TJ Fallon began visiting the graves of U.S. presidents at the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.

“I did it out of sheer boredom after being furloughed from my job,” said the New Jersey native.

Four years later, not only has he visited all 39 presidential graves no less than twice, but as of this week, his ten-year-old son Henry has also seen all of them.

On Monday, Henry of Brick, New Jersey, became perhaps the youngest person ever to perform the feat of paying his respects to each deceased president after he and his father disembarked from their flight to LAX to go to the libraries of Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon.

Afterwards, he said that it had been “somehow” a way of accomplishment for him to have seen all of the presidential graves.

The Fallons have traveled across the country to go to presidential libraries and cemeteries, including spending Henry's spring break on a road trip through Kansas and Missouri to go to the graves of Eisenhower and Truman.

Henry's favorite president? Lincoln.

But like many ten-year-olds, Henry just isn’t an enormous history buff and seems to have virtually little interest in politics. He zoomed across the Nixon Library wearing an Aaron Judge baseball cap and spent more time practicing his batting swing than taking a look at the exhibits.

His favorite museum is the National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY, he said. And what he likes best about these road trips with Dad just isn’t visiting the presidential tombs, but stopping on the ballparks along the way in which — and sometimes off the beaten track. The Fallons also headed to Dodger Stadium and Oracle Park in San Francisco this week — in addition to Dinseyland.

“People always ask me why I visit the graves of presidents,” said TJ Fallon. “It's a strange hobby. But it humanizes all these great people. They were people with families. They were mortal.”

The hobby began with a random Google search in 2020 when Fallon asked if New Jersey had any presidents buried. In fact, Grover Cleveland is buried in Princeton. Although Cleveland never attended college, he fell in love with the realm after giving a speech on the university in 1896, made Princeton his home after his second term as president, and have become a trustee of the Ivy League university.

After visiting Cleveland's grave, Fallon launched a difficult Google search: “Has anyone visited all the presidential graves?”

Fallon said that based on his research, it looked like no less than one person had done this, and maybe others. He resolved to do it faster.

So he drove greater than 60,000 miles through 34 states to go to all of them in nine months. He also visited all 34 graves of Vice Presidents, 53 of the 56 graves of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and all 39 signers of the Constitution. He was introduced by his hometown newspaper and Jay Leno's show “You Bet Your Life”; he has 20,000 subscribers on his YouTube channel “Dead History” and 50,000 followers on Instagram.

Fallon says Nixon has the most effective obituary of any president: “The greatest honor history can bestow is the title of peacemaker.” Meanwhile, he believes Martin Van Buren has essentially the most inconspicuous gravesite, in a small cemetery in his hometown of Kinderhook, New York.

Fallon's fascination with presidential history may not have completely rubbed off on Henry, but no less than the 2 can at all times look back on this journey together.

“Seeing America with his father,” Henry said, “means a lot to him.”

Originally published: August 9, 2024 at 11:42 am

How did this case come to court?

In Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic MedicineThe plaintiffs argued that the FDA didn’t adequately test the security of mifepristone. They also claimed that the FDA's subsequent changes that made the drug much more widely available were also flawed.

In 2016, the FDA prolonged the timeframe for prescribing mifepristone from the seventh to the tenth week of pregnancy and allowed non-medical health care providers, reminiscent of nurses, to prescribe the pill. Then, in 2021, the duty at hand in personal documents has been lifted and licensed pharmacies are permitted to distribute it.

What does the choice mean?

Based on this opinion, the usage of mifepristone stays legal in states where abortion is just not banned.

From June 2024, medical abortion will likely be greater than 60% of abortions within the USA

In its ruling, the court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing. Standing is the legal doctrine that limits the varieties of cases that courts can hear to those through which the parties involved suffered clear and specific harm.

The court explained the standing requirement by quoting the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who explained that plaintiffs must answer:a fundamental query: “What does it have to do with you?”'”

Opinion of Judge Brett Kavanaugh for the Court rejected the plaintiffs’ standing to sue for several reasonsFirst, it was noted that the plaintiffs “do not prescribe or use mifepristone” and that the “FDA has not required the plaintiffs to do or refrain from doing anything.” Thus, they’re “unregulated parties seeking to challenge the FDA's regulation of others.”

The court concluded that, even when nobody had standing to bring an motion on this particular case, the matter may very well be left to “political or democratic processes” through which opponents could express their “concerns and objections”.

Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the court’s statement and in addition wrote individually to indicate that the doctors weren’t entitled to He also believes that “abortion doctors do not have the authority to enforce the rights of their clients.”

Why is that this opinion necessary?

This case is significant since it is the primary full opinion from the Supreme Court because the Court's 2022 opinion Dobbs v. Jackson – Women’s Health Organizationwhich overturned Roe v. Wade and located that there is no such thing as a federal right to abortion.

The court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing but didn’t address the merits of the lawsuit. This signifies that the choice maintains the established order regarding FDA regulation of abortion pills.

