Lawmakers take steps to pass Alyssa's Law to increase safety during school shootings
The K-12 School Shooting Database, which compiles data every time a firearm is discharged on school grounds, found that Illinois has had 152 shooting incidents since 1966.
State lawmakers are working to change that by taking a measure to increase safety in schools during a school shooting. Rep. Janet Yang Rohr introduced a bill, also known as Alyssa's Law.
'I think it was the right thing to pass the torch': Durbin talks about retirement from Congress
This would require all public schools, including charter schools, to have a mobile panic alert system. This is a silent alarm that would allow teachers to contact and connect in real time with emergency services within seconds.
Rep. Yang Rohr, who is a mother of three, said nowadays families can't stop thinking about the unimaginable.
'The reality of the day for parents is that even as we send our children to school every single day, there are moments when we have to confront the reality and think the unthinkable,' Yang Rohr said. 'We do not get a second chance when it comes to saving lives, and passing Alyssa's Law is one of the concrete steps that we can take to turn that.'
The bill is named after Alyssa Alhadeff, a 14-year-old girl who was killed in the Marjory Stoneman Douglass High School shooting in Parkland, Florida. Her mother, Lori, shared her story in a news conference and said her daughter is no longer here, but passing the law in the state will save many more lives.
'In the Apalachee shooting, the panic button was used. The teacher saw the shooter and started pressing their panic button and was able to get on the scene to help the people that were shot,' Lori said. 'All those students lived because we were able to get help faster. Time equals life, and we know the faster we can get help on the scene, the more lives we will help to save.'
Alyssa was shot while in her English classroom. She survived the first shot, and then while trying to escape before help arrived, the shooter killed her two other friends and then killed Alyssa. An autopsy confirmed she was shot eight times. Three staff members and 13 other students also lost their lives in the school shooting.
Illinois advocates concerned about proposed cuts to care hours for developmentally disabled
Now, Lori and her husband have turned their pain into action by starting a non-profit that funds school safety projects. They are going around the state to urge lawmakers to implement Alyssa's Law in their schools.
Currently, seven states have adopted Alyssa's Law. Two states—Washington and Georgia— also have a bill on their governors' desks waiting to be signed.
Under the bill, the State Board of Education will be in charge of the implementation and purchases of the system that all school districts can use.
The bill has been re-referred to the Rules Committee. If the bill passes, it will take effect in January 2026.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The rich already know how private equity mints money — and it's not from a 401(k)
The ultrawealthy are envied for many reasons. For instance, we wish we could access the same private-market investments that they favor. Now, after the White House issued an executive order on Aug. 7, you may be able to invest like the billionaires do. Homeowners rush to refinance as mortgage-rate plunge opens window of opportunity My wife and I are in our 50s and have $11 million. We're not leaving it to our kids. Is that wrong? You could receive up to $7,500 from the AT&T settlement. Here's how class-action suits work. But would you want to? The executive order allows ordinary retirement savers to invest in private assets and cryptocurrency. This will expand investment options for anyone with a 401(k) or similar tax-advantaged retirement plan. It is a big deal — opening part of America's $12.4 trillion defined-contribution market to private-asset managers. The largest private-equity firms and other asset managers are salivating at the opportunity to pitch this untapped market of retirement savers. Private assets encompass a range of investments that do not trade on a public exchange. Examples include hedge funds, private equity, private credit and infrastructure. The case for private assets is they can provide a buffer against inflation — plus steady returns. The downsides include high fees, illiquidity and complexity. The nation's biggest asset managers welcome the executive order. They want to develop funds that make private assets easier for people to buy, and argue that the added diversification serves savers' best interests. Larry Fink, chief executive of BlackRock BLK, says retirement savers should replace the traditional 60% stocks/40% bonds asset-allocation model with a 50/30/20 split: 50% stocks, 30% bonds and 20% private assets. Read: Larry Fink proposes an alternative to the 60/40 portfolio. It means more fees. Should you be excited about this widening menu of investment choices? It depends on whom you ask. Some investment professionals like the idea of making private assets more available to more people. 'Historically, a number of private-market strategies have produced higher performance and additional diversification in defined-benefit pensions,' says Peter von Lehe, head of investment solutions and strategy at Neuberger Berman. 'It's appropriate that a broader range of investors have access to private assets in their defined-contribution plans because of the potential for return and diversification that these long-term investments can provide.' However, von Lehe cautions that these investments are illiquid and 'have a higher degree of complexity.' He says his 'most appropriate use case' for private-market investments is through professionally managed target-date funds or other funds that allocate a percentage of defined-contribution money to these complex but potentially more lucrative alternatives. Read: Here's something the rich know about managing investment risk that can help you, too Financial advisers have differing views on the role of private assets in client portfolios. Steven Roge, a certified financial planner in Bohemia, N.Y., says private markets are not for everyone. 'It's for people in the wealth-accumulation phase, say 40 to 50 years old, who have a long time horizon and a high risk tolerance,' Roge says. 'And they have to be sophisticated enough to understand it. We know if they don't understand it, they may not stick with it.' Of the firm's 300 clients, he says that 'only about a dozen' fit the bill for adding private-market assets to their retirement accounts. Even with the expanded investment options that may result from the White House's action, Roge remains a fan of passive strategies for most investors. 