of the anti-187 movement.

Economists and other researchers, both then and today, showed that the undocumented did not “take” Americans jobs. They were also much less likely to commit crimes than people born in the United States. And while the cost of providing health care and education was substantial, immigrants more than repaid the cost through taxes and other subsidies they provided to the economy, through cheap labor and increased productivity, especially in the service and food industries.

Despite its popularity, the law was on shaky legal ground, and a judge placed a restraining order on it almost immediately. After years of legal battles, it was ruled unconstitutional in 1998, when Judge Mariana Pfaelzer struck it down. No portion of 187 was ever implemented. Teachers were not required to report their undocumented students to authorities, healthcare providers were not required to turn undocumented patients away, and students were permitted to remain in school.

But this was not the end of the story.

Nativist activists were determined to take the fight elsewhere and to wage a national battle against immigrants. They found success at the federal level, fostering bipartisan support for increased immigration enforcement, border militarization, and restriction. In 1996, Clinton signed into law IIRIRA, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which made legalization more difficult and restricted access to social services even for legal permanent residents.

Read More: America’s Border Wall Is Bipartisan

Over the next decades, other states used Prop 187 as a blueprint, recognizing that even if the laws were struck down, the process of galvanizing support for anti-immigrant measures could be politically useful.

And then came the rise of Donald Trump, who like Wilson, seems not to care as much for the facts about immigration as for the political utility of fear.

Making outlandish, patently false claims, Trump regularly dehumanizes immigrants, claiming criminal gangs are taking over American cities, that “illegals” are taking American jobs, and that building a wall to keep them out was necessary. As it did for Wilson, Trump’s politics of nativism paid off. It helped deliver him the White House in 2017. In 2018, the nauseating specter of children in cages, often separated from their parents, became the lasting image of this policy approach.

As was the case in 1994, most of the claims that were used to rationalize these horrors were grounded in misinformation, outright lies, and racist fantasies. Immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits, and they strengthen not only our economy but our society. They are not coming to invade or take jobs; they are coming because there is demand for the work they do and because they are fleeing violence and instability that has roots in U.S. interventions in their home countries dating back decades.

Despite the Trump campaign’s anti-immigrant rhetoric, in a modern globalized world, migration is a fact of life and cannot be stopped. But it can be made more painful and cruel, as we saw in the 1990s and during Trump’s first administration.

It can also be made more orderly, rational, and humane. But doing so would require leaders who wish to do so.

Eladio B. Bobadilla is an assistant professor of history at the University of Pittsburgh, where he specializes in the history of immigration and nativism.

Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.

source https://time.com/7171347/immigration-trump-prop187/

A Week After Spain’s Catastrophic Floods, Families Hold Out Hope That Loved Ones Are Not Among the Dead

SEDAVI, Spain — Francisco Murgui went out to try to salvage his motorbike when the water started to rise.

He never came back.

One week after catastrophic flooding devasted eastern Spain, María Murgui still holds out hope that her father is alive and among the unknown number of the missing.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“He was like many people in town who went out to get their car or motorbike to safety,” the 27-year-old told The Associated Press. “The flash flood caught him outside, and he had to cling to a tree in order to escape drowning. He called us to tell us that he was fine, that we shouldn’t worry.”

But when María set out into the streets of Sedaví to try to rescue him from the water washing away everything in its path, he was nowhere to be found.

“He held up until 1 in the morning,” she said. “By 2, I went outside with a neighbor and a rope to try to locate him. But we couldn’t find him. And since then, we haven’t heard anything about him.”

At least 218 have been confirmed dead after a deluge caused by heavy rains late on Oct. 29 and the next morning swamped entire communities, mostly in Spain’s Valencia region, catching most off guard. Regional authorities have been heavily criticized for having issued alerts to mobile phones some two hours after the disaster had started.

Authorities have yet to any give an estimate of the missing seven days on. Spanish state broadcaster RTVE, however, shows a steady stream of appeals by people who are searching for family members who are not accounted for.

María Murgui herself has posted a missing person’s message on social media with a photo of her father, a 57-year-old retiree.

“This is like riding a rollercoaster. Sometimes I feel very bad and sometimes I feel better. I try to stay positive,” she said. “This truly is madness. We don’t know what else to do. Neither does anybody else in town.”

Central government passes relief package

While many search for their loved ones, the gargantuan recovery efforts in Sedaví and dozens of other communities slowly moved forward.

