#new pro-legalization governor

[itsnotadrugitsaleaf]

Hawaii Lawmakers File Marijuana Legalization Bills With New Pro-Reform Governor In Office

[reasonandempathy]

Walz has served as Minnesota’s governor since 2019 after 12 years in the House of Representatives and now chairs the Democratic Governors Association. He has built a reputation as a folksy politician who can get things done, as Minnesota has adopted a number of progressive laws during his tenure. According to a poll conducted earlier this year, Walz enjoys an approval rating of 55% among Minnesotans. Since Minnesota Democrats achieved a legislative trifecta in the 2022 elections, Walz and his allies have used their power to push a slate of progressive policies. The governor has signed bills protecting abortion access, expanding background checks for prospective gun owners and legalizing recreational marijuana. “Right now, Minnesota is showing the country you don’t win elections to bank political capital,” Walz said last year. “You win elections to burn political capital and improve lives.” That philosophy has endeared him to progressives, who threw their support behind him as the veepstakes kicked into high gear over the past two weeks. They reshared clips of Walz lovingly mocking his daughter’s vegetarianism and tinkering with his car to paint him as the dad that America needs right now.

This is fucking awesome! Honestly, sincerely good news and a very promising pick for the potential Harris Administration. An aggressive, unabashed, popular, populist left-winger with a track record of enacting real, substantive help for people is capital-G Great.

What has he done, specifically?

Abortion rights

In a 1995 ruling, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld abortion rights in Minnesota. In January 2023, Walz signed the PRO Act (Protect Reproductive Options Act) into law, making abortion a "fundamental right," as well as access to contraception, fertility treatments, sterilization and other reproductive health care.

The law made Minnesota the first state to codify abortion rights in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which nullified Roe. v. Wade after nearly 50 years of precedent. In April 2023, Walz signed the Reproductive Freedom Defense Act into law, shielding women and providers from any legal action originating from the patient's state.

Pro-LGBTQIA+ legislation

In March 2023, Walz signed an executive order to protect the right of residents to have access to gender-affirming health care. Weeks later, he signed the "Trans Refuge" bill, banning the enforcement of arrest warrants, extradition requests and out-of-state subpoenas for those who traveled to Minnesota for care.

"When someone else is given basic rights, others don't lose theirs," Walz said. "We aren't cutting a pie here. We're giving basic rights to every single Minnesotan."

Paid family, medical and sick leave

In May 2023, Walz signed a law creating a state-run program to provide paid family and medical leave for Minnesota workers, funded by a 0.7% payroll tax on employers, by 2026.

Legalization of recreational marijuana

In May 2023, Minnesota became the 23rd state in the nation to legalize recreational cannabis use. Three months later, people 21 and older could start to possess certain amounts of marijuana at home and on their person, in addition to legally growing up to eight plants at a time.

Restoration of voting rights for former felons

In March 2023, Walz signed a bill that restored the right to vote to more than 50,000 convicted felons who had already served their time.

Universal school meals

Amid the increase in food insecurity for many Minnesotans during the pandemic, and the subsequent strain on the state's food shelves that remains to this day, Walz signed a bill in March 2023 that ensures all K-12 students in the state have access to free breakfast and lunch on school days.

Do you know what makes this even better?

Fuck 'Em. I know negative partisanship is important and can help motivate right-wingers to vote, but they're going to vote anyway. And him being afraid of Walz is just a sign that he's a good pick, in policy and politics.

[afloweroutofstone]

Would love to hear more about your personal take on Walz, if you feel like it.

He's the most progressive of the Boring White Guys who were on Harris' shortlist for VP. To be fair, he's not actually that progressive himself— his record in congress was quite moderate, and he's generally seen as being more moderate than the Democrats in the Minnesota state legislature. But this image as a Normie Democrat can actually pair quite well with his record of progressive accomplishments in office. The stuff he's signed into law while governor has been absolutely incredible, arguably enough to make him the best governor in the country right now (even if the hard work behind most of these reforms came from state legislators to his left).

This is the gubernatorial record that Walz can run on: protecting abortion rights, universal school meals, guaranteed paid leave, legalizing weed, a plan for 100% renewable energy, banning LGBTQ conversion therapy, free college for families earning less than $80,000, automatic voter registration, increasing spending for public schools, universal gun background checks, expanding public transit, strengthening workers' rights, improving infrastructure, new public housing, (underwhelming) police reform, banning non-compete agreements, a strong child tax credit, and more. To compare, Harris' other top choice was a guy who compared pro-Palestine protesters to the KKK, likes charter schools, and wants to cut his state's corporate tax rates. You can see why progressives are happy with Walz as the outcome.

Also Walz does seem to have an electable personality IMO, what little I've seen of him makes him look like a good messenger. VP picks don't really matter that much, but he seems like a good choice if they're looking for someone to wipe the floor with Vance in the debate.

[mariacallous]

Driven by hardline prosecutors and tough-on-crime governors, the number of executions jumped 64 percent in 2022 and increased again in 2023 to a total of 24, the highest in five years.

Perhaps the most crucial player in the death penalty’s resurrection, though, is the U.S. Supreme Court, whose historic role of maintaining guardrails has given way to removing roadblocks. Under the conservative supermajority put in place by President Donald Trump, the justices are far more likely to propel an execution forward than intercede to stop it, including in cases where guilt is in doubt or where the means of carrying it out could result in a grotesque spectacle of pain and suffering.

