NOTN- Sealaska Heritage Institute held a public ceremony yesterday to officially open new Indigenous Science Building and dedicate a newly carved totem pole that will take its place on Juneau’s waterfront.
The event, held on Indigenous People’s Day included the formal naming of the facility, the dedication of a Sukteeneidí kootéeyaa (totem pole), and cultural performances at Heritage Plaza next to the Walter Soboleff Building.
SHI President Rosita Worl said the four-story building will serve as a hub for education programs that center Indigenous knowledge, languages and values while incorporating modern science and technology.
“The Indigenous Science Building will offer learning experiences that showcase the traditional knowledge of Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian peoples that has existed for thousands of years. By bringing Indigenous knowledge that integrates Western science into the classroom, we will empower youth and community members with critical thinking skills that will strengthen regional economies and deepen our knowledge of the environment,” Worl Said.
The building will feature a traditional foods kitchen, digital media lab, Indigenous science research lab, and fabrication and makerspace facilities. It will host K–12 and community programs, after-school and weekend classes, and summer workshops for students from Alaska and beyond.
The façade features a monumental art installation based on an original piece by the renowned Haida artist Robert Davidson, whose work also inspired the facades of the institute’s Walter Soboleff Building and Atnané Hít, the Sealaska Heritage Arts Campus building, which SHI opened in 2015 and 2022 respectively. During the ceremony, the facility will officially be given the name Indigenous Science Building.
During Monday’s ceremony, the new totem pole was dedicated as part of SHI’s Kootéeyaa Deiyí (Totem Pole Trail) project in downtown Juneau. The pole was carved in Ketchikan by Haida artist Lee Wallace and five apprentices.
Black Louisiana voters and civil rights advocates ask U.S. Supreme Court justices to uphold a fair and representative congressional map in Louisiana v. Callais on March 24, 2025. Jemal Countess/Getty Images
On Oct. 15, 2025, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in one of the most anticipated cases of the 2025-2026 term, Louisiana v. Callais, with major implications for the Voting Rights Act, racial representation and Democratic Party power in congress.
The central question in the case is to what extent race can, or must, be used when congressional districts are redrawn. Plaintiffs are challenging whether the longstanding interpretation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires protection of minority voting power in redistricting, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees that individuals should be treated the same by the law.
In short, the plaintiffs argue that the state of Louisiana’s use of race to make a second Black-majority district is forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.
To understand the stakes of the current case, it’s important to know what the Voting Rights Act does. Initially passed in 1965, the act helped end decades of racially discriminatory voting laws by providing federal enforcement of voting rights.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act forbids discrimination by states in relation to voting rights and has been used for decades to challenge redistricting plans.
The current case has its roots in the redistricting of Louisiana’s congressional districts following the 2020 Census. States are required to redraw districts each decade based on new population data. Louisiana lawmakers redrew the state’s six congressional districts without major changes in 2022.
State troopers in Selma, Ala., swing billy clubs on March 7, 1965, to break up a march by advocates for Black Americans’ voting rights. AP Photo, File
Soon after the state redistricted, a group of Black voters challenged the map in federal court as a violation of the Voting Rights Act. The plaintiffs argued that the new map was discriminatory because the voting power of Black citizens in the state was being illegally diluted. The state’s population was 31% Black, but only one of the six districts featured a majority-Black population.
The federal courts in 2022 sided with the plaintiffs’ claim that the plan did violate the Voting Rights Act and ordered the state legislature to redraw the congressional plan with a second Black-majority district.
The judges relied on an interpretation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act from a 1986 Supreme Court decision in the case known as Thornburg v. Gingles. Under this interpretation, Section 2’s nondiscrimination requirement means that congressional districts must be drawn in a way that allows large, politically cohesive and compact racial minorities to be able to elect representatives of their choice.
Following the court order, the Louisiana state legislature passed Senate Bill 8 in January 2024, redrawing the congressional map and creating two districts where Black voters composed a substantial portion of the electorate in compliance with the Gingles ruling. This map was used in the 2024 congressional election and both Black-majority districts elected Democrats, while the other four districts elected Republicans.
