R Magic Brow

AIDS killed over 100,000 people in the U.S. during the 1980s. The vast majority of AIDS deaths occurred among homosexuals.According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HIV/AIDS had become the third-leading cause of death among men 25-44 years of age, and in 1989, it had become the second-leading cause of death, surpassing heart disease, cancer, suicide, and homicide.'Today's vote is a step to try and rectify past harms.'Seeking to curb the spread of AIDS and save lives, Minneapolis — like other cities around North America — voted in 1988 to shut down its adults-only bathhouses, which are effectively super-spreader sites frequented by homosexuals looking for sex.The ban, which impacted three establishments, was supported by numerous homosexuals at the time, including Minneapolis' first-known gay city councilor, Brian Coyle, who later died of AIDS-related illnesses.The radicals now running the city voted 9-2 on Thursday to repeal the ban on adult bathhouses and sex venues.Ahead of the vote, homosexual Councilman Jason Chavez — the LGBT activist who co-authored the two ordinances required to repeal the ban — characterized the decades-old effort to protect homosexuals from the ravages of AIDS as "wrong" and hateful."Bathhouse restrictions have a history that is intertwined with anti-2SLGBTQIA bigotry, in particular the history of homophobia in Minneapolis," said the gay son of Mexican immigrants who had trans- and LGBT-activist flags on his desk but no American colors.RELATED: Mormon parents fight woke school district over alleged LGBTQ propaganda in California despite SCOTUS ruling Allan Tannenbaum/Getty Images"Today's vote is a step to try and rectify past harms," Chavez continued. "In fact, when this ban first passed, the ordinance declared AIDS to be of particular danger to persons in this community — this community meaning the community I'm a part of and proud to be a part of. It stated that this disease was found to occur in discernible population groups and that the definition of high-risk sexual conduct targeted acts associated specifically with gay men. To be clear, it was a law targeting gay men."Homosexual- and bisexual-identifying men are still the population most affected by HIV/AIDS. The CDC noted that in 2022, for instance, 71% of all new HIV infections in the U.S. were among homosexual and bisexual men.HIVinfo, the federal government's resource for up-to-date HIV/AIDS information, noted that "receptive anal sex carries the highest risk of HIV transmission among all types of sex. The risk of transmission is about 13 times greater with receptive anal sex than with insertive anal sex."A 2010 study published in the Journal of Sex Research found on the basis of a two-stage probability sample of men exiting a gay bathhouse that:Of 852 men surveyed, 88.9% engaged in oral or anal sex while at the bathhouse;1 in 7 engaged in unprotected buggery;16.7% of patrons who had oral or anal sex during their visit were HIV-positive, and 13.9% engaged in unprotected buggery; andThe average number of sexual partners during the bathhouse visit was 3.8.A 2001 study published in the American Journal of Public Health investigated differences in risk behavior among homosexuals who went to bathhouses, public cruising areas, or both, and concluded that "targeting HIV prevention in the bathhouses would reach the segment of men at greatest risk for HIV transmission."Councilwoman Elizabeth Shaffer, one of the two officials who voted to keep the ban in place, opposed it both because she apparently didn't think that commercial sex resorts for homosexuals was a municipal priority and because her constituents expressed opposition.Shaffer told MPR News that one constituent in particular, an individual who worked for former state Sen. Allan Spear — Minnesota's first openly non-straight senator — told her "that many gay men in his own network either oppose the return of bathhouses or have real questions about whether this is the right path for a variety of reasons."Democratic Mayor Jacob Frey, who evidently didn't share such concerns, announced on Sunday that he would sign the repeal into law.Chavez noted that Minneapolis cannot immediately erect new super-spreader sites."We still need to work on zoning, the safety and regulations," Chavez said. "So bathhouses won't be able to open tomorrow or next week."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A former Florida high school special-education teacher is accused of sexually abusing an underage male, according to authorities.Citing Brevard County court records, Florida Today reported that 41-year-old Michelle Lynn Hancock was charged with transmitting information harmful to minors, using a computer to seduce or solicit a child, traveling to meet after use of a computer to lure a child, lewd and lascivious touch, sexual battery of a victim, and an authority figure soliciting or engaging in conduct with a student.According to a court affidavit cited by WESH-TV, the teenager visited Hancock at the Heritage High School campus 'a few times, and they kissed in her classroom.'Hancock is being detained on a $525,000 bond, according to jail records.Hancock, of Palm Bay, had been a special education teacher at Heritage High School in Brevard County.A spokesperson for Brevard