Herramientas
Change country:

Horóscopo de hoy, jueves 20 de agosto de 2020

¿Quieres saber qué te espera en el día de hoy? Consulta tu horóscopo para hoy jueves 20 de agosto de 2020. En todos los temas que te interesan: amor, trabajo, dinero…, encontrarás la predicción para hoy. ¿Qué tienen preparado hoy los astros para ti? Aquí puedes saberlo para todos los signos del zodiaco. Hoy es importante la forma de afrontar las distintas situaciones y cambios que se dan en bastantes signos. Aries Aries, te interesa menos organización y más intuición, necesitas ideas frescas para triunfar. Si estabas en el paro, tendrás la oportunidad de conseguir un trabajo pronto. Ten mucho cuidado con los asuntos económicos, tendrás que ser prudente. Transmitirás seguridad y confianza a los que te rodean, estarás muy bien. En tu familia puede haber una noticia positiva que te alegre bastante. Aries no prestes atención a los comentarios malintencionados que escuches hoy. Necesitas introducir algunos cambios en tu vida, te estás estancando. Aprovecha este buen momento para consolidar tus relaciones personales. Ten cuidado con los pequeños accidentes y despistes, anda con precaución. Pero te sientes bien, con tranquilidad y relax. Disfrutarás de casi todo en este día. Fíjate bien en lo que haces, estás con mucho despiste, debes centrarte un poco más. Tauro No te agobies con los problemas de trabajo Tauro, mañana lo verás con otros ojos. Aunque no estás gastando demasiado, tendrás que vigilar aún más el dinero. Estarás con más entretenimiento en tu trabajo gracias a las novedades que llegarán. Vas a atravesar un buen momento sentimental Tauro, favorable para tus relaciones de amor. Puede que esta noche te lances a alguna aventura inesperada y divertida. La visita de un amigo o de alguien de tu familia te dará una gran alegría. Sentirás que tus fuerzas se han renovado mucho tras un merecido descanso. No pretendas que todo el mundo vea las cosas igual que tú Tauro, sé flexible. Estás bien, pero deberías salir más para desconectar y mantener el equilibrio. Debes seguir al pie de la letra los tratamientos médicos que te indiquen. No te descuides. Géminis Géminis, lucharás por algo en el trabajo y saldrás triunfante. Estás en buena racha. Te sientes con fuerzas y con disposición a todo, con ganas de trabajar y avanzar. Ante todo conserva el control de ti mismo, así no tendrás problemas. En el trabajo podrás llevar a cabo muchas cosas de las que habías pensado. Tienes que tomar una decisión importante, pero te irá bien, hazlo sin miedo. El diálogo con tus amigos será el primer paso para solucionar tus problemas. Tus familiares y tu gente más cercana harán que te sientas muy bien este día. En la salud, ya sabes que los nervios se te acumulan en el estómago, intenta cuidarte. Trata de olvidar las responsabilidades por un momento, y disfruta de la vida. Deberías hacer un poco de deporte, te vendrá bien para descargar energía. Cáncer No tires la toalla Cáncer y sigue adelante con tus proyectos, con esfuerzo al final saldrán. No deberías dejar ningún compromiso de trabajo pendiente, sé prudente ahora. Olvídate de tus problemas de dinero porque pronto pasarán. No te preocupes tanto por los pequeños problemas que son transitorios. Si sales tendrás la oportunidad de pasar unos buenos momentos de diversión. No rechaces la ayuda de tus amigos ante las dificultades, ya se lo devolverás. Un poco de diversión y descontrol no hacen mal a nadie, no mires el reloj. Podrían interpretar mal algo que digas, intenta expresarte con claridad. Tendrás mucho ánimo Cáncer, y renovada tu energía y tu vitalidad. Te sentirás muy bien. Tu ánimo subirá y verás la vida de otro color. Harás algo nuevo e interesante. Estás encontrando el tipo de vida que mejor te sienta, continua así. Leo Leo, puedes aspirar a una mejora laboral o a un trabajo nuevo interesante. Deberías exponer tus preocupaciones ante tu jefe, te dará buen resultado. Has estado ahorrando, pero todavía necesita un poco más para tu objetivo. Tu economía va bien, pero necesitas ahorrar más, no bajes la guardia aún. Confía en tu intuición, te ayudará mucho para tomar decisiones importantes. Acepta las cosas tal y como son, y no le busques tres pies al gato, ten calma. Podrías tener un encuentro especial con los signos de Piscis o Escorpio. Sentirte débil es algo que puede ponerte de muy mal humor, pero son rachas. No tienes tu mejor día a nivel físico, pero pronto te recuperarás, anímate. Tienes pocas fuerzas y te sentirás vulnerable, cuídate un poco más estos días. Virgo Virgo, el trabajo se te hará pesado si no te lo tomas con calma, quieres movimiento. No bajes la guardia, hay gente de la que no te puedes fiar mucho laboralmente. Poco a poco se van viendo indicios de un aumento de tus recursos económicos. Has atravesado algunas dificultades últimamente, pero ya se van terminando. Vas a tener una vida amorosa intensa y apasionada en estos días, disfrútalo. La familia te está agobiando en algunos aspectos, ten paciencia, ya pasará. Virgo mantén tu salud, tu cuerpo reaccionará favorablemente a cualquier tratamiento novedoso. Sal a divertirte en tu tiempo libre, necesitas expansión y despejarte un poco. Cambiar de aires te ayudaría mucho a despejarte, si puedes no lo dejes. No tienes que obligarte