(LANSING, Mich.) — Michigan voters will decide in November whether to codify abortion rights in the state’s constitution after the Michigan Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of adding a proposed amendment to the ballot.
The initiative, if passed, would amend Michigan’s constitution to establish “a fundamental individual right to reproductive freedom” that includes abortion access, contraception, miscarriage management and more.
The amendment would also allow allow the state to regulate abortion after fetal viability “provided that in no circumstance shall the state prohibit an abortion that, in the professional judgement of an attending health care professional, is medically indicated to protect the life of physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.”
The court’s ruling comes one day before the deadline for completing the ballot for this fall’s elections — and just a day after a Michigan Court of Claims judge ruled that the state’s 1931 abortion ban violates the state constitution.
The Michigan Board of State Canvassers had earlier deadlocked on whether the ballot initiative should move forward, leading to the appeal before the state’s high court.
The two Republicans on the state board cited formatting and spacing issues in the initiative’s text as reasons not to approve the proposal.
Five of the seven justices on the Michigan Supreme Court criticized that reasoning in their 23-page ruling on Thursday.
“Seven hundred fifty three thousand and seven hundred fifty nine Michiganders signed this proposal—more than have ever signed any proposal in Michigan’s history,” wrote Chief Justice Bridget Mary McCormack, a Democratic-nominated judge. “The challengers have not produced a single signer who claims to have been confused by the limited-spacing sections in the full text portion of the proposal.”
“They would disenfranchise millions of Michiganders not because they believe the many thousands of Michiganders who signed the proposal were confused by it, but because they think they have identified a technicality that allows them to do so, a game of gotcha gone very bad,” McCormack continued. “What a sad marker of the times.”
Reproductive Freedom for All, the group behind the ballot initiative, said Thursday that they were “glad that the Court affirmed the will of the people.”
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Brian Zahra, a Republican nominee, said he had “doubts that the form and content of the petition comply with Michigan law.”
Abortion rights has become a major issue in the lead up to the midterm elections after the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling legalizing abortion nationwide for the past 50 years.
Democrats celebrated a win on the issue during the primary elections in Kansas, when voters in the traditionally conservative state overwhelmingly rejected a measure to remove the right to abortion from the state constitution.
Four other states — California, Kentucky, Montana and Vermont — will have abortion-related initiatives on the ballot before voters in November.
(WASHINGTON) — Democratic congressional leaders are facing a progressive revolt — that could potentially risk a government shutdown — in the wake of the closed-door deal between Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin that won the latter’s crucial support for the Inflation Reduction Act.
After repeatedly slamming that “disastrous side deal” that would streamline the permitting process for energy projects across the U.S. — which Schumer agreed to include with a must-pass spending bill to fund the federal government — Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., promptly announced Thursday that he intends to oppose the funding resolution as a result.
“If the United States Congress goes on record and says, ‘Yes we are going to support more fossil fuel reduction, more carbon emissions,’ the signal we are sending to our own people and the planet is a terrible, terrible signal,” Sanders said in a floor speech.
He did not mince words with reporters afterward. Asked if he would vote no on funding the government if the Schumer-Manchin permitting deal is attached, he replied: “Yes. You’re talking about the future for the planet.”
Sanders’ opposition adds to the growing progressive pressure in the House, where some left-wing lawmakers have likewise threatened to block the government funding bill if it includes Manchin’s desired changes to energy permitting.
Sanders on Thursday read from a soon-to-be-released letter — obtained by ABC News Wednesday — that he said had been signed by “at least 59” House progressives opposing the Schumer-Manchin agreement.
That deal, Sanders said, quoting from the letter, “would silence the voices of environmental communities by insulating them from scrutiny. This would cause members to choose between protecting environmental justice communities from further pollution or funding the government. We urge you to ensure these provisions are kept out of a continuing resolution or any other must-pass legislation this year.”
Manchin has argued that permitting reform will also help speed projects related to wind, solar and other environmentally friendly sources of energy. He’s adamant that permitting reform must stay in the funding bill and, so far, he seems to have Schumer’s backing.
Despite the progressive rhetorical thunder, it is possible that the bill to fund the government — which will also include popular aid for Ukraine and disaster relief — will garner enough GOP support to render the threatened liberal blockade moot.