However, it can be crucial to emphasise that the opinion didn’t address legal questions on the validity of the FDA regulations or other questions on the FDA's authority, which suggests that many questions remain unanswered. For example, it is just not entirely clear to what extent the FDA regulations override state regulations on the prescription of mifepristone, which Core of some cases in court.

However, the FDA currently allows mifepristone to be distributed through certified pharmacies and prescribed without an in-person doctor's visit; as much as ten weeks of pregnancy; and by non-physician health care professionals, reminiscent of nurses.

Could there be more cases related to abortion pills?

Other cases involving abortion pills are already before lower courts.

First, three states – Idaho, Kansas and Missouri – have showed that they’re able to challenge the FDA's decision-making on mifepristone, so the problems on this case may return to the Supreme Court.

Second, states are already restricting access to the abortion pills. In May 2024, Louisiana decided to treat each mifepristone and misoprostol as controlled substances, meaning that lawmakers concluded – albeit without scientific evidence – that taking the drugs poses risks of dependence and abuse. Both pills are used for purposes apart from medication abortion.

Third, a federal judge in North Carolina recently maintain a number of the state restrictions on medical abortionThese include the requirement of a face-to-face consultation 72 hours before prescribing, and a face-to-face examination and ultrasound scan before prescribing. The judge's reasoning was that these requirements appeared to concern issues “that go beyond the regulation of the safe use of mifepristone”, reminiscent of the regulation of the medical occupation.

On the opposite hand, it repealed the parts of North Carolina's law that prohibited patients from obtaining the pills through pharmacies and taking them at home. It also blocked the requirement for an in-person follow-up appointment, which it saw as contradicting the FDA's decision to repeal those requirements.

Fourth, the FDA could resolve under a Trump administration to return to the old requirements for prescribing mifepristone. This could be a “highly unusual” approach, but nothing excludes this possibility. Moreover, it’s a method expressly beneficial by anti-abortion activists.

Finally, there’s the query of the meaning and application of a Victorian law from 1873, the Comstock Lawwhich criminalizes shipping or shipping of “offensive, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile articles” and of anything “advertised or described in a manner that… causes an abortion.” Abortion opponents consider this is applicable to mifepristone.

The Justice Department under the Biden administration interpreted the law as only applying if the sender knows that the recipient wants to make use of the pills “illegally” for an abortion. one other Government, the Ministry of Justice could Consider the broader scope of the Comstock Act..

As we mentioned, a broad interpretation of the law could transcend banning the mailing of the pills even when abortion is legal; it could also apply to the distribution of any medication or medical device – apart from mifepristone – used to perform an abortion. The same devices are also used for other varieties of obstetric and gynecological care. This could end in abortion being banned across the country. even where states allow abortion..

The ruling does have short-term consequences: Mifepristone will remain available where it’s legal. But this is just not the last word on the problem of access to medical abortion.

Suddenly, Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's Archewell Foundation was back in “good standing” on the California State Register of Charities and Fundraisers on Tuesday.

A spokesman for the California Attorney General's Office told this news organization on Tuesday that the muse contacted the state charitable registry and resolved the matter.

In the past 24 hours, questions on Archewell's standing with the state of California had made headlines around the globe because a check was allegedly missing and the state declared that the muse was “delinquent” for failing to file tax returns and other documents on time.

According to an announcement from California Attorney General Rob Bonta, the crime also meant that the Archewell Foundation needed to stop in search of or issuing donations.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex founded the Archewell Foundation after stepping away from royal duties within the UK and moving to California in 2020.

The foundation was originally registered with the state in 2021. However, a May 3 letter from Bonta's office described the muse as having defaulted on its renewal since it had didn’t “file required annual reports and/or renewal fees.”

The Sussexes had no comment on the drama on Monday, the New York Daily News said. But a spring near Archewell said People tThe Foundation's tax returns were prepared in accordance with all regulations and published in December. The California state application, renewal and required payment were also “tracked” to the Attorney General’s Office. The source also insisted that the documents were “received in a timely manner,” People reported, adding that “any claims suggesting otherwise are inaccurate.”

Specifically, the source told People that the muse submitted its renewal paperwork on time, but a check sent was never received. The foundation only became aware of the missing check as a part of the reminder notice.

A brand new check has been mailed and the Archewell Foundation expects “the issue” to be resolved quickly, the source said.

It seems the issue was fixed on Tuesday. with online recordings that the renewal of the organization was accepted, with the filing date indicated as Tuesday.

However, it’s curious why Archewell selected to submit its renewal, payment and other related documents via US mail, while the Charity Registry allows people to submit documents and make payments electronically. Actually, The register announced this on its website that payments must be made online via checking account or bank card.

The missing check controversy occurred just as Meghan and Harry were wrapping up their three-day visit to Nigeria. Harry was within the African country to advertise his Invictus Games for wounded soldiers. The couple also announced that the Archewell Foundation would expand its partnership with a non-profit organization in Nigeria to supply mental health services to young people.

