npr--2020-01-09--Minimum Wage Hikes Fuel Higher Pay Growth For Those At The Bottom

Minimum Wage Hikes Fuel Higher Pay Growth For Those At The Bottom Kecia Jolley is getting a pay raise this week .
But she 's still making minimum wage .
Jolley works as a grocery store cashier in Missouri — one of nearly two dozen states that increased their minimum wages on Jan. 1 .
Economists say those mandatory wage hikes are an important factor boosting pay for workers at the bottom of the income ladder .
Jolley 's Friday paycheck will be the first to reflect Missouri 's 2020 minimum of $ 9.45 an hour , up from $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that I 'll be better off , '' she says .
`` But I think that it 's going to still be a struggle . ''
Jolley says her paycheck will still barely cover rent and utilities .
She relies on food stamps and school lunches to help feed her three children — ages 6 , 11 and 14 .
Jolley is grateful that a ballot measure passed by Missouri voters in 2018 calls for three additional increases in the minimum wage over the next three years .
By 2023 , the minimum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` I would consider that at least a decent living wage , '' Jolley says .
`` Then people can pay their bills .
They can possibly get a few things on their 'wants ' list every month .
Like , kids need new clothes .
Or — I 'm a girl .
I ran out of mascara , like , a month ago .
Luxury items such as new socks . ''
While the federal minimum wage has n't changed in more than a decade — it 's still $ 7.25 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have adopted higher thresholds .
In Arizona , Colorado and Maine the minimum wage is already $ 12 an hour .
Minimums are higher still in California , Massachusetts and Washington state .
Do n't see the graphic above ?
Click here .
`` If you 're a minimum wage worker in America right now , on average , you 're actually probably getting paid closer to $ 12 an hour , '' says economist Ernie Tedeschi of Evercore ISI .
`` That 's what I call the effective minimum wage . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and local level are an important driver of wage gains at the bottom of the pay scale .
`` Right now , the economy is doing something extraordinary , '' he says .
`` People at the bottom of the distribution have actually seen higher wage growth than people at the top and in the middle . ''
Crunching census data , Tedeschi finds workers in the bottom third of the income ladder have enjoyed pay raises of about 4.1 % in each of the last two years , compared with 3.6 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % for all workers .
Minimum wages are n't the only factor .
Low-wage workers also have more bargaining power , as employers scramble to fill job openings when unemployment is just 3.5 % .
But without the upward pressure of rising minimum wages , Tedeschi estimates the bottom third would have received raises averaging just 3.3 % .
`` Minimum wages probably are the difference that are kicking up wage growth at the bottom to higher levels than other groups in America , '' he says .
The patchwork of minimum wages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ natural experiment for economists trying to measure the effects on low-wage workers .
`` No matter how you cut it , the low-wage workers are getting a larger wage boost in states that have raised their minimum wage , '' says senior economist Elise Gould of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute .
Gould estimates the higher minimums that took effect this month boosted paychecks for 6.8 million workers across the country .
But others caution that the higher cost for employers may come with trade-offs .
`` You 're getting a raise if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hours do n't change , '' says economist David Neumark of the University of California at Irvine .
`` But there 's plenty of evidence that there is some job loss from minimum wages and those workers are worse off . ''
Neumark acknowledges that job loss associated with minimum wage hikes may be less of a problem when unemployment is this low .
`` Raising it in a very hot labor market is probably less damaging , '' Neumark says .
More high school students and others `` might be drawn in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says .
`` And if a few of them have job opportunities foreclosed , it might not be so terrible . ''
Jolley has n't seen any job cuts at the grocery store where she works .
The cashier doubts she would be getting a raise were it not required by the higher minimum .
`` We still need to keep pushing forward because , hopefully , people like me will be able to actually make it every month , '' she says .

Minimum Wage Hikes Fuel Higher Pay Growth For Those At The Bottom
Enlarge this image toggle caption Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images
Kecia Jolley is getting a pay raise this week. But she's still making minimum wage.
Jolley works as a grocery store cashier in Missouri — one of nearly two dozen states that increased their minimum wages on Jan. 1. Economists say those mandatory wage hikes are an important factor boosting pay for workers at the bottom of the income ladder.
Jolley's Friday paycheck will be the first to reflect Missouri's 2020 minimum of $9.45 an hour, up from $8.60 last year.
"I think that I'll be better off," she says. "But I think that it's going to still be a struggle."
Jolley says her paycheck will still barely cover rent and utilities. She relies on food stamps and school lunches to help feed her three children — ages 6, 11 and 14. Jolley is grateful that a ballot measure passed by Missouri voters in 2018 calls for three additional increases in the minimum wage over the next three years. By 2023, the minimum will climb to $12 an hour.
"I would consider that at least a decent living wage," Jolley says. "Then people can pay their bills. They can possibly get a few things on their 'wants' list every month. Like, kids need new clothes. Or — I'm a girl. I ran out of mascara, like, a month ago. Luxury items such as new socks."
While the federal minimum wage hasn't changed in more than a decade — it's still $7.25 an hour — many cities and states have adopted higher thresholds. In Arizona, Colorado and Maine the minimum wage is already $12 an hour. Minimums are higher still in California, Massachusetts and Washington state.
Loading...
Don't see the graphic above? Click here.
"If you're a minimum wage worker in America right now, on average, you're actually probably getting paid closer to $12 an hour," says economist Ernie Tedeschi of Evercore ISI. "That's what I call the effective minimum wage."
Tedeschi says rising minimums at the state and local level are an important driver of wage gains at the bottom of the pay scale.
"Right now, the economy is doing something extraordinary," he says. "People at the bottom of the distribution have actually seen higher wage growth than people at the top and in the middle."
Crunching census data, Tedeschi finds workers in the bottom third of the income ladder have enjoyed pay raises of about 4.1% in each of the last two years, compared with 3.6% raises for the top third and 3.9% for all workers.
Minimum wages aren't the only factor. Low-wage workers also have more bargaining power, as employers scramble to fill job openings when unemployment is just 3.5%.
Right now, the economy is doing something extraordinary. People at the bottom of the distribution have actually seen higher wage growth than people at the top and in the middle.
But without the upward pressure of rising minimum wages, Tedeschi estimates the bottom third would have received raises averaging just 3.3%.
"Minimum wages probably are the difference that are kicking up wage growth at the bottom to higher levels than other groups in America," he says.
The patchwork of minimum wages across the country creates a sort of natural experiment for economists trying to measure the effects on low-wage workers.
"No matter how you cut it, the low-wage workers are getting a larger wage boost in states that have raised their minimum wage," says senior economist Elise Gould of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute.
Gould estimates the higher minimums that took effect this month boosted paychecks for 6.8 million workers across the country.
But others caution that the higher cost for employers may come with trade-offs.
"You're getting a raise if you keep your job and if your hours don't change," says economist David Neumark of the University of California at Irvine. "But there's plenty of evidence that there is some job loss from minimum wages and those workers are worse off."
Neumark acknowledges that job loss associated with minimum wage hikes may be less of a problem when unemployment is this low.
"Raising it in a very hot labor market is probably less damaging," Neumark says. More high school students and others "might be drawn in because wages are rising," he says. "And if a few of them have job opportunities foreclosed, it might not be so terrible."
Jolley hasn't seen any job cuts at the grocery store where she works. The cashier doubts she would be getting a raise were it not required by the higher minimum.
"We still need to keep pushing forward because, hopefully, people like me will be able to actually make it every month," she says.


npr--2020-01-09--Transcript: NPR's Full Interview With Iranian Ambassador To U.N.

Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep talks to Majid Takht Ravanchi , Iran 's ambassador to the United Nations , about whether the missile strikes Iran launched this week mark the end of retaliatory actions against the United States in response to the killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani , and why Soleimani had been in Baghdad .
Steve Inskeep : Is Iran 's retaliation against the United States finished ?
Ambassador Majid Takht Ravanchi : What we have said is that we took a measured , proportionate response to the terrorist assassination of our top general , Qassem Soleimani last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is concerned , that action was concluded last night .
So it depends on the United States .
If the U.S. ventures to attacking Iran again , definitely proportionate response will be taken in response to that attack .
We are interested if Iran intended the results that came about here .
This was a limited attack in terms of the number of missiles .
It killed no Americans , although you have precise weapons .
Did Iran intend not to kill any Americans ?
When we face the assassination of Qassem Soleimani @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in response militarily .
The timing and the place will be decided by , by us , not by anybody else .
And this is exactly what happened .
We chose the timing .
We chose the place .
And we believe that we acted in accordance with our rights based on the United Nations charter .
And that was a proportionate response to the killing of Qassem Soleimani .
I am interested if Iran designed an attack to minimize American casualties , knowing that American deaths would be a red line for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war .
As I said , we did n't consider any extraneous issues in our decision-making process .
Our military people concluded that the action that they took was a proportionate response to the attack against Qassem Soleimani .
OK. And you said that this concluded the retaliation .
So if there are people concerned about other forms of attacks , such as cyberattacks on U.S. interests or attacks by allies of Iran throughout the region , you 're saying Iran would not endorse that .
You are done .
We are responsible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we take .
We do not consider any , any sort of actions to be taken by others .
As I said and as the statement by the Revolutionary Guard was suggesting last night and early in the morning , the action was taken in accordance with our rights , which was proportionate and which was in response to the killing of Qassem Soleimani .
When you said you do n't take responsibility for the actions of others , that raises a question because there was an Iraqi militia leader who was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Gen. Soleimani .
So far as we know , no revenge attack has been taken out for him .
Are you saying it is entirely possible that Iraqi militias aligned with Iran could still lash out and Iran would not accept responsibility for what they 're doing ?
I 'm not suggesting anything , anything in this regard .
What I 'm saying is that Iran is acting in accordance with its rights to protect its people .
And the assassination of Gen. Soleimani was something that the we , we had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights .
And we are not responsible for any other people to do whatever they are going to do .
So we are as I said , I 'm not suggesting anything to accept or to reject any sort of actions by others .
Iran 's supreme leader speaking after this retaliation said the next step was to push the United States out of the region , U.S. forces out of the region .
Iran 's President Hassan Rouhani said this quite memorably , quote , `` You cut Soleimani 's hand from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cut from the region . ''
That 's what , that 's what President Rouhani said to the United States .
How does Iran intend to do that ?
The people of the region are calling for the U.S. withdrawal from this neighborhood .
Just look at the decision of the Iraqi parliament .
The Iraqi parliament decided to say to the whole world that there is no place for the U.S. forces in Iraq .
So as soon as the U.S. leaves the region , I believe the countries in the region @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to resolve their differences peacefully and to get together to have a new arrangement for peace and security in the neighborhood .
So the sooner the Americans leave the region , the better , not only for the people in the region but for the people of the United States .
Because the American forces are not welcome in our neighborhood .
They have come from thousands of miles to our region and what they have brought about is misery for the people , spending trillions of dollars as President Trump has suggested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of all of the people in the region .
So I believe it is in the interest of the United States to leave the region .
Ambassador , you 're correct that Iraq 's parliament did vote to expel forces from Iraq .
But we should be clear , they did n't vote to expel the United States from Iraq .
They voted to expel foreign forces from Iraq .
And that leads us to note that Gen. Soleimani , a member of Iran 's military , was in Iraq when he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
He was there to help the Iraqi armed forces to fight terrorists at the invitation of the Iraqi government .
So he was instrumental in defeating Daesh both in Iraqi Kurdistan as well as in other parts of Iraq .
He was instrumental in in defeating Daesh and other terrorists in Syria .
He was instrumental in defeating al-Qaida in Afghanistan .
So he 's a popular , he was a popular figure in all these countries .
Not only in Iran , but in the neighboring countries , because he sacrificed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and sovereignty of , of these countries .
And I believe that today , Daesh and other terrorists in the region are celebrating what the United States did to him .
Therefore , it was a very unfortunate incident that the man who was the champion of fighting terrorists was slain and was assassinated in a terrorist attack .
But was n't Gen. Soleimani the symbol of Iran 's involvement in Iraq , which is something that Iraqis have been protesting against in recent months ?
You know , there are different voices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ martyred .
In Iraq , you saw the Iraqi people , how the Iraqi people reacted in anger and in in in respecting Soleimani and his companions , as well as the Iraqi figures who were also martyred in this attack .
So one can not say that that , that Iraq was in favor of not allowing or not asking Qassem Soleimani to help them .
In fact , he sacrificed himself for the , for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq .
As you must know ambassador , the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attacks against Americans , against the United States .
Are you able to say if he was plotting such attacks ?
It is , it is the duty of the United States to to to prove otherwise , I mean , to prove that he was he was , in fact , plotting to to kill Americans .
Because -- But I can also ask you , was he plotting to kill Americans ?
No , as I said , he was there in order to help the Iraqi government to better , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simple .
But let 's be , but let 's be clear .
But let 's be clear .
Iran has defined the United States as terrorist .
Was he or his organization planning attacks against the United States or its interests at the time ?
As I said , it is , it is the duty of the United States to provide any evidence .
They have been , they had been plotting to kill Qassem Soleimani for quite some time .
It is crystal clear that they wanted to kill him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decided at that time to President Trump , but apparently , he rejected at that time .
So the claim that he was about to kill American citizens can not be acceptable to all .
And it is not being accepted even by the members of Congress .
So one can not accept this claim from the U.S. administration that the threat was imminent .
Ambassador , the last time we spoke , you said it was in Iran 's interest to stay in the nuclear deal with world powers .
Iran , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is ceasing to observe limits on uranium enrichment , a very key part of that deal .
Why ?
The U.S. withdrew from the nuclear deal in ... in May 2018 and started an economic war and economic terrorism against the Iranian people .
We waited for more than a year at the insistence of our European partners to stay in the nuclear deal so that they could just provide the dividend which supposed to be granted to Iran as a result of the nuclear deal .
And they told us that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I mean , government from , from the nuclear deal .
But unfortunately , after more than one year , we came to this conclusion that the promises made by the Europeans were not kept and we had no other option than to do it ourselves , to to make the necessary balance in the nuclear deal .
And that was why we started to take some necessary measures in order to make the nuclear deal a balanced deal .
I understand that you 're lifting some of these restrictions on yourselves as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States to ease economic sanctions .
But the specific thing that Iran is doing here is ending compliance with limits on uranium enrichment .
What does Iran want the extra uranium for , if anything ?
No , we said that we do not consider any ceiling for the level of enrichment .
But at the same time , we have said that we do it in accordance with our needs .
The same is true with regard to the ceiling on the number of centrifuges .
The last step that Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to recognize the ceiling for the centrifuges that are being used in Iran .
That does not mean that we are going to increase drastically the number of centrifuges in Iran .
But it is our right to to have as as many centrifuges as we think we need for the peaceful work of our atomic energy organization .
One final thing , ambassador .
President Trump , in making his statement responding to Iran 's retaliation , began with this sentence : quote , `` As long as I am president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon . ''
Iran has said it does n't want a nuclear weapon .
Is that a statement on which you can agree with the president ?
What I can tell you is that we are not seeking nuclear weapons .
It is not in our interest to have nuclear weapons .
It is against the religious verdict of our supreme leader .
It is not within the defense doctrine of the Islamic Republic to have nuclear weapons .
We believe that nuclear weapon is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can not accept the fact that the U.S. in contravention of NPT , in contravention of the JCPOA , the resolution 2231 of the U.N. Security Council , is acting to deprive Iran from its rights .
So the question should be posed to the U.S. administration , when they want to join the international community and act like a normal country in respecting international agreements .
Majid Takht Ravanchi is Iran 's ambassador to the United Nations .
He 's in New York .
Ambassador , thanks so much .

