Paul Norris, who helps lead Braver Angels' Red Caucus, convenes an all-red panel to discuss what liberals, academia, and the mainstream media miss about conservatives. Featuring Mark Reinecke, Elizabeth Doll, and Barbara Farmer.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Journalists gather in front of the Connecticut State Capitol Building during a press conference on SB259 and an anti-FGM art installation
Bryna Subherwal, Equality Now
From Colombia to Connecticut: The urgent need to end FGM in the Americas
May 05, 2026
Across the Americas, hundreds of thousands of women and girls are living with or have undergone female genital mutilation (FGM). These affected populations are citizens and residents of countries where protections are incomplete, entirely focused on criminalisation, inconsistently enforced, or entirely absent.
FGM is not a “foreign” issue. It is a human rights violation unfolding within national borders, one that all governments in the Americas have the legal and moral responsibility to address.
Glimmers of progress are beginning to emerge across the region. On April 28, 2026, Connecticut state legislators in the United States passed a bill banning FGM and strengthening protections for survivors within the state, a long-awaited victory for survivors and advocates who have spent years calling for action.
As regional governing mechanisms, like the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), begin to formally recognise FGM as a human rights issue within the Americas, states have more concrete guidance on their obligations to take action to prevent and eradicate this form of violence against women and girls.
Female genital mutilation (FGM), which affects more than 230 million women and girls worldwide, is a grave human rights violation deeply rooted in gender inequality and discrimination. FGM refers to the partial or total removal or other injury to female genital organs for non-medical reasons.
Across the Americas, FGM remains a hidden, poorly documented, and largely ignored practice impacting more than 700,000 women and girls. Although progress has been made throughout the hemisphere to combat various forms of gender-based violence, FGM has remained on the margins of public attention and protection policies.
The occurrence of this harmful practice is formally recognised in the United States, Canada, and Colombia, yet none of these countries has a comprehensive legal framework to address it. While the US and Canada have federal criminal laws, neither country has dedicated prevention or educational provisions. At the state level in the US, while 41 states have enacted specific legislation, these laws vary considerably in their scope and level of comprehensiveness, and nine states still lack any targeted legal protections. In Colombia, despite growing recognition and advocacy, there is currently no national law addressing FGM.
Across Latin America and the Caribbean, where data gaps leave the full extent of the practice almost entirely unmeasured, a persistent myth frames FGM as exclusively an African or Asian phenomenon with no presence in the region. In North America, two parallel misconceptions hinder progress: that FGM is a “global south” problem or that it is confined to specific Indigenous or diaspora communities and therefore does not require a comprehensive national policy response.
These misconceptions contribute to the invisibility of the issue and reinforce the lack of effective measures for its prevention and elimination.
International human rights mechanisms speak up
FGM has long been recognised globally as a severe form of gender-based violence and a violation of women’s and girls’ human rights. Equality Now and its partners have collated evidence of FGM in 94 countries, including the US, Colombia, and Canada. Only 59 of those countries have a specific law prohibiting FGM, and considerable improvement is needed to ensure better access to justice and support for survivors.
Numerous human rights mechanisms, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Istanbul Convention, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, affirm that states have a legal and moral duty to prohibit FGM, prevent, and provide survivor-centred support services.
In March 2026, the IACHR, the key regional body of the Organization of American States (OAS), charged with protecting human rights across the Americas, became the most recent inter-regional mechanism to formally recognise the presence of FGM in the Americas and called on states to take comprehensive action.
Grounded in states’ obligations under the Belém do Pará Convention and the American Convention on Human Rights, the Commission urged governments to promote dialogue with communities to drive sociocultural change, and to strengthen legal and policy frameworks that ensure early detection, survivor-centered care, and access to services, all grounded in intercultural, gender-responsive approaches and backed by sustained funding.
This landmark acknowledgement followed the first-ever dedicated thematic hearing held by an international human rights mechanism focused on FGM/C in the Americas, just four months prior. The public announcement by the IACHR has the potential to redefine how FGM is understood under regional law, situate the violation within the regional human rights framework, and demand coordinated State action, accountability, and recognition that every woman and girl has the right to live free from this form of gender based violence.
