Hailey Bieber said she will never abandon husband Justin Bieber, no matter the obstacle or challenge.
When speaking to the In Good Faith podcast, the couple discussed the various struggles they’ve faced during their three-year marriage and how they survived them.
Hailey opened up about watching the pop star struggle with his mental health during their first year of marriage, saying she called her mother, Kennya Baldwin, and admitted to her through tears, “I just can’t do it. There’s no way that I’m going to be able to do this if it’s going to be like this forever.”
The model recalls the encouraging words her mother had for her, which helped her realize “we had a lot of support.”
“I feel like if I didn’t have support, it would’ve been 10 times harder, and it was already the hardest thing in my life,” Hailey continued. “I made a decision. I know for a fact that I’ve loved this person for a very long time and now would not be the time to give up on him. I just wouldn’t do that to him.”
“Imagine abandoning somebody in the middle of the worst time of their life,” continued Hailey, 24. “I’m not that type of a person. I was going to stick it out no matter what the outcome was going to be.”
Even so, she admitted that watching her husband struggle “was really hard.” But she credited their mutual stubbornness — as well as love their for one another — as the reason why they chose to stay together, saying, “I think neither of us were going to be the person to say, ‘I quit.'”
“Hailey accepted me as I was,” added Justin. “I could cry thinking about it, to be honest.”
Cardi B is set to host the 2021 American Music Awards, airing later this month on ABC.
It marks the five-time AMA winner’s first time hosting the event. She previously took the AMAs stage to perform “I Like It” in 2018 with J Balvin and Bad Bunny. She’s also the first female rapper to win the AMA for Favorite Hip Hop Song twice.
“When I received the invite to host the AMAs, I was so excited,“ Cardi B says in a statement. “I’m ready to bring my personality to the AMAs stage! Thank you to [executive producer] Jesse Collins, ABC and MRC for making this happen.”
The AMAs air live from the Microsoft Theater in Los Angeles on Sunday, Nov. 21, at 8:00 p.m. ET/PT on ABC and will be streaming the next day on Hulu.
After rumors of his positive diagnosis swirled last week, the Dune star confirmed the news on Friday. Taking to his Instagram Story, which was captured in a TikTok, Momoa said, “I got hit with COVID right after the [Dune] premiere.”
“There’s a lot of people I met in England,” he explained. “Got a lot of aloha from people, and who knows. Either way, I’m doing fine.”
The Aquaman actor shared that he’s been “camped out in his house.” He also panned to show his current roommate, professional skater Erik Ellington, zipping through their home on a skateboard and laughed, “We’re having a ball!”
(ATLANTA) — The Atlanta Braves are one win away from potentially securing their fourth World Series title, but their name and a gesture used by fans have come under scrutiny from Native American advocates around the country.
The gesture is known as the “tomahawk chop” and has been used by fans of various teams — from the high school level to the pros — to cheer on teams with Native American names or mascots. The tomahawk is an axe that is native to the indigenous people of North America and at Braves games many fans hold up red foam tomahawks or wear Braves gear displaying the image.
Former President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump were among the fans who did the chop at Game 4 of the World Series on Saturday night.
Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred said last week that the Native American community in the Atlanta region “is wholly supportive of the Braves program, including the chop. For me, that’s the end of the story.”
But views on the gesture are varied and some Native American tribes in Georgia pushed back on Manfred’s claim.
ABC News’ request for comment to the MLB and the Atlanta Braves were not returned.
The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), the country’s oldest and largest American Indian and Alaska Native tribal government organization, issued a response on Wednesday that disputes Manfred’s statement.
“In our discussions with the Atlanta Braves, we have repeatedly and unequivocally made our position clear – Native people are not mascots, and degrading rituals like the ‘tomahawk chop’ that dehumanize and harm us have no place in American society,” NCAI President Fawn Sharp said.
Heather Whiteman Runs Him, a law professor and director of the Tribal Justice Clinic at the University of Arizona in Tucson, told “Good Morning America” that using Native American imagery in sports dehumanizes the community and behavior like the tomahawk chop “indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of who Native Americans are.”
“I think the team needs to condemn that behavior,” Whiteman Runs Him said, “and to begin the process of educating and taking a lead in raising awareness about our actual identities, the actual complexities of our cultures, our present-day reality, as well as the many problems in our mutual history.”