“It was a rank political deal,” Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the appropriations committee, told reporters Thursday of Manchin and Schumer’s agreement. But he stopped short of saying it would put government funding in jeopardy.
Still, some other Republicans are vowing to oppose the funding resolution because they oppose Schumer and Manchin’s dealmaking. Many conservatives have said they took umbrage at the last-minute nature of the deal among Democrats on the sweeping climate and health care reform legislation known as the IRA. It passed without a single GOP vote — not long after some Republicans had voted with Democrats on computer chip funding, thinking that the Democrats’ social spending bill was dead.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told ABC that “I would vote against it,” referring to government funding, and he said he was urging his Republican colleagues to do the same.
It’s not yet clear whether Republicans will unite behind Graham’s effort, but most GOP aides familiar with the matter say they do not expect that.
(WASHINGTON) — The Department of Justice on Thursday moved to appeal a federal judge’s ruling in the dispute over documents seized from Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, where the government claims highly classified records were being improperly held.
Earlier this week, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon granted Trump’s request for a special master to review what was taken, including for items that might be covered by executive privilege, even though Trump is no longer the president and has never asserted privilege over any specific records.
The ruling, which enjoined the government from further use of the seized documents as part of its criminal investigation, was widely criticized by legal experts on both sides — including Trump’s former Attorney General William Barr.
“The Court hereby authorizes the appointment of a special master to review the seized property for personal items and documents and potentially privileged material subject to claims of attorney-client and/or executive privilege,” Cannon wrote.
The DOJ’s appeal will go before the 11th Circuit.
Federal prosecutors also requested Thursday for Cannon to stay the portion of her ruling enjoining the government from further review of the documents bearing classification markings taken during the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago. Cannon had required law enforcement to disclose those materials to the special master.
The DOJ said in Thursday’s court papers that if Cannon doesn’t grant a stay by Sept. 15, they will “intend to seek relief from the Eleventh Circuit.”
Trump “does not and could not assert that he owns or has any possessory interest in classified records” prosecutors wrote in a 21-page motion.
Cannon gave Trump’s team until Monday morning to respond to the request for a stay.
The DOJ is not seeking a stay on the handover of non-classified documents to an appointed special master but said that if Cannon doesn’t grant their stay it “will cause the most immediate and serious harms to the government and the public.”
Cannon noted in her previous order that the appointment of an independent third party would not impede the ongoing classification review and national security assessments being conducted by the intelligence community on what was retrieved from Trump’s home last month.
The judge had given DOJ and Trump’s team until Friday to confer and submit a joint list of proposed special master candidates and a proposed order outlining the special master’s duties and limitations.
‘Irreparable harm’
In Thursday’s motion, the DOJ repeatedly sought to undercut Cannon’s position in her ruling approving the appointment of a special master — and cited the risk of “irreparable harm” to national security and the ongoing criminal investigation if she declines to grant their request for a stay.
While they signaled they care relatively little about non-classified records seized from Mar-a-Lago being handed over to a special master, prosecutors argued that the classified records they say were found with Trump are critical to both their ongoing intelligence assessment and the criminal investigation and Trump has absolutely no legitimate legal claim to them.
While Cannon approved the intelligence community (IC) to continue with its separate evaluation of the documents, that “cannot be readily segregated” from the DOJ and FBI criminal investigation and the IC has been forced to temporarily pause its review out of an abundance of caution, prosecutors wrote.
“The application of the injunction to classified records would thus frustrate the government’s ability to conduct an effective national security risk assessment and classification review and could preclude the government from taking necessary remedial steps in light of that review—risking irreparable harm to our national security and intelligence interests,” the DOJ filing states.
They noted that the injunction could prevent the FBI from being able to identify “the existence of any additional classified records that are not being properly stored” past those that were already seized at Mar-a-Lago — reflecting investigators’ concerns that there could be more materials taken by Trump from the White House that they still have yet to recover. (ABC News previously reported federal law enforcement has some worry for the potential that classified records could potentially be somewhere other than Mar-a-Lago. Trump has denied any wrongdoing.)
“Among other things, the classified records are the very subject of the government’s ongoing investigation,” the DOJ filing states.
The department said a partial stay would not harm Trump as it wouldn’t disturb the special master’s review of any other records, including those subject to attorney-client privilege, as the government has already been able to review the classified records for a month — “which, again, indisputably belong to the government, not [Trump].”