Transcript: NPR's Full Interview With Iranian Ambassador To U.N.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Shannon Stapleton/Reuters Shannon Stapleton/Reuters
Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep talks to Majid Takht Ravanchi, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, about whether the missile strikes Iran launched this week mark the end of retaliatory actions against the United States in response to the killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, and why Soleimani had been in Baghdad.
Steve Inskeep: Is Iran's retaliation against the United States finished?
Ambassador Majid Takht Ravanchi: What we have said is that we took a measured, proportionate response to the terrorist assassination of our top general, Qassem Soleimani last night. And as far as Iran is concerned, that action was concluded last night. So it depends on the United States. If the U.S. ventures to attacking Iran again, definitely proportionate response will be taken in response to that attack.
We are interested if Iran intended the results that came about here. This was a limited attack in terms of the number of missiles. It killed no Americans, although you have precise weapons. Did Iran intend not to kill any Americans?
When we face the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, we said that we would act in response militarily. The timing and the place will be decided by, by us, not by anybody else. And this is exactly what happened. We chose the timing. We chose the place. And we believe that we acted in accordance with our rights based on the United Nations charter. And that was a proportionate response to the killing of Qassem Soleimani.
I am interested if Iran designed an attack to minimize American casualties, knowing that American deaths would be a red line for the United States that might lead to war.
As I said, we didn't consider any extraneous issues in our decision-making process. Our military people concluded that the action that they took was a proportionate response to the attack against Qassem Soleimani.
OK. And you said that this concluded the retaliation. So if there are people concerned about other forms of attacks, such as cyberattacks on U.S. interests or attacks by allies of Iran throughout the region, you're saying Iran would not endorse that. You are done.
We are responsible for the actions that, that we, we take. We do not consider any, any sort of actions to be taken by others. As I said and as the statement by the Revolutionary Guard was suggesting last night and early in the morning, the action was taken in accordance with our rights, which was proportionate and which was in response to the killing of Qassem Soleimani.
When you said you don't take responsibility for the actions of others, that raises a question because there was an Iraqi militia leader who was killed in the same U.S. drone strike as Gen. Soleimani. So far as we know, no revenge attack has been taken out for him. Are you saying it is entirely possible that Iraqi militias aligned with Iran could still lash out and Iran would not accept responsibility for what they're doing?
I'm not suggesting anything, anything in this regard. What I'm saying is that Iran is acting in accordance with its rights to protect its people. And the assassination of Gen. Soleimani was something that the we, we had to act in order to exercise our rights. And we are not responsible for any other people to do whatever they are going to do. So we are as I said, I'm not suggesting anything to accept or to reject any sort of actions by others.
Iran's supreme leader speaking after this retaliation said the next step was to push the United States out of the region, U.S. forces out of the region. Iran's President Hassan Rouhani said this quite memorably, quote, "You cut Soleimani's hand from his body, your foot will be cut from the region." That's what, that's what President Rouhani said to the United States. How does Iran intend to do that?
The people of the region are calling for the U.S. withdrawal from this neighborhood. Just look at the decision of the Iraqi parliament. The Iraqi parliament decided to say to the whole world that there is no place for the U.S. forces in Iraq. So as soon as the U.S. leaves the region, I believe the countries in the region will be in a much better position to resolve their differences peacefully and to get together to have a new arrangement for peace and security in the neighborhood. So the sooner the Americans leave the region, the better, not only for the people in the region but for the people of the United States. Because the American forces are not welcome in our neighborhood. They have come from thousands of miles to our region and what they have brought about is misery for the people, spending trillions of dollars as President Trump has suggested, and the outcome is the agony of all of the people in the region. So I believe it is in the interest of the United States to leave the region.
Ambassador, you're correct that Iraq's parliament did vote to expel forces from Iraq. But we should be clear, they didn't vote to expel the United States from Iraq. They voted to expel foreign forces from Iraq. And that leads us to note that Gen. Soleimani, a member of Iran's military, was in Iraq when he was killed. What was he doing there?
He was there to help the Iraqi armed forces to fight terrorists at the invitation of the Iraqi government. So he was instrumental in defeating Daesh both in Iraqi Kurdistan as well as in other parts of Iraq. He was instrumental in in defeating Daesh and other terrorists in Syria. He was instrumental in defeating al-Qaida in Afghanistan. So he's a popular, he was a popular figure in all these countries. Not only in Iran, but in the neighboring countries, because he sacrificed a lot to preserve the territorial integrity and sovereignty of, of these countries. And I believe that today, Daesh and other terrorists in the region are celebrating what the United States did to him. Therefore, it was a very unfortunate incident that the man who was the champion of fighting terrorists was slain and was assassinated in a terrorist attack.
But wasn't Gen. Soleimani the symbol of Iran's involvement in Iraq, which is something that Iraqis have been protesting against in recent months?
You know, there are different voices within Iraq, but then he was martyred. In Iraq, you saw the Iraqi people, how the Iraqi people reacted in anger and in in in respecting Soleimani and his companions, as well as the Iraqi figures who were also martyred in this attack. So one cannot say that that, that Iraq was in favor of not allowing or not asking Qassem Soleimani to help them. In fact, he sacrificed himself for the, for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq.
As you must know ambassador, the United States asserts that General Soleimani was plotting attacks against Americans, against the United States. Are you able to say if he was plotting such attacks?
It is, it is the duty of the United States to to to prove otherwise, I mean, to prove that he was he was, in fact, plotting to to kill Americans. Because --
But I can also ask you, was he plotting to kill Americans?
No, as I said, he was there in order to help the Iraqi government to better, I mean, fight terrorists pure and simple.
But let's be, but let's be clear. But let's be clear. Iran has defined the United States as terrorist. Was he or his organization planning attacks against the United States or its interests at the time?
As I said, it is, it is the duty of the United States to provide any evidence. They have been, they had been plotting to kill Qassem Soleimani for quite some time. It is crystal clear that they wanted to kill him a few months ago. It was decided at that time to President Trump, but apparently, he rejected at that time. So the claim that he was about to kill American citizens cannot be acceptable to all. And it is not being accepted even by the members of Congress. So one cannot accept this claim from the U.S. administration that the threat was imminent.
Ambassador, the last time we spoke, you said it was in Iran's interest to stay in the nuclear deal with world powers. Iran, after this incident, has said it is ceasing to observe limits on uranium enrichment, a very key part of that deal. Why?
The U.S. withdrew from the nuclear deal in ... in May 2018 and started an economic war and economic terrorism against the Iranian people. We waited for more than a year at the insistence of our European partners to stay in the nuclear deal so that they could just provide the dividend which supposed to be granted to Iran as a result of the nuclear deal. And they told us that they would compensate the withdrawal of American, I mean, government from, from the nuclear deal. But unfortunately, after more than one year, we came to this conclusion that the promises made by the Europeans were not kept and we had no other option than to do it ourselves, to to make the necessary balance in the nuclear deal. And that was why we started to take some necessary measures in order to make the nuclear deal a balanced deal.
I understand that you're lifting some of these restrictions on yourselves as a kind of protest to pressure the United States to ease economic sanctions. But the specific thing that Iran is doing here is ending compliance with limits on uranium enrichment. What does Iran want the extra uranium for, if anything?
No, we said that we do not consider any ceiling for the level of enrichment. But at the same time, we have said that we do it in accordance with our needs. The same is true with regard to the ceiling on the number of centrifuges. The last step that Iran took just a few days ago was not to recognize the ceiling for the centrifuges that are being used in Iran. That does not mean that we are going to increase drastically the number of centrifuges in Iran. But it is our right to to have as as many centrifuges as we think we need for the peaceful work of our atomic energy organization.
One final thing, ambassador. President Trump, in making his statement responding to Iran's retaliation, began with this sentence: quote, "As long as I am president of the United States, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon." Iran has said it doesn't want a nuclear weapon. Is that a statement on which you can agree with the president?
What I can tell you is that we are not seeking nuclear weapons. It is not in our interest to have nuclear weapons. It is against the religious verdict of our supreme leader. It is not within the defense doctrine of the Islamic Republic to have nuclear weapons. We believe that nuclear weapon is a liability for any country. But we cannot accept the fact that the U.S. in contravention of NPT, in contravention of the JCPOA, the resolution 2231 of the U.N. Security Council, is acting to deprive Iran from its rights. So the question should be posed to the U.S. administration, when they want to join the international community and act like a normal country in respecting international agreements.
Majid Takht Ravanchi is Iran's ambassador to the United Nations. He's in New York. Ambassador, thanks so much.
Thank you, sir.


npr--2020-01-09--Opioid Support Group Grows From Christian Book Club

There 's the crazy that people who do n't have a family member with an addiction just do n't understand , Henriët Schapelhouman said .
`` There 's high highs where it looks like , 'Oh , they 're better , ' because they 're pretending really well , '' she said .
`` Then , within hours there 's a crash because they 're using again ; there was a fight ; they 're slamming the door .
And you 're just heartbroken . ''
Schapelhouman used to be a pastor at a big church outside Seattle , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his Christian school in ninth grade and got kicked out , Schapelhouman started homeschooling him part-time .
As a pastor , having a son struggling with drugs and alcohol did n't look good for her church .
So , she resigned .
Over the next few years , her son 's addiction got worse and her friends and faith community pulled away .
`` I would be on my hardwood floor on my arm just sobbing and crying out , just praying , 'Jesus , please help me .
Jesus please help me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
At this point , her son was 18 and homeless .
The chaos of his heroin addiction was everywhere , but Schapelhouman decided she was going to live her own life and continue leading Christians in their faith .
She wrote the book The Story Lives , about leading a Christian life , which was published in 2012 .
Schapelhouman organized a book club to talk about her book .
They met at a coffee shop , and six women showed up .
First , they went around the circle sharing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Part of my story is that my son Harrison has wandered into addiction , '' Schapelhouman remembers she said .
`` He 's on the streets and I 'm praying for him daily . ''
It turned out that the other book club members could relate .
Other women chimed in , saying , `` Me too . ''
Four of the six women were mothers of someone addicted to heroin ; a fifth had two brothers who had a substance use disorder .
`` If it were n't so serious , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there together .
What were the odds ? ''
asked book club member Terri Bowman .
`` We felt it was truly God that brought us all together to process through this . ''
Bowman 's son was addicted to heroin and had moved in with her .
Bowman was afraid and overwhelmed , she said .
`` What will happen tonight ?
What will happen tomorrow ?
Will it get worse ?
Will it get better ? ''
At the coffee shop , Bowman found herself surrounded by others who 'd been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of women felt they had done their best to raise their children in a safe environment , with church , Christian schools , and healthy boundaries , Schapelhouman said .
`` Suddenly , one day you wake up and your child is the opposite of anything you 'd ever imagined ; has become a criminal , an addict , a liar , a thief , '' she said .
`` So our shared experience in so many ways was , 'How did we get here ?
How does this even happen to us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rare place Schapelhouman and the other women could cry , laugh and talk about their challenges — even more than they talked about the book .
They were doing something that recovery experts say is really important : taking care of your own needs .
Family members are often the safety net for people with addiction , by providing housing and health care , so self-care is important , said therapist and social worker , Lara Okoloko , who works with families of those struggling with substance use .
`` You , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And we need you to sustain this effort so that you do n't get burnt out and want nothing to do with this person anymore , because they need you , '' she said .
Okoloko uses an approach called Community Reinforcement and Family Training , or CRAFT .
It 's differs from an intervention or Alanon counseling because it focuses on how to maintain a healthy relationship with a loved one with a substance use disorder .
Research has shown the approach works up to three times better at getting family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ myths about cutting ties with addicted loved ones did not work for Pastor Schapelhouman , who was distressed by the advice to let her son `` hit bottom . ''
`` Bottom for heroin is death , '' Schapelhouman said .
So , as the book club evolved , they made a rule : give support , but no advice .
In the summer of 2013 , the women moved their meetings to Schapelhouman 's house , brought their husbands and talked over dinners of tacos or turkey and broccoli .
The group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We would always put our hope in that our lives could still be meaningful , that Jesus and God were still good and that we could go another month , another week , '' Schapelhouman said .
Eventually the chaos in some of the families subsided .
Schapelhouman 's son , Harrison , got off heroin using the medication Suboxone .
Terri Bowman 's son is in recovery too , with the help of Methadone .
Though people on medication assisted treatment are sometimes not welcome in Christian or secular recovery programs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the book-club-turned-support-group-turned-dinner-club became a church , called True Hope Community , led by Henriët Schapelhouman .
Ky Byrd comes here with her daughter , who is in recovery from addiction , because she feels at peace , she said .
`` There is nothing more that somebody could give me , '' Byrd said .
`` Because one of the things that you look for when you have someone who is out there in drugs , is you just want some peace of mind . ''
Schapelhouman 's son , Harrison , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his idea to start the church to help people with addiction in their families .
`` I always used to tell my mom , 'How are we supposed to get better if you are n't better ? '
`` Harrison Schapelhouman said .
`` This is a family disease . ''
Now , Henriët Schapelhouman is leading the kind of church she wishes her family had during those hard times , a place of faith and support .
`` I 'm excited that we were chosen for this journey by God , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no one like us who has gone through it , how can we be the hope and help for others . ''
This story was reported by Finding Fixes , a podcast about solutions to the opioid epidemic .

