Tag Archives : Build House

To protect abortion, we must expand the court

The extreme right-wing majority of the Supreme Court made clear our most fundamental rights under attack. Congress has the ability to stop the court from imposing their minority views on the entire country. 

Our job as members of Congress is to serve the people — and the majority of people in this country regardless of political affiliation or state of residence want to protect a woman’s access to an abortion. Democrats were elected to lead, and this moment calls for bold leadership in the face of an unprecedented attack on our rights. 

When Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion for Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization leaked in May, showing the court was on the verge of overturning Roe v. Wadeand eliminating a federal right to access an abortion, we each decided that expansion of the court was a necessary response to this roll-back of long established rights. 

I practiced as a lawyer early in my career and I believe deeply in the power of our legal system to better people’s lives. This is not an op-ed I anticipated writing — or a decision I came to lightly. But unfortunately, the Supreme Court I studied in law school — one that respects precedent and makes decisions based on the rule of law — is not the Supreme Court we have today.

We face a court whose balance was tipped by a blatant Republican power grab by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). McConnell created new rules out of thin air and ran-over long-held Senate precedent for the nomination, consideration, and confirmation of a Supreme Court justice. Plain and simple, he stole a seat. His decision to bypass the need for bipartisan support allowed him to seat two more extreme and politically motivated justices. These moves were fueled by the influence of hyperpartisan donors, determined to overturn long-held rights and implement Republican policy to favor powerful but minority interests. 

That’s why I am part of a group of 13 California Democrats in Congress calling for court expansion. We believe this is now necessary to support not just the right to a legal abortion, but to protect a host of fundamental rights that are at stake under this court. 

Elected officials across the country are speaking up in support of abortion access — in Red states and Blue states and at every level of government. The momentum and energy is undeniable. Standing up and speaking out is not enough. The Supreme Court decision made clear just how hostile the extreme conservative justices are to our fundamental rights. Protecting abortion access requires at least three steps:

First, we must eliminate the filibuster. That’s step one. We need to pass two essential pieces of legislation, and we should be able to do this with a simple majority.

Second, we must enshrine in law a national right to abortion. The majority of Americans support legal abortion. This would simply represent the will of the majority of the people.

We can’t stop there, though. Not when we’ve got a Supreme Court ready to do whatever it takes — including shredding 50 years of precedent and calling for forced pregnancy — to get rid of Roe. What’s to stop them from overturning the very law we’ve just passed in pursuit of their ultimate goal?

That’s why the third step is essential: Pass the Judiciary Act and expand the Court. This legislation, boldly spearheaded by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Reps. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) and Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.), would restore balance and integrity to the Supreme Court. Without this step, the current extreme conservative court will continue to impose its minority viewpoint and ideological agenda on America. 

Some of our constituents may wonder — do we really need all of these steps when abortion will always be legal in California? A few months ago many thought Roewould never be overturned. Look where we are now.

Republicans have already made clear that next time they have control of the government, they will pass a national abortion ban. But even before that, it will be harder for Californians to access an abortion when our clinics are beyond capacity because we are one of the few safe states left — not to mention that access is already limited for too many in our state. Lives and futures are at stake — and our window to take action is right now. 

Our state prides itself on leading a progressive vision for this country — it’s why we are so proud to represent Californians in Congress. But that means we care about people everywhere, not just in our own state. 

The three steps are clear. And that’s why I’m proud to be among the 60 members of Congress who support court expansion. It’s time to lead. 

Barragán represents California’s 44th District.

Source: TEST FEED1

GOP-controlled states sue over LGBT- inclusive policy to get school lunch funds

Twenty-two states sued the Biden administration over a rule that would cut federal meal funding for schools that don’t include LGBT friendly policies.

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita and Tennessee Attorney General Herbert H. Slatery III lead the law suit, arguing that the guidelines are unlawful, in part because they are “based on a misapplication of U.S. Supreme Court precedents,” according to an Indiana AG office press release Tuesday. 

“We all know the Biden administration is dead-set on imposing an extreme left-wing agenda on Americans nationwide. But they’ve reached a new level of shamelessness with this ploy of holding up food assistance for low-income kids unless schools do the Left’s bidding,” Rokita said, according to the release.