These new congressional districts from Senate Bill 8 were challenged by a group of white voters in 2024 in a set of cases that became Louisiana v. Callais.
Essentially, the plaintiffs claimed that the courts’ interpretation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional and that the use of race to create a majority-minority district is itself discriminatory. Similar arguments about the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause were also the basis of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions striking down race-based affirmative action in college admissions.
In 2024, a three-judge district court sided with the white plaintiffs in Louisiana v. Callais, with a 2-1 decision. The Black plaintiffs from the original case, and the state of Louisiana, appealed the case to the Supreme Court. The court originally heard the case at the end of the 2024-2025 term before ordering the case re-argued for 2025-2026.
If the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the lower court decision in Louisiana v. Callais, deciding that Louisiana’s congressional districts are unconstitutional racial gerrymanders, it will have substantial impacts on minority representation. The decision would upend decades of precedent for Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
For 39 years, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has required redistricting institutions to consider racial and ethnic minority representation when devising congressional districts. Majority-minority districting is required when a state has large, compact and cohesive minority communities. Historically, some states have redistricted minority communities in ways that dilute their voting power, such as “cracking” a community into multiple districts where they compose a small percentage of the electorate.
Section 2 also provides voters and residents with a legal tool that has been used to challenge districts as discriminatory. Many voters and groups have used Section 2 successfully to challenge redistricting plans.
Section 2 has been the main legal tool for challenging racial discrimination in redistricting for the past decade. In 2013, the Supreme Court effectively ended the other major component of the Voting Rights Act, the preclearance provision, which required certain states to have changes to their elections laws approved by the federal government, including redistricting.
If the court overrules the current interpretation of Section 2, it would limit the legality of using race in redistricting, end requirements for majority-minority districts and eliminate the most common way to challenge discriminatory districting.
Additionally, because of the strong relationship between many minority communities and the Democratic party, the court’s decision has major implications for partisan control of the House of Representatives.
If Section 2 no longer required majority-minority districts, then Republicans could use the ruling to redraw congressional districts across the country to benefit their party. Politico reported that Democrats could lose as many as 19 House seats if the Supreme Court sides with the lower court.
Recent Supreme Court precedent gives conflicting signals as to how it will decide this case.
Sam D. Hayes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
A series of recent events has sparked alarm about rising levels of political violence in the U.S. These episodes include the assassination of political activist Charlie Kirk on Sept. 10, 2025; the murder of a Democratic Minnesota state legislator and her husband in June 2025; and two attempts to kill Donald Trump during the 2024 presidential campaign.
My research is in political science and data analytics. I have conducted surveys for almost 25 years. For the past three years, I have studied new techniques that leverage artificial intelligence to conduct and analyze interviews.
My own recent surveys, which use AI to ask people about why they give their answers, show that the surprisingly high level of support in response to these questions is likely the result of confusion about what these questions are asking, not actual support for political violence.
Law enforcement officials lead a procession as pallbearers carry caskets after a funeral ceremony for Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark Hortman, on June 28, 2025, in Minneapolis. Stephen Maturen/Getty Images
A failure to communicate
Why would multiple surveys get the answers to this important question wrong? I believe the cause is an issue called response error. It means that respondents don’t interpret a question in the way the researcher thinks they will.
As a result, the answers people provide don’t really reflect what the researcher thinks the answers show.
For example, asking whether someone would support the use of force to achieve a political goal raises the question of what the respondent thinks “use of force” means in this context. It could be interpreted as violence, but it could also be interpreted as using legal means to “force” someone to do something.
Such response errors have been a concern for pollsters ever since survey research began. They can affect even seemingly straightforward questions.
What did you mean by that?
To avoid this problem, I used an AI interviewing system developed by CloudResearch, a well-known survey research company, to ask respondents some of the same questions about political violence from previous surveys. Then I used it to ask what they were thinking when they answered those questions. This process is called cognitive interviewing.