...

In 1976, the Supreme Court famously declared that “death is different,” and demanded an extra level of scrutiny because a mistake is irreversible. Historically, in particularly troubling instances involving state misconduct or abysmal defense lawyering, the Court sometimes intervened at the eleventh hour — from 2013 to 2023, it stayed an execution just 11 times and vacated stays of execution 18 times, according to Bloomberg Law.

Since the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her replacement with Amy Coney Barrett in 2020, the Court has stopped an execution only twice and reversed a lower court to permit an execution nine times. In 2023, 26 condemned prisoners asked the Court to hear their cases; 25 were rejected. The message is clear: Prosecutors eager to seek and swiftly impose death sentences can reliably do so without judicial interference.

...

In Bucklew v. Precythe, a majority of the court opined that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment “does not guarantee a prisoner a painless death — something that, of course, isn’t guaranteed to many people, including most victims of capital crimes.” In the court’s reasoning, the excruciating pain the defendant might suffer during execution paled in comparison with the terror and mayhem he inflicted during his crimes.

In that same opinion, the Court indicated an impatience with pausing executions while it considered whether to hear the underlying claims from appellate attorneys. Justice Neil Gorsuch warned his colleagues to be skeptical when reading eleventh hour death row appeals: “Last minute stays should be the extreme exception, not the norm.”

It has been. Consider the 13 federal prisoners who were sent to the death chamber in the final months of Trump’s presidency. In a series of terse orders, issued without briefing, argument or public airing of the legal issues, the court blessed the rushed, furious pace. Using this opaque process, which legal scholars call the “shadow docket,” the justices erased lower-court injunctions against executions in seven cases and turned away last-minute requests for stays in the other six. During the 16 years in which Barack Obama and George W. Bush occupied the White House, the Court had invoked the shadow docket to rule for the government a total of four times and “never in a death penalty case,” according to Stephen Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law. In Trump’s single term in office, the number jumped to 28, including non-capital cases.

More recently, the Court has rejected cases that advocates say are riddled with error or rest on shaky evidence.

...

Death penalty cases are notoriously rife with racism, questions of innocence, mental health of the accused and whether they received competent legal counsel. Sometimes the facts are too dire for courts to ignore, and even some pro-death penalty politicians are unwilling to take actions in flagrant violation of established norms. The total number of executions over the past decade is still a fraction of its peak in the 1990s.

And yet, the death penalty machine continues to crank on. These days, the battles over who lives and who dies are increasingly local — waged courtroom by courtroom because the Supreme Court has largely abdicated its decades long role as the final arbiter.

“It is becoming more and more clear that the Court is reluctant to interfere in state court cases even to enforce its own precedent,” said Robin Maher, the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. “They are saying, ‘This is not our problem to deal with.’”

An ‘Execute-Them-At-Any-Cost Mentality’: The Supreme Court’s New, Bloodthirsty Era

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from Daily Kos:

Democratic governors are spearheading a new pro-democracy organization, “Governors Safeguarding Democracy,” to fight President-elect Donald Trump’s second administration, according to The New York Times.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, and Julia Spiegel, a former top legal adviser to Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, will serve as the organization's top staff members.

It’s unclear how many additional governors will join and what precisely the organization will do, as it’s still being fleshed out. But it is clear that although the GOP controls each branch of the federal government, Democratic governors are not ready to go quietly into the night. 

The organization will be made up of think tanks, legal experts, and democracy advocates. Through “governor-led efforts and the support of a network of senior staff,” the group will “foster cross-state collaboration, including the sharing of essential tools, knowledge, and resources,” the Times said.

In addition to coordinating resources and knowledge across state lines, GSD plans to work together on “elections and laws against encroachment from what they expect to be a hostile federal government, ” the Times reported.

Interestingly, governors from blue states aren't the only ones interested in joining the resistance against Trump. Pritzker told The New York Times that he also had conversations with Republican governors about joining the organization, but did not identify specific individuals. 

Trump has vowed in his campaign for president to enact mass deportation, dismantle the Affordable Care Act, curb environmental laws, and continue his attack on reproductive rights.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Rhian Lubin at The Independent:

Ron DeSantis’s administration has appeared to threaten a local TV station with legal action for airing an abortion rights campaign ad. The ad in question is the same one that aired in Florida during the vice presidential debate between Tim Walz and JD Vance. It features a woman named Caroline who needed to have an abortion and cancer treatments after a brain tumor diagnosis in 2022. Such a difficult situation would have been complicated by Florida’s six-week abortion ban today. “The doctors knew that if I did not end my pregnancy, I would lose my baby, I would lose my life, and my daughter would lose her mom,” the woman says. “Florida has now banned abortion … even in cases like mine. Amendment 4 is gonna protect women like me.” The letter — dated October 3 and sent by the Florida Department of Health to WFLA TV’s vice president Mark Higgins — was shared on social media by journalist Jason Garcia, who accused the administration of “trying to intimidate” the TV station. The DeSantis administration had previously been accused of using his election police dragnet to target citizens who signed a petition that successfully put Amendment 4 on November’s ballots.

