In a park on a Saturday afternoon in suburban Atlanta, a group of young women gather, eating pizza and talking.
But this is no idle chit chat, they are discussing the future leadership of this country, and specifically what the midterm elections on Tuesday mean for their reproductive rights.
Most of them are first-time voters and newly energised by the Supreme Court decision earlier this year to revoke the constitutional right to choose abortion, known colloquially as Roe versus Wade. They are volunteering with the abortion provider Planned Parenthood and are canvassing potential voters in a mostly black neighbourhood.
“I think it’s important that people understand you have a voice and a say in the matter,” Brandy Nalyana, from Atlanta, says.
“With the overturn of Roe v Wade you felt powerless, you were in the streets and nobody was listening to you. But now we have midterms, you’re finally able to utilise your voice.”
They are part of a strategy being rolled out across this country to use the increasingly restrictive patchwork of abortion rights to drive voters to the polls.
Each state now decides unilaterally what abortion rights are applied and 13 states have already banned or severely restricted access to abortion in the wake of the Supreme Court decision.
Democrats hope to motivate women, particularly, to vote blue and protect their future right to choose.
Nalah Lewis, a policy officer at Reproductive Justice, is going door to door, encouraging people to go to the polls on Tuesday.
Advertisement
As a younger woman she had an abortion and wants others to have the right to choose.
“I personally was not mentally prepared for [having a child]. I didn’t have the finances for that and I wanted to finish school,” Nalah says.
“Republicans are working overtime to take our rights away. I can’t imagine having to drive hundreds of miles away and worry about childcare and taking time off from work or not having the funds to be able to do that. I’m enraged and that’s why I’m asking people to know that abortion is on the ballot.”
Pro choice advocates fear that if both houses of congress flip to the Republicans there could be an effort to institute a federal, nationwide ban on abortion, denying states their ability to keep abortion legal.
In Georgia, the hotly contested Senate race is between incumbent Democrat Reverend Raphael Warnock and Republican Herschel Walker, a former American football star who is endorsed by former president Donald Trump.
The pair are currently deadlocked and if Walker wins it could be decisive in flipping the balance of power in this country back towards the Republican Party.
Walker ran his campaign on a message of anti abortion. In August he said he supported a total ban on abortion even in cases of rape and incest, although he has since revised this to say he supports Georgia’s current status of a six-week ban with exceptions.
But stories from Walker’s own past have emerged and been seized upon by his opponent.
Two women have claimed that Walker had extramarital affairs with them and paid for, or even pressured, them into having an abortion when they became pregnant.
Walker has denied the claims, not that the scandal seems to be affecting him in the polls or among his support base, which remains steadfast.
Lots of them were at a eating and drinking on Saturday at a tailgate party outside the Georgia Bulldogs football stadium, the team which Walker starred for.
“I’m not worried about it,” says Vanessa Brosnan, a Republican voter and football fan from Atlanta, “I don’t worry about him because he’s a good guy. He might have a past, but he’s let you know what his past is. There’s a thing called forgiveness.”
Others are plain about the basis of their support of Walker. “I’d vote for Herschel just because he gave us great football,” says Phillip Jennings, a farmer and Georgia Bulldogs fan from Soperton, Georgia.
He says he used to be a conservative Democrat but that the party has “lost its way” and he will now vote Republican across the ticket.
“Crime is rampant everywhere,” he says. “If they’re not killing them with a gun, they’re trying to kill them with a hammer and inflation is killing people, too.
“We’re in an awful place in this country, both Republicans and Democrats, we need a lot of leadership. We need to start looking forward, get these petty issues behind us.”
While many voters seem most animated about issues like crime, immigration and inflation, Democrats are keeping a laser focus on abortion rights.
After the Supreme Court decision to end the constitutional right to abortion, they experienced a significant boost in the polls but that has now disappeared.
As things stand, they could be heading for significant defeats on election night and that is likely to have a profound effect on women’s rights in America.
YouTuber-turned-boxer Jake Paul has defeated one of the greatest-ever fighters, former heavyweight world champion Mike Tyson, who is more than twice his age.
Paul, 27, won the bout via a unanimous points decision at the AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas – home of the Dallas Cowboys and the biggest NFL stadium in the US.
The fight was already controversial but then arguably failed to live up to the hype. Boos were heard from the crowd in the final two rounds, after a perceived lack of action.
Afterwards, the pair heaped praise on each other. Paul said: “This man is an icon and it’s just an honour to be able to fight him. And he’s obviously the toughest, baddest man on the planet.”
Tyson, 58, described Paul as a “good fighter” but dismissed the suggestion he was out to prove something.
“I didn’t prove nothing to anybody, only to myself,” he said.
Boxing careers compared
More on Jake Paul
Related Topics:
This was not Paul’s first professional fight. The American YouTube star made his debut in 2020, and his most high-profile clash was last year against Tyson Fury’s brother Tommy Fury, which he lost by a split decision.
The so-called “Problem Child” has since defeated former UFC contender Nate Diaz, professional boxer Andre August, former Gold Gloves champion Ryan Bourland and most recently MMA fighter Mike Perry.
Advertisement
In contrast, “Iron Mike” Tyson was ranked among the best heavyweight boxers of all time.
During his career, he knocked out 44 opponents – retiring from professional boxing in 2005 after defeat against Kevin McBride.
He returned to the ring in 2020 for a bout against fellow boxing icon Roy Jones, which ended in an unofficial draw.