Although the Braves dropped Chief Noc-A-Homa as its mascot in 1985, the team’s name originates from a term that is used to describe a Native American warrior.
Sundance, a member of the Muskogee tribe, is the director of the Cleveland branch of the American Indian Movement — one of the organizations that has been urging national and local teams with indigenous names and mascots to change their names for more than 50 years.
He told “Good Morning America” that appropriating Native American imagery in sports is “a way for the dominant culture to pretend that atrocities against native peoples did not happen.”
“We are a marginalized and victimized population. And that appropriation is being done by the same culture that marginalized and victimized [us],” he added.
The Cleveland branch of the American Indian Movement was one of the groups that was instrumental in advocating for the name change of the Cleveland Indians — now known as the Cleveland Guardians.
Following decades of backlash from the Native American community, Cleveland’s Major League Baseball team announced in December 2020 that the franchise will change its name and revealed in July that the new name is now the Guardians.
This came after Dan Snyder, owner of the Washington Redskins, said in July 2020 that the team would change its name to the Washington Football Team, after FedEx, which has naming rights to the stadium, requested a change.
Sundance previously told ABC News that the movement to remove Native American imagery from sports teams has been going on for decades but gained new momentum over the past year amid nationwide protests and an energized civil rights movement sparked by the police killing of George Floyd.
According to a FiveThirtyEight analysis, hundreds of schools across the country still use Native Americans as their team mascots.
“We would like to see [the Atlanta Braves] step up to the plate, change the team name, get rid of that logo and, I figure, the Tomahawk chop will chop will itself,” Sundance said.
The big cat rights activist and her husband, Howard Baskin, filed a lawsuit on Monday claiming that their contract was breached by Royal Goode Productions for using the couple in the Netflix sequel to the Tiger King documentary series when, according to the suit, they signed releases for the first installment only, according to documents obtained by Variety.
As described by Netflix, “… the Emmy-nominated saga continues its twisted course with Tiger King 2 as newfound revelations emerge on the motivations, backstories, and secrets of America’s most notorious big cat owners. Old enemies and frenemies, including Jeff Lowe, Tim Stark, Allen Glover, and James Garretson return for another season of murder, mayhem, and madness. Thought you knew the whole story? Just you wait.”
Carole wants the streamer to remove all “unauthorized” footage of herself from the sequel, including the trailer. She and her husband also sought to delay the sequel’s premiere, but a federal judge late Monday denied that request, according to Deadline.
Tiger King 2 is set to debut on November 17, which is just days after Carole Baskin’s new series, Carole Baskin’s Cage Fight, debuts on November 13 on competing streamer Discovery+. The new two-part docuseries will showcase Baskin’s life as a big cat activist and her investigation into the G.W. Zoo, which previously belonged to fellow Tiger King star Joseph Maldonado-Passage, also known as Joe Exotic.
(NEW YORK) — As the COVID-19 pandemic has swept the globe, more than 5 million people have died from the disease worldwide, including over 747,000 Americans, according to real-time data compiled by Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Systems Science and Engineering.
Just 67.9% of Americans ages 12 and up are fully vaccinated against COVID-19, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Here’s how the news is developing. All times Eastern:
Nov 01, 8:28 pm
Major pharmacy chains to offer Pfizer vaccine to children 5-11
Several major pharmacy chains told ABC News they are gearing up to offer the Pfizer vaccine to 5- to 11-year-olds within days of its approval by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The agency is expected to give the green light as early as Tuesday night. If approved, roughly 28 million children would be eligible for the mRNA vaccine.
“We expect to be able to provide vaccinations for this age group shortly after November 3,” Rite Aid said in a statement.
Walgreens said in a statement that, “appointments will open as we receive supply to stores, beginning this week.”
A spokesperson for CVS said the chain will share more specifics about its vaccine rollout once the authorization is made, and will provide customers with information on its website.
“We have played a prominent role in administering third doses to the immunocompromised and authorized booster shots, and are prepared to expand vaccine eligibility to ages 5-11 as soon as authorized to do so by public health agencies,” CVS said in a statement.
Nov 01, 4:33 pm
Details on vaccine mandates for businesses expected in coming days
A federal rule on vaccine mandates for businesses will be released this week, according to the Labor Department.
