#Sen. Cory Booker (D–N.J.).

[coochiequeens]

No one is entitled to biological offspring and how can they include surrogacy in the Act without implying that couples are entitled to women to be surrogates?

A trio of Democratic senators are introducing a "Right to IVF Act" that would, among other things, force private health insurance plans to cover assisted reproduction treatments such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), egg freezing, and gestational surrogacy.

The measure provides no exception or accommodations for religious objections, all but ensuring massive legal battles over the mandate should it pass.

The "sweeping legislative package" (as the senators describe it) combines several existing pieces of legislation, including the Access to Family Building Act and the Family Building Federal Employees Health Benefit Fairness Act sponsored by Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D–Ill.), the Veteran Families Health Services Act from Sen. Patty Murray (D–Wash.), and the Access to Infertility Treatment and Care Act from Sen. Cory Booker (D–N.J.).

Booker's contribution here is probably the most controversial. It requires coverage for assisted reproduction from any health care plan that covers obstetric services.

A Reverse Contraception Mandate

Remember the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate, which required private health insurance plans to cover birth control (allegedly) at no cost to plan participants? It spawned some big legal battles over the rights of religious employers and institutions not to offer staff health plans that included birth control coverage.

Booker's Access to Infertility Treatment and Care Act is a lot like the Obamacare contraception mandate, except instead of requiring health care plans to cover the costs of avoiding pregnancy it would require them to cover treatments to help people become pregnant.

The bill states that all group health plans or health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance must cover assisted reproduction and fertility preservation treatments if they cover any obstetric services. It defines assisted reproductive technology as "treatments or procedures that involve the handling of human egg, sperm, and embryo outside of the body with the intent of facilitating a pregnancy, including in vitro fertilization, egg, embryo, or sperm cryopreservation, egg or embryo donation, and gestational surrogacy."

Health insurance plans could only require participant cost-sharing (in the form of co-pays, deductibles, etc.) for such services to the same extent that they require cost-sharing for similar services.

What Could Go Wrong?

It seems like it should go without saying by now but there is no such thing as government-mandated healthcare savings. Authorities can order health care plans to cover IVF (or contraception or whatever) and cap point-of-service costs for plan participants, but health insurers will inevitably pass these costs on to consumers in other ways—leading to higher insurance premiums overall or other health care cost increases.

Yes, IVF and other fertility procedures are expensive. But a mandate like this could actually risk raising IVF costs.

When a lot of people are paying out of pocket for fertility treatments, medical professionals have an incentive to keep costs affordable in order to attract patients. If everyone's insurance covers IVF and patients needn't bother with comparing costs or weighing costs versus benefits, there's nothing to stop medical providers from raising prices greatly. We'll see the same cost inflation we've seen in other sectors of the U.S. healthcare marketplace—a situation that not only balloons health care spending generally (and gets passed on to consumers one way or another) but makes fertility treatments out of reach for people who don't have insurance that covers such treatments.

Raising costs isn't the only issue here, of course. There's the matter of more government intervention in private markets (something some of us are still wild-eyed enough to oppose!).

Offering employee health care plans that cover IVF could be a good selling point for recruiting potential employees or keeping existing employees happy. But there's no reason that every employer should have to do so, just because lawmakers want IVF to be more accessible.

It's unfair to employers—big or small, religious or non-religious—to say they all must take on the costs of offering health care plans that cover pricey fertility treatments. And Booker's bill contains no exceptions for small businesses or for entities with religious or ethical objections.

A lot of religious people are morally opposed to things like IVF and surrogacy. This measure would force religious employers to subsidize and tacitly condone these things if they wanted to offer employees health care plans with any obstetrics coverage at all.

As with any government intervention in free markets, there's the possibility that this fertility treatment mandate would distort incentives. IVF can certainly be an invaluable tool for folks experiencing infertility. But it's also very expensive and very taxing—emotionally and physically—for the women undergoing it, with far from universal success rates. The new mandate could encourage people who may not be good candidates for IVF to keep trying it, perhaps nudging them away from other options (like adoption) that might be better suited to their circumstances.

'Access' Vs. Whatever This Is

Since Roe v. Wade was overturned, many Americans have worried that the legal regime change would pave the way for outlawing things like contraception or IVF, too. Encoding into law (or legal precedent) the idea that fertilized eggs are people could have negative implications for these things, even if many conservative politicians pledge (and demonstrate) that IVF and birth control are safe. In response, some progressive politicians—perhaps genuinely concerned, perhaps sensing political opportunity (or why not both?)—have started talking a lot about the need to protect access to IVF across the country.