a hacer cosas que no quieres, relájate un poco. Libra Las cosas de la economía no van tan mal como crees Libra, pronto tendrás suerte. Hoy no tienes un buen día en el trabajo, pero va a empezar a mejorar.No dejes que una circunstancia inesperada en el trabajo te saque de quicio. Tendrás buenas noticias para ti si estás esperando la aprobación de un préstamo. Cuidado con un antiguo amigo que ya no es de fiar, mantén la distancia. Podrás hacer las cosas que más te gustan y disfrutarás mucho en este día. Una persona cercana a ti podría hacer una mala inversión, intenta advertirle. Si te pones más en contacto con la naturaleza llegarás a sentirte muy bien. Por precipitarte podrías estropear algo que estás haciendo, sé paciente. Vas a enfocar la vida con más ánimo y alegría, te irá todo muy bien. Escorpio Escorpio tienes que confiar más en ti en el trabajo, tienes aptitudes para superarte. Puedes proponer algunos cambios o ideas en el trabajo, seguro que te los aceptan. Tu buena iniciativa en este ciclo rendirá sus frutos en el área de los negocios. Es un buen momento para hacer amigos y conocer gente nueva en general. Si estás ante dificultades no rechaces la ayuda que te ofrecerá un amigo. Si tienes un plan que te interese de verdad, saca tiempo de donde sea. Antes de enfadarte innecesariamente, procura tener algo de más comprensión. Tu energía está por las nubes, te sentirás con plenitud y ganas de actividad. Escorpio, tienes más ánimos para salir a divertirte y a despejarte, lo pasarás bien. Mantén la calma y espera a que se te pasen los nervios antes de actuar. Sagitario No debes derrochar como si no hubiera un mañanaSagitario, todavía te hará falta dinero por un tiempo. No te privarás de nada en cuanto a gastos, pero tienes que empezar a ser prudente. No malgastes sin sentido, puedes sacarle bastante buen partido a tu dinero. En el amor, si tienes una relación de pareja, la encontrarás cada vez más gratificante. No tendrás ni un minuto libre, ten paciencia, luego disfrutarás los resultados. Si tienes problemas con alguien, intenta no aumentarlos, no entres al trapo. Trata de relajarte un poco más en estos días, evita las tensiones innecesarias. Aprovecha el tiempo libre y no te cargues con obligaciones, pero recarga las pilas. No encontrarás ni un momento de relax, pero te sentará bien la actividad. Anímicamente te encontrarás muy bien por la posición de los astros Sagitario. Capricornio Capricornio si hay algo que no te parece bien en el trabajo es mejor que lo comentes. Evita librar batallas inútiles que no te benefician en nada. El azar te dará una agradable sorpresa, tus intuiciones suelen ser reveladoras. Parece que tu economía sigue a buen ritmo y todavía lo hará por un tiempo. No le cuentes tus secretos a cualquiera, te podrías llevar un disgusto. Sal y diviértete con tus amigos de siempre, te vendrá muy bien despejarte. Después de unos días algo tensos, la familia empezará a darte alegrías. No permitas que te afecte algún pequeño contratiempo sin consecuencias. Aunque te encuentres bien, es conveniente que no pongas tu salud a prueba. Poco a poco te irás recuperando del cansancio o la tensión que acumulabas. Mantén la armonía entre tu mundo interior y exterior, y todo irá bien. Acuario Piensa Acuario que los astros te benefician en lo económico, tus asuntos marcharán muy bien. Aunque es posible que de momento los gastos te atenacen un poco, pero es algo solo temporal. Tus jefes estarán encantados contigo y con tu trabajo, subirá tu confianza. Si te animas a realizar una salida improvisada te resultará muy positiva. Te darán consejos bienintencionados pero poco realistas, no te convienen. Trata de organizar mejor tu agenda y tus papeles, así funcionarás mejor. Procura hacer más ejercicio durante el día, dormirás mejor y te relajarás. Tienes que dejar atrás las dudas y nostalgias del pasado que no te benefician. Deberías empezar a descansar un poco más porque puedes llegar a agotarte. Intenta relajarte más y disfrutar de lo que te rodea, te agobias sin motivo. Piscis Ten cuidado con tus gastos Piscis, se pueden disparar si te descuidas, ten control. En el trabajo tendrás que recuperar el tiempo que has perdido, paciencia. Se te ocurrirán nuevas y buenas opciones relativas a lo profesional. Tendrás que defender tus intereses en el trabajo, presta mucha atención. En el amor no olvides realizar una llamada importante para tus relaciones o quizás para otros asuntos. Es buen momento para planear importantes proyectos de futuro, como mudanzas. Procura ser más detallista con los demás, te puedes llevar una sorpresa. Descenderá el ritmo de tus tareas y podrás dedicar más tiempo a tus aficiones. Tienes nuevas energías para comenzar proyectos y actividades diferentes. Si te dedicas a ayudar a todo el mundo al final te resentirás, ponte un límite. Te encuentras estupendamente y con mucha vitalidad, disfruta de este día. En ABC.es puedes enterarte de las predicciones completas del horóscopo de hoy para todos los signos del zodiaco, para que puedas saber lo que te espera en todos los ámbitos.
Carga más
Leer artículo completo sobre: abc.es
Fox News Is Holding More Cards Than Trump Realizes
Even if there’s a MAGA exodus from Fox, the cable network’s profits are protected by lucrative cable contracts.