The 22 states that signed on to the case include: Tennessee, Indiana, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), named as a defendant in the suit, announced in May that K-12 schools and other qualifying organizations would need to update their policies to include LGBT protections in order to receive funding from the Food and Nutrition Service. The rule is part of a Biden administration initiative to combat discrimination against LGBTQ+ students.

“Whether you are grocery shopping, standing in line at the school cafeteria, or picking up food from a food bank, you should be able to do so without fear of discrimination,” said Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services Deputy Under Secretary Stacy Dean in a May 5 statement announcing the USDA’s effort.

Allegations of discrimination on the basis of gender and sexual orientation must be investigated, and non-discrimination policies must be updated to include gender and sexual orientation protections, according to the administration.

The lawsuit accuses Biden of asking federal agencies to rewrite federal law and alleges the USDA ignored procedural requirements and misconstrued the law in issuing its directives.

A press release from Slatery’s office says the USDA misinterpreted the Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which protects employees against discrimination for being gay or transgender.

Rokita’s office contends that the initiative “will inevitably result in regulatory chaos that threatens essential nutritional services.” 

Rokita garnered national attention after he accused an Indiana doctor who performed an abortion on a 10-year-old rape victim of failing to report the procedure.

The doctor, who records show filed the report correctly, is now suing Rokita for damages.

The Hill has reached out to the USDA for comment.

Source: TEST FEED1

Lawmakers ask watchdog to step aside from probe into 'erased' Secret Service texts

Lawmakers are asking the inspector general at the Department of Homeland Security to step aside from an ongoing investigation into “erased” text messages at the Secret Service. 

Inspector General Joseph Cuffari notified Congress earlier this month that text messages from the agency on Jan. 5 and 6 appeared to have been erased as part of a device replacement program – leaving lawmakers peeved he waited months to alert them.

“We are writing to express our grave concerns with Inspector General Cuffari’s failure to promptly notify Congress of crucial information while conducting an investigation of the Secret Service’s preparation for and response to the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol,” House Homeland Security Chair Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and House Oversight Chair Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) wrote in a letter. 

“These omissions left Congress in the dark about key developments in this investigation and may have cost investigators precious time to capture relevant evidence,” the wrote.

“Inspector General Cuffari’s actions in this matter, which follow other troubling reports about his conduct as Inspector General, cast serious doubt on his independence and his ability to effectively conduct such an important investigation. In light of these serious failures, we request that Inspector General Cuffari step aside from the ongoing investigation into the Secret Service’s erasure of text messages,” the two lawmakers wrote.

It’s a remarkable request as inspectors general are expected to impartially review matters at the agencies they help hold accountable. The lawmakers ask that the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency appoint a different inspector general to conduct the investigation.

The letter alleges that Cuffari has known since December that messages sent and received by the Secret Service for that time period were no longer available.

“Yet, Inspector General Cuffari took no steps to inform Congress of this serious and flagrant violation of federal records laws,” they wrote.

Source: TEST FEED1

American workers are retiring later and later

READ MORE STORIES FROM CHANGING AMERICA

LIZZO REMOVES ‘HARMFUL WORD’ FROM SONG: ‘I NEVER WANT TO PROMOTE DEROGATORY LANGUAGE’

MAYE MUSK FEATURED ON SI SWIMSUIT COVER AT 74

PAUL AS FRODO: THE BEATLES WANTED TO MAKE ‘THE LORD OF THE RINGS’ MOVIE, DIRECTOR PETER JACKSON REVEALS

‘HAMILTON’ STAR LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA FIRES BACK AT CANCEL CULTURE

Source: TEST FEED1

We need all hands on deck to preserve US civil rights

There was a sense of urgency in the air during this year’s National Urban League annual conference. The pandemic, the ongoing murders of Black Americans post-George Floyd and a constant assault on democratic values, voting rights and reproductive freedom have put civil rights on notice.  

Despite this, we have also made great strides. The recent swearing-in of Ketanji Brown Jackson as the first Black woman Supreme Court justice increased Black representation in leadership positions and a robust White House commitment to advance Black equity and opportunity gives us reason to believe that momentum is building.   

It’s critical that we expand how we talk about our work. The National Urban League has been dedicated to racial justice for more than a century and as we look to the road ahead, the work to end racial inequities must also include restoring and advancing the rights of women and other marginalized groups.  

