Louisiana State Capitol to shine purple for National Naloxone Awareness Day
BATON ROUGE, La. (Louisiana First) — The Louisiana State Capitol will glow purple for 12 hours starting at 6 p.m. on Friday, June 6, in honor of National Naloxone Awareness Day.
This display was requested by the Victoria's Voice Foundation and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana as a visual reminder that naloxone, a medication that reverses an opioid overdose, can save lives.
'It is available with a prescription or over the counter. Many community groups and healthcare organizations provide Narcan, a naloxone nasal spray, and training on how to use it at no cost,' a news release said.
Victoria's Voice and Louisiana Blue representatives were joined by Zachary Mayor David McDavid, East Baton Rouge Parish Mayor-President Sid Edwards, Central Mayor Wade Evans and others in Washington, D.C. this week. They met with members of Congress to discuss efforts to raise awareness about the dangers of fentanyl and expand access to prevention tools.
If you know someone who needs help with substance abuse, call 988.
As Louisiana's governor faces ethics charges, his lawyer raises bar for future ethics investigations
Baton Rouge conference aims to inspire girls with guest speakers, music
House Democrat Leader Hakeem Jeffries says budget bill should be killed
Jeffries declines to embrace Musk amid the billionaire's feud with Trump
Trump administration faces growing bipartisan pressure over Job Corps
Shark-freeing diver says Trump pardon surprised him
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
4 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Some Johns Hopkins, UMD research stopped after Trump cuts. Others are scrambling to resume
BALTIMORE - Some Maryland university research projects on the Trump administration's chopping block have been fully discontinued, while others are scrambling to resume after a pause in funding. Johns Hopkins has lost more than $800 million in federal grant money. The University of Maryland lost tens of millions of dollars. But some cuts have been blocked by legal challenges, though litigation is ongoing. Researchers describe disappointment and uncertainty as they determine how to move forward. Alternative funding has been secured for a clinical trial in Bangladesh aimed at managing life-threatening diarrheal diseases in children, which was previously halted because of U.S. Agency for International Development funding cuts. The work has yet to resume. "It just takes a long time to rebuild the teams and get things in place again to start," said Judd Walson, chair of the Department of International Health at Johns Hopkins University, which partnered on the project. "The disruptions that are happening are really catastrophic." Over the past several weeks, 17 NIH awards have been terminated or had an unclear status, including two training awards supporting doctoral-level researchers, Walson said. "We're not getting a lot of communication, so it's a little bit hard to say exactly what the status of some of these awards are," he said. The National Institutes of Health didn't respond to questions about funding cuts to Maryland research institutions. In a lawsuit challenging NIH research cuts, lawyers for the federal government wrote in a recent court filing that its terminations of grants for DEI-related studies were "sufficiently reasoned," and that the NIH has "broad discretion" to decide what grants to provide. Johns Hopkins is a plaintiff in two lawsuits involving caps on reimbursement of indirect costs for research - one challenging the NIH and the other against the Department of Defense. The latter suit also lists the University of Maryland, College Park, as a plaintiff. Both schools have also filed a brief in support of a lawsuit filed by Harvard University against the Trump administration's funding cuts. New grant terminations have been arriving "nearly every week," Johns Hopkins University said in a recent update published on its website. There's also been a nearly two-thirds decrease in new awards compared with last year, the university said. Johns Hopkins atmosphere and ocean sciences researcher Darryn Waugh was disappointed upon receiving notice that his NASA grant to study air pollution in Baltimore was canceled by the Trump administration. The termination came as a result of President Donald Trump's executive order, "Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing." "It wasn't clear to me that this actually falls under this diversity, equity, inclusion," Waugh said. "It was research that I think we still wanted to do - to understand how the air pollution varies through the city - and the environmental justice was only actually a relatively small component of it." Waugh was working through the second year of a three-year grant, totaling $1,465,950. "We've got kind of a preliminary analysis," he said, regarding the research. "But to get anything conclusive, we would need more than one year of funding." Waugh said he intends to find ways of continuing the research without the NASA grant. Daniel Mullins, at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, had a grant canceled for a "Health Equity Research Hub," which examined how to encourage greater participation in health-related research. Mullins said the loss of the grant affected five positions, and the individuals will be removed from the university because of lack of funding. He added that the termination stated that the grant was DEI-related, which he disputes. "I think under the DEI umbrella, a lot of times, the government will refer to it as just one racial ethnic group," he said. "We've worked in different geographies, in different racial and ethnic populations, but what's cool about what we do is it really does apply to all patients in all populations." Mullins said his research group has additional funding from other agencies and is writing new proposals. Walson said social determinants of health - involving factors like poverty and other "inequities" - are "foundational to our understanding of health." "So the idea that we would not be able to pursue work that focuses on identifying and managing those particular issues, which are the underlying, core issues at the heart of health issues, is really challenging," Walson said. The Trump administration's cuts have had an ieffect across the world. Walson said it's estimated the cuts will result in hundreds of thousands of deaths globally, and could eventually lead to millions of deaths over the next couple of years. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said it's "a lie" that people have died because of USAID cuts. During a congressional hearing in May, Rubio said the U.S. is the world's "largest humanitarian provider." "I would argue: How many people die because China hasn't done it?" he said. "How many people have died because the U.K. has cut back on spending and so has other countries?" Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Hamilton Spectator
5 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
What to know about the Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago that legalized same-sex marriage in the US
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago this month, on June 26, 2015, legalized same-sex marriage across the U.S. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision followed years of national wrangling over the issue, during which some states moved to protect domestic partnerships or civil unions for same-sex partners and others declared marriage could exist only between one man and one woman. In plaintiff James Obergefell's home state of Ohio, voters had overwhelmingly approved such an amendment in 2004 — effectively mirroring the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex couples. That laid the political groundwork for the legal challenge that bears his name. Here's what you need to know about the lawsuit, the people involved and the 2015 ruling's immediate and longer term effects: Who are James Obergefell and Rick Hodges? Obergefell and John Arthur, who brought the initial legal action, were long-time partners living in Cincinnati. They had been together for nearly two decades when Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in 2011. Obergefell became Arthur's caregiver as the incurable condition ravaged his health over time. When in 2013 the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, the pair acted quickly to get married. Their union was not allowed in Ohio, so they boarded a plane to Maryland and, because of Arthur's fragile health, married on the tarmac. It was when they learned their union would not be listed on Arthur's death certificate that the legal battle began. They went to court seeking recognition of their marriage on the document and their request was granted by a court. Ohio appealed and the case began its way up the ladder to the nation's high court. A Democrat, Obergefell made an unsuccessful run for the Ohio House in 2022. Rick Hodges, a Republican, was director of the Ohio Department of Health from August 2014 to 2017. The department handles death certificates in the state. Before being appointed by then-Gov. John Kasich, Hodges served five years in the Ohio House. Acquainted through the court case, he and Obergefell have become friends. What were the legal arguments? The lawsuit eventually titled Obergefell v. Hodges argued that marriage is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the due process and equal protection clauses. The litigation consolidated several lawsuits brought by same-sex couples in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee who had been denied marriage licenses or recognition for their out-of-state marriages and whose cases had resulted in conflicting opinions in federal circuit courts. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the right to marry is fundamental, calling it 'inherent in the liberty of the person,' and therefore protected by the Constitution. The ruling effectively nullified state-level bans on same-sex marriages, as well as laws declining to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The custody, property, tax, insurance and business implications of of the decision have also had sweeping impacts on other areas of law. How did the country react to the decision? Same-sex marriages surged in the immediate wake of the Obergefell decision, as dating couples and those already living as domestic partners flocked to courthouses and those houses of worship that welcomed them to legalize their unions. Over the ensuing decade, the number of married same-sex couples has more than doubled to an estimated 823,000, according to June data compiled by the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. Not all Americans supported the change. Standing as a national symbol of opponents was Kim Davis, a then-clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who refused to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds. She was briefly jailed, touching off weeks of protests as gay marriage foes around the country praised her defiance. Davis, a Republican, lost her bid for reelection in 2018 . She was ordered to pay thousands in attorney fees incurred by a couple unable to get a license from her office. She has appealed in July 2024 in a challenge that seeks to overturn Obergefell. As he reflects of the decision's 10th anniversary, Obergefell has worried aloud about the state of LGBTQ+ rights in the country and the possibility that a case could reach the Supreme Court that might overturn the decision bearing his name. Eight states have introduced resolutions this year urging a reversal and the Southern Baptist Convention voted overwhelmingly at its meeting in Dallas earlier this month in favor of banning gay marriage and seeing the Obergefell decision overturned. Meanwhile, more than a dozen states have moved to strengthen legal protections for same-sex married couples in case Obergefell is ever overturned. In 2025, about 7 in 10 Americans — 68% — said marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid, up from 60% in May 2015. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