5 m
washingtonpost.com
'SEAL Team' Season 4 Premiere: What Happened to Bravo in Season 3?
While season three had to end abruptly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, CBS' "SEAL Team" returns tonight, hopefully answering fans' questions.
6 m
newsweek.com
YouTuber Maya Maxwell of Tic Tac Toy Turns 8 Today and She's Already Got a Second Career
The child is famous on YouTube for her love of toys.
6 m
newsweek.com
The Best N95 and KN95 Masks for Sale That Are FDA and CDC Approved
These are the best n95 and KN95 masks that you can buy today that are on the CDC and FDA approved lists.
6 m
newsweek.com
Happy Birthday Lucy Liu! What the Single Mother Has Said About Parenting
The actress welcomed her son, Rockwell Lloyd, in August 2015 via surrogate.
6 m
newsweek.com
Loudoun doctor faked coronavirus exposure, got relief loan after pleading guilty to running ‘pill mill,’ prosecutors say
Felicia Donald was sentenced to 84 months in prison.
6 m
washingtonpost.com
Help! I Keep Looking for Excuses Not to Hang Out With My Husband.
He wants us to spend our little free time together, but I’d rather be on my own.
6 m
slate.com
Religious conservatives have won a revolutionary victory in the Supreme Court
President Donald Trump stands with newly sworn-in US Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett during a ceremonial event on the South Lawn of the White House October 26, 2020, in Washington, DC. | Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo is one of the most significant religion cases in the past 30 years. For the past six years, the Supreme Court’s right flank has wanted to revolutionize the law governing so-called “religious liberty” cases, in which a plaintiff who objects to following a particular law on religious grounds seeks an exemption from that law. Late on Thanksgiving eve, in a decision handed down while much of the country was already asleep, the Court made this vision a reality. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, a decision allowing some houses of worship to operate in defiance of New York state’s rules seeking to limit the spread of Covid-19, is one of the two most significant religion cases of the past 30 years, and may prove to be one of the most important religion decisions in the Court’s history. New York state limited attendance at religious services in areas with coronavirus outbreaks to 10 people in areas with the most severe outbreaks, and to 25 people in areas where the state is concerned that a severe outbreak could occur. In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court held that the state may not enforce these restrictions. Roman Catholic Diocese marks a sea change in the Court’s approach to religious objectors, and it is an early sign of the significance of the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s replacement with conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Under the old rules, religious objectors typically could not seek exemptions from the law if granting them an exemption could harm people who do not share their faith. And the old rules were much more concerned with preserving equality between secular and religious individuals than with giving special advantages to people of faith. In the business context, for example, the Court was primarily concerned with ensuring that religious business owners did not obtain legal exemptions that would give them a leg up over their competitors. As the Supreme Court held in United States v. Lee (1982), “when followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.” But the Supreme Court started to dismantle decisions like Lee in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), which permitted private businesses to refuse to include birth control coverage in its employees’ health plan despite a federal regulation requiring these businesses to do so. Just as significantly, Hobby Lobby established a strong presumption that when a religious objector seeks an exemption from a federal law, the objector will get that exemption barring unusual circumstances. Yet, for reasons explained below, Hobby Lobby only benefited religious objectors who sought exemptions from a federal law. State law still applied with considerable force against religious objectors, even after Hobby Lobby. The practical effect of Roman Catholic Diocese is that it extends the Hobby Lobby regime to a wide range of cases involving religious objections to state law. There are still technical differences between the law governing plaintiffs who seek exemptions from a federal policy and those who seek to avoid state law, but the practical differences are now thin or even potentially nonexistent. To be sure, Roman Catholic Diocese involves actual houses of worship that seek an exemption from legal restrictions, so the argument for a “religious liberty” exemption is stronger in this case than it was in Hobby Lobby, which involved for-profit businesses. But the majority opinion in Roman Catholic Diocese is written fairly broadly — broadly enough that the case is likely to have sweeping implications for for-profit businesses and other, similar institutions seeking a religious exemption from the law. The implications of this doctrinal revolution are profound. Among other things, the Court is currently weighing whether religious objectors have a right to defy laws barring discrimination against LGBTQ individuals. Subsequent cases could potentially give religious conservatives a right to engage in gender discrimination, or to violate a bevy of other laws. And, as Roman Catholic Diocese involves a challenge to state rules seeking to prevent the spread of a deadly disease, religious objectors may even prevail when their claims could endanger human life. “Religious liberty” before Hobby Lobby, briefly explained Although the old regime was less favorable to certain religious objectors than decisions like Hobby Lobby and Roman Catholic Diocese, the Court was often fairly protective of religious liberty plaintiffs prior to Hobby Lobby. So long as those objectors did not seek an exemption that, in Justice Ginsburg’s words, would “detrimentally affect others who do not share [the objector’s] belief,” such exemptions were often granted by federal courts. The prior regime began with Sherbert v. Verner (1963), a seminal decision holding that the Constitution limits the government’s ability to enforce laws that impose a “substantial infringement” on someone’s religious beliefs. Sherbert also declared that such an infringement may only be “justified by a ‘compelling state interest in the regulation of a subject within the State’s constitutional power to regulate.’” The Court’s use of the three words “compelling state interest” sowed considerable confusion into religious liberty doctrine. Typically, when the