Opioid Support Group Grows From Christian Book Club
Enlarge this image toggle caption Jovelle Tamayo for Finding Fixes Jovelle Tamayo for Finding Fixes
There's the crazy that people who don't have a family member with an addiction just don't understand, Henriët Schapelhouman said.
"There's high highs where it looks like, 'Oh, they're better,' because they're pretending really well," she said. "Then, within hours there's a crash because they're using again; there was a fight; they're slamming the door. And you're just heartbroken."
National Stories Of The Decade: The Opioid Epidemic Stories Of The Decade: The Opioid Epidemic Listen · 8:16 8:16
Schapelhouman used to be a pastor at a big church outside Seattle, but when her son Harrison brought tequila to his Christian school in ninth grade and got kicked out, Schapelhouman started homeschooling him part-time.
As a pastor, having a son struggling with drugs and alcohol didn't look good for her church. So, she resigned.
Over the next few years, her son's addiction got worse and her friends and faith community pulled away.
"I would be on my hardwood floor on my arm just sobbing and crying out, just praying, 'Jesus, please help me. Jesus please help me.' And sometimes for an hour."
At this point, her son was 18 and homeless. The chaos of his heroin addiction was everywhere, but Schapelhouman decided she was going to live her own life and continue leading Christians in their faith.
She wrote the book The Story Lives, about leading a Christian life, which was published in 2012. Schapelhouman organized a book club to talk about her book.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Jovelle Tamayo for Finding Fixes Jovelle Tamayo for Finding Fixes
They met at a coffee shop, and six women showed up. First, they went around the circle sharing their stories — Schapelhouman first.
"Part of my story is that my son Harrison has wandered into addiction," Schapelhouman remembers she said. "He's on the streets and I'm praying for him daily."
It turned out that the other book club members could relate. Other women chimed in, saying, "Me too."
Four of the six women were mothers of someone addicted to heroin; a fifth had two brothers who had a substance use disorder.
"If it weren't so serious, it was almost funny that we were all there together. What were the odds?" asked book club member Terri Bowman. "We felt it was truly God that brought us all together to process through this."
Bowman's son was addicted to heroin and had moved in with her. Bowman was afraid and overwhelmed, she said.
"What will happen tonight? What will happen tomorrow? Will it get worse? Will it get better?"
Enlarge this image toggle caption Jovelle Tamayo for Finding Fixes Jovelle Tamayo for Finding Fixes
At the coffee shop, Bowman found herself surrounded by others who'd been down this path before.
The group of women felt they had done their best to raise their children in a safe environment, with church, Christian schools, and healthy boundaries, Schapelhouman said.
"Suddenly, one day you wake up and your child is the opposite of anything you'd ever imagined; has become a criminal, an addict, a liar, a thief," she said. "So our shared experience in so many ways was, 'How did we get here? How does this even happen to us?' "
The book club was a rare place Schapelhouman and the other women could cry, laugh and talk about their challenges — even more than they talked about the book.
They were doing something that recovery experts say is really important: taking care of your own needs.
Family members are often the safety net for people with addiction, by providing housing and health care, so self-care is important, said therapist and social worker, Lara Okoloko, who works with families of those struggling with substance use.
"You, the concerned loved one, you matter. And we need you to sustain this effort so that you don't get burnt out and want nothing to do with this person anymore, because they need you," she said.
Okoloko uses an approach called Community Reinforcement and Family Training, or CRAFT. It's differs from an intervention or Alanon counseling because it focuses on how to maintain a healthy relationship with a loved one with a substance use disorder.
Research has shown the approach works up to three times better at getting family members to start treatment.
The popular myths about cutting ties with addicted loved ones did not work for Pastor Schapelhouman, who was distressed by the advice to let her son "hit bottom."
"Bottom for heroin is death," Schapelhouman said.
Enlarge this image Jovelle Tamayo for Finding Fixes Jovelle Tamayo for Finding Fixes
So, as the book club evolved, they made a rule: give support, but no advice.
In the summer of 2013, the women moved their meetings to Schapelhouman's house, brought their husbands and talked over dinners of tacos or turkey and broccoli.
The group continued to embrace their faith.
"We would always put our hope in that our lives could still be meaningful, that Jesus and God were still good and that we could go another month, another week," Schapelhouman said.
Eventually the chaos in some of the families subsided.
Schapelhouman's son, Harrison, got off heroin using the medication Suboxone. Terri Bowman's son is in recovery too, with the help of Methadone.
Health New Report Shows That An Alarming Number Of Children Are Being Poisoned By Opioids New Report Shows That An Alarming Number Of Children Are Being Poisoned By Opioids Listen · 2:24 2:24
Though people on medication assisted treatment are sometimes not welcome in Christian or secular recovery programs, this group embraced them.
Last year, the book-club-turned-support-group-turned-dinner-club became a church, called True Hope Community, led by Henriët Schapelhouman.
Ky Byrd comes here with her daughter, who is in recovery from addiction, because she feels at peace, she said.
"There is nothing more that somebody could give me," Byrd said. "Because one of the things that you look for when you have someone who is out there in drugs, is you just want some peace of mind."
Schapelhouman's son, Harrison, is now an adult. It was his idea to start the church to help people with addiction in their families.
"I always used to tell my mom, 'How are we supposed to get better if you aren't better?' " Harrison Schapelhouman said. "This is a family disease."
Now, Henriët Schapelhouman is leading the kind of church she wishes her family had during those hard times, a place of faith and support.
"I'm excited that we were chosen for this journey by God," Schapelhouman said. "Because if there is no one like us who has gone through it, how can we be the hope and help for others."
This story was reported by Finding Fixes, a podcast about solutions to the opioid epidemic.


npr--2020-01-09--NPR Poll Finds Sizable Income Gap On Republicans' Views Of Health Coverage

A new poll finds that rich people are much happier with their lives than poorer people .
They 're also far more likely to say they 've achieved the `` American dream , '' that they 're satisfied with their education , and that they 're not anxious about the future .
Many people could have guessed all of that without a poll , of course .
But the findings also show some striking differences — and some striking similarities — between the very richest and poorest Americans about what it takes to succeed in this country .
Do n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Certain divides are particularly revealing by political party .
Sometimes , the richest and poorest members of a party disagree substantially on what it takes to get ahead and how lawmakers should approach an issue .
Uniquely , the telephone survey — from NPR , the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Harvard T.H .
Chan School of Public Health — has a sizable sample of the `` 1 % , '' allowing us to see how the beliefs of the highest-earners differ from people of other income levels .
`` People @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the experiences of the most successful people in America are .
But we 've never been , in most cases , able to look at them , '' said Robert Blendon , professor of health policy and political analysis at the Harvard Chan school .
Altogether , the top 1 % and the lowest-earning Americans differ only modestly on how big of a problem income inequality is , the poll finds .
Sixty-two percent of people with annual income of $ 500,000 or more — that is , people in roughly the top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people making less than $ 35,000 a year say they think income differences between the rich and poor are a `` very '' or `` somewhat '' serious problem .
There are moderately larger differences , however , on the question of what government should do about it .
Forty-five percent of the very highest earners say it should be a `` very '' or `` somewhat '' important priority to reduce that inequality , according to the poll .
Meanwhile , about two-thirds of lower-income people believe the same .
Do n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The poll comes as Democratic presidential candidates — particularly Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren — invoke inequality and , often , `` the 1 % '' on the campaign trail .
And the survey shows that there are some major differences of opinion between the rich and poor within parties .
Most pointedly , Republican voters vary substantially by income on the question of whether the government should make it a priority to make sure everyone has health coverage .
Fifteen percent of Republicans in the top 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very important priority .
Three times as many — 48 % — of the lowest-income Republicans agree with that statement .
Meanwhile , around 9 in 10 Democrats , across all income levels , said the same .
This may indicate that Republicans need to address health care concerns among some of their voters , as Democratic presidential contenders continue to champion various paths to universal health insurance coverage .
`` If you look at those results , you would think that Republicans are going to have to pay particular attention to our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a core constituency that really worries about they 're not having adequate coverage for it , '' Harvard 's Blendon said .
When it comes to being economically successful in America , lower-income Republicans were more likely ( 60 % ) than Republicans in the 1 percent ( 36 % ) to believe that `` knowing the right people '' is `` essential '' or `` very important . ''
And lower-income Republicans and Democrats alike were more likely than 1-percenters in their own parties to believe that graduating from a `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` very important . ''
Altogether , respondents ' answers about what it takes to get ahead in America crystallize the vast difference in philosophies between the two parties .
`` What you see is that Democrats believe that the environment you live and grow up in really affects whether or not you 're going to achieve success in America .
And Republicans are more individually focused , '' Blendon said .
Do n't see the graphic above ?
Click here .
The poll also shows substantial differences between Democrats and Republicans on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of Democrats said they believe graduating from college is `` essential '' or `` very important '' to being economically successful , compared with 40 % of Republicans .
Variations were only modest across incomes on that question , for both parties .
One other area where opinions vary greatly between parties : inequality .
About 6 in 10 Democrats said it should be a very important priority for Congress and the president to reduce inequality between high- and low-income people .
Only 14 % of Republicans agree .
This kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contenders ' many policies to try to give more Americans economic opportunities , from New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker 's `` baby bonds '' proposal to entrepreneur Andrew Yang 's universal basic income plan .
One area where both parties generally agree : Vast majorities of Democrats , independents and Republicans believe that hard work is `` essential '' or `` very important '' for being economically successful .
The landline and cellphone poll was conducted in July and August of 2019 , with a sample size of 1,885 adults .
The margin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plus or minus 3.2 percentage points .
Read the full results .