As we approach the end of legislative sessions where pending FGM legislation has been proposed across the Americas, we must acknowledge the narrowing window for governments to act.
The current status of anti-FGM legislation in the Americas
Across the Americas, momentum is mounting to enact anti-FGM legislation.
The latest on anti-FGM legislation in the United States
At least 577,000 women and girls are estimated to be at risk or affected by FGM. Federal law currently prohibits the violation through the STOP FGM Act, though recent proposals such as Congressional Bill H.R. 3492 wrongly conflate FGM with gender-affirming care and risks undermining enforcement of anti-FGM protections for survivors nationally.
These developments have sparked an additional drive toward state-level action to comprehensively protect against the practice. Individual state agencies and officials have far greater capacity than federal authorities to directly assist women and girls in local communities. An interactive map by Equality Now and the U.S. End FGM/C Network shares FGM/C legal provisions and gaps in every US state.
The situation in Connecticut
In a long-awaited landmark vote, Connecticut legislators unanimously passed Senate Bill 259 on April 28, 2026. After years of sustained advocacy by survivors, FGM advocates, civil society organisations, health experts, and legal policy experts, once enacted, Connecticut will be one step closer to aligning its state legislation with international human rights standards.
Previously, legislators and advocates made six unsuccessful attempts to pass a law addressing FGM in the state. Proposed bills in 2018, 2020, and 2021 aimed at prohibiting FGM or studying its prevalence did not progress beyond the committee stage, while in 2019, a bill was rejected by the State Senate. In 2024, a drafted bill failed to be introduced, and in 2025, a bill was never raised to the House floor for a vote during the legislative session.
Senate Bill 259 will finally establish a state-level ban and provide essential protections for thousands of survivors and girls at risk by establishing the crime of female genital mutilation in Connecticut and setting higher safeguards for girls. The bill would also:
- Authorise a civil action within 30 years after the victim reaches age 18;
- Allow testimony outside the courtroom for victims aged 12 or younger;
- Prohibit a victim from being automatically deemed incompetent to testify because of age;
- Waive parent-child immunity in FGM cases, enabling legal representatives to secure necessary parental testimony;
The latest on anti-FGM legislation in Colombia
Legislators have until 20 June 2026 to enact Proyecto de Ley No. 440 de 2025 Senado-018 de 2024 Cámara, a bill that would establish the first specific legal framework against FGM in Latin America.
The bill combines prevention, intercultural education, mandatory health protocols, and data collection obligations, reflecting a comprehensive, survivor-centred, and intersectional approach developed in close collaboration with Indigenous women leaders whose communities are most affected by the practice.
Government health data shows that FGM disproportionately affects Indigenous girls in Colombia. Between 2020 and 2025, 204 cases were documented nationwide, 177 of them involving Indigenous girls, mainly in the departments of Risaralda and Chocó. Experts warn that such figures significantly underestimate the real prevalence due to persistent underreporting of FGM. Without accurate data, assessing the extent of the problem and designing appropriate responses is challenging.
In March 2026, the Senate’s First Commission approved the bill in its third debate, solidifying a significant step forward after years of advocacy. Now, attention turns to the Senate plenary, where the final vote will decide whether it becomes law. For Indigenous women leaders, advocates, and communities who have long called for action, the end of this legislative session will be their defining moment.
The latest on anti-FGM legislation in Canada
The End FGM Canada Network estimates there are more than 100,000 survivors of FGM/C. However, publicly available data estimating the scale of the problem within the country remains scarce.
Under the Canadian Criminal Code section 268(3), any person found guilty of conducting FGM faces up to 14 years imprisonment; however, to date, there have been no criminal prosecutions or convictions for FGM in the country.
A holistic end to FGM
Across the Americas, emerging best practice points to the clear conclusion that a sole focus on the criminalization of FGM is not enough to prevent, eradicate, or adequately protect survivors from harm.
Effective legal frameworks must be holistic in ways that combine prevention, education, community engagement, and survivor-centred support services.
Colombia’s bill offers an instructive model in this regard. Rather than centering criminal punishment, it establishes obligations around prevention, intercultural education, mandatory health protocols, and data collection, recognizing that a practice sustained by social norms and community structures requires responses that work within and alongside those communities, not solely against individuals.