Florida is one of several states with reproductive rights on the ballot this November. If passed, Amendment 4 would enshrine the right to abortion care in the state’s constitution, effectively overturning the six-week ban. The department claims the ad is illegal under section 386.01 of Florida law that allows the state to remove any "nuisance" that "threatens or impairs" people’s health.

[...] Amendment 4 would codify the right to an abortion at any point before fetal viability, and prevent laws in the state from restricting access before that point. It would also prevent laws from interfering with abortions after that point in the pregnancy if necessary to “protect the patient’s health”. Florida’s ban on abortion at roughly six weeks of pregnancny — before many women know they are pregnant — is among the most severe anti-abortion laws in the country.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) continues his police state regime by threatening to silence stations that air pro-Amendment 4 ads. Amendment 4 would codify the right to an abortion at any point before fetal viability.

See Also:

MeidasTouch News: Desantis Threatens to Prosecute Stations Running Ads for Abortion Amendment

[beardedmrbean]

Enraged Bronx Rep. Ritchie Torres slammed the administrations of Mayor Eric Adams and Gov. Kathy Hochul as “complicit” in the murders of three innocent people by serial stabber Ramon Rivera.

Torres said Rivera should never have been on the streets, but authorities failed and let him fall through the cracks. Those directly responsible should be fired, he demanded.

“I am writing to express alarm at the complicity of the State and the City in the murder of three New Yorkers, who were savagely stabbed to death in a homicidal rampage that took hold in broad daylight,” the Bronx Democrat said in a scathing letter to both the mayor and governor obtained by The Post.

Torres, a moderate, has often gone against the liberal wing of his party with pro-public safety stances and by his full-throated support of Israel and Jewish residents in New York City amid criticisms of the Gaza war among left-leaning party members and rising antisemitism in the five boroughs.

Rivera, a 51-year-old homeless man, has a lengthy rap sheet but remained free last week as he left a bloody trail across Manhattan in a stabbing spree that killed three people from Chelsea to the East River — chillingly telling police later that he chose his victims because they were “alone” and “distracted,” sources said.

The madman allegedly stabbed to death construction worker Angel Gustavo Lata-Landi, 36, in Chelsea early Nov. 18, before killing fisherman Chang Wang, 67, near the East River, then stabbing Wilma Augustin, 36, near the United Nations, according to cops.

Torres called the city Department of Correction “the worst offender” for having made the “inexplicable and inexcusable decision” to release Rivera from a prison stint early — after serving just nine months of a 12-month sentence. 

Rivera was released early for “good behavior” after assaulting a corrections officer, Torres said as he fumed against revolving-door justice in the state.

“The bureaucrats in DOC who authorized the early release of Ramon should be fired. Those who cannot be entrusted with public safety should no longer be employed by the people of New York,” said Torres, who is eyeing a primary run for governor.

He said if Rivera had been sentenced to consecutive terms rather than concurrently for assaulting a law enforcement officer or made to serve his full sentence, “the three New Yorkers he murdered would still be alive.

“These tragedies are preventable but neither the City nor the State seem to possess the political will to prevent them, despite having the tools to do so,” the congressman said.

He said Hochul and fellow Democrats who run the state Senate and Assembly are a big part of the problem.

“The State refuses to grant the Mayor the legal authority he needs to prevent dangerous people from roaming the streets,” Torres said. “The City refuses to hold DOC accountable for the early release of a demonstrably dangerous criminal who went on a stabbing spree.

“The end result is incompetence that is not only destructive but deadly for New Yorkers,” he went on. “There are mothers and fathers; daughters and sons; wives and husbands who will no longer have loved ones because their government fundamentally failed them.”

He said city and state officials must learn from this injustice and adopt policies that would ban early release of individuals who are a danger not only to themselves but to the general public, as well as those who assault a law enforcement officer and those who commit crimes while in custody.

“Common sense demands no less. … We live in a State and City where the only people who seem to suffer consequences are the victims of crime and their loved ones. Enough is enough,'” Torres said in the letter.

Torres has ramped up his attacks on Hochul recently, calling her unpopular and the “new Joe Biden” who is vulnerable to losing to a Republican if she seeks re-election and is the Democratic nominee in 2026.

City Hall did not dispute Torres’ criticism and said it is investigating the circumstances surrounding Rivera’s release.

“Ramon Rivera’s ability to roam our streets freely is disturbing, which is why Mayor Adams was one of the first to question it publicly. The mayor has also been sounding the alarm about the revolving door of criminals being let back out onto the streets — after our police officers arrest them — for years now,” an Adams spokesperson said.

“We are in the process of reviewing this case internally, and appreciate the congressmember’s partnership as we work to keep New York City safe for all,” the rep added.

Hochul’s office referred The Post to comments she made last week about the Rivera stabbing rampage.

“Will we do more? Yes, we need to do more. No doubt about it,” Hochul said.

“And I want people to know that I will go back to the Legislature, I’ll go back with every tool in my kit to find ways to address this because this is not acceptable.”

Meanwhile, 11 federal, state and city legislators representing Manhattan delivered their own Nov. 21 letter of outrage to Department of Correction Commissioner Lynelle Maginley-Liddie, Department of Homeless Services Commissioner Molly Wasow Park and Health+Hospitals president and CEO Mitchell Katz.