‘Someone’s getting put to sleep’
Earlier this week, Paul said he believed the bout would not go the distance. “No, someone’s getting put to sleep,” he said. “It’s going to be a war, and we’re both heavy hitters. It’s not going the full 16 minutes.”
Tyson said: “I’ve been through so many ups and downs since my last fight with Kevin McBride.
“I’ve been in rehab. I’ve been in prison, been locked up. Never in a million years did I believe I’d be doing this.”
Several states would not allow the bout to go ahead, and the Texas Athletic Commission only agreed to the fight if there were changes, due to Tyson’s age.
It limited the contest to eight rounds lasting a maximum of two minutes instead of three. Both boxers were also required to wear heavier gloves, designed to lessen the force of punches.
The fight was initially scheduled for 20 July, but was postponed when Tyson suffered an ulcer flareup.
Taylor defends title
Meanwhile, among the undercard fights, Irish boxer Katie Taylor successfully defended her super lightweight world title against Puerto Rico’s Amanda Serrano.
But it was tight. Taylor claimed the rematch 95-94 for all three judges in an epic battle.
The bout came two and a half years after the pair fought at Madison Square Garden, which Taylor won on a split decision.
Bout suffered from buffering
Earlier in the evening thousands of Netflix users in the US reported problems with the coverage, with some posting on social media about buffering.
At one point, more than 98,000 people had reported issues according to Downdetector, which tracks outages.
US House Speaker Mike Johnson has said he will “strongly request” a report into allegations of sex trafficking against Matt Gaetz, who is the president-elect’s choice of attorney general, should not be released.
Mr Johnson said he was against publishing the House Ethics Committee report on Mr Gaetz, 42, who if approved by the Senate will become the nation’s top prosecutor once Donald Trump is sworn in as president on 20 January.
That’s despite Mr Gaetz having previously faced a nearly three-year Justice Department investigation into sex trafficking allegations involving a 17-year-old girl. He denies the allegations and has not faced criminal charges.
Mr Gaetz has also never worked as a prosecutor and has only worked in law for a few years at a local level.
He stepped down from Congress after Mr Trump announced him as his attorney general pick.
His resignation brought the investigation by the House Ethics Committee to an end – two days before it had been expected to release its report into the trafficking claims.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:27
Why is Matt Gaetz a controversial pick?
House Speaker Mr Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, said of the probe: “I’m going to strongly request that the Ethics Committee not issue the report, because that is not the way we do things in the House.”
Politicians of both parties on the Senate Judiciary Committee have said they want to see the report on Mr Gaetz, as part of a Senate confirmation process for cabinet nominees that would start next year with public hearings.
Democrats have described the MAGA loyalist as “a gonzo agent of chaos” and his appointment a “red alert moment for our democracy”, while some Republican senators have also raised doubts about his suitability for the role.
Mr Johnson said he planned to urge House Ethics Committee chairman Michael Guest not to provide the report to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“The rules of the House have always been that a former member is beyond the jurisdiction of the Ethics Committee,” said Mr Johnson, who returned on Friday morning from meeting Mr Trump at the president-elect’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.
“I think it’s a terrible breach of protocol and tradition and the spirit of the rule,” he added. “I think that would be a terrible precedent to set.”
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
A $100m (£79m) lawsuit has been brought against the CIA, FBI and New York Police Department (NYPD) who are accused of being involved in the 1965 assassination of civil rights leader Malcolm X.
The case, which has been filed in a federal court in Manhattan, New York, alleges that the agencies were aware of the assassination, they were involved in the plot and failed to stop the killing.
The legal action has been brought by Malcolm X’s three daughters along with his estate.
The NYPD and CIA have not yet responded to the claims while the FBI said it was “standard practice” not to comment on litigation.
Nicholas Biase, a spokesperson for the US Department of Justice, which is also included in the lawsuit, declined to respond.
Malcolm X was 39 when he was shot dead on 21 February 1965 on stage by three gunmen as he prepared to speak at the Audubon Ballroom in Manhattan.
At a news conference in New York on Friday, to announce the details of the lawsuit, attorney Benjamin Crump said: “The government fingerprints are all over the assassination of Malcolm X.
“We believe we have the evidence to prove it.”
For decades, questions have arisen over who was behind his murder.
Advertisement
Malcolm X rose to prominence as the national spokesman of the Nation of Islam, an African-American Muslim group which supported black separatism.
He broke away from the group in 1964 and moderated some of his earlier views on racial separation, which angered Nation of Islam members and resulted in death threats.
Three men were convicted of his murder but two of them were cleared in 2021 after investigators took a fresh look at the case. They concluded some evidence was shaky and authorities had held back some information.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:46
Malcolm X’s family speaking in February 2023 when the plans for the lawsuit were initially announced
In the lawsuit, which began its process in 2023, it is alleged the NYPD coordinated with federal law enforcement agencies to arrest the activist’s security guards days before the assassination.
It also claims police were intentionally removed from inside the ballroom where Malcolm X was killed and that federal agencies had personnel, including undercover agents, at the site but failed to protect him.
The lawsuit goes on to allege a “corrupt, unlawful, and unconstitutional” relationship between law enforcement and “ruthless killers… which was actively concealed, condoned, protected, and facilitated by government agents”.
Referring to Malcolm X’s family, the lawsuit states: “They did not know who murdered Malcolm X, why he was murdered, the level of NYPD, FBI and CIA orchestration, the identity of the governmental agents who conspired to ensure his demise, or who fraudulently covered up their role.”