The U.S. Department of Transportation has endorsed a redesigned female crash test dummy, marking a potential shift in vehicle safety testing long dominated by male models. The new dummy reflects anatomical differences between men and women and could lead to more accurate safety ratings for cars. Advocates say the change may save lives, though some automakers and insurers remain cautious.

Why Change Is Needed

Current crash test standards rely heavily on a male model developed in 1978, measuring 5-foot-9 (175 cm) and 171 pounds (78 kg). Women, who constitute the majority of licensed drivers in the U.S., are more vulnerable in crashes: they are 73% more likely to be injured in a head-on collision and 17% more likely to die, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Female dummies in use today are smaller and fitted with a rubber jacket to simulate breasts. They are mainly tested in passenger or rear seats rather than the driver’s seat, limiting the accuracy of safety assessments for female drivers.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy emphasized that the new model will be considered for the government’s five-star vehicle safety ratings once a final rule is adopted.

Features of the New Dummy

The redesigned female dummy incorporates over 150 sensors and more accurately represents key anatomical differences, including the neck, collarbone, pelvis, and leg structure. This improved design aims to better capture the impact of crashes on female bodies, potentially influencing car design, airbag deployment, and seat belt effectiveness.

Maria Weston Kuhn, a New York University law student and crash survivor, has campaigned for such changes since a 2019 accident in Ireland caused severe internal injuries due to her seat belt sliding off her hips. She welcomed the department’s announcement but cautioned that adoption into NHTSA testing is not yet complete.

“I fear that with this announcement everybody will throw up their hands and say we’ve won,” Kuhn said. “But we are far from crossing the finish line.”

Industry Reaction

Some automakers have expressed skepticism, arguing that the new dummy could overstate injury risks and affect the perceived effectiveness of existing safety features such as airbags and seat belts.

Similarly, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a research organization funded by auto insurers, continues to support the current line of female dummies. Spokesperson Joe Young stated that while they will monitor the new model, their researchers remain confident that existing dummies provide reliable safety data.

“Certainly we are going to continue to monitor the new tools and perhaps do some additional research,” Young said. “But for now, our researchers are content and confident that the dummies we’re using are doing a good job.”

Political Support

The push for more accurate female crash test dummies has received bipartisan support. U.S. Senators Deb Fischer, a Republican from Nebraska, and Tammy Duckworth, a Democrat from Illinois, praised the federal endorsement.

“Any progress here is good because there’s simply no good reason why women are more likely to be injured or die in car crashes,” Duckworth said.

Fischer introduced the She Drives Act, which would mandate the use of the most advanced testing devices, including female crash test dummies. Duckworth co-sponsors the legislation.

“It’s far past time to make these testing standards permanent, which will help save thousands of lives and make America’s roads safer for all drivers,” Fischer said.

Next Steps

The Department of Transportation confirmed that the new specifications for the female crash test dummy will soon be available for manufacturers. Automotive companies can begin incorporating the model into vehicle testing, potentially influencing future car designs and federal safety ratings.

While the announcement is a milestone, experts caution that full implementation may take years. The move reflects ongoing efforts to address long-standing gaps in automotive safety for women and could reshape federal testing standards in the coming decade.

Source: AP News – A new crash test dummy that better resembles women gets key government endorsement

The post U.S. Approves Advanced Female Crash Test Dummy to Improve Vehicle Safety appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The House of Representatives has passed the Laken Riley Act, a controversial bill mandating the detention of unauthorized immigrants accused of theft or violent crimes. This marks the first piece of legislation that President Donald Trump can sign into law, aligning with his hard-line immigration policies.

Highlights of the Laken Riley Act

A Shift in Immigration Policy

The bill, named after a Georgia nursing student murdered by a Venezuelan immigrant, reflects a significant shift in immigration debates, tilting toward stricter enforcement following Trump’s election. With a 263-156 vote, including support from 46 Democrats, Congress demonstrated bipartisan backing for the legislation.