San Francisco Chronicle
5 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
What to know about the Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago that legalized same-sex marriage in the US
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago this month, on June 26, 2015, legalized same-sex marriage across the U.S. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision followed years of national wrangling over the issue, during which some states moved to protect domestic partnerships or civil unions for same-sex partners and others declared marriage could exist only between one man and one woman. In plaintiff James Obergefell's home state of Ohio, voters had overwhelmingly approved such an amendment in 2004 — effectively mirroring the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex couples. That laid the political groundwork for the legal challenge that bears his name. Here's what you need to know about the lawsuit, the people involved and the 2015 ruling's immediate and longer term effects: Who are James Obergefell and Rick Hodges? Obergefell and John Arthur, who brought the initial legal action, were long-time partners living in Cincinnati. They had been together for nearly two decades when Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in 2011. Obergefell became Arthur's caregiver as the incurable condition ravaged his health over time. When in 2013 the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, the pair acted quickly to get married. Their union was not allowed in Ohio, so they boarded a plane to Maryland and, because of Arthur's fragile health, married on the tarmac. It was when they learned their union would not be listed on Arthur's death certificate that the legal battle began. They went to court seeking recognition of their marriage on the document and their request was granted by a court. Ohio appealed and the case began its way up the ladder to the nation's high court. A Democrat, Obergefell made an unsuccessful run for the Ohio House in 2022. Rick Hodges, a Republican, was director of the Ohio Department of Health from August 2014 to 2017. The department handles death certificates in the state. Before being appointed by then-Gov. John Kasich, Hodges served five years in the Ohio House. Acquainted through the court case, he and Obergefell have become friends. What were the legal arguments? The lawsuit eventually titled Obergefell v. Hodges argued that marriage is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the due process and equal protection clauses. The litigation consolidated several lawsuits brought by same-sex couples in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee who had been denied marriage licenses or recognition for their out-of-state marriages and whose cases had resulted in conflicting opinions in federal circuit courts. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the right to marry is fundamental, calling it 'inherent in the liberty of the person,' and therefore protected by the Constitution. The ruling effectively nullified state-level bans on same-sex marriages, as well as laws declining to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The custody, property, tax, insurance and business implications of of the decision have also had sweeping impacts on other areas of law. How did the country react to the decision? Same-sex marriages surged in the immediate wake of the Obergefell decision, as dating couples and those already living as domestic partners flocked to courthouses and those houses of worship that welcomed them to legalize their unions. Over the ensuing decade, the number of married same-sex couples has more than doubled to an estimated 823,000, according to June data compiled by the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. Not all Americans supported the change. Standing as a national symbol of opponents was Kim Davis, a then-clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who refused to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds. She was briefly jailed, touching off weeks of protests as gay marriage foes around the country praised her defiance. Davis, a Republican, lost her bid for reelection in 2018. She was ordered to pay thousands in attorney fees incurred by a couple unable to get a license from her office. She has appealed in July 2024 in a challenge that seeks to overturn Obergefell. As he reflects of the decision's 10th anniversary, Obergefell has worried aloud about the state of LGBTQ+ rights in the country and the possibility that a case could reach the Supreme Court that might overturn the decision bearing his name. Eight states have introduced resolutions this year urging a reversal and the Southern Baptist Convention voted overwhelmingly at its meeting in Dallas earlier this month in favor of banning gay marriage and seeing the Obergefell decision overturned. Meanwhile, more than a dozen states have moved to strengthen legal protections for same-sex married couples in case Obergefell is ever overturned. In 2025, about 7 in 10 Americans — 68% — said marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid, up from 60% in May 2015.