They called for an investigation into the lapses that allowed Rivera back on the street to kill.

“He was released into the public without sufficient care or oversight,” said the letter signed by, among others, Councilman Keith Powers, Borough President Mark Levine and US Rep. Jerrold Nadler.

“All accounts indicate that Mr. Rivera’s case is a damning indictment of the failures of the criminal justice and mental health systems in New York City,” the letter stated. “The murders he committed may have been prevented.”

They requested answers as to what information was communicated between agencies and who made the call to release him early. The officials asked whether the assault that Rivera committed at Bellevue was considered in that decision.

“Did Rivera receive adequate mental health services, including an assisted outpatient treatment plan … and discharge planning services upon his release from Rikers Island?” they asked.

The fuming officials also asked about Rivera’s history while he stayed at the 30th Street Men’s Shelter and whether he experienced a mental health crisis.

Other signatories include state Sens. Liz Krueger, Brad Hoylman-Sigal and Kristen Gonzalez; Assembly members Harvey Epstein, Tony Simone and Alex Bores; and Council members Erik Bottcher and Carlina Rivera.

[jangillman]

Posted by Wisconsin Right Now on FB...

I'm not sure who is going to win this, but I’d rather be #Trump right now than #HarrisWalz because he’s peaking at the right time, and the issues people rank highest (economy, border) favor him. He’s surging and it feels like she’s cratering.

But the Democrats have made so many mistakes this election season. James Carville can rant and rave all he wants, but that’s just a fact. The key mistakes include:

-Not reaching out to #Elon Musk, and instead unfairly villainizing a guy with $240B and making it clear that this election will be existential for him personally;

-Charging Trump criminally with a series of novel legal theories that pushed the envelope of the law. If you’re going to go after the king, you better not miss or he gets stronger and, in this case, they turned him into a martyr and the well-worn Hollywood archetype of the underdog fighting the system and elites. People don’t like it when people don’t play fair and criminally charging your political opponent over 94 (or whatever) half-baked accusations (at best) was not playing fair;

-Not admitting Biden’s severe cognitive issues earlier so there could be a competitive primary on the Democratic side rather than foisting an untested and clearly unserious VP on voters. They would have been better off choosing a nominee who could run against the Biden-Harris administration’s worst policies and promise a new course (probably a governor). Harris has had the unenviably impossible task of promising a new future when she’s part of the current administration. Minimally when the Hur report came out, they should have bailed on Biden. She can’t plausibly separate herself from Biden enough no matter how hard she tries.

-Choosing Walz as VP because Josh Shapiro wasn’t acceptable to the pro Gaza wing.

-Not ensuring Trump had adequate and effective secret service protection. The near misses of the 2 assassins (especially the first one) turned him into the aforementioned archetype all the more. And it was just wrong.

-Not reaching out to black and Hispanic male voters until the last minute, at which point it seems pandering and desperate. Having no plan to reach out to men, period, until the last minute and instead emphasizing the gender gap (ie turning Kamala into Hillary 2.0, pantsuit and all, talking about “reimagining masculinity,” the girls’ sports issue etc);

-Not giving even the slightest nod to parental rights. They’re underestimating the power of that issue.

-Not reaching out to RFK Jr and bringing him back into the fold (all they had to do was care about children’s health) and instead trying to destroy him through undemocratic lawfare and insults;

-Putting Harris on the media circuit after the debate. She’s clearly not up to it. As pathetic as it is, they would have been better off keeping her in bubble wrap.

All that being said, it’s amazing they’re still in it. And really the biggest challenge for them - all of the above aside - is the core fact that people believe they were better off four years ago. That’s “event memory” so to speak. No matter what you tell people in ads about their own lives, they know what they pay for groceries.

I miss anything? #trump #breaking #ElectionDay #Wisconsin

[darkmaga-returns]

By Jonathan Turley JonathanTurley.org

November 13, 2024

Below is my column in The Hill on the growing calls for an organized resistance to the Trump Administration by Democratic governors and prosecutors. They may find, however, that the resistance movement this time around will be facing significant legal and political headwinds.

Here is the column:

The single most common principle of recovery programs is that the first step is to admit that you have a problem.

That first step continues to elude the politicians and pundits who unsuccessfully pushed lawfare and panic politics for years. That includes prosecutors like New York Attorney General Letitia James and politicians like Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who affirmed this week that they will be redoubling, not reconsidering, their past positions.

For its part, The Washington Post quickly posted an editorial titled “The second resistance to Trump must start now.” They may, however, find the resistance more challenging both politically and legally this time around.

It is important to note at the outset that there is no reason Democratic activists should abandon their values just because they lost this election. Our system is strengthened by passionate and active advocacy.

Rather, it is the collective fury and delirium of the post-election protests that was so disconcerting. Pundits lashed out at the majority of voters, insisting that the election established that half of the nation is composed of racists, misogynists or domination addicts who long to submit to tyranny.

Others blamed free speech and the fact that social media allows “disinformation” to be read by ignorant voters. In other words, the problem could not possibly be themselves. It was, rather, the public, which refused to listen.