Supreme Court uses the words “compelling interest,” it signals that the Constitution applies the highest possible safeguards against a particular kind of government action. Laws that discriminate on the basis of race, for example, must overcome a “compelling interest” test. Lawyers refer to this highly rigorous test as “strict scrutiny.” Under strict scrutiny, a law cannot be enforced unless it uses the “least restrictive means” to advance a “compelling governmental interest.” Most laws that are subjected to strict scrutiny are struck down. Yet, while the Supreme Court used the loaded words “compelling state interest” in its Sherbert opinion, empirical data shows that the judiciary applied something far less rigorous than strict scrutiny in cases involving religious objections — so religious objectors typically lost their cases under the Sherbert regime. A 1992 study by James Ryan, now president of the University of Virginia, found that federal courts of appeals heard 97 free exercise of religion cases applying the “compelling interest” test between 1980 and 1990, and they rejected 85 of these cases. A similar study by UCLA law professor Adam Winkler looked at cases between 1990 and 2003. Winkler found that federal courts upheld 59 percent of “religious liberty burdens” during that period. By contrast, federal courts applying the compelling interest test upheld only 22 percent of free speech restrictions and 27 percent of laws that engaged in discrimination on disfavored grounds such as race. Courts during the periods studied by Ryan and Winkler, in other words, often used the rhetoric of strict scrutiny. But they treated cases brought by religious objectors very differently than cases that applied full-bore strict scrutiny. Religious objectors typically lost their cases during these periods, while victims of race discrimination or other such activity were far more likely to prevail. The Supreme Court, moreover, often encouraged lower courts to treat religious liberty cases with a fair amount of skepticism, even as the justices maintained that Sherbert was still good law. The Court’s 1982 decision in Lee, holding that business owners are broadly prohibited from seeking religious exemptions for their business, for example, is very much at odds with the Court’s approach to cases where strict scrutiny applies. Then, in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Supreme Court appeared to abandon Sherbert altogether. “To make an individual’s obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State’s interest is ‘compelling,’” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the Court in Smith, is “permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, ‘to become a law unto himself.’” Such an outcome, according to Scalia, “contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.” Under the new rule announced in Smith, a religious objector must follow “neutral law[s] of general applicability.” Thus, so long as a law applies equally to religious and secular actors, the religious objectors cannot seek an exemption under Smith. Smith’s effective decision to overrule Sherbert, however, triggered a bipartisan backlash from lawmakers who believed it did too much to limit religious liberties. Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), which sought to “restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert” and one other related case. RFRA, however, only applies to the federal government. Smith’s permissive rule still allowed the 50 states to enforce any “neutral law of general applicability” against religious objectors. After RFRA, but before Hobby Lobby, states had a broad power to enforce their laws against religious objectors, so long as those laws did not single out people of faith for inferior treatment. The federal government, by contrast, had to comply with “the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert,” although that test, as Ryan and Winkler’s research demonstrated, was less rigorous than full-bore strict scrutiny. Thus, under RFRA, most lawsuits brought by religious objectors against the federal government would fail. Hobby Lobby applied full-strength strict scrutiny to federal religious liberty lawsuits Hobby Lobby held that two businesses, whose owners object on religious grounds to certain forms of birth control, could refuse to cover those forms of contraception in their employee health plans, even though a federal regulation required employers to provide such coverage. This decision was a doctrinal earthquake. As Justice Ginsburg explained in dissent, until Hobby Lobby, “no decision of this Court recognized a for-profit corporation’s qualification for a religious exemption from a generally applicable law, whether under the Free Exercise Clause or RFRA.” Hobby Lobby was also significant for another reason. Rather than applying the watered-down version of the compelling interest test required by Sherbert, Hobby Lobby applied the full force of strict scrutiny to the federal birth control regulation — a test that, as Justice Samuel Alito noted in his majority opinion, is “exceptionally demanding.” Thus, Hobby Lobby effectively abandoned Lee’sholding that businesses generally must comply with the law, at least with respect to federal laws. It also held that plaintiffs with religious objections to a federal law benefit from the strong version of strict scrutiny applied to race discrimination cases — not the less rigorous test created by Sherbert. Because Hobby Lobby was an RFRA case, however, its holding only applied to federal laws. After Hobby Lobby, religious liberty cases involving state laws remained subject to the permissive test announced in Smith. Roman Catholic Diocese transforms Smith into little more than an empty husk The holding of Smith is that the state may apply a “neutral law of general applicability” to a religious objector — only laws that single out people of faith for lesser treatment than secular individuals are suspect under Smith. The Court’s opinion in Roman Catholic Diocese upends this balance by defining what counts as a “neutral law of general applicability” so narrowly that it is virtually meaningless. The punchline is that, with few exceptions, the Hobby Lobby rule will apply equally to state and federal laws. Nearly any law could be unenforceable against religious objectors, unless that law survives strict scrutiny. The New York state rules at issue in Roman Catholic Dioceseinvolve a complicated regime the state uses to prevent the spread of Covid-19. New York classifies areas with an elevated risk of coronavirus transmission as “yellow,” “orange,” or “red” zones. Houses of worship in orange zones may only admit a maximum of 25 people, while places of worship in red zones may only admit up to 10 people. While these restrictions