Punitive frameworks, when applied in isolation, risk driving the practice underground, deterring survivors from seeking care, and criminalising communities without addressing the conditions that allow FGM to persist.
However, the effectiveness of even the most robust legal frameworks is ultimately dependent on sustained and dedicated funding. Legal obligations must be matched by investment in frontline training for healthcare providers and educators, in community-led prevention initiatives, and in accessible, survivor-centred services. Without this resourcing, laws risk remaining largely symbolic, unable to deliver meaningful protection in practice.
Crucially, legislation must also be carefully drafted to avoid conflating FGM with distinct medical procedures, including gender-affirming care. Such conflation risks undermining both legal clarity and access to essential health services.
In Colombia and beyond, comprehensive approaches in addition to political commitment toward the adoption of legislation and meaningful implementation will be essential to translate these efforts into sustainable protections for all women and girls within the Americas.
Governments, regional bodies, civil society, and advocates must work together to take collective action to align national laws, ensure public accountability and monitoring, and ensure survivor support. Fragmented approaches, isolated laws, underfunded programs, or short-term political attention will not deliver lasting change. A coordinated response, grounded in shared responsibility and sustained collaboration, can.
Mel Bailey is the Communications Officer at North America and Ending Sexual Violence.
From Colombia to Connecticut: The urgent need to end FGM in the Americas was first published on the Latino News Network and was republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
The nation has reached a divide in the road—a moment when Americans must decide whether to accept a slow weakening of the Republic or insist on the principles that have held it together for more than two centuries
Getty Images
A Republic Under Strain—And a Choice Ahead
May 04, 2026
Americans feel something shifting beneath their feet — quieter than crisis but unmistakably a strain. Many live with a steady sense of uncertainty, conflict, and the emotional weight of issues that seem impossible to escape. They feel unheard, unsafe, or unsure whether the Republic they trust is fading. Friends, relatives, and former colleagues say they’ve tried to look away just to cope, hoping the turmoil will pass. And they ask the same thing: if the framers made the people the primary control on government, how will they help set the Republic back on a steadier path?
Understanding the strain Americans are experiencing is essential, but so is recognizing the choice we still have. Madison’s warning offers the answer the framers left us: when trust erodes and power concentrates, the Constitution turns back to the people—not as a slogan, but as a structural reality.
Americans are not imagining the strain. They are living it—in schools, hospitals, local agencies, and in the daily friction of navigating systems that once worked more reliably.
Across the nation, Americans feel the strain of weakened governance firsthand. Confidence in institutions has eroded—not through collapse, but through drift, a slow weakening of the guardrails that once kept the system in balance. People see the consequences daily: difficulty accessing services, rising costs, and strained agencies. What they sense is the erosion of norms that once anchored the Republic. Republics rarely fall in a single instant; they drift through a gradual loss of trust, a concentration of power, and growing silence from institutions meant to provide accountability.
This is a relevant and urgent topic because people see that the Republic is repairable—if leaders choose to act. What makes this moment painful is the belief that those with the greatest power to reduce strain are the least willing to step forward. Many leaders lived with hardship before entering public service, yet once in office, they appear insulated from struggles they once understood. They no longer face pressures of healthcare costs or financial insecurity—and that distance can erode empathy. People tell me that when leaders forget those realities, they also forget the oath they swore—to govern ethically, fairly, and in the spirit intended.
Much of the strain comes from the perception that the balance of power is shifting. Many believe the checks and balances meant to prevent any one branch from accumulating too much authority are no longer functioning as intended. Congress appears constrained by division and by political incentives that make compromise—once essential to governing—a liability. Experienced lawmakers are choosing not to seek reelection, raising concerns that the current climate discourages independent leadership and rewards conformity.
The nation has reached a divide in the road—a moment when Americans must decide whether to accept a slow weakening of the Republic or insist on the principles that have held it together for more than two centuries. One path leads deeper into drift: erosion of norms, weakened guardrails, and a future shaped by silence rather than accountability. The other demands something harder—a return to constitutional balance, renewed civic engagement, and leadership willing to place the Republic above personal or partisan interest.