I then used AI to go through these interviews and categorize them. Two short reports that summarize this process as applied to both polls are availableonline. These analyses have not been peer-reviewed, and the results should be considered very preliminary.
Nonetheless, the results clearly demonstrate that respondents interpret these questions in very different ways.
Nuance matters
For example, in my survey, about 33% of Democrats agreed with the statement that “use of force is justified to remove President Trump from office.” However, when asked why they agreed, more than 57% gave responses like this: “I was not thinking physically but more in the sense that he – the president – might need to be ‘fired’ or forced out of office due to rules or laws.” Still others were envisioning future scenarios where a president illegally seizes power in a coup.
Once you account for these different interpretations of the question, the AI only coded about 8% of Democrats as supporting use of force in violent terms under current conditions.
Even here, there was substantial ambiguity – for example, this type of response was not unusual: “The language ‘use of force’ was a bit too broad for me. I could not justify killing Trump, for example, but less extreme uses of force were valid in my eyes.”
Similarly, 29% of Republicans agreed that “use of the military is justified to stop protests against President Trump’s agenda.” However, almost all of the respondents who agreed with this statement envisioned the National Guard interceding nonviolently to stop violent protests and riots. Only about 2.6% of Republicans gave comments supporting use of the military against nonviolent protests.
Almost all those who agreed that use of the military was justified expressed thoughts like this: “I see the military coming and acting as a police force to stop or prevent the demonstrations that become violent. Peaceful protesters must be allowed to exercise their right to free speech.”
When is political violence justified?
Even questions that explicitly ask about political violence are open to wide interpretation. Take, for example, this question: “Do you think it is ever justified for citizens to resort to violence in order to achieve political goals?”
The lack of a specific scenario or location in this question invites respondents to engage in all kinds of philosophical and historical speculation.
In my survey, almost 15% of respondents said violence could sometimes be justified. When asked about the examples they were thinking of, respondents cited the American Revolution, the anti-Nazi French Resistance and many other incidents as a reason for their responses. Only about 3% of respondents said they were thinking about actions in the U.S. at the current time.
Moreover, almost all respondents stated that violence should be a last resort when all other peaceful and legal methods fail.
One respondent illustrated both problems with one sentence: “The (American) colonists tried petitions and negotiations first, but, when those efforts failed, they resorted to armed conflict to gain independence.”
A call for understanding
Even these numbers likely overestimate Americans’ support for political violence. I read the interviews, checking the AI system’s labeling, and concluded that, if anything, it was overestimating support for violence.
Other factors may also be distorting reports of public support for political violence. Many surveys are conducted primarily online. One study estimated that anywhere from 4% to 7% of respondents in online surveys are “bogus respondents” who are selecting arbitrary responses. Another study reported that such respondents dramatically increase positive responses on questions about political violence.
Respondents may also be willing to espouse attitudes anonymously online that they would never say or do in real life. Studies have suggested that “online disinhibition effects” or “survey trolling” can impact survey results.
In sum, my preliminary research suggests that response error is a substantial problem in surveys about political violence.
Americans almost universally condemn the recent political violence they have witnessed. The recent poll results showing otherwise more likely stem from confusion about what the questions are asking than actual support for political violence.
Ryan Kennedy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Kaley Cuoco has been married and divorced more than once over the course of her career.
Not all of her famous relationships have involved tying the knot.
And some of her breakups have been more amicable than others.
Here is a look at Cuoco’s most famous relationships and marriages — and where things stand today.
Actress Kaley Cuoco attends The 2017 InStyle and Warner Bros. 73rd Annual Golden Globe Awards Post-Party at The Beverly Hilton Hotel on January 8, 2017. (Photo Credit: John Sciulli/Getty Images for InStyle)
In the aughts, Kaley Cuoco dated Johnny Galecki for a couple of years
Kaley Cuoco’s first big claim to fame was The Big Bang Theory.
