BISMARCK, N.D. -- The North Dakota Senate on Friday approved banning abortions as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, sending what would be the most-stringent abortion restrictions in the U.S. to the state's Republican governor for his signature.

The measure would ban most abortions if a fetal heartbeat can be detected, something that can happen as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. The House already approved the measure. Gov. Jack Dalrymple generally opposes abortion but has not said whether he will sign the bill into law.

It's one of several anti-abortion measures the state Legislature has weighed this session. The vote came with almost no debate in the Senate and after the same chamber approved another measure that would make North Dakota the first to ban abortions based on genetic defects such as Down syndrome.

---

That measure would also ban abortion based on gender selection. The Guttmacher Institute, which tracks abortion laws throughout the country, says Pennsylvania, Arizona and Oklahoma already have such laws. 

Some supporters of the so-called fetal heartbeat measure have said they hope to send a message that North Dakota is anti-abortion and aims to challenge the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion up until a fetus is considered viable, usually at 22 to 24 weeks.

Arkansas passed a 12-week ban earlier this month that prohibits most abortions when a fetal heartbeat can be detected using an abdominal ultrasound. That ban is scheduled to take effect 90 days after the Arkansas Legislature adjourns. 

A fetal heartbeat can generally be detected earlier in a pregnancy using a vaginal ultrasound, but Arkansas lawmakers balked at requiring women seeking abortions to have the more invasive imaging technique.

North Dakota's measure doesn't specify how a fetal heartbeat would be detected. Doctors performing an abortion after a heartbeat is detected could face a felony charge punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Women having an abortion would not face charges.

A spokeswoman for the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks abortion laws across the country, said North Dakota's measures are the latest in a "tidal wave of abortion restrictions" in the U.S.

"We have seen efforts to ban abortion entirely and those attempts have failed," spokeswoman Elizabeth Nash said. "Now they're moving toward banning abortions as early as possible."

Abortion-rights advocates say the anti-abortion measures in the North Dakota Legislature are attempt to close the state's sole abortion clinic, in Fargo. They also say the so-called fetal heartbeat bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, and its supporters should expect a costly legal fight if it becomes law.

Republican Rep. Bette Grande, an ardent opponent of abortion from Fargo who introduced the fetal heartbeat bill, said fears about potential litigation should not prevent lawmakers from approving the measure.

"Whether this is challenged in court is entirely up to the abortion industry," Grande told lawmakers this week. "Given the lucrative nature of abortion, it is likely that any statute that reduces the number of customers will be challenged by the industry." 

A Connecticut legislator has proposed a bill that would allow the appointment of an advocate to act on behalf of an animal during court proceedings.

Connecticut State Rep. Diana Urban proposed the bill, known as HB 6310, "An Act Concerning Animal Advocates in Court Proceedings." It would permit a veterinarian with the Department of Agriculture to be appointed as an advocate for an animal whose welfare or custody is the subject of a civil or criminal court proceeding.

"HB 6310 would give the option for an advocate in court for an egregiously injured animal," said Urban, a Democrat from North Stonington, Conn. "This would enable the animal's injury to be identified as a red flag for future violent behavior. We are putting together a public/private partnership with the state Department of Agriculture and nonprofit rescue groups including Connecticut Votes for Animals to be available to speak for the animals in court."

---

Also on NBCConnecticut.com: New backlash over Conn. state budget

Urban was joined at a news conference Thursday by Asa Palmer, a North Stonington high school student who discovered two of the cows on his family farm shot in the face in January. One of the cows had to be euthanized.

"If this was in place today, Asa Palmer could request an advocate for his young cow, 'Angel,' who was shot in the face and left with her jaw hanging off," Urban said.

Two men have been charged with shooting Palmer's cows.

The bill, which is awaiting action in the legislature's Judiciary Committee, has the support of other lawmakers.

Also on NBCConnecticut.com: Caregiver charged after elderly woman is found on snow bank

"Much like our children who cannot advocate on behalf of themselves, innocent animals that are abused or worse, killed, deserve that same right," said Rep. Brenda Kupchick, a Republican from Fairfield, Conn. "Violence of any type is unacceptable and we must do whatever we can to give a voice to those who cannot speak for themselves."