This choice is not abstract. It is felt in the exhaustion families carry, the uncertainty communities voice, and the belief that the country is slipping away. The framers expected moments like this. They understood that when institutions strain, the people must decide whether to look away or step forward.
That responsibility begins with leadership. Leaders must do more than advance agendas; they must demonstrate humility, empathy, and a willingness to govern for the whole country. Strength in a Republic is not measured by dominance but by restraint—by the ability to collaborate even amid disagreement.
Yet today, political incentives often punish independence. Breaking with party lines can carry consequences, turning governance from negotiation into alignment. When lawmakers fear the cost of dissent more than silence, the system loses the friction that keeps it balanced.
But responsibility does not rest with leaders alone. Madison reminds us that the primary control on government is the people themselves. Citizens must re‑engage—not through outrage but through purpose. Balancing news intake helps Americans stay informed without becoming overwhelmed. Voting consistently, staying informed, and demanding accountability are not symbolic acts; they are the foundation of self‑government.
Citizens can also make fuller use of the institutions that remain—seeking assistance from public agencies, asking their senators and representatives for help navigating services, and insisting those institutions function as designed. Engagement is not passive; it is an expectation that systems built to serve the public remain accessible, responsive, and accountable.
Every time I speak with someone carrying that weight, I hear the same quiet truth: people feel pushed out of their own democracy. That feeling is not personal failure—it is structural neglect. People know the guardrails and institutions are still there; what they see is leaders refusing to enforce them, even when the public is asking them to.
That is why the ethic I taught for years still matters. RISE—Respect, Inclusion, Safety, and Empowerment—is more than a professional framework. It is a democratic one. Democracies thrive when people feel respected, included, safe, and empowered. They falter when those conditions disappear.
These four principles remind us that the way back from drift begins with how we treat one another and how we show up for the Republic. They form the foundation for the choices we must make now.
The choice ahead begins with reclaiming the habits of a participatory democracy. That does not require grand gestures, only consistent ones. It means refusing to surrender our voice, even when feeling unheard tempts us to step back. It means showing up in the local spaces where democratic power still lives—school boards, city councils, community forums, and conversations that shape public will. A Republic under strain strengthens when citizens stay present and engaged.
But citizens cannot carry this work alone. Institutions must meet the moment with the same clarity and courage we ask of the public. That begins with leaders who tell the truth, honor their oaths, and resist the temptation to consolidate power at the expense of the people they serve. When institutions model respect, inclusion, safety, and empowerment, they reinforce the conditions that allow democracy to function.
The choice ahead is not between parties or personalities. It is between drift and renewal, silence and accountability. Today’s strain is not simply political; it is constitutional. It tests whether leaders will honor obligations and whether citizens will exercise the responsibility Madison entrusted to them. A Republic survives only when its people insist it survives.
Benjamin Franklin was asked what had been created at the Constitutional Convention. His answer endures: “A Republic, if you can keep it.” The United States is not collapsing, but it is under strain—not because of a single moment, but by a steady erosion of trust and responsibility. A Republic survives only when its people insist it must survive.
A Republic under strain does not have to be a Republic in decline. We can allow drift to continue, or we can insist on a different path—one grounded in participation, truth, and the belief that every voice still matters. The strain is real, but so is our capacity to rise. If we show up for one another and demand integrity from our institutions, the Republic will not falter. It will endure because its people did.
Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and national advocate for ethical leadership and civic renewal. She writes on governance, institutional trust, and democratic responsibility.
Keep ReadingShow less
Debris from a missile‑struck home in Metula, Israel
Hugo Balta
Metula: A Border on the Brink
May 04, 2026
METULA — In the historic border town of Metula, the stillness of a fragile ceasefire is often punctured by the sounds of war drifting across the Lebanese border. After U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran in February, Hezbollah launched rockets and drones into Israel in early March in what it described as retaliation. Israel answered with a wave of airstrikes across Lebanon, and within days, Israeli forces had re‑entered southern Lebanon.
Founded more than 130 years ago, Israel’s northernmost community is famously surrounded on three sides by Lebanon. The town looks directly onto the remains of Lebanese Shiite villages that Hezbollah has used as launch sites throughout its campaign. Since October 8, 2023, enduring repeated barrages of anti‑tank missiles and explosive drones, leaving homes in ruins and most families displaced. Hezbollah began its attacks that day, calling it a “war of support” for Hamas following the October 7 assault in southern Israel.