The challenges we face are larger than any one locality or interest group. They are more than the public or private sectors can solve on their own. We must take a collaborative and intersectional approach if we’re to bend the arc of the moral universe towards justice and equity. 

As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. so aptly put it, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality.” 

Indeed, we must come together to drive away racist legacies and open the doors of opportunity to all Americans. We’ve seen how this model can work.  

The legacy of Whitney M. Young Jr., who served as executive director of the Urban League in the early 1960s during a pivotal time for racial equity in the U.S., is an example. One of the things he was best known for was his ability to bridge ideas and connect people. Young brought together business leaders and Black activists and was known for breaking down barriers between different factions and driving meaningful progress. 

There’s a lot we can learn from Young’s approach. By being able to reach across aisles regardless of people’s backgrounds, socioeconomic classes and titles, we can take Young’s lead and draw from our collective, inherent human dignity as the thing that binds us. It is only when we can see the humanity in one another regardless of who we are or what we believe that we will be able to push the needle toward a more equitable future.  

Growing up in New Orleans, one of us saw the pernicious effects of a racially unequal city firsthand. That influence resonated years later, as the mayor of the city. It sparked a commitment to addressing those inequities and successful strides were made in reducing crime while reforming the police department, as well as helping to elect the first African American judge in Louisiana. Serving as mayor of a racially diverse city brought an intimate understanding of how it is only through collaboration that meaningful and substantive change can be created.  

As a leader in the business sector, the other has seen firsthand how diverse entities coming together can drive meaningful, inclusive change. In New Orleans, Mastercard and members of the philanthropic and business communities came together to launch initiatives and tools that offer financial inclusion, access to emergency disbursements and incentives to drive economic growth, empower underbanked residents and provide better access to city services. Mastercard has been a longtime sponsor of the Urban League, most recently through a partnership with the Mastercard Center for Inclusive Growth geared toward entrepreneurial and workforce development as part of the brand’s In Solidarity initiative to close the racial wealth and opportunity gap.  

It is this combination of ambition and action, and of public and private sectors working together, that will move the needle on equity. If a man like Young during the heat of civil rights in the 60s and a city like New Orleans can do it, every person and locality across America can. 

When the National Urban League opened its doors more than a century ago, America looked a bit different than it does today. There were more carriages than cars, women couldn’t vote, interracial marriage would remain illegal for decades longer and segregation was enshrined in the law. Six decades ago, when Dr. King made his famous “I Have a Dream” speech, our great nation was struggling to find its identity as a racially diverse democracy, one where the voices of Black leaders, as well as women, LGBTQ people and others were just starting to break through to mainstream visibility and advocacy. In the years since we have made tremendous progress, but we still have not realized an America that works for everyone.  

The moment that’s before us is one that requires our full force and our shared commitment. It’s our time to build on Dr. King’s legacy with collaboration and stubborn persistence. We must harness the momentum and continue to push forward to make Dr. King’s dream a full-fledged lived reality.  

That is not ever an easy thing to do. Nor does it always feel good. But it’s the necessary thing to do if we’re to have a future as the United States.

Marc H, Morial is the president and CEO of the National Urban League. Tim Murphy has served as chair of the board of the National Urban League since 2019 and is the chief administrative officer of Mastercard. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Schumer says he will back Biden if he runs in 2024

Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) says he will support President Biden for reelection in 2024 if the 79-year-old runs for a second term, which some Democrats and analysts say is becoming more of an open question.  

Schumer said Biden has his full support but stopped short of declaring his confidence that Biden will wage a reelection bid.  

“I have said if he runs, I’ll support him,” Schumer told reporters when asked whether Biden should run for a second term.  

Biden’s viability as a candidate in 2024 has come under growing scrutiny as his job approval rating remains mired at around 40 percent. 

A New York Times-Siena College poll released earlier this month found that voters nationwide gave him a paltry 33 percent job approval rating and that 64 percent of Democrats said they would prefer to have another nominee in the next election cycle.  

The same poll found that 94 percent of Democrats under the age of 30 said they wanted to have a different presidential nominee in 2024.  

No Senate Democrats, however, have called on Biden not to run for another four years in office.  

Biden has said he plans to run again if he remains in good health.  