It was not clear if or when the Judiciary Committee would take action on Urban's bill.

 

Jerry Sandusky lost a bid for a new trial Wednesday when a judge rejected his argument that his lawyers were not given enough time to prepare for the three-week proceeding that ended with a 45-count guilty verdict.

Judge John Cleland's 27-page order said lawyers for the former Penn State assistant football coach conceded that their post-trial review turned up no material that would have changed their trial strategy.

---

"I do not think it can be said that either of the defendant's trial counsel failed to test the prosecution's case in a meaningful manner," Cleland wrote. "The defendant's attorneys subjected the commonwealth's witnesses to meaningful and effective cross-examination, presented evidence for the defense and presented both a comprehensive opening statement and a clearly developed closing argument."

He also rejected post-sentencing motions regarding jury instructions, hearsay testimony and a comment by the prosecution during closing arguments that referred to the fact that Sandusky, who did not testify at trial, gave media interviews after he was arrested in November 2011.

Cleland said the prosecution's closing was not presented in a way that "was either calculated to, or did, create in the jurors a fixed bias toward the defendant."

Sandusky also argued that charges should have been thrown out because they were not sufficiently specific, but Cleland said the lack of specific dates did not prevent Sandusky from pursuing an alibi defense.

"The defendant has simply argued the offenses did not happen," Cleland said.

Sandusky is serving a 30- to 60-year state prison sentence for sexual abuse of 10 boys, including violent attacks on the children inside Penn State athletics facilities.

Sandusky defense lawyer Norris Gelman said Wednesday that while he had not read the decision, Cleland's ruling means an appeal will be filed to the mid-level Superior Court within the next 30 days.

The state attorney general's office, which prosecuted Sandusky, offered no immediate comment.

Also Wednesday, the Pennsylvania Senate unanimously approved a bill that aims to keep Penn State's $60 million fine to the NCAA over the Sandusky scandal within the state.

The measure, sponsored by Sen. Jake Corman, a Republican whose district includes State College, would require such fines of at least $10 million to be deposited into a state-administered account, and be spent on Pennsylvania programs that address childhood sexual abuse.

"It makes sense that it should stay here to benefit organizations and the children of the commonwealth," said Corman, who also recently filed a lawsuit over the fine, an action currently pending in Commonwealth Court. He said the money "could do an extraordinary amount of good right here in Pennsylvania."

Sen. Judy Schwank, D-Berks, said the Legislature needed to act quickly.

"The victims were from Pennsylvania, the abuse was perpetrated in Pennsylvania, and the crimes were investigated and prosecuted by Pennsylvania authorities — not authorities from other states, the federal government or the NCAA," Schwank said.

In response, the NCAA issued a statement saying it was monitoring the legislation, "including examining whether, if enacted, the proposed legislation would violate both the United States and Pennsylvania constitutions."

Penn State agreed to the fine last summer as part of a deal that averted a potential shutdown of its football program by college sports' governing body. The university has already made the first of five $12 million payments.

Gov. Tom Corbett has filed a federal anti-trust lawsuit against the NCAA over the sanctions.

Related:

Jerry Sandusky gets 30 to 60 years for child sex abuse
Expert: Penn State report ups legal risk for former president
Sandusky case triggers pain well beyond campus

 

Claims of negligence and wrongful death against the Colorado theater where a gunman went on a shooting spree in July should be tossed out, a federal magistrate judge said on Thursday.

The Denver Post reported that the decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael Hegarty applies to seven lawsuits filed last year in federal court against Cinemark, owner of the Century Aurora 16 theater where the attack took place.

---

The shooting, which left 12 people dead and 58 wounded, sparked at least 10 lawsuits against Cinemark claiming that poor security at the theater enabled the gunman’s attack, the report said.  

 

Hegarty says that Colorado law does not allow people wounded or families of people killed in the shooting to make claims of negligence and wrongful death against the theater. His decision is merely a recommendation to U.S. District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson, who is overseeing the case, but it carries significant weight, according to the Post.