Hugo Balta
Views of Metula, Israel, a border community encircled on three sides by Lebanon
<p>As a result of the sustained barrage, more than 60% of homes and municipal buildings were damaged or destroyed by anti‑tank missiles, suicide drones, and rockets between October 2023 and November 2024, leaving the community effectively transformed into a ghost town. Agricultural and tourism‑based livelihoods have come to a standstill, and many residents remain hesitant to return because of the ongoing threat of missile fire and the extensive destruction it has caused.</p><p>While many residents fled Metula, those who remain live on the edge of a ceasefire strained by daily violations. The Israel Defense Forces have carved out a six-mile-plus buffer zone deep inside Lebanese territory to push back Hezbollah’s forces, but the threat still feels close.</p><p>Among those who refuse to leave is Rami Rabinovich, an Argentine immigrant who points out the scars of war — collapsed roofs, shattered windows, charred garden walls — that now frame everyday life. He says Israeli forces firing at Hezbollah drones has become routine.</p>
Hugo Balta
Rami Rabinovich, an Argentine immigrant, stands beside a pane of bulletproof glass marked by strikes from both Lebanese and Israeli fire — a stark reminder of the tension that defines life in this border town
During my visit, the quiet of the hilltop town was repeatedly interrupted by low, distant booms from across the border. Rabinovich barely reacted. He said the explosions were almost certainly Israeli forces targeting Hezbollah drones — a sound many in the town have learned to fold into the rhythm of daily life. For him, it is not a warning but part of the constant background noise of a place living with war just beyond the fence.
The danger along the border is so immediate that residents often have no time to react — a reality Rabinovich underscored when he said, “The time elapsed between the moment a missile is launched from Lebanon and the moment it lands in Metula is zero. Often, the sirens sound after the missile has already landed in the Metula area.”
Rabinovich showed me a house that he said had taken four missile strikes in under an hour. It stands as a stark testament to what Metula has endured. The roof is completely gone, leaving the rooms open to the sun, wind, and drifting dust. Shards of glass cling to the window frames like broken teeth, and the walls—cracked, scorched, and pitted with shrapnel—trace the outline of what used to be a living room, a kitchen, a bedroom. Inside, only remnants remain: a collapsed doorway, charred furniture, and floors that lead nowhere. The house feels less like a damaged structure and more like a symbol of how the conflict has hollowed out daily life, leaving behind the shell of what once was a home.
Despite the devastation, people are slowly returning to Metula, determined to rebuild what was lost. Families who fled during the height of the attacks are now laying the groundwork for new beginnings, driven by resilience, a deep connection to the land, and a desire to restore a sense of normalcy.
"Many people come back because it is home, said Rabinovich. "Why did I return? Because it is home. This place, with a peace agreement with Lebanon, is a paradise."
People on both sides of the Israel–Lebanon border are living with the consequences of a conflict that has upended daily life, leaving families displaced, homes destroyed, and entire communities gripped by uncertainty. In southern Lebanon, civilians face their own waves of displacement, damaged infrastructure, and the fear that violence could escalate without warning.
The suffering is shared, even if the circumstances differ: parents trying to keep children safe, farmers unable to tend their land, and residents on both sides navigating the emotional and economic toll of a conflict they did not choose. It’s a reminder that beyond the political and military calculations, ordinary people are bearing the heaviest burden — and their stories deserve recognition.
For the people of Metula, the prevailing mood is one of cautious skepticism. While international mediators from the United States and the United Nations continue to push for a durable diplomatic solution, security remains a distant hope as the ceasefire teeters on the brink.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
Coverage of this report was made possible in part with support from Fuente Latina.
Keep ReadingShow less
Sen. Josh Hawley addresses the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary during a debate over the AI chatbot regulation bill he introduced in October, known as the GUARD Act. April 30, 2026.
Wisdom Howell // Medill News Service.