To aid those in need, the central government approved a 10.6-billion-euro relief package for 78 communities on Tuesday. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez compared it to the measures taken during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The package includes direct payments of 20,000 euros to 60,000 euros to owners of damaged homes, among other financial aid for businesses and municipal governments.

“We have a lot of work left to do, and we know it,” Sánchez said.

Sánchez said that he will ask the European Union to help pay for the relief, saying “it is time for the European Union to help.”

Many people are still without basic goods amid scenes of devastation

The floods have left behind post-apocalyptic scenes.

Street after street in town after town is still covered with thick brown mud and mounds of ruined belongings, clumps of rotting vegetation, and wrecked vehicles. A stench arises from the muck.

In many places, people still face shortages of basic goods, and lines form at impromptu emergency kitchens and stands handing out food. Water is running again but authorities say it is not fit for drinking.

The ground floors of thousands of homes have been ruined. It is feared that inside some of the vehicles that the water washed away or trapped in underground garages there could be bodies waiting to be recovered.

Thousands of soldiers are working with firefighters and police reinforcements in the immense emergency response. Officers and troops are searching in destroyed homes, the countless cars strewn across highways, streets, or lodged in the mud in canals and gorges.

Authorities are worried about other health problems caused by the aftermath of the deadliest natural disaster in Spain’s recent history. They have urged people to get tetanus shots and to treat any wounds to prevent infections and to clean the mud from their skin. Many people wear face masks.

Thousands of volunteers are helping out, filling the void left by authorities. But the frustration over the crisis management boiled over on Sunday when a crowd in hard-hit Paiporta hurled mud and other objects at Spain’s royals, Sánchez and regional officials when they made their first visit to the epicenter of the flood damage.

Sánchez’s national government is set to announce a new package of relief on Tuesday.

___

Wilson reported from Barcelona, Spain.

source https://time.com/7172194/spain-valencia-deadly-floods-aftermath/

Why Sleep Is the Key to Living Longer

Today, at the age of 63, I find myself in peak health—physically, mentally, and energetically. A wide range of performance metrics and biomarker data bolster this belief. I’ve gotten here not by luck, but by effort and by prioritizing healthspan: the amount of time you spend in good health, free of disease. I’m on a personal mission to maintain this optimal health for the next decade, so that I can intercept the next generation of therapeutics under development that are promising to slow, stop, and even reverse aging.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Over the past decade, my primary focus has been to study the field of human longevity with an eye specifically toward healthspan. I’ve immersed myself in research and devoured publications in the realms of biotechnology, nutrition, exercise, sleep, and, most recently, artificial intelligence in service of health and longevity. I’ve interviewed top scientists on my Moonshots podcast and onstage during my longevity conferences. I’ve even launched XPRIZE Healthspan, where more than 440 teams are currently competing for $101 million to see what can most effectively turn back the ravages of aging. Finally, I hold in close company dozens of top scientists and physicians who work closely with me in the various companies I founded or co-founded.

People often ask me the very same question I’ve posed to these longevity luminaries for years: what can you do to live a longer, healthier life? The answer is so rich and varied that I’ve written a whole guidebook sharing the tools that I’m personally using today to maximize my own healthspan. The Longevity Guidebook includes how to exercise to build muscle and VO2 max, the advanced diagnostics available right now for preventative care, supplements and medications that optimize cellular and whole-body function, how to create and maintain a longevity mindset, and tailored approaches for women’s health. I’m grateful to draw on cutting-edge insights from my friends who are leading experts in the longevity sciences. 

One of the most important (and least appreciated) keys to extending your healthspan is a great night’s sleep. It rejuvenates the body, boosts cognitive function, and powers your immune system. It’s the foundation for your health and longevity.

Read More: Therapists Share the 1 Tip That’s Changed Their Lives

Sleep expert Matthew Walker, director of the Center for Human Sleep Science at the University of California, Berkeley and author of the excellent book Why We Sleep, says that sleep is the single most effective thing we can do to reset our mental and physical health each day. There is a direct relationship between how well you sleep and how long you live, and almost nobody can get away with fewer than six hours of sleep a night without harming their health.

For most people, regularly getting eight hours of sleep boosts memory retention, enhances concentration, augments creativity, stabilizes emotions, strengthens the immune system, enhances athletic performance, and staves off deadly ailments like cancers and heart disease.