are quite severe, they are actually less harsh than the restrictions imposed on secular businesses that are similar in character to places of worship. As a lower court that upheld New York’s restrictions explained, “public gatherings with scheduled starting and ending times such as public lectures, concerts or theatrical performances” must “remain closed entirely” in the relevant zones. Thus, the state effectively banned all public gatherings where large numbers of people gather in auditorium-like settings. It then gave a special exemption to houses of worship that allowed them to have small, limited gatherings. Whatever you think of that policy, it does not single out places of worship for inferior treatment. Indeed, it does the opposite. Nevertheless, a majority of the Supreme Court struck down New York’s headcount limits on houses of worship because the state’s rules treat those institutions less favorably than businesses that do not involve public gatherings in auditorium-like settings. “In a red zone, while a synagogue or church may not admit more than 10 persons,” a majority of the justices explained in an unsigned opinion, “businesses categorized as ‘essential’ may admit as many people as they wish.” The opinion then lists several examples of “essential” businesses, including “acupuncture facilities, camp grounds, [and] garages.” Yet, while it is true that garages and acupuncturists are subject to different rules than churches, the reasons are hardly arbitrary. As Justice Stephen Breyer writes in dissent, “members of the scientific and medical communities tell us that the virus is transmitted from person to person through respiratory droplets produced when a person or group of people talk, sing, cough, or breathe near each other.” Large groups of people typically do not gather in an acupuncture facility for hours at a time and sing. But they do engage in such potentially dangerous activity in churches and many other houses of worship. So it makes sense that places of worship should be treated differently than businesses that bear little, if any, resemblance to those places of worship. The point is this: Justice Breyer’s dissent suggests that a state law is a “neutral law of general applicability” so long as that law treats religious institutions the same way as similar secular institutions. The majority opinion, by contrast, suggests that a law is suspect if a court can find any example of a secular institution that is treated differently than a religious institution. Although Roman Catholic Diocese is a case about houses of worship, the majority’s reasoning has profound implications for other institutions that seek religious exemptions, including for-profit businesses. Consider, for example, Justice Alito’s dissent from the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear Stormans v. Wiesman (2016). Stormans involved a Washington state regulation that required pharmacies to “deliver lawfully prescribed drugs or devices to patients.” Pharmacy owners who object to certain forms of birth control on religious grounds sought an exemption from this regulation, claiming they should have the right to refuse to dispense medications that they find religiously objectionable. Though Washington’s regulation is neutral and generally applicable on its face — it ordinarily requires all pharmacies to deliver all lawfully prescribed drugs, regardless of whether the pharmacy owners are religious — Alito argued that the law is not neutral because it contained some secular exemptions. A pharmacist, for example, could refuse to dispense a prescription if it does not accept the patient’s insurance. Or if the prescription might be fraudulent. Or if the patient was already taking another drug that could cause negative health effects if mixed with the new prescription. Alito’s Stormans opinion, in other words, suggests that Washington had to make a devilish choice. Either the state had to give broad exemptions from its pharmacy regulation to religious objectors, or it might have to force pharmacists to fill fraudulent prescriptions or even to endanger the health of their customers. Given such a choice, it’s hard to imagine that any state would refuse to provide an expansive religious exemption. Roman Catholic Diocese effectively writes the rule that Alito advocated in Stormans into the law, and the implications of this decision are likely to be profound. It means that, when someone objects to a law on religious grounds, they will typically be exempt from the law unless the law survives strict scrutiny, because it is very easy to find secular exemptions to even the most unobjectionable laws. A state’s ban on murder, for example, may have an exemption for people who kill in self-defense. State bans on animal cruelty typically permit livestock to be slaughtered for food. Laws banning individuals from possessing machine guns still permit members of the military to carry such weapons as part of their service. The tax code is absolutely riddled with provisions allowing people not to pay some part of their federal taxes if, for example, they have a mortgage or are raising a child. Does this mean that the Supreme Court is likely to permit religious objectors to kill? Or to refuse to pay taxes? Or to allow them to torture animals (provided that the state’s ban on animal cruelty doesn’t single out people of faith for inferior treatment)? Most likely not. Among other things, such laws would still be enforceable so long as they survive strict scrutiny — meaning that the law uses the “least restrictive means” to advance a “compelling governmental interest.” But the new approach announced in Roman Catholic Diocese suggests that any law is subject to strict scrutiny if a religious objector can point to any exemption to that law. And, as Winkler’s research shows, the overwhelming majority of laws subject to full-bore strict scrutiny fail that test.
6 m
vox.com
In D.C., affordable Fort Lincoln still evokes its Great Society origins
WHERE WE LIVE | Seniors still thrive in the Northeast neighborhood as it welcomes new residents and businesses.
6 m
washingtonpost.com
Emma Glass’s ‘Rest and Be Thankful’ powerfully describes what it means to be a health-care worker
Glass’s protagonist, like the author, is a nurse, veering between the emotional highs and enervating lows of emergency medicine.
6 m
washingtonpost.com
Mitch McConnell Draws Lawmaker Scorn After Suggesting Bipartisan Stimulus Bill Is Waste of Time
The Senate majority leader has said there is not "time to waste time" as he spoke of desire for a targeted relief bill.
7 m
newsweek.com
Tesco Sets a Supermarket Precedent. Others Should Follow Suit.
Food retailers have largely benefited from the pandemic. They shouldn’t keep government support and expect to retain public favor. 