Senate Committee advances bill banning AI companions for children
May 04, 2026
WASHINGTON—A bipartisan bill that would ban minors from using AI companions, require all chatbots to verify a user’s age, and allow AI companies to be prosecuted for harming children was unanimously advanced to the Senate floor Wednesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo. introduced “the Guidelines for User Age-verification and Responsible Dialogue Act,” (GUARD Act) in October as the Senate’s response to the rise in cases of children being groomed and driven to commit suicide by chatbots designed to replicate human interactions known as AI companions.
“This has got to stop,” Hawley said after sharing testimonials from victims' families in attendance. “This should not happen in the United States of America. No amount of profit justifies the destruction of our families and our children.”
Since 2023, instances of minors committing suicide at the behest of AI companions and chatbots have increasingly drawn national headlines and lawsuits from victims' families against popular AI companion platforms like Character.AI are beginning to pile up in courts across the country.
The bill, which was passed by a 22-0 vote, differentiated AI companions from chatbots like ChatGPT, which has also been accused of influencing children to harm themselves.
Specifically, the act would institute a blanket ban on minors using any AI companion platform. Full stop. Chatbots would not be fully banned for kids.
The bill also would require AI companies to verify users’ ages and disclose their non-human status to users. The bill would impose criminal and civil penalties on companies that violate its terms.
Sen. Alejandro Padilla, D-Calif., chimed in to support the bill but raised concerns about users’ privacy during the age verification process.
“I just want to register some questions and concerns we have about potential privacy and security risks with the age verification component, and I think that’s one of the areas we can fine-tune,” he said.
Jennifer Huddleston, a senior fellow in technology policy at the Cato Institute, shared those concerns in an interview following the meeting with Medill News Service, but clarified her organization does not support or oppose legislation.
“This would require everyone who is using an AI chatbot to pass some sort of age verification, which typically involves biometrics or government IDs,” she said. “Therefore, age verification becomes a form of identity verification. One can easily imagine how this would have a significant impact on anonymous speech, which can be incredibly important for any number of reasons, whether it is people that are engaged in political discourse or political dissent, or whether it's someone who is perhaps asking about a sensitive medical issue.”
Immediately after voting to advance the GUARD Act, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) called for revisions of the bill’s total ban on child chatbot access.
“I think there are applications where chatbots can be beneficial. In Texas, the Alpha School has produced extraordinary results using AI with kids,” Cruz said.
Cruz’s comments reflected a concern held by some policy analysts that the bill will hinder the next generation from mastering AI tools as AI becomes more ubiquitous in everyday life.
“We want to make sure that kids are okay in the space,” Aden Hizkias, associate policy director at Chamber of Progress, which opposed the GUARD Act, said in an interview. “But if a kid or a group of kids, or a generation, let's say, is unable to access these types of tools now as they progress exponentially, you're essentially cutting off a huge benefit for them and for the U.S. at large because there's an entire generation that's not going to have the skill set.”
Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who co-authored the GUARD Act, warned his fellow committee members to prepare for AI companies to lobby against the bill.
“Warning, we’re not done yet,” Blumenthal told the committee. “Others who have championed this kind of legislation know that (AI companies) will be relentless and tireless. Whatever they say publicly, they will be behind the scenes with armies of lawyers and lobbyists trying to fight us, mislead, and confuse.”
He added that the Tech companies would use core American principles to fight against the bill.
“We’re going to hear a lot about the First Amendment, free enterprise, and ‘trust us,’” he said.
Joel Thayer, a senior fellow for AI and emerging technology policy at the America First Policy Institute, has been researching the First Amendment implications of Congress regulating AI chatbots and said the government has a strong chance of defeating potential lawsuits from AI companies.
“I think that's where it's going to be a tough row to hoe,” he said.
He predicted that AI companies would try to emulate the First Amendment defense that was successful for social media companies. “I don’t think this is analogous at all, especially if you've engaged with the chatbot,” he said, “That’s the crux of it, that they have more of a diluted First Amendment speech interest here.”
The GUARD Act now awaits a debate on the Senate floor. The U.S. House of Representatives introduced a similar bill using the same name on Wednesday, the Guidelines for User Age Verification and Responsible Dialogue (GUARD) Act.
Wisdom Howell is a reporter for Medill News Service.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More