The suspected gunman, James Holmes, is in prison awaiting trial. He is charged with 24 counts of first-degree murder — two for each of the people killed when he opened fire on the audience at a late night showing of "Dark Knight Rises." He is also charged with 116 counts of attempted murder and possession of explosives. Holmes has not entered a plea.

The Century Aurora 16 in the Denver suburb of Aurora, Colo., which was closed after the July 20 mass killing, reopened last week, after months of renovation and redesign.

Follow Kari Huus on Facebook

James Holmes, the alleged shooter in the July 12 Aurora theater rampage, told a classmate in March that he wanted to kill people, according to court documents released by the court on Friday.

The newly unsealed document, filed on Aug. 14 by District Attorney Carol Chambers, states that evidence gathered so far indicates that "the defendant had conversations with a classmate about wanting to kill people in March, 2012, and that he would do so when his life was over."

---

Holmes, a former graduate student in neurology at the University of Colorado, is charged with 142 criminal counts, including 24 counts of first-degree murder, in the attack at a midnight premiere of the Batman movie "The Dark Knight Rises" and possession of explosives. After arresting Holmes, police found his apartment was booby-trapped with a jumble of explosives and incendiary devices set to be triggered by trip wires. It took experts several days to disarm the devices.

Twelve people were killed and 58 others were injured in the rampage.

The document unsealed Friday argues that Holmes' school records, which are generally protected by the Family Educational Records Privacy Act, should be turned over because they "are relevant to the investigation of these crimes, his planning and motive."

The document begins to construct a possible motive by citing existing evidence — that Holmes failed his graduate school oral boards in June and made threats to a professor at the school, and that after he was denied access to the university's Denver-Anschutz campus "he began a detailed and complex plan to obtain firearms" and other equipment deployed in the theater rampage.

Earlier the defense filed a motion to prevent opening the educational records, arguing that confidentiality should be maintained because "the prosecution is seeking these materials as a mere fishing expedition and not for any proper purpose."

At hearings earlier this month, Holmes defense team made repeated references to their client’s mental illness, signaling that they are likely to pursue a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.

Follow Kari Huus on Facebook

More content from NBCNews.com:

• 2 dead, 9 injured in shooting near Empire State Building
• Panel calls for better care, protections for wounded troops
• Report offers a roadmap for America's national parks
• Undocumented mom risks life in US to join immigration fight
• Video: Did ex-SEAL sell out with bin Laden tell-all?
• Video: Missing teen escapes from captor of two years

Follow US News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

A soldier convicted of amassing bomb-making materials and plotting an attack on a restaurant popular with soldiers in Fort Hood, Texas, was sentenced to life in prison on Friday.

Army Pfc. Naser Jason Abdo was AWOL from Fort Campbell, Ky., when he was arrested with bomb-making materials on July 27, 2011, at America’s Best Value Inn and Suites in Killeen, Texas, near Fort Hood.

---

In May, a jury found him guilty on six federal charges: attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction, attempted murder of  U.S. officers or employees and four counts of possessing a weapon in furtherance of a federal crime of violence.

U.S. District Judge Walter allowed Abdo to represent himself at the sentencing after the 22-year-old told him in July that he and his attorneys weren't communicating effectively, The Associated Press reported.

According to the criminal complaint, Abdo had smokeless gunpowder, pressure cookers, clocks, shotgun shells and other components that could be used to build "destructive devices," and an article titled “Make a bomb in the kitchen of your Mom.” He also had obtained a military uniform with Fort Hood patches.

In a recorded police interview, Abdo said he was planning to pull off an attack in the Fort Hood area "because I don't appreciate what my unit did in Afghanistan," according to an Associated Press report.

Defense attorneys argued for acquittal on grounds Abdo's plot did not go past the planning stage.

Abdo joined the army in April 2009.

But in 2010, he refused to deploy to Afghanistan with his unit, telling reporters at the time that he had come to believe it was at odds with his Muslim faith.

Abdo was granted conscientious objector status, but the Army put his discharge on hold after they allegedly discovered child pornography on Abdo’s computer. The private disappeared shortly after that case was referred to a general court-martial.

In an interview from jail with WSMV TV in November, Abdo said he was set up by the military and they never planned to let him leave.

"I felt like the only way to freedom or justice was martyrdom," he told the television station.

