Hundreds rally for women's equity and equality in Fort Worth reenactment
On a clear and cool March morning, hundreds joined the Fort Worth Alumnae Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated, at the Tarrant County Courthouse in downtown Fort Worth for a reenactment and rally for women's equity and equality.
The moment came nearly 112 years after 22 founders of the newly established historically African-American sorority joined thousands of other women for a demonstration down Pennsylvania Avenue at the 1913 Women's Suffrage March in Washington, D.C.
Occurring one day before Woodrow Wilson's presidential inauguration, the 1913 event has long been considered the first civil rights parade staged in the nation's capital.
"We're honored to be here [and] we're honored to be able to stand on the shoulders of our founders," said Chapter President Demetrice Thompson as she gathered with several others for a reenactment of the day.
Thompson said the organization's reenactment and the march aimed to raise awareness about current and key issues plaguing the North Texas community, including a gender-based wage gap, inequities in maternal health and mortality, and voting rights.
The event featured several invited speakers, including Shelby Patrice of Budget University; Dr. Amy Raines of UNT Health Science Center; Dr. Kyrah Brown of UTA Maternal Health Lab; Crystal Mason of Fight Against Voter Suppression; and community activist Deborah Peoples, in addition to the O.D. Wyatt High School Band and Dancers and several elected officials.
While women of color played key roles in the struggle to secure the right to vote, they were not always included in the retelling of many of the stories that are shared in the present day.
"Our 22 founders were college students at Howard University. They said, 'Hey, we need to be in this fight. We need to not be left out of the conversation,'" said Misty Wilder, who serves as Social Action Chair for the organization.
"We want people to know today that you can be part of the conversation but not just be part of the conversation, do something active for women's rights," she added.
Thompson said the group hopes to inspire young women and girls to advocate for meaningful change in their communities.
"We want to inspire women and young girls to use their voice," she said. "Don't be afraid to use your voice. No matter what it is."
Proceeds from the march will benefit the FLY Girlz Academy, a nonprofit organization for young girls ages 7-18 that offers mentoring, life skills training, and community service.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump-Musk feud: Are electric vehicles and Tesla at the heart of the breakup?
The President of the United States of America and one of the world's most influential billionaires are at odds after months of collaboration. The confrontation escalated Thursday with Elon Musk saying Trump would have lost the election without him in a post on X. President Donald Trump in turn referred to his former senior advisor as "the man who lost his mind" in a Friday morning ABC News phone interview. Republican Trump allies are now also speaking out against Musk. Musk's breakup with the administration has been public and is well-documented, with Trump and the Tesla CEO trading calculated jabs like pro boxers. The underlying reason behind the sudden intense feud is a serious cause of concern for some American car buyers. "Clean Coal" has been a popular buzzword for not one but two presidential campaigns for Donald Trump. So, Elon Musk's initial choice to stand beside a global warming skeptic as the CEO of a clean energy and automotive company was puzzling to say the least. At first, Musk's involvement with the administration was seen by many as mutually beneficial, since the CEO could potentially reap the benefits of government contracts for Tesla and SpaceX. The general public quickly soured to the idea of the eccentric CEO playing a key role in the administration. By April 8, Tesla stock had nosedived 41.50% from its January 2 share price. Tesla dealers have been attacked and vandalized while other Americans have staged peaceful protests against Musk's involvement in government and role at the Department of Government Efficiency. So, why would a guy who once wore a "Trump Was Right About Everything" hat suddenly publicly oppose his new bill? The short answer is, the two don't see eye to eye on the automotive industry's most controversial powertrain option. The One, Big, Beautiful Bill could decimate Tesla. President Donald Trump's stance and actions against EV adoption in America includes: Supporting the One, Big, Beautiful Bill, which suggests phasing out a federal EV tax credit that would benefit thousands of Tesla buyers Claiming former President Joe Biden's EV mandate "would kill 40% of the auto industry's jobs", according to Ordering the shut down of many federal electric vehicle chargers and pausing massive federal EV fleet purchases, according to Elon Musk (and Tesla's) stance and actions for EV adoption in America: Elon Musk bio says "Tesla's mission has been to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy" Musk claimed "the world does need electric cars" during a 60 Minutes interview and factory tour, asserting that Tesla has a crucial role in the future of EVs Tesla has collaborated with Ford, GM, Stellantis, Rivian, Volkswagen, Honda, Acura, Hyundai, Kia, Toyota and more to provide Tesla Supercharger access to EVs, making them easier to charge for American drivers Tesla stock recently plummeted in response to the feud between Trump and Musk. The President has also threatened Musk's government contracts amidst the dispute. The bill appears to be the focal point of the rift, but the two clearly have different ideas on what America's future should be. President Donald Trump and Elon Musk may have been able to join forces over their mutual stances on certain conservative points and a hatred of bureaucracy, but their White House tag team was short-lived. The One, Big, Beautiful Bill directly undermines some of the actions Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency have taken since the two united. Trump is 78 years old and expresses a desire to bring America back to a golden age of manufacturing before globalism outsourced American jobs and created a reliance on foreign trade. He also speaks about returning the country to an age where mining and drilling for fossil fuel production were prioritized over environmental concerns. Musk, on the other hand, is a 53-year-old futurist who strives to make humans a multi-planetary species and has made a fortune from innovation and technological disruption. At a glance, the issue seems to be about the One, Big, Beautiful Bill attacking Tesla's bottom line but the two polarizing figures are fundamentally different in terms of future aspirations. Based on Trump's falling out with several former members of the first Trump administration and Musk's known adversarial nature in the private sector, this could be the end for, arguably, the most fascinating duo of 2025. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Donald Trump vs Elon Musk: Could Tesla, EVs be at the art of the feud?