Key Provisions of the Act

• Mandatory Detention: Requires federal authorities to detain any migrant arrested or charged with crimes like shoplifting, assaulting a police officer, or causing injury or death.
• State Empowerment: Grants state attorneys general the authority to sue the federal government over immigration decisions.
• Broad Enforcement Scope: Expands the mandate to prioritize both minor and violent offenses for detention and deportation.

Funding Concerns

Despite the sweeping requirements, the bill does not allocate additional funding to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or related agencies. The Department of Homeland Security estimates the act will cost $26.9 billion in its first year, including 110,000 additional detention beds.

Political Reactions and Implications

Supporters: Advocating Tougher Immigration Policies

Republicans have championed the bill as a necessary step to address public safety and enforce stricter immigration laws.

• Rep. Mike Collins, R-Ga., highlighted the tragic death of Laken Riley, stating:
  

  “If this act had been the law of the land, he [her killer] never would have had the opportunity to kill her.”

• Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., called it:
  

  “Perhaps the most significant immigration enforcement bill passed in decades.”

Critics: Concerns Over Funding and Rights

Democrats criticized the legislation as an unfunded mandate that could burden federal agencies and erode migrants’ due process rights.

• Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., argued:
  

  “This is a piecemeal approach that won’t fix systemic issues but will saddle federal authorities with new requirements.”

• Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., expressed fears about prioritizing low-level crimes over violent felonies.

Additionally, some Democrats raised concerns that the act would negatively affect minors and recipients of programs like Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

Public Opinion and Context

A recent survey by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that:

• Majority Support: Most Americans favor deporting immigrants convicted of violent crimes.
• Mixed Opinions: Only 37% support deporting unauthorized immigrants who have not committed crimes.

While studies show that immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native-born citizens, Republicans point to high-profile cases, like Laken Riley’s murder, to justify stricter policies.

Challenges Ahead for Implementation

Unfunded Mandate

The Trump administration and congressional Republicans will need to secure significant funding to implement the Laken Riley Act. Current estimates suggest a $100 billion cost to support Trump’s broader immigration crackdown, including hiring judges, prosecutors, and ICE agents.

Executive Orders and Broader Agenda

Trump has also issued a series of executive orders aimed at curbing illegal immigration, including:

• Halting refugee resettlements.
• Prosecuting local officials who refuse to enforce federal immigration laws.
• Exploring the use of military bases and resources to support mass deportations.

Opposition from Democrats and Advocacy Groups

Opponents argue that the bill oversimplifies immigration issues and fails to address root causes. Many warn it could create chaos in the immigration system without adequate funding or protections for vulnerable populations.

• Advocacy groups highlight studies showing immigrants are less likely to commit crimes, disputing the justification for such broad enforcement.

Conclusion

The Laken Riley Act represents a major step in Trump’s efforts to overhaul U.S. immigration policy, but its long-term viability depends on funding and bipartisan support. As Congress debates these issues, the political and humanitarian consequences of stricter enforcement policies will continue to be at the forefront of national discourse.

Source

The post New Immigration Bill Mandates Detention for Accused Migrants appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The idea of banning cellphones in schools has gained significant traction across the political spectrum, with support coming from both Republican and Democratic leaders. Arkansas’ Republican Governor, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and California’s Democratic Governor, Gavin Newsom, are two notable figures who have endorsed this movement. As the issue gains momentum, at least eight states have implemented cellphone bans in schools over the past two years, and more states are considering similar measures in 2025.

The Growing Support for Cellphone Bans

The push for banning cellphones in schools is primarily driven by two concerns: the negative impact of screen time on children’s mental health and the disruptive nature of phones in the classroom. Teachers have expressed growing frustration over constant distractions, while mental health experts, such as Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy, have urged schools to create phone-free environments to promote student well-being. Murthy has even suggested Congress require warning labels on social media platforms regarding their effects on young people’s lives.

Nationally, 77% of U.S. schools reportedly have policies prohibiting cellphones for non-academic purposes, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. However, this statistic is somewhat misleading as many schools struggle with enforcement and student compliance.

Kim Whitman, co-founder of the Phone-Free Schools Movement, explains that the issue is resonating across both red and blue states. “It doesn’t matter if you live in a big city or a rural town—children everywhere need a break from the pressures of phones and social media during the school day,” she said.