On the polarizing sitcom, she co-starred with Johnny Galecki.
The two dated for about two years, keeping their relationship very private.
In December 2009, Cuoco and Galecki split.
However, they would go on to remain on good terms. That’s a good thing — especially for co-stars whose show lasted an unbelievable 12 seasons.
Actors Kaley Cuoco and Johnny Galecki attend The Paley Center For Media’s 33rd Annual PALEYFEST Los Angeles ÃThe Big Bang Theory’ at Dolby Theatre on March 16, 2016. (Photo Credit: Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images)
She was briefly engaged to Josh Resnik (2011-2012)
In October 2011, Cuoco became engaged to Josh Resnik.
Unlike her TBBT co-star, Resnik is not an actor — he is an addiction specialist.
Their brief engagement would last mere months.
By March of 2012, Cuoco and Resnik had split.
Her next major romance, however, would be far more consequential.
Actress Kaley Cuoco and Ryan Sweeting attend the 4th Annual Critics’ Choice Television Awards at The Beverly Hilton Hotel on June 19, 2014. (Photo Credit: Kevin Winter/Getty Images for Critics’ Choice Television Awards)
Kaley Cuoco married Ryan Sweeting in 2013 and divorced him in 2015
In September of 2013, Kaley Cuoco became engaged to Ryan Sweeting.
She and the professional tennis player had been dating for only three months.
On New Year’s Eve 2013, Cuoco and Sweeting tied the knot in Santa Susana, California.
Almost exactly two years after their engagement, they realized that things were not going to work.
They announced their divorce on September 25, 2015. In May of 2016, they finalized their split.
Actress Kaley Cuoco arrives for the 82nd annual Golden Globe Awards at the Beverly Hilton hotel in Beverly Hills, California, on January 5, 2025. (Photo Credit: ETIENNE LAURENT/AFP via Getty Images)
Not every relationship lasted very long (and that’s healthy!)
Three months after filing for divorce from Sweeting, Cuoco began dating Paul Blackthorne.
Blackthorne has had a lengthy career, from starring on The Dresden Files and Arrow to a guest role on The Gates to appearing via motion capture in video games like Star Wars Battlefront II.
They broke up in early 2016.
Speaking of handsome British dudes who don’t always get to use their natural accents on screen, news broke in July 2016 that Cuoco and legendary hottie Henry Cavill were dating.
A mere 10 days after those headlines, they split — but reportedly remain good friends. Notably, both have played major DC characters (Harley Quinn and Superman), and Blackthorne of course was on Arrow. Small world.
Actress Kaley Cuoco and Karl Cook arrive at the 9th Annual Stand Up For Pits event hosted by Kaley Cuoco at The Mayan on November 03, 2019. (Photo Credit: Amanda Edwards/Getty Images)
Kaley Cuoco and Karl Cook married in 2018, separated in 2021, divorced in 2022
In late 2016, Kaley Cuoco began dating Karl Cook, an equestrian.
About a year later, in November 2017, they became engaged. That happened to be on her 32nd birthday — November 30.
In June of 2018, they married.
A little over three years later, Cuoco and Cook announced their separation in September 2021.
Then, in June of 2022, four years after they tied the knot, Cuoco and Cook finalized their divorce.
Actor Tom Pelphrey and Kaley Cuoco attend HBO’s “Task” premiere at Perelman Performing Arts Center on September 04, 2025. (Photo Credit: Dia Dipasupil/Getty Images)
Kaley Cuoco is currently dating Tom Pelphrey (and they have a kid together!)
In May of 2022, Cuoco confirmed that she was in a relationship with fellow actor Tom Pelphrey.
Kailyn Lowry is kind of in mourning at the moment.
The Teen Mom alum announced on her latest Barely Famous podcast episode that her dad, Raymond, passed away on September 29.
Father and daughter were VERY estranged having met just one time in the past, during the filming of Lowry’s 16 and Pregnant episode in 2009.