The rule will require employers with 100 employers or more to mandate the vaccine or weekly testing. It also will require large businesses to provide paid time off to workers to get the shot and recover from side effects from the vaccine.
The department said in a statement, “On November 1, the Office of Management and Budget completed its regulatory review of the emergency temporary standard. The Federal Register will publish the emergency temporary standard in the coming days.”
It’s not clear when the rule will take effect.
President Joe Biden first announced the rule in September and it’s since been making its way through the regulatory process.
Nov 01, 3:52 pm
Pediatric cases continue to decline
The U.S. reported about 101,000 child COVID-19 cases last week, marking the eighth consecutive week of declines in pediatric infections since the pandemic peak of nearly 252,000 cases in early September, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
The rate of pediatric hospital admissions is also declining.
Approximately 45.3% of adolescents ages 12 to 17 have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, according to federal data.
Severe illness due to COVID-19 remains “uncommon” among children, AAP and CHA said. However, AAP and CHA continue to warn that there is an urgent need to collect more data on the long-term consequences of the pandemic on children, “including ways the virus may harm the long-term physical health of infected children, as well as its emotional and mental health effects.”
Nov 01, 3:15 pm
What to expect at Tuesday’s CDC panel meeting on vaccinating young kids
An independent CDC advisory panel will convene at 11 a.m. Tuesday to debate and hold a nonbinding vote on whether to recommend the Pfizer vaccine for the roughly 28 million kids ages 5 to 11 in the U.S.
The CDC panel is expected to vote around 4:15 p.m.
If the panel decides to move ahead, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky must sign off on those specific recommendations, which would likely happen Tuesday evening.
No pediatric vaccinations will start until Walensky gives the green light. If that happens Tuesday evening, shots could start going into younger children’s arms beginning Wednesday.
The White House has purchased 65 million Pfizer pediatric vaccine doses — more than enough to fully vaccine all American children in this age group.
(WASHINGTON) — Two months to the day after allowing Texas to impose a near-total ban on abortions, the Supreme Court on Monday was openly skeptical of state law SB8 over concerns about its unprecedented enforcement mechanism and what it could mean for other state attempts to limit constitutional rights.
The Texas law, which bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, delegates enforcement to everyday citizens — rather than state officials — who can file civil lawsuits against anyone who “aids or abets” an unlawful procedure. Its state sponsors deliberately intended to circumvent federal court review, knowing that such a ban on its face violates constitutionally-protected abortion rights.
A majority of justices, during the more than three hours of oral arguments on Monday, signaled that Texas abortion providers have a strong case for asking federal courts to put SB8 on hold.
“There’s a loophole that’s been exploited here, or used here,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said, referring to a 1908 Supreme Court case — Ex parte Young — that established a precedent for people to sue state officials in federal court for alleged constitutional violations.
Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who both voted in September with the five-justice majority allowing SB8 to take effect, voiced particular discomfort with the idea that a state could outsource enforcement of a law to citizens in an attempt to circumvent precedent.
“So the question becomes, should we extend the principle of Ex parte Young to, in essence, close that loophole?” Kavanaugh said. He added that the “whole sweep” of the case suggested such an outcome.
“I think there is language in Ex parte Young that favors you,” Barrett told the abortion providers’ attorney Marc Hearron.
It was not clear how quickly the Supreme Court will hand down a decision in the case. Clinics across Texas have said they have discontinued most abortion care services while the legal battle plays out.
If the justices side with the Texas abortion providers, they could return the case to a federal district court for proceedings, or the court itself could issue an order blocking SB8 as litigation continues.
Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone insisted that state officials have nothing to do with SB8 enforcement and that state courts are the proper venues to litigate challenges to SB8 on a case by case, plaintiff by plaintiff, basis. Fourteen state suits are underway. Those individual cases could ultimately end up in federal court, Stone said.
Petitioners want “an injunction against SB8, the law, itself,” said Stone. “They can’t receive that because federal courts don’t issue injunctions against laws but against officials enforcing laws. No Texas executive official enforces SB8 either, and so no Texas executive official may be enjoined.”
Justice Elena Kagan took direct aim at Texas’ argument, warning that allowing the state’s scheme to stand would be an open invitation to other states to circumvent other disfavored constitutional rights.