Richest Republicans View Health Care Far Differently Than Poorest, NPR Poll Finds
A new poll finds that rich people are much happier with their lives than poorer people. They're also far more likely to say they've achieved the American dream, that they're satisfied with their education, and that they're not anxious about the future.
Many people could have guessed all of that without a poll, of course. But the findings also show some striking differences — and some striking similarities — between the very richest and poorest Americans about what it takes to succeed in this country.
Loading...
Don't see the graphic above? Click here.
Certain divides are particularly revealing by political party. Sometimes, the richest and poorest members of a party disagree substantially on what it takes to get ahead and how lawmakers should approach an issue. Particularly notable is the Republican divide on the importance of universal health care.
Uniquely, the telephone survey — from NPR, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health — has a sizable sample of the "1%," allowing us to see how the beliefs of the highest-earners differ from people of other income levels.
"People have a lot of views about what the experiences of the most successful people in America are. But we've never been, in most cases, able to look at them," said Robert Blendon, professor of health policy and political analysis at the Harvard Chan school.
Should reducing inequality be a priority?
Altogether, the top 1% and the lowest-earning Americans differ only modestly on how big of a problem income inequality is, the poll finds.
Sixty-two percent of people with annual income of $500,000 or more — that is, people in roughly the top 1% — and 75% of people making less than $35,000 a year say they think income differences between the rich and poor are a "very" or "somewhat" serious problem.
There are moderately larger differences, however, on the question of what government should do about it.
Forty-five percent of the very highest earners say it should be a "very" or "somewhat" important priority to reduce that inequality, according to the poll. Meanwhile, about two-thirds of lower-income people believe the same.
Loading...
Don't see the graphic above? Click here.
The Republican income divide on health care
The poll comes as Democratic presidential candidates — particularly Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren — invoke inequality and, often, "the 1%" on the campaign trail.
And the survey shows that there are some major differences of opinion between the rich and poor within parties.
Most pointedly, Republican voters vary substantially by income on the question of whether the government should make it a priority to make sure everyone has health coverage. Fifteen percent of Republicans in the top 1% say that this should be a very important priority. Three times as many — 48% — of the lowest-income Republicans agree with that statement.
Meanwhile, around 9 in 10 Democrats, across all income levels, said the same.
This may indicate that Republicans need to address health care concerns among some of their voters, as Democratic presidential contenders continue to champion various paths to universal health insurance coverage.
"If you look at those results, you would think that Republicans are going to have to pay particular attention to our care issue — the fact that they have a core constituency that really worries about they're not having adequate coverage for it," Harvard's Blendon said.
When it comes to being economically successful in America, lower-income Republicans were more likely (60%) than Republicans in the 1% (36%) to believe that "knowing the right people" is "essential" or "very important."
And lower-income Republicans and Democrats alike were more likely than 1-percenters in their own parties to believe that graduating from a "highly ranked college" is "essential" or "very important."
Partisan differences
Altogether, respondents' answers about what it takes to get ahead in America crystallize the vast difference in philosophies between the two parties.
"What you see is that Democrats believe that the environment you live and grow up in really affects whether or not you're going to achieve success in America. And Republicans are more individually focused," Blendon said.
Loading...
Don't see the graphic above? Click here.
The poll also shows substantial differences between Democrats and Republicans on the importance of higher education.
Seventy-four percent of Democrats said they believe graduating from college is "essential" or "very important" to being economically successful, compared with 40% of Republicans. Variations were only modest across incomes on that question, for both parties.
One other area where opinions vary greatly between parties: inequality. About 6 in 10 Democrats said it should be a very important priority for Congress and the president to reduce inequality between high- and low-income people. Only 14% of Republicans agree.
(That said, this was another instance in which Democrats were consistent across incomes, while Republicans differed: Less than 1% of Republicans in the top 1% said reducing inequality should be a very important priority, compared with 22% of the lowest-income Republicans.)
This kind of thinking is visible in the Democratic presidential contenders' many policies to try to give more Americans economic opportunities, from New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker's "baby bonds" proposal to entrepreneur Andrew Yang's universal basic income plan.
One area where both parties generally agree: Vast majorities of Democrats, independents and Republicans believe that hard work is "essential" or "very important" for being economically successful.
The landline and cellphone poll was conducted in July and August of 2019, with a sample size of 1,885 adults. The margin of error for the full sample is plus or minus 3.2 percentage points. Read the full results.


npr--2020-01-08--U.S. Alcohol-Related Deaths Have Doubled, Study Says

U.S .
Alcohol-Related Deaths Have Doubled , Study Says More Americans are ordering more rounds and that 's leading to more funerals , according to a new study on alcohol-related deaths .
Looking at data from the National Center for Health Statistics , researchers estimate deaths from alcohol-related problems have more than doubled over the last 20 years .
Death certificates spanning 2017 indicate nearly 73,000 people died in the U.S because of liver disease and other alcohol-related illnesses .
That is up from just under 36,000 deaths in 1999 .
Some of the greatest increases were found among women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The study comes from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism , which is part of NIH .
It was published on Wednesday in the journal Alcoholism : Clinical and Experimental Research .
Overall , researchers found men died at a higher rate than women .
But when analyzing annual increases in deaths , the largest increase was among white women .
`` With the increases in alcohol use among women , there 's been increases in harms for women including ER visits , hospitalization and deaths , '' Aaron White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NPR .
The research shows that in 2017 , alcohol proved to be even more deadly than illicit drugs , including opioids .
That year there were about 70,000 drug overdose deaths — about 2,300 fewer than those involving alcohol , according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
Only cigarettes are deadlier than alcohol ; more than 480,000 people die each year in the U.S. because of smoking-related illnesses .
However , alcohol-related overdoses — either alone or with drugs — rose between 1999 and 2017 .
Other alcohol-related causes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ injuries like falls .
The number of deaths caused by drunken driving over the same two decades declined .
Other findings included in the study : • `` 70.1 % of the population aged 18 and older ... consumed alcohol in 2017 , averaging approximately 3.6 gallons of pure alcohol per drinker . ''
• `` While the overall prevalence of drinking and binge drinking did not change for men , there was a 10.1 % increase in the prevalence of drinking and a 23.3 % increase in binge drinking among women .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ larger for people aged 50 and older relative to younger age-groups . ''

U.S. Alcohol-Related Deaths Have Doubled, Study Says
Enlarge this image toggle caption Eric Risberg/AP Eric Risberg/AP
More Americans are ordering more rounds, and that's leading to more funerals, according to a new study on alcohol-related deaths.
Looking at data from the National Center for Health Statistics, researchers estimate deaths from alcohol-related problems have more than doubled over the past nearly 20 years.
Death certificates spanning 2017 indicate nearly 73,000 people died in the U.S because of liver disease and other alcohol-related illnesses. That is up from just under 36,000 deaths in 1999.
Some of the greatest increases were found among women and people who were middle-aged and older.
The study comes from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, which is part of the NIH. It was published on Wednesday in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research.
Overall, researchers found men died at a higher rate than women. But when analyzing annual increases in deaths, the largest increase was among white women.
"With the increases in alcohol use among women, there's been increases in harms for women including ER visits, hospitalization and deaths," Aaron White, who authored the paper, told NPR.
The research shows that in 2017, alcohol proved to be even more deadly than illicit drugs, including opioids. That year there were about 70,000 drug overdose deaths — about 2,300 fewer than those involving alcohol, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Only cigarettes are deadlier than alcohol: More than 480,000 people die each year in the U.S. because of smoking-related illnesses.
However, alcohol-related overdoses — either alone or with drugs — rose between 1999 and 2017. Other alcohol-related causes included heart disease, cancer and accidental injuries such as falls.
The number of deaths caused by drunken driving over the same two decades declined.
Other findings, as quoted in the study:


npr--2020-01-09--Meghan And Harry 'Step Back' As Royals – What Does That Mean, Exactly?