[soon-palestine]

In late October, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Brandeis Center published an open letter urging universities to investigate Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), a student activist group with both national and local chapters, under the material support statute. According to this letter, SJP chapters merit investigation under the material support statute for “endors[ing] the actions of Hamas” and “voicing an increasingly radical call for confronting and ‘dismantling’ Zionism on U.S. college campuses.” As the ACLU and others have observed, the ADL offers no evidence that SJP students have done anything more than exercise their constitutionally protected speech rights. Still, the state of Florida has already obliged the ADL’s request, invoking the material support statute and its state analog to ban Florida’s SJP chapters. (The ACLU of Florida and Palestine Legal have filed a lawsuit against the ban, and fears of personal liability may have led the chancellor of Florida’s state university system to walk it back.)

Indeed, it is possible that the ADL itself may coordinate with groups connected to Israeli intelligence to conduct its own campus spying operations and report the information to law enforcement. There is historical precedent animating this concern: the ADL was implicated in a large-scale operation spying on Arab-American activists on the West Coast in the early 1990s.

Given these expansive definitions of anti-Semitism, it is also concerning that the White House is promising over $38 million in DOJ grants to “civil rights groups, including awards to organizations serving Jewish and Arab American communities,” to “support the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.” The ADL, which has close and long-standing connections to the FBI, would presumably be a prime contender for this outsourcing of investigative responsibility. Thus, in the name of combating anti-Semitism, the White House may wind up relying on an organization that has plausibly been alleged to spy on college campuses, and has expressly avowed a desire to wield the material support statute as an investigative weapon.

Both congressional leaders and the leading GOP presidential candidates have expressed their desire to punish student protesters of Israel, including with proposed travel bans and visa cancelations for Palestinian students. (The Florida chancellor’s ban of state university SJP chapters was at the behest of Governor Ron DeSantis.) Such calls suggest forthcoming moves—if not by this White House, then by the next—to discard the lessons of the Church Commission and use the material support statute against student protesters. University leaders should not ignore the possibility that today’s call to shut down SJP chapters will be followed by a government request to assist in the criminal prosecution of SJP members.

[thepro-lifemovement]

Utah Governor Spence Cox will sign a bill soon that would essentially make the mountain state the next to ban abortions. A bill to ban abortion facilities in Utah passed the state legislature Thursday by an overwhelming majority and Cox will sign the bill soon.

After the Utah Senate voted 22-6, the bill now heads to Gov. Spencer Cox, a pro-life Republican, who said he supports the bill.

Cox said Friday that he plans to sign the measure, which he said does a good job of defining a life of the mother exception.

“One of the concerns with the trigger bill that medical providers had across the state was there was a lack of clarity that would have made it hard for them to perform legal abortions,” Cox said.

Sponsored by state Rep. Karianne Lisonbee, R-Clearfield, House Bill 467 prohibits abortion facilities from operating in Utah starting in 2024 and prohibits state authorities from granting licenses to abortion facilities after May 2. It also requires abortions that are allowed under the law to be performed in hospitals, and allows doctors who abort unborn babies in violation of state laws to face discipline for unprofessional conduct.

Lisonbee recently said her legislation “strikes the very best balance of protecting innocent life and protecting women who experience rare and dangerous circumstances.”

Utah also has a trigger law that bans killing unborn babies in abortions except in cases of rape, incest, fatal fetal anomalies or emergency situations when the mother’s life is at risk. However, a court recently blocked it at the request of Planned Parenthood. Unborn babies still are being aborted up to 18 weeks in the state as the lawsuit proceeds.

Here’s more on the bill:

The clinic-centered push in Utah is unique among states with trigger laws, where many abortion clinics closed after last year’s Supreme Court decision including in West Virginia and Mississippi. The measure mirrors a raft of proposals passed in red states in the decade before Roe was overturned when anti-abortion lawmakers passed measures regulating clinics, including the size of procedure rooms and distances from hospitals.

In Utah, the proposal from Rep. Karianne Lisonbee would require all abortions — via medication or surgery — be provided in hospitals by not allowing new clinics to be licensed after May 2 and not allowing any to operate once their licenses expire. It would affect the operations of the four clinics that provide abortions in Utah — three run by Planned Parenthood and the other by Wasatch Women’s Center, an independent clinic in Salt Lake City.

Currently, Utah has four abortion facilities, including the Wasatch Women’s Center in Salt Lake City and three Planned Parenthoods. According to the report, the four facilities did almost all of the 2,818 abortions in the state last year.

The Salt Lake Tribune reports the governor expressed support for Lisonbee’s bill in February, describing it as a “cleanup” of the 2020 abortion ban.

Along with banning abortion facilities, the bill also requires doctors to provide information about perinatal hospice and palliative care to pregnant mothers whose unborn babies have been diagnosed with a fatal condition. It also prohibits abortions after 18 weeks in cases of rape and incest.

“This bill puts Utah in a good place,” said Mary Taylor, the president of Pro-Life Utah.

However, Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union have threatened to sue if the bill becomes law, according to the Tribune.

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds on Wednesday called a special session for Iowa lawmakers to enact legal protections for the unborn against abortion. That effort comes after a three-to-three vote by the Iowa Supreme Court last month ended any...