He began plotting to kidnap and execute on camera a high-ranking member of his Fort Campbell command who had participated in the Afghanistan mission, but then changed targets when military police learned about his purchases at a gun store, he told the WSMV reporter.  

During Abdo's trial at the U.S. District Court in Waco, the army private shouted out the inspiration for his planned attack, according to The Los Angeles Times coverage:

"Nidal Hasan — Fort Hood 2009!" he yelled in an apparent reference to the shooting rampage allegedly by Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan at a medical facility on the base in November 2009 that left 13 dead and 32 wounded.

WSMV reported that Abdo had previously denounced that attack.

Hasan's trial is to begin on Aug. 20.

More content from NBCNews.com:

• Miami cannibal victim recounts attack for first time
• Lawyer explains why he brought gun to Batman movie
• July is hottest month on record; drought expands across US
• Obama opposes Boy Scouts' policy banning gays
• Video: Police believe body is missing La. college student

Follow US News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

Follow Kari Huus on Facebook

This spring, the editorial board at the Columbia Human Rights Law Review dedicated its final issue of the year to one article about two men named Carlos. Carlos DeLuna, the authors believe, was executed in Texas for a crime committed by Carlos Hernandez, who looked so much like him that one of their sisters confused the two in a photograph.

"Los Tocayos Carlos," which runs 451 pages and is available for free online, details the stabbing death of Wanda Lopez, a 24-year-old assistant manager at a gas station in Corpus Christi, Texas.

The article, which took six years, one professor and 12 students to produce, reads like a true-crime novel. It begins: “Wanda Lopez died at work at a Sigmor Shamrock gas station in Corpus Christi, Texas on February 4, 1983. She was twenty-four. Wanda’s only brother, Richard Vargas, heard her say her last words, but they gave him no solace or peace. They just made him angry.^”

---

There were two Carloses in the vicinity that night. An eye witness to the crime identified Carlos DeLuna as the man who had wrestled with Wanda Lopez, even though his clothes did not match the witness' original description.  

The law school team interviewed Carlos Hernandez's relatives, who revealed that on the day of the murder, before Carlos DeLuna was arrested, he told them that he had killed a woman named Wanda and that he felt badly about it. He said he didn't think he'd get caught.

Hernandez later told someone else that he had committed the murder and that "Carlos DeLuna took the fall."

Police told the Columbia investigators that Carlos DeLuna didn't have it in him to commit such a crime. DeLuna, a junior high drop out, had a low IQ and had been arrested for low-level crimes but was better known for huffing paint. Carlos Hernandez, by contrast, had raped children in the neighborhood and had been arrested for assaulting his wife with an ax handle, according to the Columbia University report.

Questioning how Carlos Hernandez, with his reputation, could have avoided scrutiny, the law school students and their professor discovered that Hernandez had been a police informant.

But not all police officers liked Carlos Hernandez -- their informants reported to them that Hernandez might have been to blame for other unsolved murders of Latina women.

California voters to consider ending capital punishment

The law school team strongly suggests that the case, beginning with Wanda Lopez's call to 911, was sloppily handled. A novice dispatcher took too long to send out a patrol car to the gas station where Wanda Lopez was knifed; the crime scene was immediately cleaned; investigators relied on one eye witness account.   

Years down the road, the state assigned DeLuna an attorney who had never tried a major case in court, but who landed the job, the law school team suggests, because his father was politically connected.

In 1989, Carlos DeLuna was executed by lethal injection. His tocayo, or namesake, Carlos Hernandez, died in jail in 1999.

California vote could remove one quarter of nation's death row

In the introduction, the authors write: “Los Tocayos Carolos poignantly reveals how easily our legal system can fail to produce just outcomes even without the deliberate interference of individuals acting in bad faith and how the consequences of such failures can be irrevocable and at times, fatal.”

Columbia Law Professor James S. Liebman told the Guardian that what struck him most as he conducted his research was that the story was mundane.

"This wasn't the trial of OJ Simpson,” Liebman said. “It was an obscure case, the kind that could involve anybody. Maybe those are the cases where miscarriages of justice happen, the routine everyday cases where nobody thinks enough about the victim, let alone the defendant."