As much as I agree with this goal, I think IVF's legality is better off as a state-by-state matter. That said, the "protect IVF nationwide" impulse wouldn't be so bad if "protecting access" simply meant making sure that the procedure was legal.

But as we've seen again and again over the past couple decades, Democrats tend to define health care and medicine "access" differently.

The new Right to IVF Act would establish a national right to provide or receive assisted reproduction services. In their press release, the senators say this last bit would "pre-empt any state effort to limit such access and ensur[e] no hopeful parent—or their doctors—are punished for trying to start or grow a family." OK.

But that's not all it would do. The bill's text states that "an individual has a statutory right under this Act, including without prohibition or unreasonable limitation or interference (such as due to financial cost or detriment to the individual's health, including mental health), to—(A) access assisted reproductive technology; (B) continue or complete an ongoing assisted reproductive technology treatment or procedure pursuant to a written plan or agreement with a health care provider; and (C) retain all rights regarding the use or disposition of reproductive genetic materials, including gametes."

Note that bit about financial cost. It's kind of confusingly worded and it's unclear exactly what that would mean in practice. But it could give the government leeway to directly intervene if they think IVF is broadly unaffordable or to place more demands on individual health care facilities, providers, insurance plans, etc., to help cover the costs of IVF for people whom it would otherwise be financially out of reach.

This is the distilled essence of how Democrats go too far on issues like this. They're not content to say "People shouldn't be punished for utilizing/offering IVF" or that the practice shouldn't be illegal. They look at authoritarian or overreaching possibilities from the other side (like banning or criminalizing IVF) and respond with overreaching proposals of their own.

The proble with increasing access to IVF is what happens when the couple needs a surrogate to have biological offspring? Will they beg and pester the women in their lives? Will the affordable IVF compensate surrogates fairly?

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Phillip Jackson at HuffPost:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) introduced a bill Wednesday that would give federal and state officials more power to hold police departments accused of bad behavior to account. The Enhancing Oversight to End Discrimination in Policing Act, led by Warren and in the House by Rep. Marilyn Strickland (D-Wash.), would strengthen the power of state attorneys general to launch investigations into police departments involved in civil rights violations if the Justice Department fails to act on them. The bill would also task the Justice Department with looking beyond “traditional law enforcement mechanisms” when providing reforms to selective police departments such as mental health support, civilian oversight bodies, and community-based restorative justice programs, according to Warren’s office.

Warren had introduced a version of the bill in 2020. This newest version of the measure would also revitalize the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, granting an increase in funding to pursue civil rights investigations into police departments and other government offices accused of discriminatory practices. It would increase funding for the civil rights division to $445 million per year over a 10-year period. (For scale, the 2023 budget for the division was $189.9 million.)

Warren first introduced her bill following the death of George Floyd in 2020. That earlier draft also called for Attorney General Merrick Garland to rescind a 2017 memorandum from his predecessor, Trump-era Attorney General Jeff Sessions, that limited the DOJ’s ability to initiate consent decrees on police departments — a key way of stopping bad behavior. (Garland rescinded that memorandum in April of 2021.)

Nine senators co-sponsored the bill: Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii). Several civil rights organizations are backing Warren’s new bill, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the National Urban League and others.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and 9 other co-sponsors in the Senate are supporting the Enhancing Oversight to End Discrimination in Policing Act to strengthen police accountability. Rep. Marilyn Strickland (D-WA) is pushing this in the House.

[democracyunderground]

A group of Democratic senators introduced a bill Thursday that would radically change the makeup of the Supreme Court, amid ongoing concerns over court ethics and its increasingly conservative makeup.

The legislation would appoint a new Supreme Court justice every two years, with that justice hearing every case for 18 years before stepping back from the bench and only hearing a “small number of constitutionally required cases.”

“The Supreme Court is facing a crisis of legitimacy that is exacerbated by radical decisions at odds with established legal precedent, ethical lapses of sitting justices, and politicization of the confirmation process,” Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said in a statement.

“This crisis has eroded faith and confidence in our nation’s highest court. Fundamental reform is necessary to address this crisis and restore trust in the institution.”

Only the nine most recently appointed justices would hear appellate cases, which make up a bulk of the court’s work. All living justices would participate in a smaller subset of cases under the court’s “original jurisdiction,” such as disputes between states or with foreign officials.

The bill was introduced by Sens. Booker, Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), and it was co-sponsored by Sens. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii).

Calls for Supreme Court reform grew louder this year after ProPublica revealed that Justice Clarence Thomas received hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of perks from conservative political donors. Further investigations have uncovered multiple significant and undisclosed gifts from politically connected friends over his time as a federal judge.

Justice Samuel Alito also took a luxury vacation paid for by an influential conservative donor while in the judiciary, another investigation found earlier this year.