8 m
washingtonpost.com
Woman dies after being run over while defending her son
Investigators say the teens went to the woman's home because of a "romantic entanglement" between the teens and her son.
cbsnews.com
Louisiana bank turns its multi-storied building into a large Advent calendar
December is the month of Advent calendars -- and one Louisiana bank is taking the tradition to new heights.
edition.cnn.com
WV man shot wife in back of head after cheating accusation: police
A West Virginia man has been accused of shooting his wife in the back of her head after accusing her of cheating on him during an argument.
foxnews.com
U.K. becomes first country to approve Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine
The United Kingdom has become the first country to approve the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. Immunizations are set to start next week, with the elderly and health care workers among the first to receive it. Charlie D'Agata reports.
cbsnews.com
Deportation Flight To Jamaica Takes off Despite High Profile Backlash
A charity intervening in a legal challenge to prevent the flight claim those deported included victims of slavery and a Windrush descendant.
newsweek.com
Health care workers overwhelmed by record COVID hospitalizations
As more states report record coronavirus hospitalizations, battle-weary health care workers say they are physically and mentally fatigued.
cbsnews.com
Joe Biden’s economic team: What a difference an election makes
Different personnel. Different focus. Different policies.
washingtonpost.com
Joe Biden’s economic team: What a difference an election makes
Different personnel. Different focus. Different policies.
washingtonpost.com
Husband of Texas social media influencer receiving death threats, report says
The husband of a Texas social media influencer whose naked body was discovered along a west Houston roadway said he’s received death threats since the tragic news broke and rejected the notion that he and his wife fought before she left their home the day before, according to a recent report.
foxnews.com
Trump threatens to veto defense bill if Congress doesn’t repeal Section 230
The commander-in-chief issued the threat via Twitter Tuesday evening, in which he called on the House and Senate to include language repealing Big Tech's immunity in their military funding measure.
nypost.com
What you need to know about coronavirus on Wednesday December 2
A trove of confidential documents obtained by CNN has lifted the lid on China's mishandling of the early days of the pandemic.
edition.cnn.com
Elliot Page's wife says she's 'so proud' of him for coming out as transgender
Elliot Page's wife, New York dance teacher Emma Portner, is showing her support after he came out as transgender. More stars also showed support.        
usatoday.com
French chef tops pizza with 254 different types of cheeses, breaks Guinness record
Last week, Guinness World Records validated that Chef Benoît Bruel of restaurant Déliss Pizza in Lyon, France, has broken the world record for the most varieties of cheese on a pizza.
foxnews.com
The Cybersecurity 202: The White House tried to silence the government’s election security leaders. It didn’t’ work.
The voices combating Trump’s unfounded election fraud claims are stronger than ever.
washingtonpost.com
Florida becomes 3rd state to hit 1 million coronavirus cases
This comes one day after Governor Ron DeSantis held a press conference where he denounced mask mandates.
cbsnews.com
Ex-Michigan State men's basketball star Keith Appling gets probation in drug case
Ex-MSU basketball star Keith Appling was sentenced to 18 months of probation in drug case in Michigan. Police said he had heroin in his car.       
usatoday.com
White House coronavirus task force warns states: 'We are in a very dangerous place'
The White House coronavirus task force issued extremely dire warnings to states in weekly reports this week, urging public health officials to circumvent state and local policies amid record high cases, hospitalizations and deaths, as well as fears of a surge upon a surge following Thanksgiving.
edition.cnn.com
The government’s failure to provide economic relief is killing people
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). | Tom Williams/Getty Images The lack of funding from Congress is making the pandemic worse. When Covid-19 began spreading across the United States this spring, the federal government put in place a series of protections to help workers and families weather the economic impact. Then, one by one, the government took them all away. Expanded unemployment insurance, which helped keep millions of laid-off workers out of poverty, expired at the end of July. Federal stimulus checks were issued to millions of taxpayers once, beginning in April, but never again. The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans meant to keep small businesses afloat expired in August, even as many of those businesses faced a second surge in cases. And it’s about to get a lot worse, with a host of benefits from student loan forbearance to the federal eviction moratorium set to expire at the end of December. Many economists agree that the federal government’s insufficient economic protections are driving Americans — especially low-wage workers who have been especially hard-hit in the crisis — further into poverty. But something else is also becoming abundantly clear: The lack of economic safeguards for Americans is making Covid-19 worse, too. The latest evidence is a study showing that lifting state-level eviction moratoriums, which allowed landlords to once again kick out renters for nonpayment, was associated with an increase in Covid-19 infections. Between March and September, getting rid of the bans and allowing evictions to continue led to as many as 433,700 excess Covid-19 cases and 10,700 deaths, the researchers found. Meanwhile, the lack of relief for small-business owners is forcing many to choose between closing their doors forever or staying open during the pandemic — and contributing to transmission rates. “They’re making heartbreaking decisions every day,” Lindsey Leininger, a public health educator and professor at Dartmouth’s Tuck School of Business, told Vox. And with unemployment benefits running out, workers, too, are forced to go back to unsafe occupations, even if they have underlying conditions that make them especially vulnerable to the virus. “We have not made it feasible for most people to safely shelter in place,” Camara Phyllis Jones, a family physician, epidemiologist, and past president of the American Public Health Association, told Vox. Those most affected by the lack of economic protection are those most impacted by Covid-19: Black Americans, other people of color, and people living in poverty. And as the country enters a dark winter, inaction by the Trump administration and Congress isn’t just hurting Americans’ livelihoods — it’s costing them their lives. The federal government gave Americans some economic relief in spring. Then it dried up. Covid-19 caused unprecedented economic devastation when it first began spreading in the US earlier this year. As restaurants, hotels, and other businesses shuttered, unemployment reached heights unseen since the Great Depression. In late March, more than 6 million people filed for unemployment in a single week; before the pandemic, the highest number of initial claims in a week was about 700,000 in 1982. Food banks were overwhelmed with individuals and families unable to afford groceries, and the nonprofit Feeding America projected that one in six Americans — including one in four children — could experience food insecurity in 2020. Meanwhile, 5.6 million workers lost their employer-provided health insurance in March and April, leaving many without a way to pay for medical care during a public health crisis. To help blunt the pandemic’s economic impact, Congress instituted a number of measures: a $600-per-week addition to unemployment benefits, an expansion of unemployment insurance to cover part-time and gig-economy workers, a stimulus check of up to $1,200 paid to many Americans, and PPP loans to help small businesses keep employees on the payroll. Some state and local governments also announced eviction moratoriums, and in September, the federal government ordered its own ban through the end of the year. The programs were far from perfect, but