The president is recovering this week after being diagnosed with COVID-19. The White House doctor said Monday that Biden’s symptoms “have now almost completely resolved.” 

A new University of New Hampshire Survey Center Granite State Poll found that 17 percent of likely 2024 Democratic primary voters in the state would support Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg for the Democratic nomination, while 16 percent said they would back Biden. 

New Hampshire traditionally hosts the first primary of the presidential election cycle following the Iowa caucuses.  

Source: TEST FEED1

Fitness trackers boost daily step counts, promote weight loss: study

Wearing fitness trackers increases time spent walking each day, leading to other health improvements, according to a recent study.  

Researchers from the University of South Australia reviewed nearly 400 studies involving more than 140,000 participants who wore fitness trackers to monitor their activities and the impact on their health. 

The team found that those who wore the devices walked on average 40 minutes more per day, while losing 2.2 pounds over five months.  

“The overall results from the studies we reviewed shows that wearable activity trackers are effective across all age groups and for long periods of time,” lead researcher Ty Ferguson said in a news release.  

“They encourage people to exercise on a regular basis, to make it part of their routine and to set goals to lose weight.” 

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news. 

Study co-author Carol Maher noted although the researchers neither found nor expected “dramatic weight loss,” the findings were significant. 

“The average person gains about 0.5 kg (1.1 pounds) a year in weight creep so losing 1kg (2.2 pounds) over five months is significant, especially when you consider that two thirds of Australians are overweight or obese.” 

More than 40 percent of U.S. adults 20 and over are classified as obese, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

The current study shows the devices’ effect on blood pressure, cholesterol, and quality of life issues like pain were “typically small and often non-significant.” Yet researchers found positive impacts on mental health. 

“The other reported benefit is that WATs improved depression and anxiety through an increase in physical activity,” Ferguson concluded. 

READ MORE STORIES FROM CHANGING AMERICA 

DEPRESSION IS LIKELY NOT CAUSED BY A CHEMICAL IMBALANCE IN THE BRAIN, STUDY SAYS 

EXERCISING MORE THAN RECOMMENDED COULD PROLONG YOUR LIFE: STUDY 

AROUND HALF OF OLDER AMERICANS CAN’T AFFORD ESSENTIAL EXPENSES: REPORT 

WEAK GRIP COULD BE SIGN OF UNDERLYING HEALTH ISSUES, STUDY FINDS 

WHY PUT SOLAR PANELS ON THE SURFACE OF WATER? 

Source: TEST FEED1

Toomey, Sinema eye exempting small crypto purchases from capital gains tax

Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) introduced legislation on Tuesday that would exempt small crypto purchases from a capital gains tax.

The pair of lawmakers introduced a bill that would offer an exemption for personal transactions using cryptocurrency of less than $50 or personal transactions that have gains of under $50 from being subject to a capital gains tax.

The legislation would encourage people to use cryptocurrency for small trades and transactions without worrying about being subject to typical taxation requirements.

Transactions that use cryptocurrency can be taxed, according to the IRS’s website, which notes that “taxpayers transacting in virtual currency may have to report those transactions on their tax returns.”

If the digital assets used in a transaction saw an increase in valuation, that person would currently be subject to a capital gains tax. 

“The Virtual Currency Tax Fairness Act will allow Americans to use cryptocurrencies more easily as an everyday method of payment by exempting from taxes small personal transactions like buying a cup of coffee,” Toomey said in a statement. 

“We’re protecting Arizonans from surprise taxes on everyday digital payments, so as use of digital currencies increases, Arizonans can keep more of their own money in their pockets and continue to thrive,” Sinema said in a statement. 

The legislation comes amid growing interest in the cryptocurrency market, though it has been known to be very volatile among investors. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Manchin and the Supreme Court told Biden to modernize regulatory review — will he listen?

The Biden administration’s path forward on climate change — as the widely deployed metaphor goes — has become more difficult with the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in West Virginia vs. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Sen. Joe Manchin’s (D-W.Va.) apparent veto of a reconciliation package that contains climate measures. If the Biden administration is to successfully navigate that path — and it must if we are to avert the worst consequences of the climate crisis — the president will need to abandon the “compass” that his predecessors have relied on for decades to guide their policy agenda: Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review.