Still not convinced?  Here are three powerful examples:

1. The difference between getting a good night’s sleep and a bad one is a decrease from 100% to 60% in the brain’s ability to retain new facts. That’s the difference, as Walker puts it, between “acing an exam and failing it miserably.”

2. Going twenty-four hours without sleep is like having a blood alcohol concentration of 0.10%, above the legal limit for driving in most places.

3. A sleepless night with only four hours of sleep resulted in a 70% reduction in the activity of your natural killer cells (which combat infections and cancer). Remarkably, the activity of natural killer cells returns to baseline levels after one night of normal sleep.

Sleep doesn’t get the respect it deserves. It’s often the first thing people sacrifice to make time for almost anything else, whether leisure or work. But the popular belief that “you can sleep when you’re dead” is fundamentally damaging to your health, happiness, and longevity.

For example, regularly getting fewer than six or seven hours of sleep each night doubles your risk of cancer and can increase the likelihood that you’ll develop Alzheimer’s disease. Insufficient sleep can also contribute to major psychiatric conditions such as anxiety and depression.

One key lesson from Walker is if humans had been able to evolve with the ability to get along with less sleep, then we would have. We are most vulnerable to predation and least productive while we sleep. Yet evolutionarily our bodies retained the need for eight hours.

Read More: How to Stop Checking Your Phone Every 10 Seconds

Insufficient sleep can have serious metabolic and hormonal consequences. When individuals are sleep-deprived, the body essentially enters a state of malnutrition. “If you take the mentality of ‘I’ll sleep when I’m dead,’ ironically, you will have both a shorter life and the quality of that life will be significantly worse as a consequence,” Walker said onstage at our longevity conference this year. He then highlighted a study where young, healthy men were restricted to five hours of sleep for five nights. The result? Their testosterone levels dropped to the equivalent of someone 10 years older. “Five hours a night for five nights will age a man by a decade,” Walker emphasized, noting that this also affects female reproductive hormones such as estrogen and progesterone.

Sleep deprivation also leads to cognitive and metabolic impairments. A study that restricted people to four hours of sleep for four nights found that these individuals, previously with normal blood sugar, became classified as prediabetic by the end of the trial. This underscores the profound metabolic toll that insufficient sleep can take in a very short time.

Convinced yet? Here are 9 tips for optimizing your sleep.

1. Aim for 7-9 hours: Anything less than 7 hours of sleep can lead to significant metabolic, cognitive, and cardiovascular impairments.

2. Improve sleep efficiency: Walker emphasizes that efficiency is crucial. You can get a sense of yours through sleep trackers like Oura or WHOOP. Anything less than 85% (time spent in bed sleeping versus awake) needs attention.

3. Maintain regular sleep patterns: Regularity is more important than quantity when it comes to long-term health benefits. Walker recommends going to bed and waking up at the same time every day, with only a +/- 25-minute variance.

4. Align your sleep with your chronotype: Everyone has a chronotype—whether they’re a morning person or a night owl. Your goal should be to gradually adjust to a healthy sleep schedule that respects your natural tendencies. For example, if you’re a night owl, start with a bedtime close to when you feel naturally drowsy, like 11:30 PM, and gradually shift it earlier by 15-30 minutes every few nights. 

5. Time your exercise right: For optimal sleep quality, it’s best to finish exercise 90 minutes before bed, allowing your body enough time to cool down.

6. Eat at the right times, too: It’s best to finish eating at least two hours before bed, giving your body time to digest and reducing indigestion during sleep.

7. Manage stress before sleep: To avoid “tired and wired” syndrome before bed, consider journaling, taking a hot shower, meditation, or catching up with a friend.

8.    Practice good sleep hygiene: An hour before bedtime, lower the lights in your room by 70%. If you need to use your phone, do it only while standing, and put it away when you lie down. Remove clocks from view to avoid watching the time pass.

9.  Monitor yourself for sleep apnea: Sleep apnea, a condition where breathing repeatedly stops and starts during sleep, reduces oxygen levels and can lead to increased risks of heart disease, diabetes, and cognitive decline. Your doctor can order a sleep study, or you can use tools like the SnoreLab app to track signs like loud snoring or gasping for air. If symptoms appear, seek professional evaluation.

Excerpted from Longevity Guidebook: How to Slow, Stop, and Reverse Aging — and NOT Die from Something Stupid

source https://time.com/7160802/sleep-longevity-live-longer-health/