'Indexing is how they will win over the long run,' he says. 'But some clients want something that's special and different' as they seek market-beating returns. Given the illiquidity of private assets, Roge anticipates setting expectations for those clients who tend to monitor their portfolio daily — and who engage in frequent trading. 'These private investments may only price four times a year,' Roge says. 'That's not enough action for certain clients who track their portfolio like a hawk.' In his personal portfolio, Roge uses private markets — especially private equity — to diversify his holdings. He says he allocates about 25% to alternative assets. 'It helps me sleep at night knowing my portfolio isn't being pushed around by the volatility of public markets,' he says. Roge adds that he is not concerned about the current high valuations of private-equity funds. 'The valuations [of private-equity funds] are more realistic than the erratic valuations we see in public markets on a daily basis,' he says. Other advisers are more skeptical of the White House executive order. 'It's less being done out of interest for the general public and more for private industry lobbying the [Trump] administration,' says Alex Ruda, an adviser in Silver Spring, Md. The executive order undoubtedly pleases asset managers and private-equity firms. For years, they've wanted to attract retirement savers' money. These savers bear primary responsibility for managing their 401(k) compared with today's older retirees, many of whom receive employer-funded defined-benefit pensions. While some younger savers enjoy picking their investments, others dread it. 'The average American worker isn't equipped to navigate these complex [private-market] investments,' Ruda says. 'And they may fall prey to a little performance chasing given where we are in the market cycle' — as private markets have outperformed publicly traded stocks since 2000. Ruda feels so strongly about not incorporating private assets into client portfolios that he's willing to forgo newcomers who express such interest. 'If I wanted to broaden my client base, I'd have to play to what they want,' he says. 'But I don't have to do that. So I'd say to them, 'I'm not the best fit.'' Read next: Here's what it's like to invest in private equity — and why you don't want it in your 401(k) More: As private equity enters retirement plans, is it too dangerous for average investors to jump in? I'm a senior who barely survives on $1,300 a month. No way could I live on $1,000. 'I am a senior citizen': My car needs $3,500 for repairs, but only has a trade-in value of $6,000. Do I bother fixing it?
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Fact Check: Viral Stimulus Check Claims for Summer Are False, IRS Will Not Send New Checks This Summer
The federal government has confirmed that it will not be issuing new stimulus checks this summer, debunking circulating online rumors. What Happened: On Friday, the internet was abuzz with rumors that the U.S. government was planning to distribute stimulus checks to certain income brackets in the near future. However, the IRS has clarified that no such legislation has been passed by Congress, and therefore, no new stimulus checks will be issued in the upcoming weeks, reports the Associated Press. Claims that the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department had approved $1,390 stimulus checks for low- and middle-income taxpayers by the end of the summer were also debunked by the IRS. As per the repot, an IRS official stated that this claim is false and no new stimulus checks will be distributed this summer. Earlier this year, the IRS had announced plans to distribute about $2.4 billion to taxpayers who failed to claim a Recovery Rebate Credit on their 2021 tax returns. However, the IRS official confirmed there is no new credit that taxpayers can claim. Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri had introduced a bill in July proposing tax rebates to qualified taxpayers using revenue from tariffs instituted by President Donald Trump. However, this bill has not been passed by either the Senate or the House. Also Read: Public Opinion Divided Over Donald Trump's Tax-And-Spending Law, New Poll Reveals Earlier this year, the IRS announced that it would distribute $2.4 billion to taxpayers who failed to claim on their 2021 tax returns a Recovery Rebate Credit, a refundable credit for individuals who did not receive one or more COVID-19 stimulus checks. The maximum amount was $1,400 per individual. Individuals who had not yet filed their 2021 tax return were required to do so by April 15 in order to claim the credit. According to an IRS official, no new credit is currently available for taxpayers to claim, reports the outlet. Previous stimulus payments were made possible only through legislation passed by Congress. For instance, the relief checks issued during the COVID-19 pandemic were authorized under three major laws: the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, the COVID-Related Tax Relief Act, and the American Rescue Plan Act. Why It Matters: The rumors of new stimulus checks had sparked hope among many taxpayers who are still grappling with the economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic. The clarification from the IRS, however, has put these hopes to rest. The absence of new stimulus checks could potentially impact consumer spending, which is a key driver of the U.S. economy. The proposed bill by Senator Hawley, if passed, could provide some relief to taxpayers, but its future remains uncertain. Read Next Independent Voters' Approval Rating Of Donald Trump Plummets, Latest Poll Indicates Image: Shutterstock/Alex Millauer Up Next: Transform your trading with Benzinga Edge's one-of-a-kind market trade ideas and tools. Click now to access unique insights that can set you ahead in today's competitive market. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? APPLE (AAPL): Free Stock Analysis Report TESLA (TSLA): Free Stock Analysis Report This article Fact Check: Viral Stimulus Check Claims for Summer Are False, IRS Will Not Send New Checks This Summer originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved. Sign in to access your portfolio
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Upset about DC's lack of voting rights? Look to the Democrats.
The deployment of the National Guard in Washington, D.C. has led to a media and political meltdown. In the New York Times, a column lamented that the military had not revolted against the civilian president. Even, so, commentators declared a ' coup ' because the federal government reasserted its constitutional power over the federal district. A Justice Department employee went so far as to scream profanities at federal officers on the street and assault one of them with a submarine sandwich. He was declared a 'freedom fighter' against 'the Gestapo.' The utter lunacy of the left was again triggered by Trump with an almost Pavlovian predictability. Trump rang the bell, and suddenly thousands of Democratic leaders began to salivate. In addition to denying a very real crime crisis in the district, Democrats immediately pivoted on the issue to renew unpopular demands for D.C. statehood. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, insisted that this was only happening because 'American citizens lack the protections of statehood.' Ankit Jain echoed that view. Jain occupies a farcical position as 'D.C. shadow senator,' an unpaid position in which he pretends to be a member of the U.S. Senate. Jain wrote that 'it's entirely possible that people will die as a result' of the deployment. He insisted that this would not occur in states where democracy governs: 'We may not have it in Washington, but if you live in any of the other 50 states, you do.' Over the years, I have testified five times in the House and Senate to argue for the restoration of full representation for residents in Washington, D.C. Residents could have a governor, two real U.S. senators, a voting representative in the House, a state legislature, and every other trapping of statehood. It needs only to go back whence it came. D.C. needs to return to Maryland through 'retrocession.' In academic writings, I have advocated for what I called ' modified retrocession ' where Maryland would take back the land given initially to create what was called 'the federal city.' The Framers did not want the capital under the control of any state, so they created the federal enclave to be under the control of Congress as a whole. Originally, the outlines of the federal city were laid out by none other than George Washington as the surveyor. It was a diamond shape, with territory ceded by both Virginia and Maryland. Within a few decades, Virginians in what is now Arlington County and Alexandria came to regret not having direct representatives and were allowed to retrocede back to their state. That left the triangle of territory from Maryland. However, Marylanders did not agree with their Virginian counterparts. They liked living in the federal enclave and decided to remain without direct representation. Congress previously allowed retrocession and could do so again. Under my prior proposal, the federal enclave would be reduced to the small sliver of land upon which our Capitol, Supreme Court, and the White House rest. It would finally give every Washington resident full representation. Also, in a city notoriously mismanaged for years, D.C. residents would be part of a state that excels in areas like education that could materially improve their positions. So if the lack of representation is so intolerable, why wouldn't Washington return to Maryland? It would give every Washington resident a voting representative in the U.S. House, two senators, a governor in a sovereign state, and a state legislature. The reason is politics at its most cynical and hypocritical. Democrats only want two senators representing D.C. if it boosts their numbers. It's not good enough to give them Maryland's senators. What's more, Maryland Democrats will not suffer a shift in the center of their state's political gravity from Baltimore to Washington. Finally, D.C. Democratic leaders are not eager to share power with Maryland Democrats, as they might gain all the trappings of a state. This is why, for decades, Democrats have settled to leave D.C. voters without direct representation in Congress. They decided it is better to lament the lack of representation on license plates than to give residents such representation through retrocession of the residential sections of D.C. to Maryland. Polling shows that most Americans still oppose statehood for this one city — a Vatican-like city-state. That is why Democrats are not keen on attempting a new constitutional amendment to change the status of the city. They would rather bewail the lack of direct representation while, ironically, trying to achieve effective statehood without a direct vote of citizens on a constitutional amendment. The fact is, Trump has every right to deploy the National Guard in Washington and to take over the D.C. police. Those are entirely lawful and constitutional orders. Yet the New York Times appears to have changed its position on the danger of insurrection. The Times recently ran a bizarre column by former Obama officials Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson, ' We Used to Think the Military Would Stand Up to Trump. We Were Wrong.' They complain that 'it now seems clear to us that the military will not rescue Americans from Mr. Trump's misuse of the nation's military capabilities.' The 'rescue' would have meant military personnel disobeying a direct order from the commander-in-chief because they disagreed with the need for the deployment. In fairness to the New York Times, that is not exactly an insurrection — it is more of a mutiny. What is striking about this debate is how entirely untethered it is from anything that touches upon reality. Statehood remains easily attainable for Washington, if Democrats would only stop opposing retrocession. Meanwhile, the deployment is clearly constitutional, regardless of how many columns or submarine sandwiches you throw about in another furious fit. The only thing that is clear is that Washington residents are again being played. They remain political props left stateless because returning them to full representation is not politically advantageous. They are given make-believe 'shadow senators' and protest license plates rather than restoring their prior status. As with the debate over crime, few want to discuss how to solve this problem. Given the opposition of the Democrats, Trump should take the lead and order federal officials to develop a blueprint for retrocession. He should use his office to fully inform the American people, and particularly D.C. residents, of the benefits of returning to Maryland.