[yourtoradorasextendedwarranty]

It always baffles me how daft and stupid people that vote democrat are. Me personally? I live in Texas and I vote Independent. Unless I'm faced with a choice of a literal psychopath or an asshole I don't really like all that much. Which in the last Governor race, it was one such case. Similarly, when it comes to voting for president I feel the same. I'd sooner vote Independent or write in something then vote either side unless it was like the last 2 races. Which was literal tyrant wanna be warhawks (Clinton & Biden) or Orange man.

What's more, the ability of people that vote democrat to turn a blind eye to actual facts. Take this tweet, which for the most part is pretty tame, and then the replies, which I will address.

Now, First and foremost, I will not make the claim that Trump paid back all his loans. However, I find it suspect all of a sudden, after his run at president where he became the most villainized man in history second only HITLER (because Auth Leftists are morons that can't condemn genocidal communist dictators) that "We are investigating every grain of sand in his life to destroy this person who supposedly wronged us". Ok.....so why now all of a sudden? Oh right because now we need him out of a presidential race. Got it.

Ok so now to the replies.

Most of these can be summed up with one reply. "Banks and Lenders assess property values, and will send someone or several someone's in order to make a value judgement of an asset or property before giving out a loan.

However to answer Kit, No he has not been found Guilty. He has been pressed by a judge (Unilaterally) that RAN on burying Trump. That was what she RAN ON. No investigations. No facts to go off of. Just "Elect me and I will destroy this man and everything he has". And again only after he got into office. Prior to that he was the golden child of NY.

We call that a conflict of interest and she should be disbarred for it.

To Proud-Democrat I repeat. HE DID NOT PERSONALLY ASSESS THE PROPERTY VALUE YOU MORON! The banks and lenders 100% did.

To Rae & American Woman Same thing as above. Literally exact same thing as above.

And this is why I hate Democrat voters. And before someone goes on some tirade about "Republican Voters". Bruh. Conservatives typically HATE Republicans. They just hate Democrats more. And honestly aside from people that still get all of their news wholesale from Fox and nothing but Fox, Most Conservatives would probably sooner vote Independent with a viable candidate. And other people might go, "WELL WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER LAWS TRUMP BROKE!". Idk. Let's look at them shall we?

Accused of trying to steal the election. Except everything he did in that process was legal. He asked if there was anything that he could do. Up to and including asking his VP which electors to pick. Funny fact it is legal for a state to have different sets of electors. It happened during the Nixon years. Of which helped him win. Those rules have never been changed even now. And what's more, there WAS fraud. How much? We don't know. And we likely won't know until 10-20 years from now when the people that claim there is none will go, "OH well it's good there was fraud so Orange man stayed out of office....causing us to go to war with Russia, China, Iran, etc, etc, etc."

Accused of assaulting a woman over 20 years ago. Possibly over 40 years ago. Now let me be clear. Could this have happened? Sure. Did it? We have no idea. And 20-40 years is too long ago to have a decisive verdict on it. (Which brings me to another point which is the legality of the charges. So aside from statute of limitations, american citizens are allowed a right to a trial, by a jury of their peers. However, those peers must be impartial. NY is ANYTHING but impartial. They could bring charges of assassination through ninja skills on a foreign leader and NY would STILL CHARGE HIM just to do it.)

Quid Pro Quo. So the only evidence they had that this supposedly even happened was more or less ONE GUY. This man state that TRUMP expressly stated that he did not want a quid pro quo. HOWEVER, that man also believed Trump DID IN FACT want one, despite saying exactly to the contrary. What's more, let me remind all of you, Joe Biden, did that EXACT THING as VP to protect his financial asset of a son at a Ukrainian Energy company he had no business working at the board of. (1:30 Is the start of the segment.)

So all in all. MOST of the things Trump was accused of doing were outright false, or falsely placed on him. And it's because he was a human molotov cocktail. He didn't want any new wars. He wanted to bring more soldiers back from the Middle East. The Economy was GREAT. We were bringing jobs back to the US, and we had Remain in Mexico. Which was GREAT legislation. And it said, "If you are coming to the US for "Asylum" and you pass through another county on the way here you have to stay in THAT country until you can legally get processed.

Whereas now, DEM VOTING residents of NY are being told they are going to pay Billions to house, feed, and process illegals. When their own state is crumbling under the weight of its own corruption.

Which brings me to this point. Both sides need to talk about when there side is doing wrong. And most of the people I know that vote Rep very much DO talk about when their guys do wrong. The issue is that people that vote Dem seldom actually do. It's always, "Your side did X" and then when anyone else says, "OK but you side did Y and that's worse", We all get greeted with, "I don't care because at least he's not right wing. He could kill kids for all I care. I don't actually care what he does so long as it furthers my sides ideals".

And therein lies the issue. Democrats and their primary voters DO NOT GIVE A F*CK about morals. Because they have none. It's a very much "At all cost" mentality. And often based on LIES. Because if there is one thing Dems are great at, it's manipulation of information. The "Silver Tongued Devil" as it were. That's pretty much them. The founders of the KKK. The opposition to Civil Rights. And the Party of Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton who said they were mentored by a clansman. The parties never flipped. They just became better liars.

(This post is in no shape or form endorsement of the Republicans. Because frankly speaking that party and it's primary voter faction has its own issues. But this post isn't about them)

[deadpresidents]

What other campaign souvenirs do you have with that badge you shared?