The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced a bill earlier this year along party lines that would require the Supreme Court to create and abide by a code of ethics. Unlike lower courts, Supreme Court judges are not beholden to an official ethics code.

“An organized scheme by right-wing special interests to capture and control the Supreme Court, aided by gobs of billionaire dark money flowing through the confirmation process and judicial lobbying, has resulted in an unaccountable Court out of step with the American people,” Whitehouse said in a statement.

“Term limits and biennial appointments would make the Court more representative of the public and lower the stakes of each justice’s appointment, while preserving constitutional protections for judicial independence.

“As Congress considers multiple options to restore the integrity of this scandal-plagued Court, our term limits bill should be front and center as a potential solution,” he added.

Attempts to reform the Supreme Court have been denounced by both Republicans in Congress and by some members of the court, namely Thomas and Alito.

Alito argued earlier this year that Congress does not have the authority to force any reform on the court without a constitutional amendment.

“I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it,” Alito told The Wall Street Journal. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”

But Whitehouse’s office argued in Wednesday’s statement that the Constitution allows Congress to regulate how the court handles appellate cases from lower courts. That’s why all justices would still weigh in on “original jurisdiction” cases, avoiding the constitutional hang-up.

Trust in the Supreme Court remains near all-time lows, according to national opinion polling. A Gallup poll last month found that just 41 percent of Americans approve of how the Supreme Court is doing its job, with 58 percent disapproving.

[fenrislorsrai]

The Biden administration has previously said it wants all of the nation’s roughly 9 million lead pipes to be removed, and rapidly. Lead pipes connect water mains in the street to homes and are typically the biggest source of lead in drinking water. They are most common in older, industrial parts of the country. Lead crises have hit poorer, majority-Black cities like Flint especially hard, propelling the risks of lead in drinking water into the national consciousness. Their impact reaches beyond public health. After the crises, tap water use declined nationally, especially among Black and Hispanic people. The Biden administration says investment is vital to fix this injustice and ensure everyone has safe, lead-free drinking water. “We’re trying to right a longstanding wrong here,” said Radhika Fox, head of the EPA Office of Water. “We’re bending the arc towards equity and justice on this legacy issue.” Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., and Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., representing states that have faced lead crises, agreed in a joint statement, citing both the new rule and the Biden administration’s infrastructure investments. “We can make a lead-free future a reality for all, no matter the color or their skin or their zip code,” it said. The proposal, called the lead and copper rule improvements, would for the first time require utilities to replace lead pipes even if their lead levels aren’t too high. Most cities have not been forced to replace their lead pipes and many don’t even know where they are. There are some exceptions to the 10 year lead pipe replacement deadline. A few cities like Chicago with lots of lead pipes may get longer. Water utilities with dense networks of lead pipes — as many as 2,000 of them — could also get more than 10 years, the proposal says. The push to reduce lead in tap water is part of a broader federal effort to combat lead exposure that includes proposed stricter limits on dust from lead-based paint in older homes and child-care facilities and a goal to eliminate lead in aviation fuel. The EPA enacted the first comprehensive lead in drinking water regulations in 1991. Those have significantly helped reduce lead levels, but experts have said they left loopholes that keep lead levels too high and lax enforcement allows cities to ignore the problem.

overall estimate is $30B over ten years. that's nothing. I expect this was also fall under Justice 40 rules via HUD's Lead Hazard Reduction and Healthy Homes Grants. So that means 40% of the program money should go towards the most disadvantaged census tracts. and this should speed up the timeline AND put more money into it.

[follow-up-news]

Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., has told allies that he will resign from Congress after being convicted on federal corruption charges, two people directly familiar with those conversations tell NBC News. Menendez, who had been defiant for months in the face of calls from dozens of Senate Democrats to resign, appears to have finally relented after the guilty verdict and growing threats to expel him if he refused. His announcement would end a three-decade career in Congress that included a powerful committee chairmanship, writing major legislation and two criminal trials over allegations of corruption. Among those who urged him to resign were Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; and Menendez's friend and fellow New Jersey Democratic senator, Cory Booker. “In light of this guilty verdict, Senator Menendez must now do what is right for his constituents, the Senate, and our country, and resign,” Schumer said in a statement after Menendez's latest corruption trial ended in guilty verdicts. The senator was convicted Tuesday on 16 federal counts related to using the power of his official position to enrich three New Jersey businessmen and benefit the Egyptian and Qatari governments. In exchange, the couple received lavish bribes, including “cash, gold bars, payments toward a home mortgage, compensation for a low-or-no-show job, a luxury vehicle and other items of value,” prosecutors said.