They said that being able to use the documents that were marked classified is an essential element of their ongoing investigation, specifically with respect to the two potential crimes of unauthorized retention of national defense information — “the classified records are not merely relevant evidence; they are the very objects of the relevant criminal statute” — and obstruction: “Again, the seized classified records at issue here—each of which the subpoena plainly encompassed—are central to that investigation.”
Prosecutors wrote that if Trump believed he ever had a valid assertion of executive privilege over the documents, he had more than enough time to make such assertions including after the DOJ issued its grand jury subpoena in May.
“Instead, on June 3, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel produced a set of classified records to the government, and Plaintiff’s custodian certified that ‘[a]ny and all responsive documents’ had been produced after a ‘diligent search,'” the filing states. “Plaintiff cannot now maintain—following the government’s seizure of additional classified records that Plaintiff failed to produce—that classified records obtained in the search, which were responsive to the grand jury subpoena, are shielded from the government’s review by executive privilege.”
In a footnote in the latest filing, DOJ officials wrote that they don’t interpret Cannon’s order as barring their department, the FBI or the Office of the Director of National Intelligence from briefing congressional leaders with intelligence oversight responsibilities regarding the records uncovered — suggesting they may seek to brief committee members at some point.
The dispute so far
Trump’s team made the request for a special master two weeks after the Aug. 8 search of his home.
The DOJ strongly opposed the request from the start, arguing the appointment would be “unnecessary and significantly harm important governmental interests, including national security interests” by causing a delay in their investigation.
The department said last week that a team tasked with identifying potential attorney-client privileged materials that were seized in the search of Mar-a-Lago had already completed its review and was in the process of addressing possible privilege disputes.
The DOJ also argued that Trump had no standing to ask for a special master because the documents “aren’t his” anymore and belong to the federal government.
“He is no longer the president and because he was no longer the president he did not have the right to take those documents,” said DOJ lawyer Jay Bratt as the two sides faced off in court on Sept. 1.
Trump’s lawyers, on the other hand, had said the third-party review was needed to deal with potentially privileged materials seized during the search, including both attorney-client and executive privilege.
Christopher Kise, a new addition to Trump’s legal team, cited a “public lack of faith” in the DOJ and “real or perceived lack of transparency” during the court appearance.
At one point, a Trump lawyer compared the former president’s refusal to turn over documents to the National Archives to an “overdue library book.”
Trump’s team has celebrated Cannon’s ruling, while a swath of legal experts and observers criticized her for going too far.
Barr, Trump’s former attorney general, criticized the decision during an appearance on Fox News: “The opinion, I think, was wrong, and I think the government should appeal it. It’s deeply flawed in a number of ways.”
ABC News’ Alexandra Hutzler contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — On the same day that former President Barack Obama returned to the White House to witness the unveiling of the new presidential portraits, a federal judge in Texas ruled against the provisions of his Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.
U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled on Wednesday on the side of plaintiffs, businesses and individuals, who wanted to deny free coverage of the HIV medication PrEP on religious grounds.
ABC News’ senior Washington reporter Devin Dwyer sat down with the ‘Start Here’ podcast to explain the legacy of Obamacare, the recent legal challenge and how far the implications could reach.
START HERE: Devin, I think enrollment season for health insurance starts in a couple months, what was this ruling?
DWYER: Yeah, and one of the most popular provisions that’s on all of our minds as we look at those healthcare plans from our employers to pick from Brad are those free preventive care services and medications that insurers are now required to cover because of Obamacare.
Things like cancer screenings and colonoscopies, vaccines, those things covered at no cost, no co-pays, of course. Well, a federal judge in Texas, Reed O’Connor, the same one who’s taken aim at Obamacare before, delivered an opinion striking down, threatening key portions of the preventive services mandate.
He said that this board of U.S. health officials, that decides what insurance companies have to cover free-of-charge, is unconstitutional. They aren’t properly appointed and confirmed by the Senate, in his view, perhaps invalidating them in all the work they do, we’ll see. He held back on the exact scope of his decision, that’s going to come a little bit later. But he also took aim, Brad, and you mentioned it, at this very popular pre-exposure prophylaxis called PrEP. It’s a prevention medicine for HIV.