they helped many Americans stay afloat: Despite skyrocketing unemployment, some estimates found that poverty actually fell in April and May thanks to the availability of federal aid. But as the virus continued to rage, that aid started to dry up. It’s now been four months since expanded unemployment benefits expired, and Congress hasn’t approved any new relief in that time. That’s hurting Americans’ ability to pay their bills and provide for their families — especially if they previously worked in low-wage service-sector jobs that were disproportionately hard-hit in the spring and have been slow to return. But it’s also hurting the country’s ability to fight the virus. Small businesses are one example. While experts don’t yet have a complete picture of what’s driving Covid-19 transmission right now, they generally agree that some of the most dangerous venues for spread are places like restaurants, bars, and gyms — venues “where almost by definition, people can’t wear masks and are indoors,” as Brandon Guthrie, a professor of global health and epidemiology at the University of Washington, told Vox. For example, one study found that people who tested positive for Covid-19 were about twice as likely to have recently eaten in a restaurant compared to those who tested negative. However, many states and cities have been slow to shut down such businesses, even in the face of a devastating third wave this fall. In New York, for example, restaurants remain open for indoor dining while schools are closed, though Mayor Bill de Blasio has announced a plan to bring elementary school students back later in December. In much of Florida, restaurants and bars opened at full capacity in September, despite continued spread of the virus. Many factors (including pressure from the Trump administration to just open everything) have gone into state and local leaders’ decisions about business restrictions. But since the summer, one big factor has been the lack of federal aid to small businesses and workers. Policymakers know that if they institute shutdowns, restaurants and bars will go out of business and workers will lose jobs. This likely factors into their decision-making. “You’ve heard governors saying that the availability of those federal funds has been important,” Guthrie said, and they “are really concerned about what is going to happen if those resources dry up.” In the absence of those resources, meanwhile, individual businesses can’t easily decide to stay closed — even if their owners know it might be dangerous to remain open. Restaurants and bars “are not high-margin businesses even in the best of times,” Leininger said. Their proprietors often “want to do right by public health, but also want to do right by their families and their workers in terms of livelihoods.” It’s hard to quantify exactly how much the lack of federal support for businesses and workers has contributed to coronavirus spread. But clusters of infections have been linked to reopened bars and restaurants, including a Friendly’s in Riverhead, New York, and a brewpub in East Lansing, Michigan. Between March and August, around a quarter of Louisiana’s Covid-19 cases outside of nursing homes and prisons “stemmed from bars and restaurants,” the New York Times reported; in Colorado, 9 percent of all outbreaks as of August had been traced to such venues. “Every time we see an outbreak that’s seeded in a bar or from a restaurant establishment with indoor dining, that is something that could have potentially been prevented if those settings weren’t open,” Leininger said. The lack of aid is forcing Americans to put themselves and others at risk It’s not just about supporting businesses. Individual Americans haven’t gotten the help they need from their government to keep themselves safe, either. Earlier in the year, expanded unemployment may have helped people reduce their exposure to the virus because they “felt less pressure to have to go back into higher-risk settings” for work, Guthrie said. But the expiration of those benefits, along with the ongoing damage to the job market caused by the pandemic, has forced many people to take any job they can get — even if that means exposing themselves and their families to the virus. “If you are a waitress, and you managed to get some hours at the place where you work but they’re not doing social distancing and they’re not providing PPE [personal protective equipment], are you going to take the chance to quit and try to go work somewhere else?” asked Janelle Jones, managing director of policy and research at the Groundwork Collaborative. Especially with a lack of help from the federal government, many Americans can’t afford to take that chance. Others, meanwhile, have been unable to find work or pay their bills — and an increasing number face eviction from their homes. Forty-three states and Washington, DC, passed eviction bans earlier this year, but some lasted as little as 10 weeks and many expired in the summer. As of July, large shares of renters in many states — 58 percent in Tennessee and 59 percent in West Virginia, for example — were at risk of being evicted, according to CNBC. The authors of a new study found that lifting state-level eviction moratoriums, in addition to costing people their homes, also contributed to the spread of Covid-19. “When people are evicted, they often move in with friends and family, and that increases your number of contacts,” UCLA’s Kathryn Leifheit, one of the study’s co-authors, explained to CNBC. Others may move into a shelter, also increasing their risk. Whether it’s unemployment or evictions, Black and Latinx Americans, who are less likely than white people to have the accumulated wealth to weather an economic crisis, have been disproportionately affected — likely contributing to the high rates of infection and death in many communities of color. “People of color are more likely to be infected because we’re more exposed and less protected,” Camara Phyllis Jones, the epidemiologist, said. The lack of economic protections is as important to understand as the lack of PPE and other safety measures. “When you force people to enter into situations that are more dangerous because of an economic need when you could address the economic need,” Jones said, it means “we have prioritized some people’s profit over other people’s lives.” The situation is about to become even more dire, since a number of programs, including the nationwide moratorium on evictions and the extension of unemployment to part-time and gig-economy workers, are slated to expire at the end of the year. “We’re already in a situation that is like a terror state of economic disasters,” the Groundwork Collaborative’s Janelle Jones told Vox, “and it will just get worse at the end of the year.” Economic relief would help people support their families — and help the country control the virus Experts are clear that it doesn’t have to be this way. Additional federal support for bars and restaurants would allow these businesses to shut down until it’s safe to reopen. “This is restaurant owners’ and bar owners’ time of need,” Leininger said. Meanwhile, a continuation of unemployment benefits, along with paid leave and affordable health care, could help ordinary people stay safe at home and help the US control the virus, Janelle Jones said. More direct payments like the spring stimulus checks may also be necessary: “We can send people money,” Janelle Jones added. “We know how to do it.” After months of deadlock in which Republicans opposed more generous proposals by Democrats, Congress may be starting to move on the issue: On Tuesday, a bipartisan group of senators announced a $908 billion stimulus plan that would include $300 per week in additional unemployment benefits for individuals, as well as support for state and local governments and small businesses, the Washington Post reported. But even this compromise, which leaves out additional stimulus payments to individuals and is significantly slimmer than the $2 trillion package sought by Democrats, will have a difficult road in a Republican-controlled Senate. And while Congress fights it out, millions of Americans will have to continue living and working through a pandemic without the economic cushion needed to keep themselves and others safe. “It is a choice we’re making every day to leave millions of people this insecure and vulnerable,” Janelle Jones said.