However, Lowry told fans last month that she had made a point of visiting Raymond while he was on hospice for having stage 4 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
In June of 2025, Kailyn Lowry sat down for a special episode of her podcast. (Image Credit: YouTube)
“I went in there angry, and sort of not really open-minded, just more so doing it because everyone told me I’d regret it [if I didn’t],” Kailyn said on a previous podcast installment, adding that she “had all these conflicting feelings.”
Lowry seemed grateful that her dad “let me ask every single question I had” during this get-together, although he seemed “winded” from talking so much.
Continued Kailyn upon describing this emotional meeting back then:
“There are no questions I wish I had asked that I didn’t ask. There were no answers I wasn’t satisfied with I feel lighter, I feel more at peace. I feel forgiveness for him. I think all my anger was very misplaced. He did what he could for what he had, but he didn’t have a whole lot.”
Kailyn Lowry attends the 2018 MTV Video Music Awards at Radio City Music Hall on August 20, 2018 in New York City. (Photo by Nicholas Hunt/Getty Images for MTV)
As for how she now learned of Raymond’s passing?
“My aunt called and I was like, ‘Let me answer’ because she doesn’t really call me,” Kail told listeners. “I answer and I don’t think she even said ‘Good morning’ or anything. It was, ‘Your dad passed away.’ He passed away that morning.
“It was exactly two Mondays after I saw him… I saw him on September 15th and he died on the 29th.”
Kailyn said she had only begun to “process everything that occurred” during her trip to see her father and did not know how to handle the news that Ray was now dead.
Kailyn Lowry has no regrets about her time on Teen Mom. (MTV)
“I was going back and forth on even going to go see him and stuff like that,” she explained.
“And the day I went to visit him with my sister and my aunt, I was driving there with the ‘F-ck you’ mentality. I get to the door, and then I cry for the entire two-hour visit. By the end of it, I know that he said that I still looked mad. At the end of the visit, that’s what he said.
“And I said, ‘I don’t want to be mad. But you have to think about, this is 30 years of what I thought was a betrayal. I thought you didn’t care about me, just to learn that you tried [to be in my life].’
“It’s like, it’s going to take some time to process this and, I don’t know, really come to terms with it.”
As it turns out, according to Raymond, Lowry’s mom had lied about his past and he actually had wanted to be more involved in his daughter’s life.
“I thought that I was going to have one more visit in me, in him,” she said on Friday.
“Like I thought I would go down [to see him] one more time by the end of the year. I softened up enough to think about, ‘OK, I might go down one more time before he passes.’ And I never got a chance in those two weeks.”
We send our condolences to Kailyn Lowry and all those impacted by Raymond Lowry’s passing. May he rest in peace.
As you can see in this throwback video on Reddit, Miley handled the question with a lot of maturity and clarity.
“I am not pregnant. I am 14 years old, and that is very lame because I’m a minor,” she told the cameras in 2007.
This was on a red carpet — so we’re not talking about an absurd rumor remaining on social media, either.
“And yeah. So stupid. The main reason that I’m here tonight [is to] set the record straight,” Miley added at the time.
She speculated: “I think that people that make stuff up like that do that, [it’s] kind of a cry for help, for attention.”
Singer-songwriter Miley Cyrus arrives for the 2025 Met Gala at the Metropolitan Museum of Art on May 5, 2025. (Photo Credit: ANGELA WEISS/AFP via Getty Images)
Does Miley want to have kids?
More than half of people under 50 don’t want kids.
That includes all of Millennials, younger Gen Xers, Gen Z, and we’re pretty sure that Gen Alpha are children so they are probably not answering surveys.
Miley Cyrus was born in 1992. No matter where you draw the line on the Millennial/Zoomer divide, she’s firmly in the Millennial camp.
And she is no exception to the majority take of younger adults.
In 2019, Miley told Ellethat everyone is “expected to keep the planet populated,” particularly if they happen to have a working uterus.