He said that requiring companies, some companies, to cover that drug could violate their religious freedom. And he sided with one company, Briarwood is its name. It’s a small company, 70 employees. They had challenged this saying in their view, that by having to cover this they are endorsing sexual activity, [and] that they cannot support sexual activity, outside of marriage, among homosexual people, and they wanted to opt out. Judge Reed O’Connor said at least in their case, they don’t have to comply.
START HERE: And I know this ruling could potentially apply to lots of drugs but while we’re on this, could you just talk about what a big deal PrEP is? Because I feel like we don’t spend enough time properly awed that well, there’s not a cure for HIV. It has effectively let people live with this disease we thought was incurable in a more normal way than we ever thought possible.
DWYER: Yeah. PReP Brad has in the eyes of the CDC been a game changer. I mean, it has dramatically slowed the spread of HIV since it was rolled out about a decade ago. And it is 90% effective when taken ahead of time at preventing an HIV infection from any sort of activity. Sexual activity, drug use, a blood transfusion. You cannot, virtually, get it if you’re on this. And if you are infected and begin taking prep after the fact it’s also very effective, according to experts.
So this has been a drug that the CDC says they want more people to take. And in fact, the latest numbers, only about a quarter of at-risk, of the millions at-risk Americans who should be taking it are doing that right now. The numbers are up, but they need, you know, to be broadened.
And the CDC says access to that medication is the key. Letting more people get it cheaply, entirely free according to the mandate under Obamacare would help. And so they’re trying to obliterate HIV and AIDS in this country using this drug, but potentially now a setback with this ruling, if it stands, and if it’s as broad as some fear it might be.
START HERE: Well, that’s the thing, you had this company who said ‘we don’t want to endorse homosexual activity, it’s our, sort of, freedom of religion. So we don’t think this should be covered under our plan.’ Of course, we should say it’s not only gay people that get HIV, it’s not only men that get HIV. But if this ruling got upheld by the future courts, that are going to see it what could happen then to even going beyond HIV? What happens to preventative care in this country?
DWYER: Well, there’s two issues in this case. If the the prep decision stands, obviously a setback, but it’s unclear whether the judge would say the government simply has to provide some mechanism for an exemption for religious companies or religious-minded people who simply don’t want to opt-in to insurance plans like this.
Remember, there was a similar challenge on the law’s contraceptive mandate and similar grounds that has been challenged over the years. So perhaps there’s going to be some kind of exception. Perhaps he strikes it down altogether. We’ll have to see. But this also could potentially have a much broader impact. 140 million Americans rely and have come to enjoy, according to polls, the free preventive services, not just drugs and vaccines, but, you know, your annual physical that is supposed to be covered at no cost, no co-pay, once a year. That’s a benefit of Obamacare. If that task force, that which sets those standards is invalidated, all of that could potentially go away.
START HERE: Cause they’re the ones that sort of make the call on here’s what a regular person should have access to. All right. Fascinating stuff. Devin Dwyer, thank you.
(LAS VEGAS) — A Nevada county official has been arrested and charged with murder in connection with the death of a Las Vegas investigative journalist, according to authorities.
Robert Telles, 45, was arrested Wednesday night following a SWAT operation at his home, officials said, after DNA evidence was found in his home that linked him to the crime scene.
Las Vegas Review-Journal reporter Jeff German was found stabbed to death outside his home on Sept. 3, according to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. Telles, who served as the Clark County public administrator, blamed German for ruining his career in politics and his marriage, prosecutors said Thursday.
Telles made his first court appearance on Thursday, where a judge granted the prosecution’s request that he be held without bail.
The judge ordered Telles, who did not speak during his court appearance, detained after noting the steps Telles allegedly took to cover up his crimes, including casing the neighborhood for over an hour, leaving his cellphone at home and dressing in disguise.
Telles was booked into Clark County Jail on a murder charge, according to inmate records. He did not enter a please on Thursday.
Police said the day before German’s murder, Telles was seen approaching German’s home, where he allegedly had an altercation with him.
Telles, police said, then left his phone at home before heading to German’s home last Saturday. Dressed in disguise, which police described him as wearing a straw hat and reflective vest, Telles allegedly stabbed the reporter seven times.
On the second day of the investigation, police got video of the suspect’s maroon GMC vehicle, which police said was the break in the case.
Police focused on Telles because of his anger over stories written by German, officials said at a press conference Thursday. Then they found a vehicle outside Telles’ home that matched the suspect’s vehicle.