vox.com
Take the KidsPost News Quiz to see how many stories you remember from 2020
Answer 10 questions correctly, and you might win a prize package.
washingtonpost.com
Rep.-elect Troy Nehls, Texas sheriff, offers solution to 'broken' criminal justice system
Rep.-elect Troy Nehls, a Texas sheriff and newly elected congressman, is in Washington preaching a message of "mutual respect" as America grapples with racial unrest, criminal justice reforms and efforts to dismantle police departments.
foxnews.com
British Airways hostess reportedly killed by man she was ‘deeply in love’ with
A British Airways hostess who was “deeply in love” with a baggage handler 24 years her junior was allegedly killed at his hands after a “passionate and turbulent” romance that he pursued to fund his drug habit, according to a report. Nelly Myers, a 58-year-old customer service worker at London’s Gatwick Airport, was found dead...
nypost.com
Nevada doctor rebukes Trump’s retweet suggesting photo of covid medical unit was fake: ‘I was disappointed’
The president shared a post that falsely claimed the Nevada care site for coronavirus overflow patients where the physician took the selfie was "fake."
washingtonpost.com
Brazil Bank Heist Update as Armed Gang Takes Hostages in Cametá Attack
A gang of armed men reportedly stormed a bank in the northern Brazilian city of Cametá 24 hours after a similar attack in the southern city of Criciúma.
newsweek.com
The Health 202: Operation Warp Speed chief predicts coronavirus vaccines for all Americans by June
But that timeline is ambitious and there are huge hurdles.
washingtonpost.com
The surprising rise of women in the GOP
CNN's Abby Phillip and Dana Bash talk about a surprise story from the 2020 election: the number of Republican women elected to the new Congress.
edition.cnn.com
Massive party at NY mansion busted with 400 people
Cops busted a massive party with as many as 400 people who were stuffed in a Long Island mansion early Monday morning.
foxnews.com
Kwanza Hall wins special election to serve remainder of John Lewis' term in Congress
The remainder of the late US Rep. John Lewis' term will be served by Democrat Kwanza Hall, who won control of the reliably blue seat in a House runoff special election in Georgia Tuesday, CNN projects.
edition.cnn.com
Using Elliot Page's 'Deadname' is a Problem—Here's Why
Elliot Page's coming out as transgender led to an overwhelming outpouring of support for "The Umbrella Academy" – and a swift backlash against those using his "deadname."
newsweek.com
Hong Kong Democracy Activist Joshua Wong Goes to Prison Vowing That His Fight Will Continue
The prominent activist was handed a sentence of 13.5 months but shouted “We will hang in there" as he was whisked away
time.com
U.K. becomes 1st country to approve Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine for use
Government grants emergency use authorization and says the vaccine will be distributed from next week following "months of rigorous clinical trials."
cbsnews.com
Roger Stone Accuses Bill Barr of 'Deep State' Connection Following Voter Fraud Dismissal
Trump's former adviser made the claim after Barr said the Justice Department found no evidence that would "produce different outcome in the election."
newsweek.com
Live updates: Biden to hold roundtable with workers, small-business owners; Mark Kelly to join Senate
The president-elect is seeking to keep a focus on the economy a day after he pledged "a recovery for everybody." Meanwhile, Democrats will pick up a seat in the Senate.
washingtonpost.com
Ram 1500 TRX named MotorTrend Truck of the Year
Fiat Chrysler's new 702-horsepower Ram 1500 TRX has been named the MotorTrend Truck of the Year.
edition.cnn.com
Afghan forces are on defensive, says former ambassador
On "Intelligence Matters," Mike Morell speaks with former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Ronald Neumann about national security interests amid the change in administrations.
cbsnews.com
US stock futures head lower after setting records
View more stock market news today.
edition.cnn.com
2020's best new airport amenities: COVID-19 testing stations, outdoor lounges, coat checks, more
Through air traffic took a major hit in 2020, airports haven't been idle. Here are some of the best amenities introduced around the country this year.       
1 h
usatoday.com