It's actually not a ton of stuff. I wish I'd been better over the years about collecting campaign memorabilia because I'm always jealous whenever I see someone who has a cool collection of things.

I have a ton of buttons and stickers from the Obama campaigns, as well as an Obama '08 yard sign that's signed by Obama. I have a stack of Clinton/Gore bumper stickers that I somehow held on to after all these years.

In 2000, I was young and idealistic and caught up in the excitement of the first Presidential campaign I was of legal voting age for, so I jumped on the Bill Bradley bandwagon very early on in the Democratic primaries. Most of you probably have no idea who Bill Bradley even was, but he was the 2000 version of Bernie Sanders once the legendary Paul Wellstone decided against running for President. Deep down, we all knew that Vice President Gore was going to be the nominee, but there was some excitement for Bradley early on even though he didn't win anything and was basically finished by Super Tuesday. I have some Bradley buttons and stickers, and I have an invitation to a Bill Bradley fundraiser that was going to be held at the home of Geoff Petrie in Granite Bay, a wealthy suburb of Sacramento. At the time, Petrie was the General Manager of the Sacramento Kings and he was a close friend of Bradley, so that was exciting for a 20-year-old basketball fanatic. (Oh...for those who really don't know anything about Bill Bradley, I should also note that not only was he a U.S. Senator from New Jersey, but before that he was star basketball player who won two NBA titles with the New York Knicks and is in the pro and college Basketball Hall of Fame.)

Other than that, I have some posters and a ton of buttons from various campaigns. When I lived in Austin and was regularly going to the @lbjlibrary I would often buy handfuls of the assorted campaign buttons that they sold in their gift shop. I don't know if they still sell them, but it was a huge collection from dozens of different Presidential campaigns from various decades. I think the oldest button I ended up with was for Al Smith's 1928 Democratic Presidential campaign. I'm especially fond of my Wendell Willkie button because it's always fun to mention Wendell Willkie. I got a bunch of Nixon and McGovern buttons and even got a Romney button, but it's not for Mitt -- it's for the unsuccessful campaign for the 1968 GOP nomination by his father, former Michigan Governor George Romney. I have a McGovern/Eagleton button from 1972, which is interesting because Thomas Eagleton was nominated as McGovern's Vice Presidential running mate at the 1972 Democratic Nation Convention and then dropped from the ticket for Sargent Shriver just nineteen days later. And of course, I got a TON of LBJ and LBJ-related buttons -- from the 1964 campaign which sometimes featured LBJ and sometimes featured Hubert Humphrey and sometimes featured both LBJ and HHH, and from the 1960 Kennedy/Johnson campaign.

Here are a few of them (the "We Shall Overcome" button is my favorite:)

The coolest bit of political memorabilia that I have are a set of staff passes from the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment proceedings for President Clinton's impeachment in 1998, including one from the day that the special prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, testified. Former Republican Congressman James E. Rogan, who was one of the thirteen Republicans House Managers who actually acted as prosecutors during the Senate trial following the President's Clinton's impeachment, wrote a really great book called Catching Our Flag: Behind the Scenes of a Presidential Impeachment (BOOK | KINDLE) that I reviewed way back in 2011. In the book, Congressman Rogan (he's a Judge in California now) mentioned that he was a collector of political memorabilia and that he was very cognizant of the fact that he was playing a part in a major historical event -- which I mentioned in the review -- and I also noted that I respected how fair his book was despite the fact that he was a major political player in the impeachment and that he was so clearly from the opposite side of the political tracks than I am. His fairness actually resulted in President Clinton offering to help when Rogan was struggling to win re-election to Congress after the impeachment (which Rogan was grateful for, but turned down because it would hurt him more with his GOP supporters than any Democrats on the fence). ANYWAY...after I posted my review, Congressman Rogan contacted me and thanked me for the review and SENT ME SOME OF THE PASSES THAT HE HAD SAVED FROM THE IMPEACHMENT:

Here's the review of Congressman Rogan's book from 2011 (go buy it). Here's a post where I wrote a little more detail about getting the passes sent to me (and about the whole idea of tickets to impeachment proceedings in general). Also, as I noted in that post, if you are a stalker or a hater, don't go to the address on the letter that Congressman Rogan sent me in that photo because I haven't lived in Texas since 2011. (Also, if you're a stalker who looks like Shakira or Tessa Thompson, just send me a message and I'll give you my address.)

[mariacallous]

Media headlines from the past several years tell a clear story: State governments across the U.S. are taking actions to boost housing production and improve affordability. State legislators from Oregon to Montana to Massachusetts have passed laws aimed at legalizing “missing middle” housing and encouraging development of apartments near transit stations. Other states, including Arizona, Colorado, and New York, have debated ambitious bills that failed to cross the finish line. While the political battles make for great storytelling, passing state laws is just the beginning of the next, usually lower-profile process: how local governments incorporate these laws and put them into effect.

To better understand how states are implementing their new policies, in April 2023, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and Brookings Metro convened state policymakers and researchers for a series of conversations. This piece summarizes three key lessons from those conversations; a longer report  provides more details and state-by-state examples.