States Taking Action: A Bipartisan Shift

A growing number of states have already enacted or are considering cellphone bans in schools. These measures vary from state to state, but the trend is clear. Some notable examples include:

• Florida: In 2023, Florida became the first state to mandate a ban on cellphones during class time, requiring schools to block social media access on district Wi-Fi networks.
• California: A 2024 law requires the state’s nearly 1,000 school districts to develop their own cellphone policies by July 2026.
• Other States: States like Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, Ohio, South Carolina, and Virginia have passed or are contemplating similar laws, some offering funding for schools that adopt cellphone-free policies.

Additionally, Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders introduced a pilot program in 2024, offering grants to schools that implement phone-free policies. Over 100 schools have already joined, and in her recent State of the State address, Sanders proposed an outright statewide ban on cellphones in schools.

Other governors, including Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Iowa’s Kim Reynolds, and Nebraska’s Jim Pillen, have also voiced support for cellphone restrictions. New York Governor Kathy Hochul has suggested she may push for a statewide policy, though details are still unclear.

The Opposition to Bans: Safety Concerns and Practicality

Despite the growing support for cellphone bans, the proposal has faced opposition, particularly from some parents. Many argue that cellphones are an essential tool for communication, especially in emergencies. In the wake of tragic school shootings, some parents have pointed out that students relied on their phones to contact loved ones during crises.

However, proponents of the bans argue that phones may pose additional risks in emergencies. Distractions could impede students’ ability to react quickly, and phones could inadvertently reveal a student’s location during an active shooter situation.

Opponents also highlight the practical concerns of parents who want their children to have access to phones for reasons such as coordinating transportation or staying in touch throughout the day.

Keri Rodrigues, president of the National Parents Union, shares concerns about the broader implications of social media on children. However, she argues that banning phones is an overly simplistic solution. “Banning phones during school won’t address deeper issues like bullying or the dangers of social media,” she said. “We need to teach kids the skills to navigate technology responsibly, not just take their devices away.”

Conclusion

The debate over banning cellphones in schools continues to grow, with bipartisan support from both Republican and Democratic leaders. While proponents argue the move will protect students from distractions and mental health issues, opponents emphasize the need for access to phones in emergencies and the importance of teaching children to navigate technology responsibly. As more states take up the issue in 2025, the balance between safety, practicality, and technology’s impact on youth remains at the forefront of the conversation.

Source

The post Cellphone Bans in Schools: A Bipartisan Trend Gaining Momentum appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had previously accused the Biden administration of withholding weapons from Israel, a claim that was strongly denied by a U.S. envoy, who called it “unproductive” and “completely untrue.”

The proposed arms sale comes amid ongoing accusations from human rights groups that Israel is violating international law, particularly regarding its use of U.S. weapons in the ongoing conflict with Hamas in Gaza. Tens of thousands of people have been killed in the conflict. While the State Department has acknowledged that U.S. weapons may have been used in ways “inconsistent” with international humanitarian law, it stopped short of labeling Israel’s actions as violations of the law.

The $8 billion arms package, first reported by Axios, includes a range of military equipment. These include AIM-120C-8 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, which are designed to counter airborne threats like drones. The sale also includes artillery shells, Hellfire AGM-114 missiles, Small Diameter Bombs (SDBs), JDAM tail kits, 500-pound warheads, and FMU-152A/B bomb fuses.

A U.S. official emphasized that the proposed sale is intended to bolster Israel’s long-term security by replenishing its stock of critical munitions and enhancing its air defense capabilities. The official reiterated the U.S. position that Israel has the right to defend its citizens in accordance with international law, and to deter aggression from Iran and its allied organizations.

While some of the munitions could be delivered from current U.S. stockpiles, the majority will require production, with delivery taking anywhere from one year to several years.

This informal notification process, which is common practice, serves as an early alert to congressional committees, allowing them to raise concerns, provide input, or even place holds on the sale if necessary.

Source

The post U.S. to Sell 8 Billion in Arms to Israel, Congressional Notification Sent appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.