[bllsbailey]

Here Are the Dem Senators Who Voted Against the Laken Riley Act

It’s a commonsense law, but some Democrats still like slobbering over illegal aliens who are raping, killing, and stealing from our citizens. Joe Biden’s open border policies have created havoc nationwide as the scum of the Earth has trickled in, terrorizing communities. We’re going to get these people out. Every federal resource will and should be allocated to finding and deporting these people. No price tag’s too high—this is a national security priority. Find the illegal and boot the illegal. Adios. 

One way to ensnare criminal aliens is to make sure federal immigration officers do it. The Laken Riley Act requires such officials to detain any illegal alien busted on theft charges. The law is named after the Georgia nursing student who was murdered while out on a run in February. She was killed by an illegal, José Antonio Ibarra, who should have been detained after getting arrested for shoplifting. The law has climbed the first legislative hurdle, surpassing the 60-vote threshold for cloture. The law advanced on an 84-9 vote. Here are the Democrats who voted ‘no’ (via Fox News): 

The Laken Riley Act defeated the legislative filibuster during a procedural vote on Thursday, amassing more than 60 votes to advance it to a final vote.   The measure sailed past the filibuster by a margin of 84-9. Democrats who voted against it were Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Andy Kim, D-N.J., Ed Markey, D-Mass., Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, Tina Smith, D-Minn., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.  The immigration bill was quickly re-introduced in the new Congress by Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., in the Senate and Rep. Mike Collins, R-Ga., in the House once the new Congress began.  "Today’s vote on the Laken Riley Act is an important step forward in making our country safer, but there’s still more work to be done to get this commonsense legislation across the finish line," Britt said in a statement after the vote.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) announced he’d vote to advance the bill, with Sen. John Fetterman (D-NY) co-sponsoring the legislation. The Pennsylvania Democrat warned that if several Democrats couldn’t see how this law is reasonable, it would be another reminder of why his side lost the 2024 elections.  

The law sailed through the House, with 48 Democrats joining Republicans to send this to the Senate, but a staggering number of liberals still support illegal alien mayhem:

Trending on Townhall Videos

[pscottm]

Senate Republicans block legislation to codify IVF access

Legislation to establish a national right to in vitro fertilization (IVF) was blocked by Senate Republicans on Thursday, amid a push by Democrats to put the GOP on defense over reproductive rights ahead of the November elections. 

The bill needed 60 votes in order to move forward, meaning nine Republicans would have needed to break ranks and vote with Democrats. The final vote was 48-47, with only two Republicans defecting: Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska).

The Right to IVF Act, sponsored by Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.), is a package of four bills that would both establish a nationwide right to IVF and other assisted reproductive technology, as well as lower the costs of IVF treatment to make it more accessible.  

The vote Thursday is the latest in a series set up by Senate Democratic leadership about codifying reproductive rights. 

[msclaritea]

33 Senate Democrats join Republicans to block DC crime bill | The Hill

Senators on Wednesday overwhelmingly voted to block the District of Columbia’s updated criminal code from becoming law, marking the first time in more than three decades that a D.C.-passed bill has been nixed by Congress and the White House. 

The Senate advanced the resolution, 81-14, with 33 Democrats voting alongside every Republican and Independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.). 

Senate Democrats of all stripes joined with the GOP, including some of the party’s leadership. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) both backed the resolution.

Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.), the No. 2 Democrat in the upper chamber, however, split with Schumer to vote “no.”

Unsurprisingly, the most vulnerable Senate Democrats up for reelection in 2024, headlined by Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Jon Tester (Mont.) and Sherrod Brown (Ohio), all supported the resolution.

Fourteen senators who caucus with the Democrats voted against the measure: Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Durbin. 

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) voted present. Sens. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Tom Carper (D-Del.) and James Risch (R-Idaho) were absent.

The Senate Democrats had political cover to vote “yes” after President Biden told them last week he would not veto the resolution if it reached his desk — reversing a statement of administration policy backing Washington, D.C., home rule prior to the House vote last month.

The House passed the resolution to block the crime bill on a 250 to 173 vote, with 31 Democrats voting with all Republicans.

The D.C. City Council passed its crime bill unanimously in January and overrode a veto by Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) in February, 12-1. 

It has been the subject of intense criticism from Republicans and some Democrats for some provisions, such as the lower penalties for a number of violent crimes, including robberies and carjackings. 

“Carjackings and car thefts have become a daily routine. Homicides are racking up at a rate of four per week,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said during a speech on the Senate floor on Wednesday. “This is our capital city. But local politicians have let its streets become a danger and an embarrassment.”