Singer Miley Cyrus attends the 82nd Annual Golden Globe Awards at The Beverly Hilton on January 05, 2025. (Photo Credit: Amy Sussman/Getty Images)
“And when that isn’t a part of our plan or our purpose,” Miley observed, “there is so much judgment and anger.”
Pointing out alarming legislation over the past decade, she added: “They try to make and change laws to force it upon you.”
Grimly, Miley noted: “even if you become pregnant in a violent situation.”
In many cases, people who do not want children feel this way due to our dismal financial realities.
But she noted that many are blissfully child-free.
Singer Miley Cyrus attends the 97th Annual Academy Awards at the Dolby Theatre in Hollywood, California on March 2, 2025. (Photo Credit: ANGELA WEISS/AFP via Getty Images)
Her fans are, in a way, a little like her kids
And Miley Cyrus has spoken on the topic more recently, admitting that she wasn’t sure if she wants kids in July 2024.
In her mind, her fans are a little like her children.
(That’s a sentiment shared by her godmother, Dolly Parton)
At some point, hopefully society will progress to a point where both people will be able to afford to have kids (and have confidence that they aren’t inheriting our current hell world) and where people won’t ask if someone’s pregnant. That question is almost always rude.
For now, perhaps we should settle for “unless you’re a doctor or guidance counselor, don’t ask if a 14-year-old is pregnant.” That should not have to be explained to anyone.
Taylor Swift is headed to a small screen near you.
We can confirm that a documentary about the artist’s record-breaking Eras Tour, titled “Taylor Swift | The Eras Tour | The End of an Era,” will premiere on Disney+ on December 12.
The special six-part series will be accompanied by the simultaneous release of a new concert film, “Taylor Swift | The Eras Tour | The Final Show,” shot at the tour finale in Vancouver, B.C.
Just in case there wasn’t enough Taylor Swift in your life these days, you know?!?
Taylor Swift attends the 67th annual GRAMMY Awards on February 02, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Emma McIntyre/Getty Images for The Recording Academy)
As announced on Good Morning America on Monday, the documentary will be “an intimate look at Taylor’s life as her tour made headlines and thrilled fans around the world,” spotlighting “performers, family members, and friends” including tour opening acts Gracie Abrams and Sabrina Carpenter and guests Ed Sheeran and Florence Welch.
The first two of the six episodes will go up for streaming on the aforementioned date, with two more episodes at a time each of the two weeks after that.
The studio album is selling at an historic pace, while songs such as “Wood” have the entire universe talking.
Taylor Swift performs on stage as part of her Eras Tour in Lisbon on May 24, 2024. (Photo by ANDRE DIAS NOBRE/AFP via Getty Images)
“It was the End of an Era and we knew it,” Swift wrote in a post announcing the projects on her social media. “We wanted to remember every moment leading up to the culmination of the most important and intense chapter of our lives, so we allowed filmmakers to capture this tour and all the stories woven throughout it as it wound down. And to film the final show in its entirety.”
The concert film cited above bows at the same time as those first two docuseries episodes.
It will mark the first time fans have gotten a chance to see the material that was added to the Eras Tour from the “Tortured Poets Department” on the big screen.
Also, for those wondering:
“Taylor Swift | The Eras Tour | The End of an Era” will be directed by Don Argott, co-directed by Sheena M. Joyce and produced by Object & Animal.
“Taylor Swift | The Eras Tour | The Final Show,” meanwhile, is directed by Glenn Weiss and produced by Taylor Swift Productions in association with Silent House Productions.
After first becoming a famous (yet troubled) actress as a child herself, she is uniquely suited to understand some of the hurdles of growing up.
These days, Barrymore is a beloved talk show host. The world just wants to see her happy.
For those wondering if she’s pregnant, her motherhood journey is fortunately no secret.
Drew Barrymore attends Broadcasting + Cable Hall Of Fame Awards 33rd Anniversary Gala at The Ziegfeld Ballroom on September 30, 2025. (Photo Credit: Manoli Figetakis/Getty Images)
In February 2011, she began dating Will Kopelman, an art consultant and the scion of a bigwig at Chanel.