“Essentially, we would be like, you know, we are open, you are open for business. There’s nothing the Supreme Court can do about it. Guns, same-sex marriage, religious rights, whatever you don’t like, go ahead,” she said.
Chief Justice John Roberts raised concerns about the inability of citizens to preemptively defend their constitutional rights because the Texas law doesn’t have a clear enforcer until an individual claim is made.
“It’s a question of anybody having the capacity or ability to go to the federal court because nobody is going to risk violating the statute because they’ll be subject to suit for [a significant financial sum]. That — that takes a lot of fortitude to undertake the prohibited conduct in that case. And under the system, it is only by undertaking the prohibited conduct that you can get into federal court,” Roberts said.
While many justices did appear open to federal curbs on SB8, there was no clear consensus on who their opinion should target or who a federal court could enjoin.
“What relief are you requesting?” Kagan asked Hearron.
“We are requesting an… injunction against the commencement or the docketing of lawsuits against the [state court] clerks across the State of Texas, as well as injunctive relief against the state executive officials for their residual authority to enforce SB8,” Hearron replied.
Several justices seemed disinclined to enjoin judges or clerks from simply doing their jobs, which are not inherently adversarial.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that issuing an injunction against the attorney general of Texas could effectively cover all citizens who might bring lawsuits under SB8. They are “acting in concert” with the state, Sotomayor insisted.
“Why wouldn’t these private individuals be considered private attorneys generals?” Justice Clarence Thomas said. “One thing that seems rather implicit on the other side is that they are in effect, if not in designation by law, attorneys generals because they are enforcing a statewide policy.”
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said a federal court could target any “potential private plaintiffs” in Texas. “The state incentivizes their conduct,” she said. “No constitutional right is safe” if such a model is allowed to stand.
The implications for other constitutional rights and for Supreme Court precedents and authority were of particular concern to Kavanaugh, who could play a decisive role in disposition of SB8.
He cited free speech rights, freedom of religion, and Second Amendment rights, as potentially under threat, referring to an amicus brief filed by a conservative firearms group worried about a decision upholding SB8.
“The theory of the amicus brief is that it can be easily replicated in other states that disfavor other constitutional rights,” Kavanaugh said.
The justices seemed broadly disengaged with arguments by the Biden administration — in a separate challenge to SB8 argued Monday — that the federal government has sweeping ability to challenge a discriminatory state law in federal court.
“Has the U.S. government ever asserted ‘equity’?” wondered Justice Neil Gorsuch skeptically.
“Is there any instance in which the U.S. can do what it’s doing now?” questioned Thomas.
The court is expected to issue an expedited decision in the coming days or weeks.
(BASEL, Switzerland) — The International Handball Federation has updated its uniform rules after backlash over its women’s bikini requirements.
After being called out for fining the Norwegian women’s handball team 1,500 euros (about $1,740) for opting to wear shorts — which were listed as “improper clothing” — the governing authority has revised its rules to allow for “short tight pants with a close fit” to be worn, as opposed to the previously required bikini bottoms.
This change comes after some activists and celebrities, such as singer Pink, called the federation’s rules “sexist” and offered to pay the team’s fines.
It also comes after Norway-based Australian activist Talitha Stone and the gender equality organization Collective Shout garnered over 61,000 signatures in support of updating the women’s handball uniform rules.
“I hope this is the beginning of the end of sexism and objectification of women and girls in sport, and that in [the] future ALL women and girls will be free to participate in sport without fear of wardrobe malfunctions and sexual harassment,” Stone said in a Facebook post.
The Collective Shout also shared a before and after image of the uniforms along with the hashtag #letthemwearshorts and a statement saying, “International Handball Federation scraps sexist bikini rule!”
In addition to Norway’s women’s handball team, other top athletes have used their platforms to stand against sexualization in sports.
In July, the German gymnastics team sported full-length leotards while competing in the 2020 Olympics, as opposed to traditional bikini bottoms.
“It’s about what feels comfortable,” three-time Olympian Elisabeth Seitz said in a statement. “We wanted to show that every woman, everybody, should decide what to wear.”
(NEW YORK) — Jessica Simpson has been sober for four years.