In his tweet last week announcing his decision, Biden specifically mentioned sentences for carjackings as a reason. According to the Metropolitan Police Department, there have been 101 carjackings across the District this year alone, roughly the same as the 106 reported by this point last year. Half have involved juveniles. Twenty-two of this calendar year’s cases have been closed, and 14 people have been arrested on related charges. 

“I just think it needs more work,” Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) told reporters of the D.C. bill, citing the mayor’s veto of the bill earlier this year. 

But the 180-degree turn by the administration has infuriated some House Democrats who have complained that the White House put them in a bad spot. 

It also handed House Republicans a gift on the messaging side, as the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) launched an ad campaign against 15 Democrats who voted against doing away with the crime bill. 

“Forget safe streets and neighborhoods — House Democrats remain more concerned with promoting policies that appease violent criminals,” Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), the NRCC’s chairman, said in a statement. “This is just a preview of how these extremist House Democrats will be held accountable for coddling criminals all cycle long.”

The crime bill has also been criticized for other reasons, including that it would increase the number of jury trials for misdemeanor offenses. Sen. Angus King (I-Maine.) who voted for the resolution blocking the bill, told The Hill earlier in the week that there’s not “enough jurors in the world to do that.”

D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson on Monday attempted to withdraw the bill and keep it from being brought up for a vote. However, the Home Rule Act, which governs the District, does not allow for the withdrawal of legislation. 

A number of Senate Democrats, however, stood by the District and opposed the resolution. Cardin told reporters earlier in the week that the matter is “a D.C. issue.”

“The Senate shouldn’t be voting on that,” Cardin said. “To me, it’s a fundamental issue of home rule.”

So-called Progressives at it again. This is the same action that's keeping San Francisco filled with crime; Socialists deliberately letting crime go wild to hurt Democrats. It's not just random juveniles committing these carjackings. It's just one of the easiest crimes to pull. Everyone should remember the ones who voted against protecting citizens and all of them, Booker and Dick Durbin should be challenged for their seats. Booker plays the Righteous Brother well but he's not with Dems and Durbin tried to pull a sleazy move months ago, by throwing Senator Fienstein under the bus, causing the drama on the judicial committee. I'm guessing the D.C. Council are a bunch who got in on a sympathetic wave post George Floyd. To vote against the Mayor is huge red flag.

[cattarattat]

Why is it ALWAYS a Republican Party politician WHO EXAGGERATES THEIR ERRONEOUS COMPLAINT, UNDEREMPHASIZES THEIR BOO-BOO BEHAVIOR, AND THEN SUCKS UP TO AMERICAN SERVICEWOMEN/SERVICEMEN TO TRY TO ERASE THE BLUNDER 'AFTER' THE FACT.

(The same Republican Party politicians, I might add, which write/pass/sign-into-law legislation which pays below-the-line servicewomen/servicemen 'non-livable wages' (i.e. slave-wages) WHILE PUMPING BILLIONS ANNUALLY OF MIDDLE/LOWER CLASS TAX-DOLLARS INTO THE PENTAGON'S UNDISCLOSED/NON-ITEMIZED TENS-OF-BILLIONS-OF-DOLLARS BLACK-BUDGET AND THE REMAINING HIGH-HUNDREDS-OF-BILLIONS-OF-DOLLARS OVERALL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET WHICH IN TURN CONTINUALLY FILLS THE CORPORATE POCKETS OF 'MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX' BILLIONAIRES.

To say nothing of Republican Party legislation which LEGISLATIVELY 'BAILS' ON PROVIDING THE MUCH NEEDED FUNDING FOR OUR POST-WAR VETERANS.

The sheer hypocrisy is almost palpable.

Perhap, it would be better if Republican Party politicians legislatively put the money where their mouth is.)

Wisconsin Republican politician, Derrick Van Orden, NEEDS TO FIND THE INTEGRITY & BACKBONE NECESSARY TO OWN HIS OFFENSIVELY VERBAL MISTAKE AGAINST SENATE PAGES WHOM 'VERY LIKELY' WORK A HECK OF A LOT HARDER THAN HE DOES!!!

Simply put, APOLOGIZE to Senate pages, Derrick Van Orden. Then SIT DOWN, and BE QUIET.

(Unfortunately, I highly doubt Wisconsin Republican politician, Derrick Van Orden, actually HAS the integrity & backbone necessary to DO SO.)

"Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Thursday he was 'shocked' by reports of a Republican lawmaker cursing out teenage Senate pages.

'I was shocked when I heard about it, and I am further shocked at his refusal to apologize to these young people,' Schumer said while speaking on the floor Thursday night ahead of the National Defense Authorization Act passage.

When Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.) saw a group of Senate pages lying on the floor of the Capitol Rotunda and taking pictures Wednesday night, he called them 'pieces of s---' and told them to 'get the f--- up' off the floor, according to a transcript of the remarks obtained by The Hill.