Watch the most-viewed videos on msnbc.com

The Columbia Human Rights Review piece recalls work by Northwestern University Professor David Protess and his students to exonerate innocent death row inmates. In 2000, Gov. George Ryan declared a moratorium on Illinois’ death penalty.

More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

• Hawaii first state to ban plastic bags at checkout
• Veterans to return war medals in protest
• 'Mama bear' sued by church over online criticism
• Trio lured Marine wife to her death, prosecutors say
• Video: Dad of sole plane crash survivor: It's a miracle

Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook

Prosecutors rested their case against John Edwards on Thursday without calling his mistress, Rielle Hunter, to testify. Instead, some of the former Democratic presidential candidate’s closest friends and advisers gave dramatic, often unflattering testimony about his actions as his once-promising political career collapsed amid a sex scandal.

Edwards' defense team will ask U.S. District Court Judge Catherine C. Eagles on Friday to dismiss the case, arguing that prosecutors haven't proven their case. If the judge allows the trial to go forward, the defense will begin presenting its side Monday — and may call Hunter to testify. Edwards could also take the stand in his own defense.

It is unclear whether the defense intends to call the 48-year-old Hunter, who has not attended the proceedings, to testify.

---

• Full trial coverage on msnbc.com
• Analysis by Hampton Dellinger

In a court order issued March 21, Judge Catherine Eagles wrote: "The defense contends, without contradiction by the Government, that Ms. Hunter's statements have been consistent over time and that she has not said nor is she likely to say that Mr. Edwards admitted or committed any element of the charged offenses. The defense is of the view that her testimony will support inferences in favor of Mr. Edwards and will in fact generally be consistent with the defense theory of the case." 

According to court documents, Hunter has been granted immunity from prosecution in connection with the case.

 

Edwards has pleaded not guilty to six counts related to campaign finance violations. Prosecutors say he spearheaded a scheme to use nearly $1 million in secret payments from Fred Baron, his campaign finance manager, and 101-year-old heiress Rachel "Bunny" Mellon to hide his affair and keep his presidential campaign viable.

Edwards denies knowing about the secret payments, which his lawyers contend were gifts from friends rather than campaign contributions. He faces up to 30 years in prison if convicted.

While the past 14 days of testimony has focused on the money trail, the trial has also revisited Edwards' breathtaking fall. He had an affair with Rielle Hunter, a videographer on his campaign, as he renewed his marriage vows to his cancer-stricken wife, Elizabeth. He fathered a child with Hunter and then a decision was made for his right-hand man to claim paternity so Edwards could keep up his lofty political ambitions. And he lied repeatedly to his wife, his advisers and the public.

As prosecutors wrapped up their case, they showed the jury records detailing the money spent to hide Hunter — $319,500 in cash, luxury hotels, private jets and a $20,000-a-month rental mansion in Santa Barbara, Calif. The bills, flashed up on a large screen for the jury to see, were all paid by Baron, a wealthy Texas lawyer who served as Edwards' 2008 campaign finance chairman.

Baron began paying the expenses after tabloid reporters tracked down the pregnant mistress in Chapel Hill, where she had been secretly living in a house rented for her only a few miles from the Edwards family estate. Hunter was being closely watched over by Edwards' once-close confidant, Andrew Young, who falsely claimed paternity of boss' baby as the tabloid prepared to expose the affair.

As part of the cover-up, Baron paid for Hunter — and Young and his wife — to cross the country on private flights worth more than $80,000 and stay in waterfront hotel suites costing nearly $44,000, including bar tabs and frequent room service. Baron also leased a mansion in Santa Barbara for the mistress as she prepared to give birth, with total costs over the next eight months totaling $184,378.

Several witnesses testified that Edwards knew what the money was spent on; others were less definitive.

Earlier Thursday, a former unpaid economic adviser to Edwards testified that the candidate actively courted his Democratic rivals in an effort to be tapped as the eventual nominee’s running mate, even as his own campaign was collapsing.

The adviser, Leo Hindery, said he was an intermediary between Edwards and former Sen. Tom Daschle, who was then with Obama's campaign. On the night of Jan. 4, 2008, after Obama won the Iowa caucuses, Edwards asked Hindery to talk to Obama's camp.