The singer and entrepreneur penned an emotional Instagram post on Monday, in which she shared a photo of herself from Nov. 1, 2017: the day she decided to stop drinking alcohol.
Explaining that she had become “an unrecognizable version of myself,” she stated that she “knew in this very moment I would allow myself to take back my light, show victory over my internal battle of self respect, and brave this world with piercing clarity.”
“Personally, to do this I needed to stop drinking alcohol because it kept my mind and heart circling in the same direction and quite honestly I was exhausted,” she wrote. “I wanted to feel the pain so I could carry it like a badge of honor. I wanted to live as a leader does and break cycles to advance forward- never looking back with regret and remorse over any choice I have made and would make for the rest of my time here within this beautiful world.”
Simpson, 41, revealed in her 2020 memoir, “Open Book,” that she was sexually abused as a child and added that as an adult, she used alcohol and pills to cope with the pain of that experience. Then, after a Halloween party at her home in 2017, she realized she needed to stop drinking.
“There is so much stigma around the word alcoholism or the label of an alcoholic. The real work that needed to be done in my life was to actually accept failure, pain, brokenness, and self sabotage,” she added in her post Monday. “The drinking wasn’t the issue. I was.”
“I didn’t love myself. I didn’t respect my own power. Today I do,” she continued. “I have made nice with the fears and I have accepted the parts of my life that are just sad. I own my personal power with soulful courage. I am wildly honest and comfortably open. I am free.”
(NEW YORK) — Just before the 2020 presidential election, a bus carrying Biden-Harris campaign staffers and volunteers through Texas was tailed by Trump supporters, some of whom were “driving in a way that appeared to be an attempt to push the bus off the road onto the shoulder,” according to court documents.
A lawsuit was filed Friday by former Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis and two former campaign staffers who were on the bus, along with the bus driver, alleging negligence by the San Marcos Police Department.
“For at least ninety minutes, including during the entirety of the stretch of I-35 inside the San Marcos city lines, the Trump Train pursued and terrorized the Plaintiffs,” the lawsuit alleges. “Plaintiffs tried to get help. They repeatedly called 911. They requested police escorts. San Marcos refused to help.”
The suit alleges that the San Marcos Police Department laughed and refused to provide assistance when a staffer called in to report the situation on Oct. 30 2020. ABC News has reached out to the police department for comment.
“I am so annoyed at New Braunfels for doing this to us,” a dispatcher said to one of the police officers over the radio, according to a 911 transcript included in court documents. New Braunfels is a city next to San Marcos, and the bus was heading over the city line.
“They have their officers escorting this Biden bus, essentially, and the Trump Train is cutting in between vehicles and driving — being aggressive and slowing them down to like 20 or 30 miles per hour,” the dispatcher reportedly said. “And they want you guys to respond to help.”
Matt Daenzer, a corporal with the department who is listed as a defendant in the lawsuit, reportedly replied, “No, we’re not going to do it. We will close patrol that, but we’re not going to escort a bus.”
The dispatcher, according to the transcript, told Daenzer the caller was “really worked up over it, and he’s like breathing hard and stuff, like, ‘they’re being really aggressive.’ OK. Calm down.”
Daenzer agreed and reportedly told the dispatcher, “Yeah, well, drive defensively, and it’ll be great.”
When the dispatcher informed the campaign staffer who called 911 for help that the San Marcos Police Department would not provide a police escort, the unnamed staffer replied, “They’ve cut in on me multiple times. They’ve threatened my life on multiple occasions with vehicular collision. I would like an escort immediately.”
The lawsuit alleges the “Trump Train” went unchecked without any police escorting the bus.
“Despite these multiple calls for help from Plaintiffs and others, for the roughly 30 minutes it took to drive through San Marcos on the main highway that runs through it, there were no officers from San Marcos or any other police cars in sight — not on the I-35 exit or entrance ramps, nor on either side of the highway,” it states.
When then-President Donald Trump learned about the situation after videos of the incident were posted to Twitter, he retweeted a video and wrote, “I LOVE TEXAS!,” the court documents also state.
Also listed as defendants in the lawsuit are San Marcos Director of Public Safety Chase Stapp, San Marcos Police Department Assistant Chief of Police Brandon Winkenwerder and the City of San Marcos.