Van Orden, a freshman congressman, told the pages 'Wake the f‑‑‑ up you little s‑‑‑‑. … What the f‑‑‑ are you all doing? Get the f‑‑‑ out of here. You are defiling the space you [pieces of s‑‑‑],' according to the transcript written by a page. Punchbowl News first reported the incident.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell backed Schumer’s defense of the pages, saying he would like to 'associate myself with the remarks of the majority leader.'

'Everybody on this side of the aisle feels exactly the same way,' McConnell added.

In a brief interview with POLITICO Thursday night, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) gave his own praise to the pages.

'Only talking about that person, we only diminish the greatness of these young people. They’re phenomenal people and come here and make a big sacrifice,' Booker said. 'They’re smart, they’re dedicated, they believe in this country in its highest ideals, and we should be elevating them.'

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) posted to Twitter, 'My message to the Senate Pages: This is one of the most amazing experiences you’ll ever have. Take it in. Learn a lot. And of course, have fun.'

'My message to out-of-line Members of Congress who yell at Senate Pages: Learn to respect others, especially kids,' she added.

Van Orden defended his remarks in a statement to various news outlets, stating 'our nation’s Capitol is a symbol of the sacrifice our servicemen and women have made for this country and should never be treated like a frat house common room.'

In a statement to POLITICO, his office took aim at the majority leader: 'Chuck Schumer should think twice before throwing stones from glass houses,' spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement.

It’s not unusual for Senate pages to rest in the Rotunda, a midway point between the House and Senate. High school students, pages frequently work late into the night as they assist with day-to-day operations.

Schumer praised the pages’ work during his farewell address to the page class, saying they 'can help make this place run smoothly, they’re here when we need them and they have served this institution with grace.'"

[yourreddancer]

Twenty-five Democrats joined all 53 Republicans in voting to confirm Burgum as the nation’s 55th secretary of the Interior Department. Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) and John Fetterman (D-Pa.) abstained from voting.

Responding to Burgum’s confirmation, Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said it is “alarming that so many Senate Democrats were duped into voting for an oligarch who is now charged with stewarding the nation’s public lands and wildlife.”

“Burgum’s just the latest in a parade of unqualified political cronies to swear fealty to Trump and his plans to wreck our climate, eradicate endangered species and destroy our public lands,” he said in a statement.

WTF is WRONG with these Dems????? THis fucker is a tool of Big Oil!!!!!!

And Elissa Slotkin of Michigan voted YES. She's getting an angry email from me!!!

The former North Dakota governor will play a key role in carrying out President Donald Trump’s pro-fossil-fuel, anti-renewable-energy vision.

The Senate voted Thursday to confirm former North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum as President Donald Trump’s secretary of the Interior Department. 

At the helm of the massive federal agency, Burgum will be responsible for managing 500 million acres of federal land ― roughly one-fifth of the United States — including 63 national parks, as well as conserving imperiled species and honoring the government’s trust responsibilities for more than 500 federally recognized tribes.

[rnewspost]

Senator Cory Booker Wants To Change Prison Labor Conditions

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) introduced a package of bills Thursday to address unfair labor practices in America’s prison system. The legislation, which is carved into four packages, addresses workplace discrimination, safety and health in prisons, job opportunities for inmates, and fair pay. “The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery ‘except as a punishment for crime,’ but this language has…

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Alanna Vagianos at HuffPost:

Three Senate Democrats are renewing their push to protect access to in vitro fertilization and other fertility treatments in new legislation released Monday morning. The Right to IVF Act is a package of bills that Sens. Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), Patty Murray (Wash.) and Cory Booker (N.J.) have already introduced this session. The legislation would establish a statutory right to access IVF and protect providers from criminalization, as well as expand IVF insurance coverage and make the care more affordable for families. It also includes IVF protections and extended access for veterans and service members. The Democrats rolled four of their bills into one to revive the conversation around IVF and hopefully have a better shot at passing the legislation. Most of the bills were blocked by Republicans or did not make it out of committee. The new bill includes the Access to Family Building Act, the Veteran Families Health Services Act, the Access to Infertility Treatment and Care Act, and the Family Building FEHB Fairness Act.

“Struggling with infertility is painful enough — every American deserves the right to access the treatment and tools they need to build the family of their dreams without the fear of being prosecuted for murder or manslaughter,” Duckworth, who had her two children through IVF, said in a statement. “I’m proud to unveil this sweeping legislative package with my colleagues that would actually protect the freedom to receive or provide IVF nationwide,” she added, “while making these treatments more affordable and accessible for the millions of American families — including military families and Veterans — who are experiencing infertility across the country.” Both Duckworth and Murray have long championed access to fertility treatments and other assisted reproductive technologies, introducing bills in the last few years to protect reproductive health care as access dwindles in the wake of the Supreme Court decision that repealed Roe v. Wade. Senate Republicans have blocked every IVF bill Democrats have brought to the floor, including Duckworth’s Access to Family Building Act in February.