In the search warrant execution at Telles’ home, they found a pair of shoes that matched the suspect’s shoes, police said. There was blood on the shoes, which police said were cut up to destroy evidence. They said they also found the straw hat cut up to allegedly destroy evidence.
Police got positive DNA results from Telles from the murder scene and they moved in to make the arrest on Wednesday. Prosecutors said that Telles’ DNA was found on German’s hands and fingernails.
Telles was taken into custody with non-life-threatening, self-inflicted stab wounds, police said.
Las Vegas Sheriff Joseph Lombardo said this has been an “unusual” case, and that “the killing of a journalist is particularly troublesome.”
“It is troublesome because it is a journalist. And we expect journalism to be open and transparent and the watchdog for government,” Lombardo said Thursday. “And when people take it upon themselves to create harm associated with that profession, I think it’s very important we put all eyes on and address the case appropriately such as we did in this case.”
Telles’ next hearing is set for Tuesday.
ABC News’ Connor Burton, Melissa Gaffney, Teddy Grant and Alex Presha contributed to this report.
(LONDON) — The eldest son of Britain’s longest-reigning monarch has taken his late mother’s place on the throne.
King Charles III is the first child of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Upon the death of his mother on Sept. 8, Charles succeeded her as king of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms.
Charles, 73, was born at Buckingham Palace in London in 1948. He was just 3 years old when he became the heir apparent as his mother acceded to the throne as queen, following the death of her father, King George VI. He is the first heir to see his mother crowned, according to a biography on the royal family’s official website.
Charles attended school rather than receiving tutoring at the family’s palace home. In 1970, he graduated from the University of Cambridge with a Bachelor of Arts degree, becoming the first heir apparent to earn a university degree. Cambridge later awarded him a Master of Arts degree.
Elizabeth made her eldest son the Prince of Wales in 1969, among other royal titles, after he had spent a term at the University College of Wales at Aberystwyth, where he learned to speak Welsh. Two years later, Charles took his seat in the House of Lords, the upper house of the parliament of the United Kingdom.
Charles then spent the next few years serving in both the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, following in his father’s footsteps.
In 1981, Charles married Lady Diana Spencer, who became the princess of Wales. The couple had two sons, William and Harry, who are second and sixth in line to the throne.
A 1994 biography authorized by Charles — “Prince of Wales,” by Jonathan Dimbleby — revealed that he felt pressured by his father to marry Diana and that he wasn’t ever in love with her. According to the book, Charles began having an affair with Camilla Parker Bowles in 1986. The two had met at a polo match several years prior.
Charles and Diana agreed to separate in late 1992, and their marriage was dissolved about four years later, according to the royal family’s official website.
A 1992 biography on the princess of Wales, “Diana: Her True Story,” in which she collaborated with the author, Andrew Morton, revealed further details on the troubled marriage, including Diana’s suspicion and jealousy over Charles’s clandestine romance and how she came to consider Camilla as the “third person” in their relationship.
In 1997, Diana was killed in a car accident in Paris. Both the driver of the car and Diana’s boyfriend, Egyptian socialite Dodi Fayed, who was another passenger, died as well. A throng of paparazzi on motorcycles had been chasing their vehicle just minutes before the driver lost control and crashed. An investigation later revealed that the driver was under the influence of alcohol and prescription drugs, and the paparazzi didn’t cause the crash.
In 2005, Charles married Camilla, who became known as the Duchess of Cornwall. The couple live together in Clarence House, a British royal residence on The Mall in London, according to the royal family’s official website. However, they are expected to move into Buckingham Palace now that he is king.
Charles and Camilla, 75, are also expected to be coronated side-by-side, per Elizabeth’s request that Camilla become queen consort — the title given to the wife of a reigning king.
Charles has five grandchildren by both of his sons.
As the longest-serving Prince of Wales, Charles had spearheaded a number of initiatives and charitable work over the years, with a particular focus on global sustainability.
For instance, he started an initiative in 2007 called “Mosaic,” which offers mentoring programs to young people growing up in deprived communities. He also launched the “Campaign for Wool” in 2010 to promote awareness of the environmental benefits of wool and expand the market for British sheep farmers who are struggling to make ends meet.
Charles also took part in various sports including horse racing, sailing and scuba diving. He raised money for charity by playing polo up until late 2004, when he decided to retire from the game after playing it for more than 40 years, according to a biography on the prince’s official website.
In his spare time, Charles likes to paint. Lithographs of his artwork are for sale and all proceeds go to The Prince of Wales’s Charitable Foundation. He also enjoys gardening and hedge-laying, especially in his organic garden at Highgrove House, his residence near Tetbury in Gloucestershire.
(LONDON) — With the death of Queen Elizabeth II, her son Charles becomes king and his wife Camilla becomes Queen Consort.
The title of queen consort for Camilla is a request the queen made in February, on the eve of her Platinum Jubilee, marking 70 years on the throne.
“And when, in the fullness of time, my son Charles becomes King, I know you will give him and his wife Camilla the same support that you have given me, and it is my sincere wish that, when that time comes, Camilla will be known as Queen Consort as she continues her own loyal service,” the queen said.
The statement marked the first time the queen had publicly addressed her daughter-in-law’s role in the future monarchy.
When Charles and Camilla married in 2005, there was some debate as to what title Camilla, a divorcee, would take when Charles became king.
At the time of their wedding, a spokesperson for the couple suggested she would take the title Princess Consort.
Queen Consort is the title given to the spouse of a king, and under U.K. law, whoever is married to a king would immediately become that and be known as queen. There was some concern the public might resent Camilla being known as Queen Camilla, which is why this Princess Consort title was suggested.
With the queen’s blessing, Camilla will now be known as Queen Camilla as her husband is now King Charles III.
At the time the queen’s request was made public, Camilla, 75, called it a “great honor” to be given the title Queen Consort.
Camilla was at Balmoral with Charles and other royal family members on Thursday when the queen died “peacefully” in the afternoon, according to Buckingham Palace.
The rise of Camilla in the royal family and in the eyes of the public has been a transformation over the past nearly two decades.
“There was a concerted effort to rehabilitate Camilla’s reputation, but she also did that herself by how she approached her situation and over time we have seen the public’s perception of her really change,” ABC News royal contributor Victoria Murphy said earlier this year. “And now we see her very much accepted and embraced as a future queen.”
At one time, Camilla was blamed for the end of Charles’ marriage to his first wife, the late Princess Diana, the mother of his two sons, Princes William and Harry.
She and Charles first met in the 1970s and remained friends during their respective marriages, each of which ended in the mid-1990s.
In an interview this year with British Vogue, Camilla said she had to “rise above” the press and public’s scrutiny.
“It’s not easy,” she said. “I was scrutinized for such a long time that you just have to find a way to live with it. Nobody likes to be looked at all the time and, you know, criticized … but I think in the end, I sort of rise above it.”
During her nearly two decades as a member of the royal family, Camilla has dedicated herself to supporting Charles and championing her own causes, among them supporting victims of domestic abuse.
Earlier this year, on Garter Day, Camilla was made a Royal Lady of the Order of the Garter, the “oldest and most senior Order of Chivalry in Britain,” according to the royal family’s website.
Camilla told British Vogue she plans to continue to advocate for causes closest to her heart as queen, saying, “You can’t desert things that you’re in the middle of. There’s a lot of things to be done still.”
She also described to the magazine the lives she and Charles lead behind-the-scenes, noting they can be like “ships passing in the night” due to their busy schedules.
“It’s not easy sometimes, but we do always try to have a point in the day when we meet,” she said. “Sometimes it’s like ships passing in the night, but we always sit down together and have a cup of tea and discuss the day. We have a moment. It’s lovely to catch up when we have a bit of time.”
Describing the times they are away from the daily grind of royal life, Camilla added, “You know when we go away, the nicest thing is that we actually sit and read our books in different corners of the same room. It’s very relaxing because you know you don’t have to make conversation. You just sit and be together.”
(LONDON) — With the passing of Queen Elizabeth II, there is a new line of succession to the British throne.
The queen’s oldest son, Charles, has become king. And with his ascension to the throne, members of his direct family, including his sons Princes William and Harry, are now higher in the line of succession.
In general, succession falls to the first-born child of the heir and their children, followed by the next oldest sibling of the heir and their offspring and so on. That’s why, for instance, Prince Charles’ children and grandchildren are ahead in line of Charles’ oldest brother, Prince Andrew, the Duke of York.
Other rules make the order more complicated.
Under British laws established in the late 1600s and early 1700s, the succession to the throne can be regulated by Parliament, which can remove monarchs for “misgovernment,” according to the royal family’s website.
In order to be king or queen, the sovereign must be in communion with the Church of England and must promise to uphold the Protestant succession.
In 2013, a law called the Succession to the Crown Act ended the centuries-old practice of a younger son superseding an elder daughter in the line of succession.
The act, which applies to royals born after Oct. 28, 2011, also ended the provisions by which those who marry Roman Catholics are disqualified from the line of succession. The changes came into full effect in March 2015.
As a result of the act, Princess Charlotte, the daughter of Prince William and his wife, Duchess Kate, is ahead in the line of succession over her younger brother, Prince Louis.
As a ruler, the British monarch serves as the head of state, within the limits of the constitution.
A new sovereign ascends to the throne upon the death of the previous monarch.
After the monarch’s death, the Accession Council, a ceremonial body, is expected to meet at St. James’s Palace in London as soon as possible to formally proclaim the accession of the successor to the throne and witness the statutory oath.
If the monarch is still a child when succeeding to the throne, a regent is appointed to perform the royal functions until the monarch turns 18. The same can happen if the monarch is absent or incapacitated, according to the royal family’s official website.
Here is the current line of succession to the British throne, as listed on the royal family’s official website.
1. Prince William, Duke of Cambridge
2. Prince George of Cambridge
3. Princess Charlotte of Cambridge
4. Prince Louis of Cambridge
5. Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex
6. Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor
7. Miss Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor
8. Prince Andrew, Duke of York
9. Princess Beatrice of York (Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi)
10. Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi
11. Princess Eugenie of York (Mrs. Jack Brooksbank)
(UVALDE, Texas) — Two victims have been air-lifted to San Antonio Memorial Hospital following a shooting Thursday in Uvalde, Texas, police said.
The Uvalde Police Department said it responded to a shooting “with injured victims” at Uvalde Memorial Park around 5:30 p.m. Thursday.
This was a suspected gang-related shooting, the Texas Department of Public Safety said, adding that it was working with the police department and sheriff’s office.
“This information is preliminary, as the situation develops we will work with local law enforcement to provide updates,” DPS said.
San Antonio ABC affiliate KSAT reported that police said two juveniles have been hospitalized following the shooting, and authorities are looking for a juvenile suspect.
Authorities said it’s “not a dangerous situation for the general public,” KSAT reported.
Uvalde police advised residents to avoid the area.
More than three months ago, on May 24, 19 students and two teachers were killed in a shooting massacre at Robb Elementary School. Just this week, on Tuesday, students returned to the classroom for the school year.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
ABC News’ Kate Holland and Matthew Fuhrman contributed to this report.
A limited-edition vinyl picture version of The Police‘s popular 1981 album Ghost in the Machine, featuring the record’s originally planned track list and sequencing, will be released November 4.
The LP, which can be preordered now, boasts three extra tracks — “I Burn for You,” “Once Upon a Daydream” and “Shambelle.”
The Ghost in the Machine picture disc features a single mix of “I Burn for You,” which first appeared on the soundtrack to the 1982 film Brimstone and Treacle.
The picture disc also features audio of drummer Stewart Copeland counting in each track, something not heard on the original album.
Side A of the disc features the Police logo that appeared on the front of the Ghost in the Machine album cover, while side B features an image from the inner sleeve.
Released in October 1981, Ghost in the Machine topped the U.K. album chart and reached #2 on the Billboard 200. The album featured two top-20 singles in the U.S., “Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic” and “Spirits in the Material,” which peaked at #3 and #11, respectively. In the U.K., “Every Little Thing” topped the singles chart and “Spirits” reached #12, while “Invisible Sun” ascended to #2.
Other memorable tunes on the album include “Demolition Man,” “Too Much Information,” “One World (Not Three)” and “Secret Journey.”
Here’s the Ghost in the Machine picture disc’s full track list:
Side A
“Invisible Sun”
“Demolition Man”
“Secret Journey”
“Darkness”
“Spirits in the Material World”
“Too Much Information”
“Omegaman”
Side B
“One World (Not Three)”
“Rehumanize Yourself”
“I Burn for You”
“Hungry for You (j’aurais toujours faim de toi)”
“Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic”
“Once Upon a Daydream”
“Shambelle”