Later that year, he proposed to Barrymore. The world at large learned of their engagement in early 2012.
Barrymore and Kopelman married in June 2012. Three months later, she gave birth to their first of two children.
Despite the misery of their 2016 divorce, the exes are now on good terms. That is great news, since they continue to be co-parents.
Actress Drew Barrymore arrives at CBS Fest 2025 at Paramount Studios on May 07, 2025. (Photo Credit: Maya Dehlin Spach/Getty Images)
Olive was born on September 26, 2012.
Both of Barrymore’s daughters appear rarely if at all in public images. That is very wise.
We know that Olive’s nickname has been “Bear,” which is adorable.
Since that time, Olive has become a teenager.
And she has been a big sister for almost her entire life.
Beloved host Drew Barrymore speaks on stage during iHeartRadio z100’s Jingle Ball 2024 Presented By Capital One at Madison Square Garden on December 13, 2024. (Photo Credit: Theo Wargo/Getty Images for iHeartRadio)
She has two amazing daughters (and guards their privacy)
Drew Barrymore gave birth to Frankie on April 22, 2014.
Her pregnancy with Olive was very hush-hush.
However, given that she was already a married mom when she and Kopelman conceived Frankie, perhaps they felt no need to keep the news to themselves.
Barrymore did not hesitate at the time to tell people that she felt a sense of relief that she was having another daughter.
She joked that this was for hand-me-down reasons. It seems likely that she was also trying to preempt anyone asking if she felt disappointed to not be having a son. (People are weird and intrusive)
Actress Drew Barrymore attends the 11th Breakthrough Prize Ceremony at Barker Hangar on April 05, 2025. (Photo Credit: Monica Schipper/Getty Images)
Though Barrymore did not keep her second pregnancy a secret, she has a different approach to her daughters’ actual privacy.
Remember, she grew up in the spotlight. And that fame from an early age had some very famous downsides.
Interestingly, she has revealed that her kids have asked about acting.
Her ruling, thus far, is that a school play is fine. But Barrymore has lived the life of a child actress and would not want that for her kids.
Their time to be nepo babies may come. But they’ll have to be a little older before they can walk in her footsteps. (And, honestly, who better to help them navigate the entertainment world than their mom?)
National treasure Drew Barrymore attends Daytime At Night: An Evening with the Drew Barrymore Show at The Paley Museum on September 09, 2024. (Photo Credit: Steven Ferdman/Getty Images)
Is Drew Barrymore pregnant?
There is no evidence that she is pregnant in the here and now.
Given her age, it is unlikely that Drew Barrymore will become pregnant.
However, if she does, she is much more likely the share the news — on her talk show, for one thing — than she was when she was carrying Olive.
It really sounds like she’s happy with her life and her family situation as they are.
It sounds like Olive and Frankie are lucky to have her as a mom.
Democrats’ hardline opposition to rising health care costs isn’t earning them voters’ trust on economic issues — a disconnect that lays bare the party’s challenge heading into next year’s midterms.
Voters blame Republicans more than Democrats for the federal government shutdown, according to a review of polling conducted after services shuttered. An Economist/YouGov survey of 1,648 Americans showed 41 percent hold the GOP accountable for the lapse in federal funding, compared to 30 percent who point a finger at Democrats and 23 percent who hold the parties equally responsible. A 2,441-person CBS News/YouGov survey also found Americans blame Republicans more than Democrats — 39 percent to 30 percent — with 31 percent faulting both. And a Harvard/Harris poll demonstrated 2,413 voters impugned Republicans more than Democrats by 6 points.
Those same voters, however, delivered the GOP a 4-point advantage when asked which party they trust more on economic issues. And a survey from Democratic-aligned firm Navigator Research showed 1,000 registered voters faulting Republicans for the shutdown by 11 points, but giving them a 2-point advantage on inflation and cost of living.