Access to IVF took center stage earlier this year when the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that embryos should be defined as children — forcing several clinics to pause treatments and threatening care throughout the state. Although many Republicans have supported abortion bans that would also criminalize IVF, the party floundered for weeks after the widely unpopular Alabama ruling.

The Senate Dems have renewed their push to protect IVF with a bill package called Right To IVF Act that features four bills sponsored by Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Patty Murray (D-WA), and Cory Booker (D-NJ).

[coochiequeens]

When she was six weeks pregnant, Pamela Winnwas sentenced to serve 78 months at a federal prison for a white-collar crime. Anytime she had to be transported, she was shackled — with handcuffs around her ankles and a chain around her waist that bound her hands to a black box in front of her.

“One particular day that I was going out, they had put the ankle cuffs on a little tight. … By the time I made it to the van, they were biting into my ankles. And it was really painful. And when I tried to step up, I fell, and at the time that I fell, there was no ‘Are you OK?’” Winn told Yahoo News.

A few days later, she began bleeding abnormally. Winn, who worked as a surgical nurse specializing in women’s health prior to her imprisonment, knew something was wrong. When she reported it to the medical staff, they dismissed her, telling her that bleeding was normal with pregnancy.

“They told me bluntly that the facility was built for men and they didn’t expect to have women and they definitely didn’t expect to have a pregnant woman. And there was nothing that they could do for me,” she said.

Complaints like Winn’s are why a growing number of states have passed a bill that reforms the way women behind bars are treated, with Arizona being the latest to sign it into law on June 30, joining 13 others, including Mississippi, Florida, California and New Jersey. The legislation, known as the Dignity for Incarcerated Women Act, is a response to the fact that women, 80 percent of whom are mothers, are now the fastest-growing population behind bars, yet they often face conditions that fail to protect their health or consider their roles as mothers.

In Winn’s case, the prison was unable to provide any sort of medical treatment. The only option was for her to request permission to be taken to an external doctor at an ER. She had to submit three medical requests, with four weeks in between for approval, before she finally received an ultrasound, after which she was told she needed to wait another four weeks for the results.

She ended up miscarrying at 20 weeks without having had any formal prenatal care.

During the miscarriage, it took hours for Winn to be brought to the hospital. “I endured the remainder of my miscarriage shackled to the bed," she said, "with two male officers between my legs that refused to leave the room [or] simply move to a different side of the room to provide me any privacy, which was extremely humiliating.” When the doctor asked for the soiled linen with her baby, an officer told her it had been thrown in the trash.

This moment, Winn said, was “the lowest point of my life, to hear that, you know, my baby, my child, something that was a part of me, had been thrown in the trash.”

For women in prison, stories like this are common. Pregnant women are forced to give birth in shackles, and mothers are sent hundreds of miles away from their children. Advocates say women are also denied adequate hygienic items and are forced to purchase them at exorbitant costs. They also say male guards conduct strip searches of female inmates and supervise them while they take showers.

After she was released from prison, Winn’s experience led her to become an advocate to end intolerable conditions for women behind bars. She worked with Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., to draft the federal Dignity for Incarcerated Women Act, which was introduced to Congress in 2017 by Booker; Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.; Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; and then-Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif.

After making little progress on the federal level, Winn began working with Dream Corps, a nonprofit focused on bipartisan solutions to criminal justice reform issues, to push the Dignity Act through state legislatures. Dream Corps works with formerly incarcerated women such as Winn to lead reform efforts on a state level and has successfully affected a total of 30,128 incarcerated women, with 14 bills passed in 14 states since 2018.

The Dignity for Incarcerated Women Act proposes a host of measures, including better visitation policies for primary caretaker parents, a ban on the shackling and solitary confinement of pregnant women, drug counseling programming and parenting education for pregnant women and mothers, and quality pads and tampons provided to inmates free of charge.

“We’re changing conditions of confinement. We’re not, you know, changing someone’s time spent behind bars. I think that we’re really just saying the prison system was not built with women in mind,” said Olivia McLarnan, the policy manager at Dream Corps. “We’re forcing women into this sort of square-peg-round-hole situation where they’re having to exist in a world that was built for men. And we need to crack some of those things.”