Meghan And Harry 'Step Back ' As Royals – What Does That Mean , Exactly ?
When Meghan Markle and Prince Harry announced that they will `` step back '' from their duties as senior members of the British royal family , many members of the public were supportive of their decision in both the U.S. and the U.K. '' We intend to step back as 'senior ' members of the Royal Family , and work to become financially independent , while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen , '' they wrote .
`` We now plan to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and North America , continuing to honour our duty to The Queen , the Commonwealth , and our patronages . ''
But the choice also raised a number of questions – not least from the rest of royal family at Buckingham Palace , who were reportedly surprised by the announcement .
Are they cutting themselves off financially from the royal family ?
`` Financially independent '' is an interesting term .
Sometimes that phrase means independence from family money , but that is not what the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they will no longer no longer receive funding through the Sovereign Grant , the British public funding that supports the official duties of the queen and maintains the palaces occupied by members of the royal family .
They will now be able to work and earn income , which they are not permitted to do in their current roles .
But British royals have other sources of income besides the Sovereign Grant .
Prince Charles is also the Duke of Cornwall .
As such , he is entitled to all of the income @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Duchy had an operating surplus of nearly $ 30 million last year .
Harry , his brother William , and their wives receive millions of pounds annually from Charles .
There is no indication so far that Harry intends to stop receiving these payments , but it will be up to Charles whether he decides to keep giving them .
What are they going to do for work ?
Meghan could of course go back to her job as a television and film actress .
That pays well .
She also might become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before .
They will likely ramp up the foundation they created after they split off from the charity they had been supporting with Prince William and his wife Kate .
In July , Harry and Meghan filed to register a trademark for their new foundation , Royal Sussex , which reportedly applies to items ranging from education to clothing .
They say they wish to `` carve out a progressive new role within this institution '' — that likely means an escape from the burdens of British tabloid scrutiny and endless ribbon-cuttings , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ status .
Where will they live ?
They say they intend to split their time between the U.K. and North America .
`` This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born , while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter , including the launch of our new charitable entity , '' they wrote .
Many Americans may have assumed that by North America , the Duke and Duchess meant the U.S. – Meghan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But many believe the couple will instead make a home in Canada .
The pair just returned from spending six weeks at an estate on Vancouver Island .
That sounds nice .
And they say they will continue to honor the British Commonwealth , of which Canada is a part .
When in the U.K. , they say they plan to keep living at their home , Frogmore Cottage , so long as the queen permits it .
They recently completed renovations that cost more than $ 3 million .
The renovation was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as it was considered `` upkeep . ''
Are these crazy lovebirds going to be okay ?
It 's probably safe to say that Harry , Meghan and their son Archie will land on their royal feet , despite the financial , professional and geographic upheaval to come .

Meghan And Harry 'Step Back' As Royals — What Does That Mean, Exactly?
Enlarge this image toggle caption Tolga Akmen/AFP via Getty Images Tolga Akmen/AFP via Getty Images
When Meghan Markle and Prince Harry announced that they will "step back" from their duties as senior members of the British royal family, many members of the public in both the U.S. and the U.K. were supportive of their decision.
"We intend to step back as 'senior' members of the Royal Family, and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen," they wrote. "We now plan to balance our time between the United Kingdom and North America, continuing to honour our duty to The Queen, the Commonwealth, and our patronages."
But the choice also raised a number of questions — not least from the rest of the royal family at Buckingham Palace, who were reportedly surprised by the announcement.
Are they cutting themselves off financially from the royal family?
"Financially independent" is an interesting term. Sometimes that phrase means independence from family money, but that is not what the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have in mind.
Rather, they mean that they will no longer receive funding through the Sovereign Grant, the British public funding that supports the official duties of the queen and maintains the palaces occupied by members of the royal family. They will now be able to work and earn income, which they are not permitted to do in their current roles.
But British royals have other sources of income besides the Sovereign Grant.
Prince Charles is also the Duke of Cornwall. As such, he is entitled to all of the income from the Duchy of Cornwall. The Duchy had an operating surplus of nearly $30 million last year. Harry, his brother William and their wives receive millions of pounds annually from Charles.
There is no indication so far that Harry intends to stop receiving these payments, but it will be up to Charles whether he decides to keep giving them.
What are they going to do for work?
Meghan could of course go back to her job as a television and film actress. That pays well. She also might become involved in fashion, as she has before.
They will likely ramp up the foundation they created after they split off from the charity they had been supporting with Prince William and his wife Kate. In July, Harry and Meghan filed to register a trademark for their new foundation, Royal Sussex, which reportedly applies to items ranging from education to clothing.
They say they wish to "carve out a progressive new role within this institution" — that likely means an escape from the burdens of British tabloid scrutiny and endless ribbon-cuttings, but not necessarily cutting ties to royal status.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Daniel Leal-Olivas/AFP via Getty Images Daniel Leal-Olivas/AFP via Getty Images
Where will they live?
They say they intend to split their time between the U.K. and North America.
"This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity," they wrote.
Many Americans may have assumed that by North America, the Duke and Duchess meant the U.S. — Meghan's an American, after all.
But many believe the couple will instead make a home in Canada. The pair just returned from spending six weeks at an estate on Vancouver Island. That sounds nice. And they say they will continue to honor the British Commonwealth, of which Canada is a part.
When in the U.K., they say they plan to keep living at their home, Frogmore Cottage, so long as the queen permits it. They recently completed renovations that cost more than $3 million. The renovation was publicly funded through the Sovereign Grant, as it was considered "upkeep."
Are these crazy lovebirds going to be OK?
It's probably safe to say that Harry, Meghan and their son Archie will land on their royal feet, despite the financial, professional and geographic upheaval to come.


npr--2020-01-09--House Passes War Powers Resolution In Effort To Restrict Trump's Actions Against Iran

House Passes War Powers Resolution In Effort To Restrict Trump 's Actions Against Iran The House of Representatives approved a resolution that would force President Trump to seek consent from Congress before taking new military action against Iran .
The move comes nearly a week after President Trump greenlighted a U.S. drone strike that killed a top Iranian general and led to increased tensions with Tehran .
The nonbinding war powers resolution was approved in a mostly party-line vote of 224-194 .
Only three Republicans and one independent joined Democrats to pass the measure .
Eight Democrats opposed it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ — but one that has the force of law — as early as next week , but it is unclear if it has enough votes to clear the chamber .
Trump administration officials maintain the president already has the authority to take action against Iran under a 2002 war authorization passed by Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks .
The House vote also comes after briefings for lawmakers on Wednesday from top Trump administration officials left Democrats — and some Republicans — unhappy with a lack of transparency about what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general .
`` You would think anytime we would engage in such an important change in approach that we would be working together , consulting together , respecting the approach that each sides takes to all of this and hopefully be on one side of it all , '' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , said ahead of the resolution 's passage .
`` What this does is very important for the security of this country . ''
The measure was sponsored by Rep. Elissa Slotkin , D-Mich. , a former CIA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In response to the vote , the White House said the president `` has the right and duty to protect this nation and our citizens from terrorism .
That 's what he continues to do , and the world is safer for it . ''
`` This House resolution tries to undermine the ability of the U.S. Armed Forces to prevent terrorist activity by Iran and its proxies , and attempts to hinder the President 's authority to protect America and our interests in the region from the continued threats , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a statement Thursday evening .
`` These Congressional actions are completely misguided .
In fact , this ridiculous resolution is just another political move because , under well-established Supreme Court precedent , it 's non-binding and lacks the force of law . ''
The White House reiterated its stance that the killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani was authorized under `` his constitutional powers as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive as well as the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force .
``  The war powers measure crafted by House Democrats was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is traditionally considered nonbinding and does n't require the president 's signature .
Earlier Thursday , Pelosi said they purposely took this approach to ensure that the chamber could send a clear message to the president .
`` We are taking this path because it does not require ... a signature of the president of the United States , '' she said .
`` This is a statement of the Congress of the United States , and I will not have that statement be diminished by whether the president will veto it or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a years-long discussion over whether the president 's war powers are woefully outdated .
Under the Trump administration , Democrats and some Republicans have renewed calls for new legislation addressing the president 's authorization for use of military force .
Congress has debated how to craft a new AUMF specifically focused on Iran , but it has failed to get consensus on language that would satisfy the broad ideological spectrum that wants the legislative branch to reassert its power to declare war .
`` This concurrent resolution is misguided , and its adoption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States to protect American citizens whom Iran continues to seek to harm , '' the statement from the Office of Management and Budget on the administration 's policy said .
A series of Trump allies and House Republicans also expressed their opposition to the measure on the House floor on Thursday .
They argued that Trump used the authority given to the president under an authorization of approved after the Sept. 11 attacks .
House Minority Whip Steve Scalise said that Trump was working well within his war authorities by striking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to kill Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani ended the life of an `` evil terrorist . ''
`` This place is a safer place with Soleimani gone , '' the Louisiana Republican said .
`` Thankfully this is a resolution going nowhere , '' he said .
`` This is not a resolution , this is a retreat , a de facto apology . ''
However , some Senate Republicans have expressed interest in recent days to support a similar measure in their chamber .
Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine , who is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he could bring up his measure for a vote as early as Tuesday .
He said it would likely have to be coordinated with a potential trial if articles of impeachment are sent to the chamber beforehand .
Sens .
Rand Paul , R-Ky. , and Mike Lee , R-Utah , have already said they will support the measure .
And Sens .
Susan Collins , R-Maine , and Todd Young , R-Ind.
, have also been in talks with Kaine about the legislation and could line up support .
`` We are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So I think the stakes are much higher now , '' Kaine said in arguing for the measure .
`` I think it increases the necessity of the bill . ''

House Passes War Powers Resolution In Effort To Restrict Trump's Actions Against Iran
Enlarge this image toggle caption Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images
Updated 9:15 p.m. ET
The House of Representatives approved a resolution that would force President Trump to seek consent from Congress before taking new military action against Iran.
The move comes nearly a week after President Trump greenlighted a U.S. drone strike that killed a top Iranian general and led to increased tensions with Tehran.
The nonbinding war powers resolution was approved in a mostly party-line vote of 224-194. Only three Republicans and one independent joined Democrats to pass the measure. Eight Democrats opposed it.
The Senate could consider a similar measure — but one that has the force of law — as early as next week, but it is unclear if it has enough votes to clear the chamber. Trump administration officials maintain the president already has the authority to take action against Iran under a 2002 war authorization passed by Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.
The House vote also comes after briefings for lawmakers on Wednesday from top Trump administration officials left Democrats — and some Republicans — unhappy with a lack of transparency about what fueled the decision to strike the Iranian general.
"You would think anytime we would engage in such an important change in approach that we would be working together, consulting together, respecting the approach that each sides takes to all of this and hopefully be on one side of it all," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said ahead of the resolution's passage. "What this does is very important for the security of this country."
The measure was sponsored by Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., a former CIA analyst who worked on Middle East policy.
In response to the vote, the White House said the president "has the right and duty to protect this nation and our citizens from terrorism. That's what he continues to do, and the world is safer for it."
"This House resolution tries to undermine the ability of the U.S. Armed Forces to prevent terrorist activity by Iran and its proxies, and attempts to hinder the President's authority to protect America and our interests in the region from the continued threats," White House Spokesman Hogan Gidley said in a statement Thursday evening. "These Congressional actions are completely misguided. In fact, this ridiculous resolution is just another political move because, under well-established Supreme Court precedent, it's non-binding and lacks the force of law." The White House reiterated its stance that the killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani was authorized under "his constitutional powers as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive as well as the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force."
President Trump also addressed the vote at a campaign rally Thursday night in Toledo, Ohio, and mocked the idea of consulting Congress while carrying out an operation like the killing of Soleimani.
The war powers measure crafted by House Democrats was written as a concurrent resolution, which is traditionally considered nonbinding and doesn't require the president's signature.
Earlier Thursday, Pelosi said they purposely took this approach to ensure that the chamber could send a clear message to the president.
"We are taking this path because it does not require ... a signature of the president of the United States," she said. "This is a statement of the Congress of the United States, and I will not have that statement be diminished by whether the president will veto it or not."
The concerns touch on a years-long discussion over whether the president's war powers are woefully outdated. Under the Trump administration, Democrats and some Republicans have renewed calls for new legislation addressing the president's authorization for use of military force.
Congress has debated how to craft a new AUMF specifically focused on Iran, but it has failed to get consensus on language that would satisfy the broad ideological spectrum that wants the legislative branch to reassert its power to declare war.
On Thursday, administration officials issued a statement strongly opposing the House war powers measure.
"This concurrent resolution is misguided, and its adoption by Congress could undermine the ability of the United States to protect American citizens whom Iran continues to seek to harm," the statement from the Office of Management and Budget on the administration's policy said.
A series of Trump allies and House Republicans also expressed their opposition to the measure on the House floor on Thursday. They argued that Trump used the authority given to the president under an authorization of approved after the Sept. 11 attacks.
House Minority Whip Steve Scalise said that Trump was working well within his war authorities by striking out against Iran and that the move to kill Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani ended the life of an "evil terrorist."
"This place is a safer place with Soleimani gone," the Louisiana Republican said.
Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, also attacked the Democrats' efforts.
"Thankfully this is a resolution going nowhere," he said. "This is not a resolution, this is a retreat, a de facto apology."
However, some Senate Republicans have expressed interest in recent days to support a similar measure in their chamber.
Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, who is sponsoring the war powers resolution, says he could bring up his measure for a vote as early as Tuesday. He said it would likely have to be coordinated with a potential trial if articles of impeachment are sent to the chamber beforehand.
Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Mike Lee, R-Utah, have already said they will support the measure. And Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Todd Young, R-Ind., have also been in talks with Kaine about the legislation and could line up support.
"We are at the brink of war right now. So I think the stakes are much higher now," Kaine said in arguing for the measure. "I think it increases the necessity of the bill."


npr--2020-01-09--NSA Chief Robert O'Brien Defends Briefing On Iran Criticized By Lawmakers

NSA Chief Robert O'Brien Defends Briefing On Iran Criticized By Lawmakers National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien is defending a closed-door briefing held for lawmakers on Wednesday in which Trump administration officials laid out the justification for the U.S. drone strike that killed Iran 's top military commander .
The closed-door briefing by members of the president 's national security team has come under bipartisan criticism from lawmakers who say the administration has failed to adequately detail the intelligence justifying last week 's killing of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani , the commander of Iran 's elite Quds Force .
Addressing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Steve Inskeep on Thursday , O'Brien said the U.S. `` had very good information that there were imminent attacks planned against Americans in Iraq and potentially Syria . ''
O'Brien also reiterated the administration 's stance that it will hold Iran culpable for any future attacks on Americans , even those carried out by Iranian proxy forces in the Middle East .
`` We 've made it very clear that when Iranian proxies that are directed by Iran attack Americans , that we 're going to hold the Iranians responsible .
And they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wednesday 's briefing for lawmakers , led by Defense Secretary Mark Esper , CIA Director Gina Haspel and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , has fueled calls , particularly among Democrats , for a curb on the the president 's ability to wage military action against Iran without Congressional consent .
Among those who have criticized the briefing is Sen. Mike Lee , R-Utah , who called it `` the worst briefing I 've seen '' on a military issue in his entire nine years serving in the Senate .
Following the briefing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposal by Sen. Tim Kaine , D-Va. , to place limits on the president 's military authority .
A separate measure that would force President Trump to seek consent from Congress before taking new military action against Iran passed the House on Thursday .
O'Brien , who said he was not part of the team that briefed Congress , told NPR he was `` disappointed '' by Lee 's characterization , adding that he heard from other lawmakers that it was received quite well .
`` I think there 's there 's always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said O'Brien .
Lee told NPR that his frustration was not over Soleimani 's killing , but over what he described as an unwillingness by administration officials to discuss `` the possibility of future military action against Iran . ''
`` And it was on that topic they refused to make any commitment about when , whether and under what circumstances it would be necessary for the president — or the executive branch of government — to come to Congress seeking authorization for the use of military force , '' he said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on , Lee said , was a hypothetical about whether it would ever undertake a strike against the Supreme Leader of Iran , Ayatollah Ali Khamenei .
`` The fact that there was nothing but a refusal to answer that question was perhaps the most deeply upsetting thing to me in that meeting . ''
O'Brien told NPR `` we never answer those sorts of hypotheticals , '' particularly when they involve sensitive military operations .
`` So , for example , when President Obama took out Osama bin Laden , those things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But we made certain in this case that Congress was made aware of the military operation against Soleimani immediately after it happened . ''
O'Brien defended the intelligence that led to the strike against Soleimani , but when pressed on whether officials knew details of the `` imminent '' attack cited by the administration — details such as time and place — O'Brien responded , `` You never know the time and place of these things with perfect particularity . ''
Without elaborating , O'Brien said possible targets of the attack included @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , airmen , Marines . ''
`` I 've seen the intelligence and it was incredibly strong intelligence .
There are a lot of people that want that intelligence released , '' O'Brien said .
`` You know , look , I wish we could , but at the same time , we do n't want to compromise sources and methods that allow us to protect Americans . ''
The Trump administration ordered the strike on Soleimani following a Dec. 27 attack on a military base in Iraq by an Iranian-back militia .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wounded several other Americans and Iraqi personnel .
`` The president made it very clear that if you harm Americans , if you kill Americans , you 'll be held responsible , '' O'Brien said .
Iran responded to the attack early Wednesday morning local time with missile strikes on two bases housing U.S. troops in Iraq .
No casualties were reported , but the back-and-forth led to fears that Tehran and Washington were on the verge of a full-scale war .
Those fears appear to have eased somewhat .
Iran 's U.N. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NPR the attack was `` a measured , proportionate response , '' adding that `` As far as Iran is concerned , that action was concluded last night . ''

National Security Adviser Defends Briefing On Iran Criticized By Lawmakers
Enlarge this image toggle caption Evan Vucci/AP Evan Vucci/AP
Updated at 6:33 p.m. ET
National security adviser Robert O'Brien is defending a closed-door briefing held for lawmakers on Wednesday in which Trump administration officials laid out the justification for the U.S. drone strike that killed Iran's top military commander.
The closed-door briefing by members of the president's national security team has come under bipartisan criticism from lawmakers who say the administration has failed to adequately detail the intelligence justifying last week's killing of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the commander of Iran's elite Quds Force.
Addressing that criticism in an interview with Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep on Thursday, O'Brien said the U.S. "had very good information that there were imminent attacks planned against Americans in Iraq and potentially Syria."
O'Brien also reiterated the administration's stance that it will hold Iran culpable for any future attacks on Americans, even those carried out by Iranian proxy forces in the Middle East.
"We've made it very clear that when Iranian proxies that are directed by Iran attack Americans, that we're going to hold the Iranians responsible. And they understand that," he said.
Wednesday's briefing for lawmakers, led by Defense Secretary Mark Esper, CIA Director Gina Haspel and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, has fueled calls, particularly among Democrats, for a curb on the the president's ability to wage military action against Iran without congressional consent.
Among those who have criticized the briefing is Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who called it "the worst briefing I've seen" on a military issue in his entire nine years serving in the Senate.
Following the briefing, Lee said he would support a proposal by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., to place limits on the president's military authority. A separate measure that would force President Trump to seek consent from Congress before taking new military action against Iran passed the House on Thursday.
O'Brien, who said he was not part of the team that briefed Congress, told NPR he was "disappointed" by Lee's characterization, adding that he heard from other lawmakers that it was received quite well.
"I think there's there's always mixed reviews on these things," said O'Brien.
Lee told NPR that his frustration was not over Soleimani's killing, but over what he described as an unwillingness by administration officials to discuss "the possibility of future military action against Iran."
"And it was on that topic they refused to make any commitment about when, whether and under what circumstances it would be necessary for the president — or the executive branch of government — to come to Congress seeking authorization for the use of military force," he said.
One question the administration would not engage on, Lee said, was a hypothetical about whether it would ever undertake a strike against the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
"The fact that there was nothing but a refusal to answer that question was perhaps the most deeply upsetting thing to me in that meeting."
O'Brien told NPR "we never answer those sorts of hypotheticals," particularly when they involve sensitive military operations. "So, for example, when President Obama took out Osama bin Laden, those things don't happen with pre-briefs to Congress. But we made certain in this case that Congress was made aware of the military operation against Soleimani immediately after it happened."
O'Brien defended the intelligence that led to the strike against Soleimani, but when pressed on whether officials knew details of the "imminent" attack cited by the administration — details such as time and place — O'Brien responded, "You never know the time and place of these things with perfect particularity."
Without elaborating, O'Brien said possible targets of the attack included "Both diplomats and soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines."
"I've seen the intelligence and it was incredibly strong intelligence. There are a lot of people that want that intelligence released," O'Brien said. "You know, look, I wish we could, but at the same time, we don't want to compromise sources and methods that allow us to protect Americans."
The Trump administration ordered the strike on Soleimani following a Dec. 27 attack on a military base in Iraq by an Iranian-back militia. That attack killed an American contractor and wounded several other Americans and Iraqi personnel.
"The president made it very clear that if you harm Americans, if you kill Americans, you'll be held responsible," O'Brien said.
Iran responded to the attack early Wednesday morning local time with missile strikes on two bases housing U.S. troops in Iraq. No casualties were reported, but the back-and-forth led to fears that Tehran and Washington were on the verge of a full-scale war.
Those fears appear to have eased somewhat. Iran's U.N. ambassador, Majid Takht Ravanchi, told NPR the attack was "a measured, proportionate response," adding that "As far as Iran is concerned, that action was concluded last night."


npr--2020-01-09--Montana Court Reverses $35 Million Child Abuse Verdict Against Jehovah's Witnesses

The Montana Supreme Court has reversed a $ 35 million judgment against Jehovah 's Witnesses for failing to report child sexual abuse .
A lower court had found that the church illegally failed to report a child sexual abuser to authorities , which allowed him to continue sexually abusing another child .
The unanimous decision from seven state Supreme Court justices found that religious authorities are not always obligated to report child sexual abuse to authorities due to an exemption in Montana state law .
`` This is a very disappointing decision , particularly at this time in our society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up the sexual abuse of child victims , '' Neil Smith , a lawyer for the women who were abused as children , said in a statement .
Lawyers for the Jehovah 's Witnesses did not immediately respond to NPR 's request for comment .
`` No child should ever be subjected to such a debased crime , '' lawyer Joel Taylor said in a statement to The Associated Press .
`` Tragically , it happens , and when it does Jehovah 's Witnesses follow the law .
This is what the Montana @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's Witnesses have come under scrutiny in other states and countries for the handling of child sexual abuse claims .
For example , a 2016 inquiry by a royal commission in Australia found that the Jehovah 's Witnesses organization there had recorded allegations of child sexual abuse against 1,006 members — but the investigators found no evidence that it revealed any of the reports to authorities .
The court 's opinion states that Holly McGowan told local Jehovah 's Witnesses elders in 1998 that she was being abused by her stepfather , Maximo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four years before .
But because Reyes did not confess and McGowan did not have a second witness to her allegations , she was told that the elders could not take further action .
According to the opinion , the abuse `` escalated to numerous incidents of rape . ''
Six years later , her brother told an elder that their stepfather had also sexually abused him .
McGowan provided a letter to back up his claims , acting as a second witness .
The elder did not report the allegations to authorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the congregation .
They reinstated him just over a year later at his request , according to the opinion .
In 2002 , Reyes also started molesting Alexis Nunez , the niece of McGowan and her brother .
`` Alexis was five years old when Maximo 's abuse began and ten years old when it ended , '' the opinion states .
It says the abuse happened on a weekly basis .
In her 2016 lawsuit , Nunez accused the church of negligence for failing to report her uncle 's child abuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Jehovah 's Witnesses illegally failed to report the abuse , and the jury awarded her $ 4 million in actual damages and $ 31 million in punitive damages .
NPR does not typically name survivors of sexual abuse without their permission .
The law office representing Nunez and McGowan said they are supportive of their names appearing in the press on this matter ; McGowan 's brother is not party to this case .
In the court 's opinion on Wednesday , Justice Beth Baker wrote that the church was not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the exception in the state law .
The law states that `` a member of the clergy or a priest is not required to make a report under this section if the communication is required to be confidential by canon law , church doctrine , or established church practice . ''
The opinion finds that Jehovah 's Witnesses maintain confidentiality as part of their religious canon or practice unless they are required by state law to report child abuse to authorities .
Nunez 's lawyers have argued that `` because the decision to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lies within the discretion of each elder , confidentiality is optional , not required , '' the opinion states .
State laws vary widely about whether clergy members are required to report child abuse and neglect .
According to the Children 's Bureau , which is a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services , about 18 states require any person who suspects child abuse or neglect to report it — and that appears to include clergy .
Some states require clergy to report but provide exceptions for certain kinds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Generally , that privilege is `` not absolute , '' the Children 's Bureau states .
While it is `` frequently recognized within the reporting laws , it is typically interpreted narrowly in the context of child abuse or neglect . ''

Montana Court Reverses $35 Million Child Abuse Verdict Against Jehovah's Witnesses
Enlarge this image toggle caption Seth Wenig/AP Seth Wenig/AP
The Montana Supreme Court has reversed a $35 million judgment against Jehovah's Witnesses for failing to report child sexual abuse.
A lower court had found that the church illegally failed to report a child sexual abuser to authorities, which allowed him to continue sexually abusing another child.
The unanimous decision from seven state Supreme Court justices found that religious authorities are not always obligated to report child sexual abuse to authorities due to an exemption in Montana state law.
"This is a very disappointing decision, particularly at this time in our society when religious and other institutions are covering up the sexual abuse of child victims," Neil Smith, a lawyer for the women who were abused as children, said in a statement.
Lawyers for the Jehovah's Witnesses did not immediately respond to NPR's request for comment. "No child should ever be subjected to such a debased crime," lawyer Joel Taylor said in a statement to The Associated Press. "Tragically, it happens, and when it does Jehovah's Witnesses follow the law. This is what the Montana Supreme Court has established."
Jehovah's Witnesses have come under scrutiny in other states and countries for the handling of child sexual abuse claims. For example, a 2016 inquiry by a royal commission in Australia found that the Jehovah's Witnesses organization there had recorded allegations of child sexual abuse against 1,006 members — but the investigators found no evidence that it revealed any of the reports to authorities.
The court's opinion states that Holly McGowan told local Jehovah's Witnesses elders in 1998 that she was being abused by her stepfather, Maximo Reyes, who had married her mother four years before. But because Reyes did not confess and McGowan did not have a second witness to her allegations, she was told that the elders could not take further action. According to the opinion, the abuse "escalated to numerous incidents of rape."
Six years later, her brother told an elder that their stepfather had also sexually abused him. McGowan provided a letter to back up his claims, acting as a second witness. The elder did not report the allegations to authorities but convened a committee that banished Reyes from the congregation. They reinstated him just over a year later at his request, according to the opinion.
In 2002, Reyes also started molesting Alexis Nunez, the niece of McGowan and her brother. "Alexis was five years old when Maximo's abuse began and ten years old when it ended," the opinion states. It says the abuse happened on a weekly basis.
In her 2016 lawsuit, Nunez accused the church of negligence for failing to report her uncle's child abuse report to authorities. The court ruled that the Jehovah's Witnesses illegally failed to report the abuse, and the jury awarded her $4 million in actual damages and $31 million in punitive damages.
NPR does not typically name survivors of sexual abuse without their permission. The law office representing Nunez and McGowan said they are supportive of their names appearing in the press on this matter; McGowan's brother is not party to this case.
In the court's opinion on Wednesday, Justice Beth Baker wrote that the church was not a mandatory reporter of abuse because of the exception in the state law. The law states that "a member of the clergy or a priest is not required to make a report under this section if the communication is required to be confidential by canon law, church doctrine, or established church practice."
The opinion finds that Jehovah's Witnesses maintain confidentiality as part of their religious canon or practice unless they are required by state law to report child abuse to authorities. Nunez's lawyers have argued that "because the decision to report child abuse to local authorities ultimately lies within the discretion of each elder, confidentiality is optional, not required," the opinion states.
State laws vary widely about whether clergy members are required to report child abuse and neglect. According to the Children's Bureau, which is a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, about 18 states require any person who suspects child abuse or neglect to report it — and that appears to include clergy.
Some states require clergy to report but provide exceptions for certain kinds of privileged communications, such as confessions. Generally, that privilege is "not absolute," the Children's Bureau states. While it is "frequently recognized within the reporting laws, it is typically interpreted narrowly in the context of child abuse or neglect."