Public Schools confirmed to Florida Today that the district no longer employs Hancock."We are deeply troubled by these allegations," said Brevard Public Schools spokesperson Janet Murnaghan in a statement issued last week. "The district remains committed to providing a safe and supportive learning environment for all students."The school district said it is "fully cooperating with law enforcement as they continue to conduct their investigation."The district prior to her arrest did not renew Hancock's employment contract, the spokesperson stated.Arrest records obtained by Florida Today said the investigation into Hancock began at approximately 1:30 a.m. June 23 when the Palm Bay Police Department was notified about a suspicious red pickup parked near an intersection.Officers discovered Hancock and a 17-year-old boy inside the truck, according to arrest documents. The teacher and the teen both admitted to engaging in sexual activity, police said.RELATED: Video allegedly shows female HS teacher wearing 'Jesus Loves You' shirt while having sex with student: Warrants The teen informed investigators that he and Hancock had engaged in sexual activity between 10 and 20 times; Hancock said the pair had engaged in sexual activity "three or four times," according to the affidavit People magazine obtained.The teen attended Heritage High School, according to Florida Today.An affidavit WFTV-TV obtained said the teenager was not a student of Hancock, but she had taught his older brother.The teacher had helped the alleged victim with schoolwork, according to the affidavit.Last year, the teen transitioned to virtual classes after leaving the high school, according to an affidavit.According to a court affidavit cited by WESH-TV, the teenager visited Hancock at the Heritage High School campus "a few times, and they kissed in her classroom."Police noted that Hancock denied kissing the boy in her classroom, the affidavit said.According to the affidavit, the pair had stopped communicating at some point, but "they started talking again via text message" two months ago — and "approximately one month ago, they started engaging in sexual activity."The teen also told investigators that Hancock sent him photos that were "sexual in nature," the affidavit said.The Palm Bay Police Department and Brevard Public Schools did not immediately return Blaze News' request for comment.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered on Tuesday its highly anticipated ruling in Trump v. Barbara — the contentious case concerning whether President Donald Trump's Jan. 20, 2025, executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens is constitutional.The court held that "children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause."'Today's opinion devalues that citizenship.'In the majority opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Chief Justice John Roberts began with a history lesson and concluded by writing that "citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to 'every free-born person in this land.' ... We keep that promise today."The court found that the arguments for limiting birthright citizenship to those legally living in the United States erred "in their definition of 'allegiance,' contending that natural allegiance was no longer sufficient for citizenship and that some greater quantum of allegiance (based on domicile) was required."According to the high court, there was "scant evidence for this dramatically revisionist view."RELATED: Alito torches SCOTUS ruling in mail-in ballot case, warns of voter fraud Swim ink 2/Corbis/Getty Images (L); John Moore/Getty Images (R) In the opinion for the court, Roberts wrote that "if Congress intended to limit American citizenship to the children of those domiciled in the United States, nothing in the succinct language of the Citizenship Clause conveyed that design."Roberts noted further that words that appeared in Trump's executive order — including "mother," "father," "lawful," and "temporary" — were also absent from the language of the clause."And while the Clause does ensure state citizenship attaches for U.S. citizens in 'the State wherein they reside,' ... the explicit invocation of residence for state citizenship only highlights its absence from the criteria for U.S. citizenship," Roberts added.Justice Clarence Thomas suggested in a 91-page dissent joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch that the majority diverged from historic American interpretations of the citizenship clause and that its account of how American citizenship came to be understood is "not historically accurate.""The Court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President's Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens," Thomas wrote. "In doing so, the Court adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support."In addition to stating that Trump's order had many potential applications which were "consistent with the original public meaning of the Citizenship Clause," Thomas expressed uncertainty that "today's opinion will stand the test of time."In closing, he wrote, "The Citizenship Clause 'added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship.' ... Today's opinion devalues that citizenship."Justice Samuel Alito echoed Thomas' sense of gravity and disappointment