Criminal justice reform with language from the Dignity Act was successfully passed on a federal level in 2018. The First Step Act was a bipartisan effort to reduce the prison population and strengthen prison rehabilitation efforts, signed into law by then-President Donald Trump. The First Step Act, which included two provisions from the Dignity Act — a ban on shackling pregnant prisoners and a mandate that tampons and sanitary napkins be available to women — applies only to federal prisoners, a minority of the total U.S. prison population.

The First Step Act served as a catalyst for the passage of the broader, more comprehensive Dignity Act on a state level, according to those involved with reform efforts. “It definitely gave us a bit more of a leg to stand on when we’re going into states, being like, ‘The president signed this into law. A lot of people agree with it, and I think we can do it in your state as well,’” McLarnan said. “It definitely helped us with conservatives as well. It definitely gave us more of a backbone to go in and be like ... ‘It passed at the federal level. Why can’t it pass at the state level as well?’”

Currently, more red states have passed the Dignity Act than blue states, but McLarnan says that’s because the latter often already have basic anti-shackling legislation baked into the code of their prison systems. “In some of the bluer states, this issue has already been taken care of. So this is sort of a situation where red states are seeing that issue … and wanting to correct it,” she said.

Winn says another reason Republican parts of the country have moved more quickly is that she, alongside other organizers, targeted red states knowing it would be a harder process there. Yet she believes a Dignity Act in Democratic-controlled states would still be beneficial, because the laws are sometimes ambiguous when it comes to shackling.

“They’re not written in stone,” she said.

Currently, the Dignity Act is in the legislative process in two states, Pennsylvania and North Carolina, and is waiting to be signed by the governor in Missouri. If it is passed in these three states, over a third of the country would have signed the act into law.

As anti-shackling legislation and other provisions become commonplace for female inmates, the next step for many activists, including Winn and Dream Corps, is to remove pregnant women from incarceration altogether.

In May, Minnesota passed a first-of-its-kind lawthat places women who are pregnant or have just given birth into community alternatives such as halfway houses and provides treatment for up to a year after giving birth.

“I think it’s something that the whole space can be looking towards doing,” McLarnan said, referring to the Minnesota law. “[We] can avoid incarcerating women who are pregnant at the start.”

[ausetkmt]

Black Farmers who faced discrimination are eligible for $2.2 billion from the USDA : NPR

he Department of Agriculture building is seen in Washington, D.C., on July 22, 2019.

Alastair Pike/AFP via Getty Images

The Agriculture Department on Thursday announced it is beginning the process of creating a program that will ultimately dole out $2.2 billion to farmers who have faced discrimination from the agency in the past.

Beginning Friday, the department is seeking public comment on how it should design, implement and administer the program.

The department was directed by Congress in the recently passed Democratic reconciliation bill to create a brand new program to give out the money. It was also directed to select one or more third parties, or nongovernmental organizations, to carry out the program instead of USDA itself. A Democratic staffer familiar with the legislation said that was done to address farmers' concerns of USDA bias in such a program.

This is another attempt to address past discrimination

The funding is another push by congressional Democrats, led by Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., to address historical discrimination within farming and USDA. It also helps to fulfill one of President Biden's campaign promises to reduce inequities for socially disadvantaged farmers.

Advocates for farmers of color have long argued that for decades, the USDA denied loans, credit, representation and inclusion leading to a large loss of landownership particularly among Black farmers.

Last year, Democrats passed a $5 billion debt relief program aimed specifically for farmers of color. But that program was swiftly stalled in courts by white farmers, including Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller, who sued in his own capacity backed by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller.

This forced Congress to either rewrite the law or abandon the effort.

Tucked in the recently passed reconciliation bill are two provisions: the $2.2 billion to address discrimination and a separate $3.1 billion in debt relief for "economically distressed borrowers," which does include white farmers.

USDA has yet to announce how it will structure the latest debt relief effort. But the department has reviewed blowback over the delay to implement the promised financial relief — even while it was stalled.

Just Wednesday, four farmers of color in Virginia sued USDA claiming the repeal of the debt relief program and replacement in reconciliation is a breach of contract.

What to expect from the USDA moving forward

Thursday's move — known as a request for information — offers an opportunity for farmers, advocates, lawmakers and more to provide advice on selecting the third-party program administrator and to provide recommendations, conducting outreach to farmers who borrowed from USDA and how the department should even identify who has been discriminated against.

There is a 30-day comment period for the public along with weekly listening sessions hosted by the department. After the comments are collected and reviewed, the department will look to select the third parties to administer the program, according to a USDA official, and design the program while recruiting the organizations to run the program.

The request for information has "very specific questions but people are going to have very different lived experiences and what we really want to know is the thing that would make the program work for them," the USDA official said. "What we want is a farm-focused program that will work in ways that maybe others have not."