That dichotomy underscores an electoral hurdle for the party locked out of power: Even as Democrats hold the line over expiring health care subsidies that could send millions of Americans’ insurance prices soaring, voters still favor Republicans on the economy and cost of living.
“Are we going to get all the working class back? Probably not,” said Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), who is seeking reelection in a redrawn Texas district while facing federal bribery charges. “[But] I see an opening here. … And we need to jump on that and just really focus and repeat over and over and over that we Democrats are interested in bringing costs down.”
The next challenge for his party, he added: “Make sure people understand we are a viable alternative.”
The shutdown-polling paradox has shown up in surveys for months, as Democrats struggle to move voters who are souring on President Donald Trump and his party’s handling of the economy and inflation into their corner. And it underscores the uphill battle Democrats face in wresting power from Republicans, even as they narrow their scattered messaging to affordability.
Frontliner Rep. Laura Gillen (D-N.Y.) called her party’s shutdown stance “an important step” toward convincing voters Democrats can tackle rising costs.
“And it’s a crucial step to take right now … to make sure that people don’t see their premiums go up exponentially,” said Gillen, who is defending the Long Island swing seat she flipped last year. “But then it needs to be part of a broader discussion to show that we are on the side of the American people and we care about the economic pain they’re feeling and we have a concrete plan.”
The party is still hashing out the particulars of that plan, which depending on the candidate ranges from pitching a hardscrabble background to railing against a rigged economy and vilifying the billionaires that benefit from it.
Right now, Democrats are trying to leverage their minimal power to force Republicans to stop Affordable Care Act subsidies from expiring at the end of the year, attempting to squeeze out a policy win on a top cost-of-living issue as they scramble to regain working-class voters.
The political winds have been shifting in Democrats’ favor on the economy. Trump’s net approval rating on the subject has nosedived since the start of his second term, polling averages show. Voters routinely rank inflation as one of their top issues, but disapprove of his handling of it. The latest CBS/YouGov poll showed three-quarters of adults don’t think Trump is doing enough to lower prices — one of his 2024 campaign trail pledges. Labor Department statistics show the job market is slowing.
Despite signs of economic distress, Republicans consistently enjoy a polling advantage on the economy. And Liam Kerr, who co-founded the centrist WelcomePAC, warned that Democrats won’t be able to erase it through a single stand on health care costs.
“You can’t just do it one time and all is forgotten,” Kerr said. “Playing against type requires even more effort.”
Nevertheless, Democrats remain confident they can reverse their heavy losses in 2024 by drilling down on voters’ cost-of-living concerns, according to interviews with half a dozen congressional candidates.
They cast their party’s shutdown play as part of a broader strategy that ranges from hammering Republicans over tariffs that could drive up prices for consumers and for businesses, to battling utility companies over rising bills. And they believe the slate of working-class candidates the party is putting up for House and Senate seats, from a firefighter in Pennsylvania’s Lehigh Valley to a waitress in western Wisconsin, can convince voters that Democrats care about blue-collar Americans who have turned toward Trump in recent years.
They’re getting backup from Democrats’ national campaign arm, which on Friday launched a five-figure digital-and-billboard ad campaign and organizing effort to alert voters to the pending increase in their premiums.
Still, shutdowns carry risks for both parties, especially the longer they drag on. The Trump administration on Friday began firing federal workers, which could increase pressure on both sides to bring their standoff to an end. And some polls already show voters think Democrats should cave and reopen the government; a sentiment expressed by nearly two-thirds of voters in the Harvard/Harris survey and just over half of respondents to the Navigator poll.
But Democrats are dug in.
“We have to give people a reason to fight, and we have to get back to catering to the many over the few,” Cherlynn Stevenson, a state representative running for the Democratic nomination in Kentucky’s open 6th District, said. “This can be a big turning point for our party.”
Will there ever come a time when people would no longer need hair coloring products to hide or prevent graying? Research involving mice may have an answer.
Health Digest – Health News, Wellness, Expert Insights