First issued in 1994, the executive order empowers a small White House bureau called the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to review and approve agencies’ biggest or most controversial rules. The order further requires OIRA to evaluate those rules using a methodology called “cost-benefit analysis,” which is highly biased against protective safeguards and provides convenient cover for politicized interference in agency decision-making.

Fortunately, President Joe Biden seemed to recognize early on that Executive Order 12866 presented an unnecessary obstacle to the realization of his administration’s policy goals. On the first day of his administration, Biden also issued a memo on “Modernizing Regulatory Review,” which called for changes that would make regulatory review and analysis supportive of stronger safeguards. The memo also acknowledged the need to depoliticize the review process and make regulatory analysis more attentive to social justice.

But in the 18 months since, the Biden administration has not taken any steps to implement these changes. The recent setbacks to the administration’s climate agenda from the Supreme Court and Manchin should force a rethink on this neglect. Crucially, progressive reforms to the regulatory process would directly answer the core challenges those setbacks present.

In West Virginia vs. EPA, the Supreme Court’s six conservative members invoked the newly minted “major questions doctrine” in striking down an Obama administration-era rule to limit greenhouse gas emissions from fossil-fueled plants. This doctrine holds that if an agency wishes to undertake a novel approach to policymaking that might have significant economic or political implications, then it must be prepared to point to clear and specific legislative authority supporting that action. As such, it would seem to cast a dark shadow over the Biden administration’s use of regulations to address climate change.

Significantly, the rule that was struck down — President Obama’s Clean Power Plan — was exactly the kind of rule that Executive Order 12866 sought to promote. It pushed agencies to stretch their statutory authorities to find the most “economically efficient” (though not the most effective) regulatory solutions. In contrast, a modernized approach to regulatory review would eschew the order’s efficiency straitjacket, empowering the Biden administration to take a more direct and effective approach to regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, even if that approach is more costly than other options.

For instance, Executive Order 12866 is likely what discouraged the Obama administration from considering using that law’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards program, which would have been more effective and on more solid legal ground.

Meanwhile, Manchin all but sounded the death knell for a meaningful legislative solution to the climate crisis when he pulled the plug on negotiations over the Democrats’ reconciliation package. Faced with the stark reality that the current Congress has abdicated its constitutional duty to address the single greatest threat to “the general Welfare” and to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity” by failing to enact new climate legislation, the Biden administration must now step up and do the best it can with the legal authorities that earlier, more functional Congresses saw fit to provide.

In short, the administration must dedicate the next two years to advancing as much climate policy through executive action as it possibly can. The current regulatory review process has nothing of value to offer to a strategy built on the pillars of urgency and decisiveness. A modernized approach, however, would be designed to promote effective action and build public support for it in the face of a reactionary federal judiciary.

As a candidate, Biden championed a strong climate agenda, recognizing that realizing that agenda’s ambitious goals would never be easy, even under ideal circumstances. The circumstances the administration now finds itself in are far from ideal. As it seeks to chart a new path ahead on these goals, the administration must seek out all available opportunities to rebuild our system of governance so that it works for it rather than against it — and critically, that includes the imperative of modernized regulatory review.

James Goodwin is a senior policy analyst at the Center for Progressive Reform and a widely known expert in regulatory reform.

Source: TEST FEED1

McConnell won’t comment on bill protecting gay marriage until it reaches floor

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) won’t say whether he will support bipartisan House-passed legislation to require states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states until the bill comes to the Senate floor.  

The legislation passed the House with the support of 47 Republicans but it doesn’t yet have the support of 10 Republican senators.  

McConnell, when asked about the legislation Tuesday, said he’s waiting until it comes to the floor before announcing whether he would vote for it. 

“I’m not going to make an observation about that until the issue is actually brought up in the Senate,” he said.  

While some Senate Republicans have already vowed to vote against the legislation, others are keeping quiet about the bill until it is closer to receiving a scheduled vote. 

Sens. Roy Blunt (R-Iowa), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who are viewed as potential “yes” votes, declined to say Tuesday whether they will support the legislation.  

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) told reporters Tuesday that the legislation would likely not have the votes to pass this week in part because colleagues expected to vote for it, including Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), are absent after testing positive for COVID-19.

Source: TEST FEED1