Miami Herald
29 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Florida attorney general loses appeal to overturn order blocking immigration law
A judicial appeals panel has upheld a temporary injunction blocking the enforcement of a new state law criminalizing undocumented immigrants when they arrive in Florida — notching another victory for immigration advocates in a case that has drawn Florida's attorney general into conflict with a Miami federal judge. The Friday afternoon ruling by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta keeps in place a lower court order temporarily preventing police and prosecutors from making arrests and pursuing charges under Florida's SB-4, signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in February. The law makes it a crime for immigrants to enter the state of Florida if they have been deported or denied entry into the country, or eluded immigration officers when coming into the United States. 'This is a difficult case, and this order does not finally resolve the issues,' states the order, issued by judges Jill Pryor, Kevin Newsom and Embry Kidd. The unsuccessful appeal at the heart of Friday's ruling was brought by Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, who sought to stay the temporary injunction. Uthmeier has argued that District Court Judge Kathleen Williams overstepped in April when, responding to a lawsuit brought by several undocumented Florida residents who said the law was unconstitutional, she blocked the enforcement of the law. Williams initially issued a restraining order preventing the enforcement of SB-4, and then ordered a broader temporary injunction after learning that state police had continued to make arrests — including an American citizen. Uthmeier's attorneys argued that while Williams' order had bound them from enforcing the law, it didn't apply to 'independent' law enforcement agencies like the Florida Highway Patrol. The attorney general was so adamant in his position that, days later, he wrote a letter to law enforcement agencies telling them he didn't think Williams' order was legitimate — leading the judge to initiate contempt proceedings. In their Friday ruling, the judges waded into the legal skirmish, writing that Uthmeier 'may well be right that the district court's order is impermissibly broad. But that does not warrant what seems to have been at least a veiled threat not to obey it.' A spokesman for Uthmeier's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The American Civil Liberties Union, whose attorneys have worked on the case, celebrated the ruling as a significant victory, not just in Florida but around the country as red states move to implement strict immigration laws. 'This ruling is not just a legal victory — it's a resounding rejection of cruelty masquerading as policy,' said Bacardi Jackson, executive director of the ACLU of Florida. The case, brought by the Florida Immigrant Coalition, the Farmworker Association of Florida, will continue on before Judge Williams, who has yet to issue her ruling on whether Uthmeier will be held in contempt of court.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mass deportations from Trump's Big, Beautiful Bill could quietly cost U.S. over $1.4 trillion
Mass deportations enabled by the Trump administration's Big, Beautiful Bill spending and tax package could cost the U.S. over $1 trillion in the coming years, as the administration is already reportedly struggling to fund its rapidly expanding immigration crackdown. The package, which the House of Representatives passed last month, directs $168 billion towards immigration and border law enforcement agencies. That spending, combined with the economic impact of removing scores of immigrants and more granular changes, like a potential decline in revenues thanks to the possible deterrent effect of new fees on migrants, could cost the U.S. over $1.4 trillion over the next decade, according to an analysis from the libertarian Cato Institute. David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Institute, argued on X on Friday that the bill is an 'absolute explosion of cash unparalleled in American history,' spending that could be better used on other public safety investments. 'The fiscal cost of mass deportation will equal the cost of all federal law enforcement spending over the next decade,' Bier wrote. 'Imagine how many rapes, murders, thefts, etc. could be solved with this money. We could have a much, much safer society spending this money on ANYTHING ELSE.' Even without the Big, Beautiful Bill, the administration is already rapidly burning through immigration funding. As of March, Immigration and Customs Enforcement was reportedly $2 billion short of maintaining its current pace of operations through the end of the fiscal year, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, the architect of much of the administration's immigration agenda, has brushed off such concerns, arguing last week on X that, 'Anyone serious about limited government and improving America's financial health would understand that ending mass migration is the prerequisite for every other problem we wish to solve.' Immigration analysts aren't the only ones concerned about the fiscal impact of the reconciliation package. As part of the acrimonious split between Donald Trump and Elon Musk, the Tesla billionaire lambasted the Big, Beautiful Bill as an 'outrageous, pork-filled, disgusting abomination' that added too much spending to the federal balance sheet.