Lesson 1: The pathway to implementation is long, and may include snags or detours

Statewide pro-housing policies can take the form of mandates, incentives, or a combination thereof. For example, some require localities to allow duplexes in all residential areas, while others encourage higher-density development near transit stations.

Before taking effect, these guidelines must be incorporated into local laws. The process of doing so varies somewhat across states (or even the type of local government within a state) but follows a general sequence of events (see Figure 1). Action shifts iteratively between state agencies (which issue detailed regulations) and local governments (which revise their laws to comply with the regulations). It can easily take three to four years—or longer, if there is persistent legal or political opposition—from the time the governor signs a bill into law until all affected cities and counties have adopted fully compliant local laws.

Figure 1. Pathways and Bottlenecks: Implementing State Policies

State and local agencies are typically required to present their draft policies for a period of public comment, receiving feedback from stakeholders representing a wide range of opinions. Local elected officials, advocacy groups, and voters that oppose or support the new state policy have opportunities to weigh in—and potentially delay or derail the process of implementation. Media coverage and general public awareness of the issues may also affect the timing and pathways of local policy adoption.

Lesson 2: Successful policy implementation depends on the capacity of state and local governments

Not all state and local governments are created equal, or endowed with equivalent capacity to undertake new projects.

Public entities responsible for overseeing implementation of housing reforms at both the state and local level vary widely in terms of staff capacity (i.e., size, technical expertise, and bandwidth relative to existing duties), financial resources, and related dimensions such as data infrastructure. For example, California’s Department of Housing and Community Development employs a large professional staff, with over 100 people in the policy division alone; meanwhile, Maine’s new law is being implemented by only four staff members across different state agencies. Capacity varies even more among localities: Large, affluent cities and counties typically employ multiple full-time housing policy experts in their planning departments, but many smaller suburban or rural communities have minimal personnel.

To support local governments, states are using a variety of strategies. Issuing clear, detailed guidance on how to incorporate new regulations—including model codes and handbooks—can help avoid confusion. Some state agencies and regional planning organizations offer in-person or virtual trainings for local governments. Funding to hire outside consultants is another option in states where high-quality consultants are available.

Lesson 3: Be clear about the goals new policies are intended to achieve, and how relevant outcomes will be measured

State governments have different reasons for wanting to adopt housing policies, based on underlying housing market conditions and constituent concerns. Being clear upfront about the intended goals and desired outcomes will help during the implementation stage, both in setting expectations for local governments and putting in place systems to collect appropriate data and monitor compliance.

For example, is the primary goal to increase overall housing production, or to create more below-market homes for low-income households? Are there geographic areas of particular interest, such as transit corridors or job- and amenity-rich communities? Each of these strategies implies a slightly different set of metrics that should be tracked to assess the policy’s effectiveness.

Getting implementation right is unglamorous but essential

The excitement and public attention that follow hard-fought political battles over statewide housing policies may fade after legislation is signed into law, but subsequent events are equally important if new policies are to achieve their goals. Understanding the nuts and bolts of how state guidelines are incorporated into revised local laws will help policymakers, the media, and voters develop realistic expectations about when they will see outcomes. Absent this clarity, pro-housing advocates may get discouraged, while opponents claim that zoning changes are ineffective—all before the policies kick in and have time to impact housing supply.

Additionally, policymakers should try to anticipate implementation challenges and design policies that recognize the resources and staff capacity available among state and local governments. State-level housing policies are evolving in real time; researchers and policymakers across the country will be watching to learn what works and what doesn’t.

[roysexton]

I’m not sure I gave this its proper due last week. I had a *bit* going on with Legal Marketing Association - LMA International’s #LMA23 annual conference - #dragqueens, #sequins, stellar keynote Laura Gassner Otting, and off-the-chain content and networking with THE best #legalmarketing pros in the business. Last week was, well, epic. And I will be on Cloud 9 for months/years to come as a result.

Still, being named one of this year’s “Notable Leaders in Marketing” by Crains Detroit Business is truly one of the honors of my life. 20 some years ago I remember sitting down and reading the paper edition of Crain’s every week and looking at lists like this with admiration and wondering if I would ever make it on to one of them. So this recognition really means the world to me, and particularly to be acknowledged in the broader category of marketing, regardless of industry supported, feels truly special.

https://www.crainsdetroit.com/awards/roy-sexton-notable-leaders-marketing-2023

Sexton manages a staff of 12 marketing professionals, a seven-figure marketing budget and two public relations firms at Clark Hill Law. There, he is also responsible for internal and external communications and social media content. His efforts to ramp up video marketing through social media helped increase online video views to 500,000 in 2021 and more than 750,000 in 2022.

“Roy’s enthusiasm for his work and community shows through in the way he embraces any activity he engages in,” said Detroit Regional Partnership President and Maureen Donohue Krauss.

Further, Sexton has championed and executed the firm’s Simply Smarter branding campaign and new website launch, for which Clark Hill received the 2022 Best Marketing Campaign award from the London-based Managing Partners'​ Forum.

His many community and corporate service efforts include serving on the governance committee for the Mosaic Youth Theatre of Detroit board and his work as chair of the marketing committee for Ronald McDonald House Charities Ann Arbor. Sexton also served as a governor-appointed member of the Michigan Council of Labor and Economic Growth.

#detroit #simplysmarter #lmamkt #law #legal #marketing #branding