in his dissent, writing, "This is one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court, and in my judgment, the Court has made a serious mistake.""As interpreted by the Court today, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on virtually everyone who happens to be born in this country, including the children of 'birth tourists,' women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child and then promptly return home," Alito wrote. "Careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption shows that it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Trump administration’s push to examine alleged political weaponization inside the Justice Department is not merely about looking backward. For many patriotic Americans, it is about people whose lives were turned upside down because the government decided to investigate them.That is where the conversation often gets lost.Justice isn’t measured only by what happens in the courtroom. It’s also measured by what it costs an innocent person to get there.Everyone focuses on the indictment, the headlines, and the courtroom drama. Far less attention goes to what comes before a verdict. It does not take a conviction to ruin someone’s life. Sometimes an accusation is enough.Federal and congressional investigations are expensive. Responding to a subpoena is expensive. Hiring lawyers to review documents, prepare testimony, answer investigators, and defend your reputation can wipe out a lifetime of savings long before a judge or jury weighs the facts.Winning years later does not restore your bank account. It does not rebuild your business. It does not give you back the years spent living under a cloud.That reality has become increasingly familiar in Washington. During Donald Trump’s first term, congressional investigations became a defining feature of his presidency. House committees launched a steady stream of oversight inquiries into the administration, with then-House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) leading many of the most high-profile efforts.Democrats argued they were fulfilling Congress’ constitutional oversight responsibilities. Republicans saw something else: a strategy to keep the administration tied up in investigations while forcing witnesses, aides, and associates to spend enormous sums defending themselves.Whatever your politics, one fact remains undeniable. Every subpoena carries a price tag. Every interview requires lawyers. Every document request takes time. Every hearing pulls someone away from work, family, and ordinary life.The financial toll rarely makes the evening news.Former FBI Special Agent Mark Rossini recently offered a glimpse into that reality during a conversation with A.J. Rice on the “Dangerous Laughter” podcast. Rossini, who later received a presidential pardon after pleading to a misdemeanor in a case many conservatives see as part of the weaponization of the Justice Department under Joe Biden, focused less on the legal outcome than on the years leading up to it.“What a waste of time,” he said, describing what he called “three and a half, four years of this Kafkaesque experience.”Then came the part that should resonate with anyone who has ever faced the weight of the federal government.“No one will hire you. You get no phone calls. You lose your income. It’s just debilitating.”Rossini also encouraged people to read the court filings instead of relying solely on commentary surrounding the case, arguing that public opinion too often forms before anyone examines the underlying record.RELATED: The right needs a public defender network for lawfare tomloel/iStock/Getty Images His experience does not settle the whole debate, but it illustrates something too often overlooked: The process itself can become the punishment.That is why discussions about alleged Justice Department weaponization have struck such a nerve among many conservatives. They are not simply asking whether every investigation was justified or unjustified. They are asking a more fundamental question: What happens when the immense power of government collides with the life of an ordinary citizen?Government has a duty to investigate credible allegations of wrongdoing. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight. Those powers are essential in a constitutional republic.But those powers also demand restraint.When investigations stretch on for years, legal bills climb into six or seven figures, careers disappear, and families absorb the emotional and financial burden, Americans have every right to ask whether the system has accounted for those costs.That is what makes the current conversation about Justice Department reform more significant than another round of partisan finger-pointing. It raises a basic question of public trust: Can Americans have confidence that extraordinary government powers will be exercised fairly and consistently, regardless of politics?By the time an investigation ends, the damage may already be done. A dismissed case does not erase years of legal fees. A pardon does not restore lost income. Favorable headlines at the end of the story do not undo the quiet suffering that came before it.Justice isn’t measured only by what happens in the courtroom. It’s also measured by what it costs an innocent person to get there.