In its registration with the state, the Archewell Foundation describes itself as “an impact-driven nonprofit organization” whose “primary purpose is to empower and unite communities – local and global, online and offline – one act of compassion at a time.”

On April 17, 2024, lawmakers questioned Columbia University President Minouche Shafik and three colleagues about anti-Semitism on university campuses, just 4 months after three of their presidential colleagues went to Capitol Hill over the way in which their institutions responded within the wake of the Hamas attack Dealing with anti-Semitism on campus, Israel was summoned on October 7, 2023. Two of them resigned shortly afterwards. Here, Lynn Greenkya communications and rhetoric scholar, shares how Shafik handled being in the identical hot seat as her colleagues.

How was today's hearing different from the one on December fifth?

Unlike Claudine Gay, Liz Magill, and Sally Kornbluth—the presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and MIT, respectively—Shafik and the opposite Columbia University witnesses spoke with greater moral clarity in regards to the query of what constitutes anti-Semitism on campus. Of course, they’d the advantage of having the ability to see first what would occur for those who didn't do it.

Columbia's president, Minouche Shafik, in addition to David Schizer and David Greenwald, co-chairs of the Columbia University Task Force on Antisemitism, and co-chair of the Board of Trustees Claire Shipman, were willing to acknowledge their responsibility, even guilt, for his or her failure to have interaction in hate speech against Jews to discover and control on campus. Shipman, specifically, made it clear that Columbia is affected by a “moral crisis” on its campus.

All witnesses showed great deference to the committee. They even thanked the committee for the investigation and asked for its assist in combating anti-Semitism on campus. In fact, Shipman concluded her opening statement by saying she looks forward to the committee's input as Columbia seeks to realign its vision with its core values ​​of wisdom, empathy and respect.

What did the committee members say in regards to the faculty?

Professors Joseph Massad, Katherine Franke and Mohamed Abdu were mentioned by name.

Several members of the congressional committee singled out Massad for describing Hamas' attack on Israel on October 8, 2023 as… “great” and “innovative” in an internet article for particular scorn. Shafik promised the committee that Massad can be faraway from his position as chairman of Colombia's academic review board. their most important function is to “evaluate the quality and effectiveness of the program,” “promote planning and improvement,” and “provide guidance for administrative decisions.” Shafik also suggested that Massad might be fired, although his position was everlasting.

While some might argue that removing Massad as chair or firing him violates the professor's First Amendment right to academic freedom, it’s unclear whether this claim will save him. The Supreme Court has not provided any specific guidance on this matter Parameters of educational freedom. In fact, the concept of educational freedom generally refers to a scholar's freedom to conduct research, discussion, and teaching inside that scholar's field of research and in accordance with the institution's curriculum. Academic freedom just isn’t the identical as that of a professor individual right to specific one's opinion.

Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, a Republican from West Virginia, warned this radical faculty remain a significant problem in Columbia. She said she expects Columbia to make “tangible progress” toward sanctioning or removing radical faculty members. If not, she says, Columbia will probably be brought back before the committee.

Was there a conflict over what constituted hate speech?

Rep. Elise Stefanik, a Republican from New York, recalled a House resolution that condemned the phrase “river to sea” as anti-Semitic and urged Shafik to alter her mind previous statement This suggested that the mantra may constitute protected political speech under certain circumstances.

Shafik seemed unwilling to label students or faculty as those that engaged in hate and harassment. She tried hard, sometimes unsuccessfully, to say the necessity to balance constitutionally protected speech with the tutorial mission of the university.

Still, Shafik incessantly testified that the policies and structures in place before the Oct. 7 attack in Columbia were inadequate. In her written statement to the committeeShafik acknowledged that before Oct. 7, Columbia's process for reporting allegations of hate speech, harassment and other types of disruptive behavior needed to be simplified. She also said staff training needed to be improved. During her testimony, she acknowledged her personal horror on the hatred and vitriol expressed on campus each before and after October seventh.

What actions would Shafik and her colleagues take?

Shafik, Schizer and Shipman each repeated the refrain that they were aware of the mistakes and oversights made in response to events on campus that, they said, left Jewish students indignant and afraid. They said they’re working to revise policies and practices that will encourage vigorous debate while protecting student safety.

As a results of some preliminary recommendations from the Columbia Task Force on Antisemitism, the University has updated the harassment and discrimination reporting and response process.

How will all of this impact free speech on campus?

Rep. Foxx made it clear that outbreaks proceed to occur on campus The House of Representatives has deemed it anti-Semiticrisk the withdrawal of federal funds.

Certainly a university or university has a compelling interest in protecting the liberty, safety and integrity of its students, faculty and staff. However, as all the time, the devil is in the small print. It is difficult to search out the correct balance between promoting informed debate and protecting against crime. When colleges and universities tackle this task, I often consider that the liberty to specific one's own opinion suffers.