"Edwards believed it was important that Mrs. Clinton not be the nominee,” Hindery testified. “He thought it would be a disaster."

Hindery said he reached out to the Obama campaign, via Daschle, and said, "Mr. Edwards for his support would like to be part of (the administration) and be attorney general." Daschle was skeptical and questioned "whether this is appropriate," he said.

Hindery also testified Edwards thought if he became attorney general that might eventually evolve into a nomination for the Supreme Court.

The jockeying didn't end there. When Obama didn't accept Edwards with open arms, he started talking to Clinton's campaign, Hindery said. 

Earlier in the campaign corruption trial, adviser Tim Toben said he was astonished when Edwards told him in June 2008 he still had a desire to become Obama's running mate or fill his Cabinet.

"I was alarmed," Toben testified. "I couldn't believe a man with a 4-month-old baby with another woman would seriously consider running for vice president."

The advisers' testimony is key because prosecutors are trying to show jurors that Edwards still had political aspirations after his campaign was suspended in January 2008.

Lisa Myers, Michael Austin and Stacey Klein of NBC News and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

• Obama who? Gay marriage foes seek to extend gains
• Interceptor tested: 'US Navy lit up the sky'
• Video: Witness describes Elizabeth Edwards' final days
• Cyclist spots stolen bike on Craigslist, steals it back
• Piglets twirled, pigs kicked by farm workers, activist video shows

Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook

A day after the state's top court found that simply viewing child pornography wasn't a crime in New York, two legislators said Wednesday that they would soon introduce a measure to make it one.

The state Court of Appeals — the equivalent of the Supreme Court in most other states — ruled Tuesday in the case of a college professor whose work computer was found to contain illegal images that "merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent other proof, constitute either possession or procurement," which are illegal under state law.

Viewing child porn on the Web 'legal' in New York, state appeals court finds

---

"Rather, some affirmative act is required (printing, saving, downloading, etc.) to show that defendant in fact exercised dominion and control over the images that were on his screen," Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick wrote for a majority of four of the six judges.

Watch US News videos on msnbc.com

The ruling generated headlines and opposition across the country. Patrick Trueman, president of the conservative institute Morality in Media and director of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the U.S. Justice Department during the Reagan administration, called on state authorities to take over all child pornography cases "until this opinion is overturned." 

Wednesday, two lawmakers from Brooklyn — Sen. Martin Golden, a Republican, and Assemblyman Joseph Lentol, a Democrat — said they planned to introduce a bill within the next few weeks that would prohibit "knowingly accessing" child pornography "with intent to view."

"Federal regulations are already in place to see that those who access child pornography face the stricter standards of the law," Golden told Reuters on Wednesday. "New York must adopt these same policies."

The decision Tuesday didn't free the defendant. Instead, it dismissed one of the two counts of promoting a sexual performance of a child and just one of dozens of counts of possession of child pornography on which James D. Kent was convicted. The court upheld the other counts against Kent, an assistant professor of public administration at Marist College in Poughkeepsie, N.Y.

Kent — who said at his sentencing that he "abhorred" child pornography and argued that someone else at Marist must have placed the images on his computer — was sentenced to one to three years in state prison in August 2009.

The decision turned on the question of whether accessing and viewing something on the Internet is the same as possessing it. In essence, the court said "no."

The court noted that possessing or procuring child pornography is illegal, but the majority said that it was up to the Legislature, not the courts, to decide whether it's also illegal to passively view it online, without taking any other action. 

The practical effect, wrote Judge Victoria A. Graffeo — who concurred with the result but disagreed with the majority's reasoning — is that "the purposeful viewing of child pornography on the Internet is now legal in New York."

You can read the full ruling here, in .pdf form.

More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

• Obama: 'I think same-sex couples should be able to get married'
• Piglets twirled, pigs kicked by farm workers, activist video shows
• Should troops attacked in US be eligible for Purple Hearts?
• Conservative author drops claim of two Pulitzer nominations
• Video: More girls suffering sports-related concussions
• Principal: Errors get Nevada high school ranked 13th in US

Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook