Republicans – Law Street

RantCrush Top 5: June 30, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel — Fri, 30 Jun 2017 16:29:18 +0000

Image courtesy of torbakhopper; License: (CC BY-ND 2.0)

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Brzezinski and Scarborough Speak Out About Trump Feud

President Donald Trump faced bipartisan criticism after launching a Twitter attack yesterday on the hosts of “Morning Joe,” Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski. Many Republicans have expressed disappointment and embarrassment that the president would use such derogatory language. “I see it as embarrassing to our country,” said Maine Senator Susan Collins. It points to the problematic view he has of women, according to Republican pollster Christine Matthews, who spoke to the New York Times. But Sarah Huckabee Sanders defended the president’s words as “fighting fire with fire” and said they were appropriate.

Please just stop. This isn’t normal and it’s beneath the dignity of your office.

— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) June 29, 2017

This morning, Scarborough and Brzezinski said that officials from the White House called them and said that the National Enquirer, whose owner is a friend of Trump, would run a hit piece on them. According to Scarborough and Brzezinski, Trump would shut down the story if he apologized to them. The couple also said reporters from the Enquirer have been calling Brzezinski’s children and friends.

Here’s the clip:

This is a chilling story. https://t.co/HYJgBnajOy via @Morning_Joe https://t.co/6UCEHzfOET

— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) June 30, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 30, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Matt Rinaldi: The Texas Republican Who “Reported” Protesters to ICE

Emma Von Zeipel — Tue, 30 May 2017 21:02:51 +0000

"Texas State Capitol" courtesy of Stuart Seeger; license: (CC BY 2.0)

Immigration issues were on the docket for Texas lawmakers on Monday, and protesters were present throughout the day. But one lawmaker, Republican state representative Matt Rinaldi, shocked his colleagues when he said that he reported the protesters to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It was the final day of an intense four-month session debating sanctuary cities, and over 1,000 demonstrators showed up to protest a new state law that makes it illegal for local law enforcement to refuse to comply with immigration laws and detention requests.

Rinaldi told his colleagues that he had reported the protesters to ICE as he believed they were undocumented immigrants. He allegedly said, “We are going to have them deported,” followed by an obscenity. Democrats were shocked by Rinaldi’s comments. “He assumed that because they were brown, in the gallery and protesting that they were here illegally,” said Representative César J. Blanco.

VIDEO: Lawmakers in Texas House scuffle during #SINEDIE on Monday.
BACKGROUND: https://t.co/q77vMguaXh pic.twitter.com/zlAGEaL0pB

— KVUE News (@KVUE) May 29, 2017

Some lawmakers were upset by Rinaldi’s behavior and a scuffle and some finger pointing ensued. Rinaldi claimed that Democratic Representatives Poncho Nevárez and Ramon Romero threatened his life and physically assaulted him. But according to others, Rinaldi was the one making the threats. “There was a threat made from Rinaldi to put a bullet in one of my colleagues’ heads,” said Representative Justin Rodriguez, also a Democrat.

Man, Texas knows how to protest. pic.twitter.com/976zeoxYNL

— john r stanton (@dcbigjohn) May 29, 2017

Now they have a case of “he said, he said”–Nevárez said he never threatened Rinaldi. Rinaldi claimed he saw protesters holding signs saying, “I am illegal and here to stay” and that some of the Democratic lawmakers encouraged them. Blanco said he didn’t see any signs of that nature. ICE didn’t confirm whether or not it sent officials to Austin. But Blanco blamed President Donald Trump’s rhetoric for the conflict, saying that the president promotes hate speech:

The Trump rhetoric is trickling down and allowing current elected officials and candidates to resort to racism and violence making it sound like it was O.K. This has to stop. It is not what our country or what Texas is about.

Members of the Texas House Mexican-American Legislative Caucus said at a press conference on Monday that Rinaldi approached them repeatedly just to tell them he had called ICE. “F*ck them, I called ICE,” were his specific words, according to several members. Rinaldi said the protesters broke the law. But the chairman of the caucus, Rafael Anchía, said he simply saw Texans exercising their First Amendment rights.

The new law banning sanctuary cities, Senate Bill 4, will go into effect in September. Several law enforcement agencies opposed the law, and citizens have continued to protest it even after Governor Greg Abbott signed it.

Emma Von Zeipel

The post Matt Rinaldi: The Texas Republican Who “Reported” Protesters to ICE appeared first on Law Street.

What is the House Freedom Caucus?

Anneliese Mahoney — Sat, 01 Apr 2017 21:04:24 +0000

"Jim Jordan" courtesy of Gage Skidmore; License: (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Last month, House Republican leaders introduced their new health care plan, the American Health Care Act. The effort was ultimately unsuccessful, and on March 24 the bill was withdrawn, largely because of Republican infighting. Republican moderates worried that the bill was too extreme, and would be harmful for their constituents. But Republicans further to the right disagreed, arguing that the bill actually didn’t go far enough. Those right-wing Republicans were led by the House Freedom Caucus, a caucus that has only been in existence for two years, but in the Trump era, has made quite a name for itself. Read on to learn more about the inception of the House Freedom Caucus, its ideology, and its members.

History of the House Freedom Caucus

The formation of the House Freedom Caucus was announced in January 2015. Its founding members were all hardline Republican representatives: Scott Garrett of New Jersey, Jim Jordan of Ohio, John Fleming of Louisiana, Matt Salmon of Arizona, Justin Amash of Michigan, Raúl Labrador of Idaho, Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina, Ron DeSantis of Florida, and Mark Meadows of North Carolina. The nine founders reportedly planned their new caucus at a retreat in Hershey, Pennsylvania, a few weeks before they announced its formation.

According to a statement that offices of the members released:

The House Freedom Caucus gives a voice to countless Americans who feel that Washington does not represent them. We support open, accountable, and limited government, the Constitution and the rule of law, and policies that promote the liberty, safety, and prosperity of all Americans.

The House Freedom Caucus is notably more conservative than the rest of the House, and Americans in general. According to Tim Dickinson of Rolling Stone:

The Freedom Caucus acts like a third party in Washington because the political fates of its members are not yoked to the national GOP. Their districts rate R+13, according to Cook Political Report data crunched by Rolling Stone. This means their districts vote 13 percent more Republican than the nation as a whole — and are nearly a third more partisan than the median GOP seat (R+10).

The Split from the Republican Study Committee

The House Freedom Caucus was an offshoot of the Republican Study Committee (RSC), a much larger, but traditionally very conservative, caucus. However, in 2015, the year the House Freedom Caucus was founded, some conservative Republicans thought the RSC had become too centrist. The RSC had also become quite clunky and large–it currently has over 170 members.

Reports on whether the House Freedom Caucus’s split from the RSC was amicable have differed. The founding members tactfully told the press that they believed a smaller, more mobile organization was needed to pull the party to the right. Some members of the House Freedom Caucus remained as RSC members, while others left the larger group.

The House Freedom Caucus and House Speaker John Boehner

Congressman John Boehner announced that he would step down from the position of Speaker of the House in September of 2015. He had held the post since 2011, when Republicans gained majority control of the House.

It was reported that Boehner stepped down, at least in part, due to pressure from the House Freedom Caucus. If all of the 30-odd members of the caucus had refused to support him, he would not have had enough votes to remain the House leader. The House Freedom Caucus members wanted Boehner to push harder on some far-right issues, like defunding Planned Parenthood.

Who are the Current Members of the House Freedom Caucus?

No one is completely sure. The invite-only group isn’t public with its roster. However, a number of media outlets have identified the members who have been open about their relationship to the caucus. Here are the congressmen who are believed to currently be part of the House Freedom Caucus:

House Freedom Caucus Chair Mark Meadows, North Carolina
Alex Mooney, West Virginia
Andy Harris, Maryland
Bill Posey, Florida
Brian Babin, Texas
Dave Brat, Iowa
David Schweikert, Arizona
Gary Palmer, Alabama
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina
Jim Bridenstine, Oklahoma
Jim Jordan, Ohio
Jody Hice, Georgia
Joe Barton, Texas
Justin Amash, Michigan
Ken Buck, Colorado
Mark Sanford, South Carolina
Mo Brooks, Alabama
Morgan Griffith, Virginia
Paul Gosar, Arizona
Rand Weber, Texas
Raul Labrador, Idaho
Rod Blum, Texas
Ron DeSantis, Florida
Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
Steve Pearce, New Mexico
Ted Yoho, Florida
Tom Garrett Jr., Virginia
Trent Franks, Arizona
Warren Davidson, Ohio

Who are the Former Members of the House Freedom Caucus?

There are also some former members associated with the caucus. These include congressmen who lost re-election bids in 2016, including founding member Scott Garrett of Florida and Tim Huelskamp of Kansas. Former Congressmen John Fleming of Louisiana and Marlin Stutzman of Indiana ran for other positions and were defeated.

Retired Congressmen Curt Clawson of Florida, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, and Matt Salmon of Arizona also used to be counted among the members. Lummis seems to be the only female member ever associated with the caucus, so as it currently stands, the caucus appears to be entirely male. One founding member, Mick Mulvaney, was appointed by President Donald Trump as the director of the Office of Management and Budget, and therefore is no longer in the House of Representatives.

There were some members who decided to remove themselves from House Freedom Caucus membership. Congressmen Tom McClintock of California and Reid Ribble of Wisconsin quit after the group’s role in forcing Boehner out of the Speaker of the House position. After he quit, McClintock said: “I feel that the HFC’s many missteps have made it counterproductive to its stated goals and I no longer wish to be associated with it.” And Ribble took his complaints a step farther, saying:

I was a member of the Freedom Caucus in the very beginning because we were focused on making the process reforms to get every Member’s voice heard and advance conservative policy. When the Speaker resigned and they pivoted to focusing on the leadership race, I withdrew.

Representative Keith Rothfus of Pennsylvania resigned from the caucus last winter, saying that although his ideology still matched the group’s, he wanted to focus on “substantive policy work rather than procedural mechanisms the group uses to exert influence.” Representative Barry Loudermilk, of Georgia, also quit quietly, saying that he just didn’t have the “bandwith” to be in the group.

Most recently, Representative Ted Poe, from Texas, quit the House Freedom Caucus after the group’s role in the health care bill failure at the end of March. Poe said in an interview on “Fox & Friends” that he felt as though the caucus was saying “no” too much:

The president, Speaker Ryan, came to the Freedom Caucus and made some changes that we wanted several times. But no matter what changes were made, the goal post kept getting moved and at the end of the day, ‘no’ was the answer. And sometimes you’re going to have to say yes.

Poe chose to resign, saying that, “at some time we’re going to have to say ‘yes.’ We are in power. We need to lead.”

The Freedom Caucus in the News

Since its inception, the two most news-worthy events involving the House Freedom Caucus were its founding, and its role in John Boehner’s resignation. But the Freedom Caucus was recently vaulted into the spotlight with the AHCA controversy.

The American Health Care Act

Regardless of whether the assessment is fair or not, the House Freedom Caucus has been largely blamed by the media, President Donald Trump, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, and others, for the bill’s failure.

The big sticking point with the AHCA for many of the members was that it wasn’t conservative enough, and didn’t provide for a full repeal. At one point, it was reported that the Trump Administration was negotiating with the House Freedom Caucus to secure the needed votes to pass the bill in the House of Representatives. The Trump Administration offered to get rid of “essential health benefits” that were guaranteed under Obamacare. These essential health benefits included maternity care, emergency room visits, and mental health services. But, the Freedom Caucus still claimed that the bill didn’t go far enough, and on March 24, the bill was pulled.

Trump’s Attack

In the wake of the AHCA withdrawal, President Donald Trump started criticizing the House Freedom Caucus. On March 27, Trump tweeted: “The Republican House Freedom Caucus was able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.” He followed that up on March 30, by tweeting: “The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don’t get on the team, & fast. We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!” The verified Twitter account for the House Freedom Caucus responded to Trump’s criticism on March 31, saying that the group wants to hold true to its promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and arguing that only 17 percent of Americans supported the AHCA.

Conclusion

The House Freedom Caucus is relatively new, having just been founded in 2015, and best known for being involved in Speaker of the House John Boehner’s resignation. But in the Trump era, with both the Executive and Legislative branches controlled by the Republican Party, the House Freedom Caucus has become an increasingly influential part of GOP House dynamics. What the group will do with that newfound power remains to be seen.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What is the House Freedom Caucus? appeared first on Law Street.

Mike Pence Casts Tie-Breaking Vote Allowing States to Defund Family Planning Services

Emma Von Zeipel — Fri, 31 Mar 2017 14:01:51 +0000

Image courtesy of Michael Vadon; license: (CC BY 2.0)

In a Senate vote on Thursday, Vice President Mike Pence stepped in and broke the 50-50 tie in favor of getting rid of an Obama-era rule that prohibits states from defunding health care providers for political reasons. Even after the Republicans managed to bring in Senator Johnny Isakson from Georgia, who is recovering from two back surgeries and had to use a walker and wheelchair, the vote ended in a 50-50 tie. Republicans Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, both known as moderates, joined the Senate Democrats and Independents in voting against the measure. Pence then cast the deciding vote.

Democrats criticized the GOP for the move, with Senator Patty Murray of Washington saying that the Democrats would spend Thursday afternoon speaking out against it. Doing this “would undo a valuable effort by the Obama Administration to ensure that health care providers are evaluated for federal funding based on their ability to provide the services in question, not on ideology,” she said.

Pres Trump is so focused on attacking women’s health, he sent women’s health advisor—@VP Pence—to break a tie vote on latest attack. #TitleX https://t.co/QOBHpY76Oz

— Senator Patty Murray (@PattyMurray) March 30, 2017

There was a procedural vote earlier in the day that also required Pence’s tie-breaking powers. The new measure will use the Congressional Review Act to repeal a rule that the Obama Administration introduced late last year that prohibits states from blocking Title X funding to healthcare providers that offer abortion services.

Title X is the only federal grant program where money goes exclusively to family planning and reproductive health services for low-income people and those without insurance. It dates back to the 1970s and President Richard Nixon. Title X money makes sure patients can go get tested for STDs or HIV, cancer screenings, treatments, and birth control. However, the Hyde Amendment prevents federal money from being used for abortions.

But, if the Republicans get their way, states will be able to withhold federal money from going to any family planning service that offers abortions at all, even if the money wouldn’t be used for abortion services. Republicans argued that Obama’s requirement that states distribute money to healthcare providers regardless of whether they also perform abortions hurt small, local communities. How and why is unclear. “It substituted Washington’s judgment for the needs of real people,” said Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday.

Obviously a lot of women and Democrats did not agree with this and spoke out forcefully on social media.

The VP was sent to break a tie vote on #TitleX.

Amazing what GOP leaders will do to make sure women’s health centers don’t get funded. https://t.co/SoHVxURl6H

— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) March 30, 2017

Title X is a bipartisan program to provide birth control, cancer screenings & HIV tests, & @VP Pence cast the tiebreaking vote attacking it

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) March 30, 2017

When politicians interfere in women’s personal health decisions, women get hurt. Call your senator: https://t.co/V1XhwtywtW #TitleX

— Cecile Richards (@CecileRichards) March 30, 2017

Many women also took issue with the fact that Mike Pence received an award last week from the Independent Women’s Forum. That organization was formed after law professor Anita Hill accused Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment in the 1990s. But it’s important to note that IWF formed because they didn’t believe Hill, which makes it less surprising that the group would award Pence for his work on behalf of women.

Emma Von Zeipel

The post Mike Pence Casts Tie-Breaking Vote Allowing States to Defund Family Planning Services appeared first on Law Street.

Senator James Inhofe Claims the EPA is Brainwashing Our Kids

Emma Von Zeipel — Fri, 17 Mar 2017 13:48:09 +0000

Image courtesy of U.S. Embassy Kyiv Ukraine; license: public domain

Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, who is on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has become known for defying climate research and trying to prove that global warming is a hoax. In 2014 he brought a snowball to the Senate floor. Back then, 2014 was the hottest year on record and Inhofe asked the chair, “You know what this is?” before throwing the snowball. On Thursday, he appeared in an interview on CNN’s “New Day” and accused the Environmental Protection Agency of brainwashing American kids with propaganda.

It is not clear whether he really doesn’t believe in science, or if he doesn’t understand it, or if he’s just trying to make a political point. But he actually said, without providing any examples or proof: “we are going to take all this stuff that comes out of the EPA that is brainwashing our kids, that is propaganda, things that aren’t true, allegations.” Inhofe was referring to Donald Trump’s new budget proposal, which shows huge cuts in the funding for the EPA.

A lot of people were outraged by Inhofe’s comments.

The deniers have taken over. Future generations will despise these people for their recklessness and selfishness. https://t.co/TBR6kmuoBx

— Peter Daou (@peterdaou) March 15, 2017

Lunatics like this are one of the main reasons your clean water is at risk https://t.co/esoPQErEpB

— Jordan (@JordanChariton) March 16, 2017

When interviewer Poppy Harlow asked Inhofe to explain his remarks about brainwashing, he avoided the question and instead started praising Scott Pruitt, the new head of the EPA, who sued the agency when he was the attorney general of Oklahoma.

Inhofe has made this allegation before; in July he made similar comments to radio host Eric Metaxas. He told Metaxas he “was the first one back in 2002 to tell the truth about the global warming stuff and all of that.” Then he told an anecdote in which his granddaughter asked him why he doesn’t understand global warming. Inhofe told the radio host, “I did some checking and Eric, the stuff that they teach our kids nowadays, you have to un-brainwash them when they get out.”

In 2010, Inhofe took his grandchildren to build an igloo on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. and named it “Al Gore’s New Home.” He has called global warming the “the greatest hoax” ever imposed on Americans. Now, given the GOP’s control of the government, he has a chance to do some real damage. “Now he and his cronies have far more reach and are far more dangerous than they’ve ever been… That’s good news for the polluters but horrible news for public health,” said Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters.

Emma Von Zeipel

The post Senator James Inhofe Claims the EPA is Brainwashing Our Kids appeared first on Law Street.

RantCrush Top 5: March 2, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel — Thu, 02 Mar 2017 17:25:09 +0000

Image courtesy of Steven Straiton; License: (CC BY 2.0)

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Jeff Sessions: Introduce Us to Your Russian Friends!

Yesterday it came to light that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had two meetings with the same Russian diplomat that Michael Flynn had talked to during the transition period. ICYMI, those meetings led to Flynn’s firing from the Trump Administration.

Sessions did not mention these meetings at his confirmation hearing–in fact, he said that he didn’t know anything about contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia. Now Democrats are calling for Sessions’ resignation, but Republicans say he didn’t do anything wrong, as he was only asked about the Trump campaign’s alleged communications with Russia, not his own communication. The Russian ambassador in question, Sergey Kislyak, is considered to be one of Russia’s top spies and spy-recruiters. Sessions reportedly met with him on two occasions; once in July during the Republican convention and then again in September. Sessions was on the Senate Armed Services Committee during both of these time periods.

Jeff Sessions lied under oath about his contacts with a country that’s actively trying to undermine our democracy. So yes, he should resign.

— Mark Takano (@RepMarkTakano) March 2, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 2, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Senate Republicans Change Finance Committee Rules to Push Through Nominees

Austin Elias-De Jesus — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 22:16:56 +0000

"Orrin Hatch" Courtesy of Gage Skidmore: License (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Senate Finance Committee Republicans took matters into their own hands to confirm two of President Donald Trump’s nominees.

In an effort to advance Trump’s nominees for Treasury secretary and secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services–Steven Mnuchin and Congressman Tom Price–the Republicans on the panel of the Senate Finance Committee voted in a surprise meeting on Wednesday morning to change the procedural rules that outlined that Democrats must be in attendance to vote on the nominees. With this rule change, Mnuchin and Price were approved by the committee in a 14-0 vote, allowing for the nominations to go to the full Senate for approval.

Where are @SenateFinance Dems this morning? Standing with the ppl of OH and others hurt by the abusive practices of Mnuchin’s bank. pic.twitter.com/AvLpnxyJko

— Sherrod Brown (@SenSherrodBrown) February 1, 2017

This move comes a day after Democrats on the panel of the Senate Finance Committee staged a boycott of Mnuchin and Price’s hearings, which presented an obstacle considering the standing rule was that at least one Democrat had to be present in order for any votes to take place. The boycott was led by Senators Sherrod Brown and Roy Wyden in an effort to push for more vetting of both Mnuchin and Price, both of whom the senators claim gave misleading testimonies and responses during the committee hearings about their investments and foreclosure practices, respectively.

.@sensherrodbrown on why Senate Dems boycotting Price and Mnuchin committee votes. https://t.co/qr5oT2gOHX

— Andrew Rafferty (@AndrewNBCNews) January 31, 2017

The Democratic senators outlined their concerns and request for further questioning in a letter sent to the committee’s chairman, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, this morning.

Here are the questions @SenateFinance Democrats want answers to from Price & Mnuchin pic.twitter.com/jo2NOyq484

— Ron Wyden (@RonWyden) February 1, 2017

Talking to reporters on Tuesday afternoon, Hatch relayed his annoyance with the boycotting senators. “I’m very disappointed in this kind of crap . . . This is the most pathetic thing I’ve seen in my whole time in the United States Senate,” Hatch said.

Even after the rule change and the approval of Trump’s two nominees, Hatch still took time to go after the committee’s Democrats for their boycott, telling reporters that the boycott was “unprecedented obstruction” and a “cheap political ploy.” However, the boycott might not be as unprecedented as Hatch claims it to be, considering, as many have pointed out, the Republicans boycotted in 2013 to block the confirmation of Gina McCarthy as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

The rule change and verbal sparring in the media between Finance Committee members just adds to the rising tension between members of Congress. Yesterday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer voted no on the confirmation of Elaine Chao as Transportation Secretary, who is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s wife. Earlier today, things got contentious between Democratic Senator Al Franken and GOP Senator John Cornyn during a Judiciary Committee meeting when Cornyn took exception to Franken calling out absent GOP Senator Ted Cruz. In addition, Democratic senators on the Environmental and Public Works Committee–taking a cue from their colleagues on the Finance Committee–have staged a boycott of the vote to confirm Scott Pruitt as the head of the EPA.

Al Franken calls out absent Ted Cruz & Cruz’s GOP colleague John Cornyn objects. Franken: “Well, he should be here.” pic.twitter.com/zjMBDhshnJ

— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) February 1, 2017

And this is only Day 12 of Trump’s presidency.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Senate Republicans Change Finance Committee Rules to Push Through Nominees appeared first on Law Street.

Paul Ryan: The GOP Will Defund Planned Parenthood

Emma Von Zeipel — Fri, 06 Jan 2017 19:06:14 +0000

Image courtesy of PBS NewsHour; license: (CC BY 2.0)

House Speaker Paul Ryan confirmed many women’s fears when he said that the Republican Party will defund Planned Parenthood, as part of a bill that aims to repeal Obamacare. The GOP is planning a “reconciliation bill,” which means that Democrats will be prevented from filibustering. Ryan spoke at a press conference on Capitol Hill on Thursday, but didn’t provide any further details.

This is an important step for many Republicans as conservatives have tried for years to completely defund Planned Parenthood because it offers abortions. But, the organization also offers education, birth control, breast cancer screenings, STD tests, and more. This move could prove a challenge for some more moderate Republicans who previously have voted against defunding the organization. Many people reacted strongly to the news:

Ryan says that defunding Planned Parenthood will be included in ACA repeal. Because, let’s take away healthcare from as many as possible.

— Dante Atkins (@DanteAtkins) January 5, 2017

Some pointed out that it’s not a question of cutting off direct federal funding to Planned Parenthood. “Defunding” Planned Parenthood means cutting off reimbursement for the care it provides people who rely on Medicaid–a hard blow for low-income people.

Please pay attention to what “defunding” Planned Parenthood means: refusing to reimburse for their care offered to poor folks. https://t.co/muci1CSAGb

— Sarah Seltzer (@sarahmseltzer) January 5, 2017

Planned Parenthood launched a campaign Thursday to counteract the effort, and has planned protests, letters, and other actions over the coming months.

There’s no line item in a budget that goes to Planned Parenthood — simply reimbursement for care rendered, like other health providers. pic.twitter.com/SaTIpE9PUh

— Planned Parenthood (@PPact) January 5, 2017

The President of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, said that it was no coincidence that the announcement came “the day after Vice President-elect Mike Pence, a long-time opponent of Planned Parenthood, held a closed-door meeting with Speaker Ryan and the Republican leadership.” If the bill passes, Planned Parenthood would lose about $400 million in Medicaid money in the first year, and it would cut off care access for 400,000 women, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

House Pro-Choice Caucus on why #ACA is essential for repro health care. Co-Chair @RepDianaDeGette at podium. pic.twitter.com/JFXPzJA3mq

— Christine Grimaldi (@chgrimaldi) January 5, 2017

Richards said:

Defunding Planned Parenthood is dangerous to people’s health, it’s unpopular, and it would leave people across the country without care. They cannot afford to have basic reproductive health care attacked. Planned Parenthood has been here for 100 years and we’re going to be here for 100 more.

Though conservative Republicans have fought Planned Parenthood for years, it seems like a majority of Americans view Planned Parenthood positively—59 percent according to a Gallup poll from 2015. President-elect Donald Trump himself has changed his opinion a couple of times. After saying that the organization has helped millions of women, he later encouraged efforts to defund it. He also used to call himself “very pro-choice,” but is now against abortion. What is certain, is that Democrats, Planned Parenthood and many, many women will not give up without a fight.

Emma Von Zeipel

The post Paul Ryan: The GOP Will Defund Planned Parenthood appeared first on Law Street.

Joe Biden Goes “Full Biden” at the Senate Swearing-In Ceremony

Emma Von Zeipel — Wed, 04 Jan 2017 20:07:17 +0000

"Vice President Joe Biden" courtesy of Center for American Progress; license: (CC BY-ND 2.0)

On Tuesday, the swearing-in ceremony for the new Senate took place and Vice President Joe Biden had to call the group to order twice. After the official swearing-in was over with, Senators brought their family members up to meet the VP and pose for photos. It was the last ceremony for Biden as VP, so there were a lot of photos taken, and Biden was at his most Biden-like.

Happening now: @VP Biden swears-in new Senators for the last time (a must-see Congressional tradition):: pic.twitter.com/JkRXt4BRiG

— Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) January 3, 2017

Biden was as funny as always and told the mother of Republican Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, “When I die, I want to be reborn in Charleston.” Another senator’s mother took the opportunity to give Biden a bear hug.

Everyone is @ChuckGrassley‘s mom today. We’ll miss you Joe. pic.twitter.com/z7xS7kXVoE

— ClotureClub.com (@ClotureClub) January 3, 2017

For some members, the photo session took longer than for others. Democratic Senator Kamala Harris from California brought 15 family members who had traveled all the way from India, as well as a best friend from childhood and her mother’s BFF. “Aren’t you glad there’s not 435 senators?” Biden joked with the journalists and photographers.

“At least I wasn’t in high heels—although things are changing, man,” Biden says of the 5,500 pics he took at VPOTUS holiday parties.

— Phil Elliott (@Philip_Elliott) January 3, 2017

He blew kisses to Illinois Senator Tammy Duckworth’s two-year-old daughter and tried to charm another baby, who was not as impressed.

Also this baby totally snubbed Biden pic.twitter.com/4lzdw2AIaB

— Sarah Parnass (@WordsOfSarah) January 3, 2017

After taking some photos with Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, Biden asked to have a photo with just the kids.

@VP Joe Biden kicks @marcorubio out of a photo op so he can take a picture with the Florida senator’s kids pic.twitter.com/AiKVSw7FSU

— POLITICO (@politico) January 3, 2017

Joe Biden will leave office later in January and told reporters that he won’t miss all the hullabaloo around official events like this. He has said that he knows what he will do next and will announce his plans soon. Many of us will miss him, and many hoped he would run for president in 2016. But maybe he’ll star in his own show instead:

Guys we need a kickstarter for a Joe Biden reality show that is just him doing this https://t.co/SS5jNmONx0

— rcohen (@rcohen) January 3, 2017

But Uncle Joe will probably make whatever decision is the best for him and his family and hopefully do a lot of good in a new role. “I’m going to try to take the VP office out of the office and establish a domestic and foreign policy piece where I can still do a lot of the stuff I care a lot about,” he said.

Emma Von Zeipel

The post Joe Biden Goes “Full Biden” at the Senate Swearing-In Ceremony appeared first on Law Street.

RantCrush Top 5: January 3, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel — Tue, 03 Jan 2017 18:26:57 +0000

Image courtesy of Scott Kinmartin; License: (CC BY 2.0)

Good morning everyone, here’s the first RantCrush of 2017! Hope you had a good New Year’s Eve and are prepared to tackle the new year. Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Arrests Have Been Made in Turkey Nightclub Attack

On the night of New Year’s Eve, a gunman dressed as Santa entered an internationally popular nightclub in Istanbul and started a shooting spree. Thirty-nine people died, and many more were injured. Yesterday, ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack. Twelve people have been arrested, but it’s still unclear whether the actual perpetrator is among them. The suspect has been identified as a man from Uzbekistan or Kyrgyzstan. Police are also investigating whether the unnamed suspect is connected to the same ISIS-affiliated group that carried out the attack on Istanbul’s Ataturk airport in June.

Turkey nightclub attack: Manhunt for gunman intensifies https://t.co/3SYL7yKMKm

— BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) January 2, 2017

The attack is believed to be retaliation against Turkey for its involvement in the conflict in Syria, where Turkish forces have been fighting against ISIS. Approximately 25 of the victims were foreign. One American man was among the injured and survived by playing dead. This was a tragic way to end 2016 and ring in the new year, but Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is determined to fight terrorism. “As a nation, we will fight to the end against not just the armed attacks of terror groups and the forces behind them, but also against their economic, political, and social attacks,” he said in a statement.

Emma Von Zeipel

The post RantCrush Top 5: January 3, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

John Kasich Vetoes GOP Bill That Would Limit Renewable Energy Efforts

Emma Von Zeipel — Wed, 28 Dec 2016 19:25:59 +0000

"John Kasich" courtesy of Gage Skidmore; license: (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Ohio Governor John Kasich just vetoed a bill that would have limited the state’s renewable energy laws and made certain restrictions voluntary for two years. House Bill 554 was one of many bills that Kasich vetoed on Tuesday, along with one that would allow a $264 million tax break for the oil and gas industry.

The bill would affect rules that require electricity utilities to meet certain standards when it comes to environmental sustainability. These laws have already been frozen for two years, and if passed, House Bill 554 would have made it voluntary for companies to follow the standards. Instead, they will now go back into effect. Though the Republican-controlled House and Senate passed the bill, enough representatives voted against it that it could still be vetoed. But many disagreed with Kasich’s actions. Senator Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati) who was in support of the bill, stated:

It is apparent that Gov. Kasich cares more about appeasing his coastal elite friends in the renewable-energy business than he does about the millions of Ohioans who decisively rejected this ideology when they voted for President-elect Trump.

Another Republican, Bill Coley, said requiring energy to be renewable is the same thing as forcing people to eat kale.

Kasich evidently not persuaded by State Senator’s argument that an RES is same as making people eat kale. https://t.co/pc0RYuRuW4

— Jason Bordoff (@JasonBordoff) December 28, 2016

The renewable energy standards were frozen in 2014 because opponents criticized them as leading to increased costs for electric companies. A special committee was set up to come up with another solution, and concluded that the freeze should be indefinite. The House and Senate passed House Bill 554 earlier this month in response.

Kasich said in a statement about the veto that passing the bill would make Ohio less attractive for businesses that are likely to generate a lot of jobs in the near future, “such as high-technology firms.” Many tech companies put the environment and sustainability high on their list of priorities; for example Amazon has invested a lot of money in Ohio and supports renewable energy policies.

The GOP has called for two extra sessions on Wednesday and Thursday and might try to override the governor’s veto. They are expected to bring up the disputed so-called heartbeat abortion bill, which Kasich also vetoed.

Emma Von Zeipel

The post John Kasich Vetoes GOP Bill That Would Limit Renewable Energy Efforts appeared first on Law Street.

Sarah Palin Claims God Intervened and Helped Trump Win the Election

Emma Von Zeipel — Thu, 01 Dec 2016 14:15:51 +0000

"Sarah Palin" courtesy of Gage Skidmore; license: (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Sarah Palin likes Donald Trump, but doesn’t believe he made it all the way to the White House on his own. On the holiday edition of the Breitbart News Daily radio show she claimed that God was responsible for Trump’s win. In the show, she said she saw the role “divine providence” played on the campaign trail. She said people have been desperate for a change after the country’s deterioration and that his victory was due to people praying to God that the rest of the citizens would wake up. Palin claimed she had seen it “first-hand.” And she also said this:

I saw more and more people’s eyes open, and I think so much of that was based on the church in general, those people of faith who were praying to God that people would wake up. Remember, our Founders dedicated this land, this new country that would be America, this idea of America, dedicated it to God. If I were President, I’d re-dedicate us to God.

Palin has described herself as a “Bible-believing Christian,” saying that God has an important role to play in American elections. But the last time she said that God would do the right thing for America by helping John McCain beat Barack Obama in 2008, her predictions were wrong and Obama became the first black president in U.S. history. Many people had something to say about her views on religion and the 2016 election:

Dear Sarah Palin,

God heard what you said and wants you to know he responded thusly: “Leave me out of this.”

— Ricky Pine ⚡️❄️ (@redrainricky) November 30, 2016

Sarah Palin says God made Trump win, confusing God with slaveowners who demanded an electoral college during the constitutional convention.

— John Fugelsang (@JohnFugelsang) November 30, 2016

Palin also said: “We found our revolutionary Donald Trump, he’s our messenger. Donald Trump heard the voice of the people and allowed the people to expose what needed exposing.”

To make Palin’s year even better, it was reported on Wednesday that she is being considered for a cabinet role as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. According to a Palin aide she has been telling Trump transition officials that she feels she could be of use in a “productive and positive way.” She has focused on the VA for a while; her eldest son is an Iraq War veteran and earlier this week her son-in-law posted a video to Facebook promoting her work with veterans. Though Palin has not yet been to the Trump Tower to meet with the President-elect, she was one of his first endorsements.

There were mixed reactions on social media to that news as well.

Sarah Palin is “super duper excited” that she might be in charge of the dept for animal doctors. @monicajibanez @georgeswright

— AnnAMae (@SweetasPHI) November 30, 2016

Sarah Palin as VA Secretary seems completely insane until you remember that Donald Trump was just elected President.

— Dan Pfeiffer (@danpfeiffer) November 30, 2016

I’m probably more qualified to be VA Secretary than Sarah Palin just by having ‘VA’ in my Twitter name

— Matt Oswalt (@MattOswaltVA) November 30, 2016

Palin has also been talked about for the position of Energy Secretary, which could be pretty catastrophic considering she posted a Facebook status showing off her view on energy, saying “Drill, baby, drill!” She also wrote: ”The inherent link between energy and security, and energy and prosperity, is real and recognized by every American except sketchy politicians and deceived faux environmentalists.” So, if you thought we left Palin behind in 2008, don’t worry, she’s back and busy in 2016.

Emma Von Zeipel

The post Sarah Palin Claims God Intervened and Helped Trump Win the Election appeared first on Law Street.

Here is What Donald Trump Says He Plans to Do in His First 100 Days

Alexis Evans — Thu, 10 Nov 2016 21:00:58 +0000

Donald Trump Courtesy of Gage Skidmore : License (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Today President-elect Donald Trump met with President Obama in the Oval Office to discuss plans for the hand-off between presidencies and the peaceful transfer of power. While the meeting seems to have been cordial, it had to have been a little awkward given that Obama and Trump are bitter political rivals and Trump plans to “cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama” on his first day in office–that’s if Trump’s plan for his first 100 days in office is to be believed.

In October, Trump laid out a detailed list of his plans, and the first day alone looks daunting. Aside from beginning to lay the groundwork to appeal Obamacare, he also plans to put an immediate hiring freeze on all federal employees, begin renegotiating NAFTA, withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, move forward with the Keystone Pipeline, and suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting can’t safely occur (aka begin banning Muslims)–and that’s not even half of his first day plans.

Trump also announced ten pieces of legislation he hopes to introduce to Congress that would: fund the construction of a wall along the Southern border (with the “understanding” that Mexico would reimburse the U.S.), promote school choice, and invest heavily in infrastructure.

As Vox notes, some of these actions, like the federal hiring freeze and immigration ban, he could easily do from the Oval Office, while other actions would require cooperation from relevant government agencies and Congress. But with a Republican controlled Congress on his side, he could easily tick off a few of these items on his list.

Below is a copy of Trump’s full 100 day plan titled “Donald Trump’s Contract With the American Voter” that was released in October.

What follows is my 100-day action plan to Make America Great Again. It is a contract between myself and the American voter — and begins with restoring honesty, accountability and change to Washington

Therefore, on the first day of my term of office, my administration will immediately pursue the following six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC:

* FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress;

* SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health);

* THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated;

* FOURTH, a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service;

* FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government;

* SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.

On the same day, I will begin taking the following 7 actions to protect American workers:

* FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205

* SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership

* THIRD, I will direct my Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator

* FOURTH, I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately

* FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.

* SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward

* SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure

Additionally, on the first day, I will take the following five actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law:

* FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama

* SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States

* THIRD, cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities

* FOURTH, begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back

* FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting.

Next, I will work with Congress to introduce the following broader legislative measures and fight for their passage within the first 100 days of my Administration:

Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act. An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4% per year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simplification, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief, and lifting the restrictions on American energy. The largest tax reductions are for the middle class. A middle-class family with 2 children will get a 35% tax cut. The current number of brackets will be reduced from 7 to 3, and tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified. The business rate will be lowered from 35 to 15 percent, and the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10 percent rate.
End The Offshoring Act. Establishes tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers in order to relocate in other countries and ship their products back to the U.S. tax-free.
American Energy & Infrastructure Act. Leverages public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over 10 years. It is revenue neutral.
School Choice And Education Opportunity Act. Redirects education dollars to give parents the right to send their kid to the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school of their choice. Ends common core, brings education supervision to local communities. It expands vocational and technical education, and make 2 and 4-year college more affordable.
Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act. Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces it with Health Savings Accounts, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines, and lets states manage Medicaid funds. Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA: there are over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval, and we especially want to speed the approval of life-saving medications.
Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act. Allows Americans to deduct childcare and elder care from their taxes, incentivizes employers to provide on-side childcare services, and creates tax-free Dependent Care Savings Accounts for both young and elderly dependents, with matching contributions for low-income families.
End Illegal Immigration Act Fully-funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall; establishes a 2-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a 5-year mandatory minimum for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions or two or more prior deportations; also reforms visa rules to enhance penalties for overstaying and to ensure open jobs are offered to American workers first.
Restoring Community Safety Act. Reduces surging crime, drugs and violence by creating a Task Force On Violent Crime and increasing funding for programs that train and assist local police; increases resources for federal law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent offenders behind bars.
Restoring National Security Act. Rebuilds our military by eliminating the defense sequester and expanding military investment; provides Veterans with the ability to receive public VA treatment or attend the private doctor of their choice; protects our vital infrastructure from cyber-attack; establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values
Clean up Corruption in Washington Act. Enacts new ethics reforms to Drain the Swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics.

On November 8th, Americans will be voting for this 100-day plan to restore prosperity to our economy, security to our communities, and honesty to our government.

This is my pledge to you.

And if we follow these steps, we will once more have a government of, by and for the people.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Here is What Donald Trump Says He Plans to Do in His First 100 Days appeared first on Law Street.

‘Not My President’: Thousands Unite To Protest Trump Presidency

Emma Von Zeipel — Thu, 10 Nov 2016 17:21:03 +0000

Image courtesy of Emma von Zeipel for Law Street Media

All of the sudden, the streets in New York City were filled with chanting people while men and women in skyscrapers peeked down from their windows and tourists on buses snapped pictures. Wednesday night saw thousands of people in cities with largely Democratic populations take to the streets to protest the election of Donald Trump.

Masses of people protesting in Union Square in New York tonight.
Together, we are stronger. #LoveTrumpsHate #NotMyPresident pic.twitter.com/ubbGpBCAda

— PerfectWarrior (@SurvivorHealer) November 10, 2016

In Manhattan, estimates suggest that as many as 5,000 people worked their way uptown along Fifth Avenue and Broadway. At one point, the procession encountered a chain of police officers blocking Broadway going north, with speakers blaring out the message that the protesters were illegally blocking streets and would be arrested unless they moved onto the sidewalks. But no one listened–they just turned right and took the next street to move forward until they reached the Trump Tower.

Throughout the night there were no signs of violence or conflict, just people chanting “Not my president,” “My body, my choice,” and “Donald Trump, go away, racist, sexist, anti-gay.” Even some of the people who were stranded in their cars did not appear upset, but instead honked, cheered, and high-fived strangers through their car windows. The protests were massive, and all of the protestors united in their distrust and disapproval of a Trump presidency.

Protesting is democracy too. It shows those who feel marginalized that they are not alone. That’s important. #TrumpProtest

— Lana Huyen (@lanahuyen) November 10, 2016

The beautiful thing about Wednesday’s spontaneous demonstration was the diversity. More and more people joined from the sidewalks as they saw what was going on. People of all different skin colors, religions, and personalities. What they had in common was that most were young and all were disappointed with the election results.

According to preliminary exit poll numbers from CNN, Hillary Clinton won 54 percent of voters aged 18-29 on Tuesday night. But those margins indicate that she failed to spur young voters to turn out at a sufficient rate to win, a problem that she has had since the primary. In fact, in the primaries, her challenger Bernie Sanders earned nearly 30 percent more votes from Americans under the age of 30 than both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton combined. Many of those voters now feel hopeless.

The scene right now outside #TrumpTower. Never covered anything like this before @PIX11News pic.twitter.com/vy7q7bACTb

— Ayana Harry PIX11 (@AyanaHarry) November 10, 2016

Delivery truck driver (who couldn’t go anywhere if he tried) blowing his horn to cheering crowd, pumping fist pic.twitter.com/8IE9cKGHqe

— Steve Annear (@steveannear) November 10, 2016

CNN reports that similar protests went on in Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Seattle, Portland, Austin, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Oakland. Also on Wednesday evening, a candlelight vigil for Clinton supporters was held in front of the White House. Organizers said about 2,600 watched online as supporters called out, “you are not alone.”

Trump supporters and conservatives expressed disgust at the protests on social media, saying that Democrats don’t respect democracy and only protest if they don’t get their way.

You’re literally protesting against free democratic elections. Go live in North Korea, you absolute trash.#TrumpProtest

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) November 10, 2016

But peaceful protesting and freedom of expression is also a part of democracy.

People aren’t upset about losing the election.

People are terrified for their safety and futures.

See the difference. #TrumpProtest

— Matthew Kick (@MatthewKick) November 10, 2016

This video shows just how many people were on the streets in Manhattan:

New York City protests against Donald Trump’s presidency. They haven’t stopped coming. pic.twitter.com/qwZlBe2i0L

— Phil McCausland (@PhilMcCausland_) November 10, 2016

Filmmaker Michael Moore happened to come across the demonstration in his cab and got out to join it. “We had all those big protests before the Iraq War and once the war started, everyone stopped protesting. […] This time, we keep it up and we don’t stop till he’s out of there,” he said to the Huffington post.

Michael Moore happened upon the protest tonight, calling for resistance and agitation. pic.twitter.com/LFiGaO1wfy

— Andy Campbell (@AndyBCampbell) November 10, 2016

Stay strong, people.

Emma Von Zeipel

The post ‘Not My President’: Thousands Unite To Protest Trump Presidency appeared first on Law Street.

The Internet Thinks Podesta is a Satanist After Leaked #SpiritCooking Email

Emma Von Zeipel — Sat, 05 Nov 2016 18:55:10 +0000

"John Podesta" courtesy of Center for American Progress; license: (CC BY-ND 2.0)

On Friday afternoon the internet went totally wild after finding out about one more leaked email that supposedly proved that John Podesta, and therefore the whole Clinton clan, are Satanists.

#SpiritCooking: Podesta has band-aid on middle finger, likely from a cut, just like Marina Abramovic suggest for a “Spirit Dinner” pic.twitter.com/4Edf1bdLqC

— MicroTurkeyLeaks™ (@WDFx2EU7) November 4, 2016

The email in question was sent to John Podesta from his brother, asking if John could join him for a dinner at artist Marina Abramovic’s place. He included the forwarded email from Abramovic, in which she described the dinner as a “Spirit Cooking”. Because of that phrasing, right wing people online got all frenzied and started sharing their best conspiracy theories. The hashtag #SpiritCooking had over 500,000 tweets by late afternoon.

#SpiritCooking

It all makes sense now. The whole family is involved in this satanic cult. pic.twitter.com/KVV7FbOV6w

— Neil Turner (@NeilTurner_) November 4, 2016

The most disturbing thing about the whole #SpiritCooking Scandal is that NO DEMOCRATS are condemning it! Their silence speaks volumes!!!

— Joshua (@joshuakassemi) November 4, 2016

Despite the influx of conspiracy theories, it doesn’t seem likely that it was a real, blood-drinking orgy that took place. “Spirit Cooking with Essential Aphrodisiac Recipes” is the name of a cookbook that Abramovic created for a 1996 exhibition at the MoMA. It was accompanied by a piece of performance art in which she paints with blood and incorporates a huge snake.

Wow. I just got to this video about #spiritcooking…skipping dinner this evening… https://t.co/Qahq8OGcav via @YouTube

— Hispanic4TrumpPence (@esgrimista73) November 4, 2016

The list of ingredients in the cookbook did call for “fresh breast milk with fresh sperm milk” to be consumed “on earthquake nights,” but the dinner she invited the Podestas to was more a normal one, with real food. “It was just a normal dinner,” she said to artnews.com on Friday afternoon. “There was no blood, no anything else. We just call things funny names, that’s all.” She told the website that John Podesta never made it to dinner and they have never met in real life. She called the right-wing attacks “absolutely outrageous and ridiculous.”

At least as President, Hellary could call the Vatican hotline & get the Pope to perforrm an exorcism #SpiritCooking

— Deplorabe Majority (@trolling4tuna) November 4, 2016

Thankfully all of this insane election mudslinging will be over soon.

Emma Von Zeipel

The post The Internet Thinks Podesta is a Satanist After Leaked #SpiritCooking Email appeared first on Law Street.

Judge Orders the RNC to Explain What it Means by “Ballot Security”

Emma Von Zeipel — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 18:32:02 +0000

Image courtesy of Sara; License: (CC BY-ND 2.0)

A federal judge has ordered the Republican National Committee to provide details on what kind of agreements it has with the Trump campaign for preventing voter fraud and maintaining “ballot security.” The RNC is bound by a decree from 1982 to not engage in voter fraud prevention activities without the consent of a federal court.

The judge also ordered the RNC to give an explanation of what Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway and Mike Pence were alluding to when they recently said that their campaign is collaborating “closely” with the RNC to make sure there is no voter fraud going on. The order comes after a lawsuit that the Democratic National Committee filed against the RNC last week, alleging that it is supporting the Trump campaign with ballot security measures that could be illegal.

Trump has been talking at great lengths about how widespread voter fraud is and claiming that the system is rigged. On his website he urges people who see anything “suspicious” going on at the polls to personally intervene or to sign up to become a volunteer “Trump Election Observer.” This is all to prevent Crooked Hillary from rigging the election, of course.

Of course there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day. Why do Republican leaders deny what is going on? So naive!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2016

At a rally in Cleveland, Trump claimed that there are 24 million registered voters that are “invalid or significantly inaccurate” and 1.8 million people registered to vote who are actually dead. But there is no evidence of any widespread voter fraud in America and Factcheck.org debunked Trump’s statements.

This makes it extra ironic that it was a Trump supporter who was arrested for attempting to vote twice in Iowa last week. Terri Lynn Rote, 55, said that she hadn’t planned on voting twice, it was just a spontaneous idea. “I don’t know what came over me,” she said to the Washington Post. She also told Iowa Public Radio that the polls are rigged, and she was afraid someone would change her Trump vote into a vote for Clinton.

Des Moines woman Terri Lynn Rote arrested for voting twice #voterfraud https://t.co/snE3mz9Tn6 pic.twitter.com/uCS09WQmOp

— Jeffrey Guterman (@JeffreyGuterman) October 28, 2016

The decree that blocks the RNC from engaging in any voter fraud prevention that is not approved by federal authorities came about after the RNC used armed guards at the polls in 1981 to intimidate minority voters. It is set to expire in December of next year, but if the DNC is correct in its suspicions, it could be extended. The RNC has until Wednesday at 5 PM to respond to the judge.

But individual presidential candidates are not bound by the decree, which means the Trump campaign is free to go ahead with whatever plans it has uphold “security” at the polls. And according to Slate, Republican officials all over the country are engaging in illegal measures to prevent Democrats from casting their votes. So why are the Republicans so sure that voter fraud exists? Maybe because in some cases they are the ones behind it.

Emma Von Zeipel

The post Judge Orders the RNC to Explain What it Means by “Ballot Security” appeared first on Law Street.

RantCrush Top 5: November 1, 2016

Rant Crush — Tue, 01 Nov 2016 16:10:29 +0000

Image courtesy of David Long; License: (CC BY 2.0)

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

You Guys Ok?: Republicans Are Flipping Out

With one week to go until the election, team Trump is finding new ways to provoke people. On Monday night the hashtag #HillaryForPrision trended among people who want to see Hillary locked up. The word “prison” was misspelled to avoid detection by Twitter’s “censors”–the users employing the hashtag claim Twitter is trying to silence their opinions. Smart move, Republicans?

#HillaryForPrison Has been blocked by Twitter, so use the hashtag #HillaryForPrision!

— Democrats for Trump (@YoungDems4Trump) October 31, 2016

Please tell me again HOW she’s still allowed to run for President? 2 FBI criminal investigations? Seriously? #HillaryForPrision

— Heather Ross (@RealHeatherRoss) October 31, 2016

Also, during a rally in Las Vegas on Sunday, Trump supporter Wayne Allyn Root basically wished for the deaths of Clinton and Huma Abedin by comparing them with the movie characters Thelma and Louise. Hint: the movie ends with them driving their car off a cliff.

via GIPHY

And lastly, someone dumped a huge truckload of cow poop outside the Democratic Party headquarters in Lebanon, Ohio on Saturday. Can this election get any crappier?

Pile of manure dumped in front of Warren County Democratic Party HQ early today https://t.co/3QOOjyrfpV pic.twitter.com/MvwZwZwpzK

— Ohio_Politics (@Ohio_Politics) October 29, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 1, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Michele Bachmann Claims Voting For Hillary Will Lead to a Rise in Sexual Assaults

Emma Von Zeipel — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:43:58 +0000

"Michele Bachmann" courtesy of [Gage Skidmore via Flickr]

Michele Bachmann, a Minnesota Republican and former congresswoman, has said that voting for Hillary Clinton in November will lead to more sexual assaults. According to Bachmann’s opinion, the Democrats are using Trump’s comments about women–and now sexual assaults–to make women vote for Clinton. But she says if they do, the country would apparently become way worse for women.

“I believe that Hillary Clinton will set a standard in this country that will lead to more sexual assaults against women because she will be setting an anti-biblical agenda,” she said in a radio interview on Tuesday on the Christian show “Stand In The Gap.”

The utter moral bankruptcy of the allegedly Christian Right has never been more hilariously blatant. https://t.co/UzRJzqceWB

— Steve Silberman (@stevesilberman) October 13, 2016

When asked about a report that states that the recent revelations about Trump’s behavior in the past have created a gender divide among voters, she said it was made up of lies, and was a conspiracy theory funded by George Soros. She also claimed that Trump’s alleged assaults were nothing in comparison to Bill Clinton’s past actions, and accused him of criminally assaulting women.

Bachmann’s recent statements about Trump in the wake of the 2005 audio recording of Trump have left many people upset…

Michele Bachmann called #TrumpTapes “bad boy 11 year old locker room talk.” I teach 11 year olds. Pretty sure they don’t brag a/b assault.

— De Elizabeth (@deelizabeth_) October 8, 2016

Michele Bachmann is trending. This is proof we all died in the predicted rapture of 2011 and THIS is hell.

— Dorianna Gray (@blurbette) October 8, 2016

…and some just speechless.

Dear @CNN, I have NO INTEREST in anything @MicheleBachmann has to say about anything till the end of time, ad finitum, yada yada. Thank you.

— Girls Really Rule. (@girlsreallyrule) October 11, 2016

The man who interviewed Bachmann, Sam Rohrer, agreed that trying to make women vote for anyone else than Trump is a satanic effort to divide Evangelical homes. Bachmann also said:

This is an effort by Hillary Clinton supporters and George Soros, through Sojourners and other so-called Christian organizations, to divide us. These are lies and we, as Christians, need to recognize that this is a lie and a deception and we need to wake up and resist these lies

Michele Bachmann used to run a gay conversion center with her husband in Minnesota and has previously made headlines with bizarre statements like claiming that the Lion King is gay propaganda, that visiting Iraq was like to going to the Mall of America because there was marble and water everywhere, and that God picked Donald Trump to be the Republican nominee.

Emma Von Zeipel

The post Michele Bachmann Claims Voting For Hillary Will Lead to a Rise in Sexual Assaults appeared first on Law Street.

Could a Lottery Save Alabama’s Lack of State Funding?

Inez Nicholson — Thu, 28 Jul 2016 20:59:45 +0000

"Powerball" Courtesy of [Ross Catrow via Flickr]

For the first time in nearly two decades, the state of Alabama might implement a lottery system in order to pay for basic services that it currently cannot afford.

In a video released yesterday, Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley announced, “the state of Alabama has not and cannot at this time pay for the most basic services that we must provide to our people.”

He continued, “the time has come for us to find a permanent solution. This solution will provide funding that we can count on year after year without ever having to raise your taxes or put one more Band-Aid on our state’s money problems.”

BREAKING:We need your help solving our funding crisis.I’m giving you the opportunity to vote on a Statewide Lottery. https://t.co/BLzE3bOXLP

— Gov. Robert Bentley (@GovernorBentley) July 27, 2016

The lottery could bring in $225 million annually, a steady revenue that would help alleviate the state’s reliance on borrowing money and using one-time money to fill the gap in Alabama’s dismal finances. Bentley said the revenue would be applied to General Fund programs like services for law enforcement, the mentally ill, children, and “those in the most need.”

State lawmakers have tried cutting “wasteful” spending, shifting the management of Medicaid to the private sector, and borrowing money, and a proposed, but rejected, tax plan–but those efforts have still not been enough to fix the financial problem.

Bentley said he wants the voters to decide whether or not a lottery should be implemented to fix Alabama’s financial situation, which means the issue would appear on the Nov. 8 ballot. However, in order for that to happen, the Legislature would have to approve the amendment by Aug. 24 with a three-fifths vote in both the House and Senate.

With less than a month until the date the amendment would have to be approved by, it doesn’t seem like the Alabama governor has made any plans to get the ball rolling. Though he just made the video announcement Wednesday, he has not provided any other details on a special session which would have to be called in order to create the amendment.

State representatives and senators from Alabama took to the proposal differently. Rep. John Knight (D-Montgomery) chairman of the Alabama House Black Caucus, said he was disturbed that Bentley had not talked about the lottery proposal with him or anyone in the Caucus.

“It seems like everything that is being done now is being done behind closed doors,” Knight said.

Acting House Speaker Victor Gaston (R-Mobile) shared those sentiments, saying in a statement, “the governor has not outlined his plan to legislators in any detail, nor, to my knowledge, has he even set a concrete start date for the special session, so it is difficult to comment with so little information at hand.” He continued, “I hope that the governor reaches out to lawmakers over the next several weeks in order to seek their input on any lottery proposal that comes forward and to do the prep work that is necessary for any special session to be successful.”

Others, like Rep. Craig Ford, (D-Gadsden), leader of the Democratic minority in the Alabama House of Representatives, do not believe Bentley’s plan will work.

“A lottery will do nothing for this year’s Medicaid shortfall, and at best will be nothing more than a band aid for the General Fund that will leave us right back where we are now in just a few years,” he said in a statement. “The lottery is a one-shot deal, and a lottery for the General Fund will become, as it has in other states, a victim to legislative shell games; it will become nothing more than a slush fund for legislators.”

.@RepCraigFord says his proposed lottery must fund scholarships, and will not save the state’s budgets: https://t.co/yxGV9vUygK #alpolitics

— AL Reporter (@ALReporter) July 27, 2016

Sen. Quinton Ross (D-Montgomery), minority leader in the Alabama Senate, agrees with Bentley’s lottery proposal.

“These gaming dollars can provide stability and long-term economic streams for many of our General Fund and Education Trust Fund needs.”

Until Bentley schedules a special session, it’s unclear whether or not the lottery will come to the Crimson Tide state.

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Could a Lottery Save Alabama’s Lack of State Funding? appeared first on Law Street.

Obama Signs Law that Will Overhaul Toxic Chemical Regulations

Inez Nicholson — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 17:53:13 +0000

"Ajax" Courtesy of [Pixel Drip via Flickr]

Tens of thousands of chemicals are used to create our everyday products, and the legislation that regulates them hasn’t been updated for nearly half a decade–but that all changed today. President Obama signed into law Wednesday new regulations that will overhaul toxic chemical use and garnered unexpected bipartisan support from both Republicans and Democrats and environmentalists and the chemical industry.

It has been a long journey but today @POTUS has officially signed #TSCA into law! pic.twitter.com/jCNuVVH4Ll

— Senator Tom Carper (@SenatorCarper) June 22, 2016

The new law is an update of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act and will now allow the Environmental Protection agency to collect more information about a chemical before it can be used in the United States. Also under the new law, the EPA must conduct a review of all the chemicals currently on the market and make the results public. The EPA will also have to consider the chemical effects on certain demographics like infants, pregnant women, and the elderly.

“This is a big deal. This is a good law. It’s an important law,” Obama said at the bill-signing ceremony at the White House. “Here in America, folks should have the confidence to know the laundry detergent we buy isn’t going to make us sick, [or] the mattress that our babies sleep on aren’t going to harm them.”

The law will also streamline the different states’ rules on regulating the $800 billion industry. Three years of negotiating between lawmakers went into creating this law which aims to “bring chemical regulation into the 21st century,” according to the American Chemistry Council, who backed the bill.

“I want the American people to know that this is proof that even in the current polarized political climate here in Washington, things can work — it’s possible,” Obama said. “If we can get this bill done it means that somewhere out there on the horizon, we can make our politics less toxic as well.”

In recent years, Republicans have been critical of Obama’s efforts to strengthen environmental and climate protections, claiming regulations create unnecessary burdens and stifles business. However, all parties were on board for this bill–it passed in the House with a 403-12 vote.

“That doesn’t happen very often these days,” Obama said. “So this is a really significant piece of business.”

The Environmental Defense Fund called it “the most important new environmental law in decades.” However, as with any law, there are some downsides. The law restricts how and when a state can regulate certain chemicals and limits the EPA’s ability to monitor some imported chemicals. The Environmental Working Group, another organization that supported the bill, criticized that the EPA may not have enough resources or legal authority to review and/or ban chemicals, citing that House Republicans slashed the EPA’s funding and staff in an appropriations bill for next year.

But, on the bright side, the approximate 700 new chemicals that come on the market each year will now have to clear a safety bar first and companies can no longer classify health studies of those chemicals as “confidential business information.” Those studies now must be made available to the public.

The law was named the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, after the late New Jersey Democrat who spent years trying to fix the law. His wife attended the signing at the White House.

Inez Nicholson

The post Obama Signs Law that Will Overhaul Toxic Chemical Regulations appeared first on Law Street.

Senator Chris Murphy’s Gun Control Filibuster Lasts for Over 14 Hours

Anneliese Mahoney — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:16:46 +0000

Image courtesy of [Western CT State University via Flickr]

Senator Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut), filibustered for over 14 hours last night, in an attempt to force the Senate to take action on gun control. Murphy’s filibuster, which was sparked by the recent mass shooting in Orlando, ended when the Senate leaders agreed to allow a vote on universal background checks and closing a recently-under-fire loophole that allows people on the terror watchlist to purchase guns.

I am prepared to stand on the Senate floor and talk about the need to prevent gun violence for as long as I can. I’ve had #Enough

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) June 15, 2016

Murphy’s monumental efforts–it was the 9th longest filibuster since 1900–were even joined by a few Republican Senators, specifically Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, and Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska, along with 38 of Murphy’s fellow Democrats. Each of these senators asked Murphy “questions” to give him a break from talking, although he still wasn’t able to use the bathroom or sit down. Here’s the full list of senators who joined the cause:

*UPDATED*
List of Senators who joined @ChrisMurphyCT as of 01:00am ET#filibuster #holdthefloor pic.twitter.com/pbTqvs8EFI

— Kasia (@KasiaMikurda) June 16, 2016

Murphy and his colleagues stayed remarkably on message during the 14-hour filibuster, often telling the stories of victims of gun violence. Murphy repeatedly invoked the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook in his home state, Connecticut–he even ended his stand by telling the story of one of the little boys killed in shooting. Check out that powerful clip:

There are concerns from both sides over the ideas, proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California), that Murphy was advocating for. Not allowing people who are on the no-fly list to purchase guns gives more credence to that list, despite the fact that there’s a lot of criticism about how inaccurate it is. After all, we’ve all heard stories about kids who end up on the no-fly list because they share a name with a terrorist. And while a four-year-old certainly has no need for a gun, overall due process concerns are fair.

History may look back on Murphy’s stand as more of a political victory than a policy one. He took a strong, visible stand to advocate for a much-needed change to this nation’s gun policies–and got people talking in the process.

Anneliese Mahoney

The post Senator Chris Murphy’s Gun Control Filibuster Lasts for Over 14 Hours appeared first on Law Street.

Oklahoma Governor Vetoes Bill That Would Criminalize Abortions

Emma Von Zeipel — Sat, 21 May 2016 15:24:15 +0000

"2012 Abortion Protest" courtesy of [Edson Chilundo via Flickr]

Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin has vetoed the much-criticized bill that would have made performing abortions a felony in the state. This is a relief for women in Oklahoma, who nonetheless still face enormous challenges if they make the decision to have an abortion, in a state that is highly conservative.

Oklahoma’s legislature managed to yet again come up with a bill restricting women’s rights, even though a roaring majority of politicians in the state are men. The bill was passed on Thursday and was the very first of its kind, according to abortion rights group Center for Reproductive Rights, in that it not only banned the procedure but also attached a penalty for a physician who performs an abortion.

Oklahoma is not safe for women

— Lena Dunham (@lenadunham) May 20, 2016

Governor Fallin had five days to decide whether to approve or veto the bill, which goes by SB1552. She made up her mind faster than that by announcing her veto on Friday, saying in a statement: “The bill is so ambiguous and so vague that doctors cannot be certain what medical circumstances would be considered ‘necessary to preserve the life of the mother.”

Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said: “Governor Fallin did the right thing today in vetoing this utterly unconstitutional and dangerous bill.”

But it is still hard for women to access the service of abortion–there are only two clinics in the whole state. Oklahoma has, in fact, been trying to pass laws banning abortions almost every year–and as many as eight of them have been challenged as unconstitutional during the past five years.

Abortion has been legalized nationwide since 1973, and the SB1552 was actually ultimately meant to challenge that, said the bill’s sponsor Republican Nathan Dahm earlier this week. His opinion is that life begins at conception, and it is the duty of the state to protect life from that point on. On Friday, he was reportedly considering taking actions to override the governor’s veto via the legislature.

Emma Von Zeipel

The post Oklahoma Governor Vetoes Bill That Would Criminalize Abortions appeared first on Law Street.

House Democrats ‘Shame’ Republicans After Vote Change

Alec Siegel — Fri, 20 May 2016 21:15:11 +0000

"Shame!" courtesy of [Lena via Flickr]

The cacophony of disapproving mutterings and boos gave way to a sharp chant: “Shame! Shame! Shame!”

No, this was not an NBA Finals game or even the response to a bad film. It was the House floor on Thursday when a handful of Republicans switched positions after time expired on a vote. The vote was on an amendment that Democrats say would have furthered protections for the LGBT community. What initially looked like a 217-206 “yea” vote for the measure–which was drafted by Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY)–became a 212-213 “nay” vote.

In an unusual move, GOP members were allowed to switch their votes after the clock expired, and without walking up to the front–where each member whose mind had changed would be identified. Instead, they were able to privately change their vote through electronic vote counters.

Maloney was irate about the “craven” and “ugly” episode, “It tells me talk is cheap, and all this happy nonsense about letting the House do its will is just that: nonsense,” he told The Hill.

His amendment would have essentially prevented federal funding from going to companies that claim religious freedom in the name of discriminating against LGBT workers, nullifying a provision in a defense bill passed by the House on Wednesday that critics say would have taxpayers funding discrimination against the LGBT community.

The National Defense Authorization Act for the 2017 fiscal year would effectively increase the salary of U.S. military personnel. But it also contained an amendment drafted by Rep. Steve Russell (R-Oklahoma) that would ensure federal funding was not discriminatory toward companies with strong religious views. Critics contend that, if passed, the bill’s language would allow those companies to receive taxpayer money regardless of whether they discriminate against LGBT workers on the basis of their religious views.

The scene on the House floor was a he-said-she-said game involving leaders and rank and file members from both parties. Kevin McCarthy (R-California), the House Majority Leader, was the one who Democrats suspect led the vote change. Maloney’s account of an exchange with McCarthy exhibits the combative nature of a divided House, where each side is steadfast in its viewpoint while some members have reelection in their sights:

“I said, ‘What are you doing? You can let this go; your own members are supporting it,’ and he said, ‘Get back on your own side of the aisle.’ And I said to him, ‘What side of the aisle am I supposed to stand on to support equality?'”

Four of the Republicans who changed their vote will be up for re-election this year.

What does Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin), Speaker of the House, think about this schoolyard kerfuffle? “I don’t know the answer. I don’t even know,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post House Democrats ‘Shame’ Republicans After Vote Change appeared first on Law Street.

Department of Labor Doubles Threshold for Overtime Pay

Alec Siegel — Thu, 19 May 2016 13:15:21 +0000

"overtime" courtesy of [Sam Greenhalgh via Flickr]

In his State of the Union address last year, President Barack Obama acknowledged the need for an update to the nation’s overtime pay rules: “We still need to make sure employees get the overtime they’ve earned,” he said. To the delight of Obama and perhaps millions of workers nationwide, but the chagrin of employer groups and some Republican lawmakers, this need has been addressed.

The Department of Labor (DOL) announced a severe adjustment to overtime pay rules on Wednesday, raising the salary threshold for those eligible for overtime pay from $23,660 per year to $47,476. The rule update–which goes into effect December 1–is designed to give 4.2 million Americans who previously did not qualify for overtime pay the money they earned from working hours beyond 40 per week. The DOL expects the new rules to generate $12 billion in wages over 10 years. The rules will be updated to reflect inflation every three years, starting in 2020.

“Increasing overtime protections is another step in the President’s effort to grow and strengthen the middle class by raising Americans’ wages. This extra income will not only mean a better life for American families impacted by overtime protections, but will boost our economy across the board as these families spend their hard-earned wages,” read the official statement from the White House released on Tuesday, a day before the new rules were announced.

In 2014, Obama issued a directive to the Secretary of Labor to “update and modernize” overtime pay regulations, suggesting a $50,440 threshold, which is slightly higher than the figure that was announced on Wednesday.

Critics of the newly designated threshold, which is nearly double the previous one, fear that it could lead to less jobs and less opportunity for upward mobility within a career. Citing an Oxford Economics study, the National Retail Federation (NRF), an advocate of the retail industry that opposes the new rules, sees a handful of hidden costs in raising the overtime pay threshold. While overtime pay would increase, they agree, base pay and hours worked would drop, leading to an overall decrease in take home pay. The study estimates a $745 million cost for retail and restaurant businesses.

“We would hope it would be a reasonable and responsible update and this final rule is not even close to that,” Lizzy Simmons, Senior Director of Government Relations at NRF said in an interview with Law Street. “[The new threshold] doesn’t reflect reality, the math is bad.”

She added that employers–in retail and other fields–will not have sufficient time to deal with the threshold increase (they have six months to adjust, Simmons said 12-18 months would be more realistic), and would have liked to see a less “reckless” increase in the new threshold.

And although both Democrats and Republicans see a need to overhaul overtime pay rules, Republicans in the House and Senate announced legislation–the Protecting Workplace Advancement and Opportunity Act–in an effort to preempt the DOL’s ruling.

“The Obama administration’s decision to drastically redefine overtime will hurt our workforce and our employers. It will lead to reduced hours, confusion for job creators, and will limit growth opportunities for employees,” said Senator Tim Scott (R-SC), a member of the Senate Labor Committee, one of the sponsors of the bill.

As the fight over the minimum wage rages on, the other issue middle class Americans hope will provide a boon to their bank account–overtime pay–has been settled for now. Exactly what that means for employees and employers remains to be seen.

Alec Siegel

The post Department of Labor Doubles Threshold for Overtime Pay appeared first on Law Street.

If the Republican Party Was an Actual Party

Sean Simon — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:38:01 +0000

"party people" courtesy of [Eli Duke via Flickr]

You open up your email after getting to work on Friday morning, and you see that right above an email from Amazon asking you to finally buy the panini press that’s been sitting on your wish list for months, you have an email from Reince Priebus. Confused, you open the email, and you realize that it’s an evite. “Who uses evites anymore?” you wonder. The message, in no-nonsense, 11-point Arial, says:

Paul Ryan and I are throwing a big party tonight at 10 p.m., and you’re invited. I was gonna co-host with John Boehner, but he got cold feet and decided he’d rather not be responsible for what happens. So anyway, there’s gonna be beer, foosball, and absolutely no marijuana—even for medical purposes. We’ve invited basically everyone we know, so get here, early because it’s probably gonna be crowded.

Sincerely,

Reince Priebus,
Chairman, RNC

Your only other plans for the night were stream “X-Files” and decide which Trader Joes dinner to microwave, so you figure—why not? When work ends, you head home, eat some leftovers, and get stuck for a moment on what to wear. How do you dress for a Republican party? You briefly consider some bullet casing jewelry or your favorite “right-winger bitter-clinging” spangly jacket, but you decide on a Reagan/Bush ’84 T-shirt with a blazer. Hip.

Around 10:20 pm, you arrive at the house and see 17 cars in the driveway, so you park further down the street to avoid the inevitable chaos that leaving the Republican party will cause. When you approach the front door, you see a handwritten sign that reads, “We accidentally got the front door stuck. We know it’s not too safe, but we’ve requested that the backdoor remain opened. We’re all cool with this.” You trudge around the side of the house, thinking that this must be what it feels like to be Apple.

Once you walk inside, you’re immediately deafened by the volume of chatter in the crowded basement. Reasonably, there should only be a few people here, but instead, there are so many faces and names that you can barely keep track. This is going to be a long night.

You venture into the fray and see Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, and Lindsey Graham all huddled in a corner, quibbling about how to get people to notice them. Rick Santorum meanwhile, is involved in a furious debate over whether Muslims or gays are more dangerous. He comes to the conclusion that a gay Muslim would be the most dangerous. He is talking to himself.

Carly Fiorina is being a bit of a buzzkill, because she won’t stop telling people about a found-footage horror movie she just saw, giving some pretty gory details about bloody baby parts. Someone asks her for the name of the movie, but Carly mumbles something about not remembering and quickly walks away. You hear Ben Carson telling George Pataki that the pyramids were built for grain, that he once attacked a man in a murder attempt, and that prisons are gay conversion camps. George responds, “Alright, but I just asked if you knew where the bathroom was.”

Jeb! Bush seems to be flitting between groups of people, trying to tell them a joke or ask how they feel about his cowboy boots. No one seems to be engaging with him, so he sits at the table eating some of the guacamole he brought. He gets excited when Marco Rubio comes over to the table, but after a scoop of guacamole, Marco retreats back to his corner and visibly winces as Chris Christie ambles over to him with a menacing look.

John Kasich is rifling through the CD rack, looking for some Linkin Park to play. Reince doesn’t have any Linkin Park CDs in his house because he isn’t a 15-year-old who’s mad at his dad. You ask John why he wants to play Linkin Park and he says, “they’re really good and I like those guys.” John looks sad.

Sitting on the couch, holding the bible in one hand and “The Catcher in the Rye” in the other, is Ted Cruz. It’s a huge couch—large enough to hold at least six or seven people–but for some reason, no one is sitting with him. Literally every person at this party is standing. Many look tired, but they refuse to sit with Ted. Ted is shouting but you can’t tell at whom, and the only phrase you hear is “radical Islamic terrorism.”

Hunched over in the center of the room, is a familiar face. Donald Trump is actually, literally vomiting on the carpet, and everyone around him begins to cheer for some reason. Reince sees you gawking at him, and shouts in your ear over the music, “We didn’t invite him! He’s been really rude, but for some reason he seems to be really popular, so we’re scared that if we kick him out, everyone will leave. Don’t worry, we’ve got it under control.” You see him pour some club soda into a sprayer bottle and hustle over.

After the cleanup effort, Reince and Paul turn off the music and say that some people have to leave. They’ve gotten a noise complaint from their “lamestream” neighbors. Dolefully, Rick Perry and Jim Gilmore head out the door. Wait, who is Jim Gilmore? And Rick Perry was here? You could have sworn that he went to last year’s party, but didn’t expect him to show up again after that party foul. Following Perry, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, Lindsey Graham, and George Pataki all get up to go. Then, in a mass exodus that feels like it takes months, everyone slowly files out. On their way out, you see Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee. Were they here too? How many evites did Reince send?

All that’s left now is Donald, Ted, and John. Mitt Romney comes downstairs and starts to lecture Donald on behaving maturely. Is Mitt Romney the GOP’s dad? you find yourself wondering. Donald hears this but listens to none of it. Mitt heads back upstairs, to resume his DVRed Jeopardy! episode and finish his glass of milk, you assume. You see Donald pull out his phone and bark into it: “Hey Sarah? Yeah, this party is very low energy–sad! I need you to come over here and liven it up a bit.”

You realize that you’re now standing in a room with Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and John Kasich when you have a Netflix account and there’s a perfectly good armchair at your place underneath your poster of George H. W. Bush. You head to the bathroom, sneak out the window, and high-tail it to your car. On the drive home, you hold back a tear.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post If the Republican Party Was an Actual Party appeared first on Law Street.

5 Times We May Have Doubted Ted Cruz’s Humanity

Julia Bryant — Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:37:27 +0000

Image Courtesy of [Jamelle Bouie via Flickr]

Ted Cruz–he’s just your typical guy running for president of the United States. Or is he? He was born in Canada and is really only eligible because his mother is American. I think I’m going to need a birth certificate for this one…

But Cruz continues to captivate the masses with his allegedly non-human features, such as his melting-off-the face waxy skin, lizard-like appearance, and disturbing alien-like facial expressions.

Some on the internet are seriously doubting his humanity…but that’s fine, right? After all, an alien can run for president as long as they’re not illegal.

He Makes Unusual Facial Expressions

@kevinmaisto you forgot that Ted Cruz is a lizard pic.twitter.com/CnIdqQ3MoF

— // CJ // (@CJZOLANSKI) February 7, 2016

One of the ideas floating around theiInternet is that Ted Cruz is simply a lizard man in a human suit, and I really can’t say that I don’t believe it. Look at that face. If that is a normal human facial expression, then I have seriously been sending some mixed signals over the years.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 5 Times We May Have Doubted Ted Cruz’s Humanity appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI: Top 10 Election Posts of 2015

Anneliese Mahoney — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 14:00:30 +0000

Image courtesy of/derivative of [Marc Nozell via Flickr (left) and Gage Skidmore via Flickr (right)]

Well, it’s been a crazy year. Despite the fact that we will not vote for the next president of the United States until November of 2016, the primaries are in full swing, and Law Street’s been there to provide you coverage of every minute of it. ICYMI, check out our top 10 election posts from 2015.

#1 Top Five Funniest Hillary Clinton Emails from the Recent Release

Image courtesy of Paul Cohn/US Consulate Chennai via Flickr

Hillary Clinton’s emails have become a weird point of contention in the 2016 Presidential primaries. After it was discovered that she had sent emails from a private email address while serving as Secretary of State, many critics clamored for her to release them. Slowly, they’ve been declassified, and we’ve truly gotten to see some gems along the way. Check out the top five funniest Hillary Clinton emails from the most recent declassification here.

Anneliese Mahoney

The post ICYMI: Top 10 Election Posts of 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

It’s Raining Republicans: Why is the 2016 Field So Crowded?

Symon Rowlands — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 17:37:45 +0000

Image courtesy of [Benh LIEU SONG via Flickr]

With Ohio governor John Kasich joining the Republican field for the 2016 presidential election, the numbers have reached an all-time high. Sixteen GOP candidates have now officially declared they’re running for the presidency–the highest number in campaign history. Previous to this year, the all-time high for the GOP as reported by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) was 11 in both 2000 and 2012. What makes 2016 so different than previous years, and why are so many Republicans suddenly running for the nation’s highest office? Surely the chances of winning are slim in such a highly contested field, however it is still early enough that it’s any candidates’ ball game, and there are definitely reasons why so many may have thrown their hats into the ring.

One of the reasons that makes 2016 such a viable year for GOP candidate hopefuls is the mere fact that Republicans no longer want a Democrat running the government.The last Republican president to hold office was George W. Bush and that was back in 2008. Since then it has been a Democratic-run government under President Barack Obama. Now is the best time for Republicans to run granted that there is no incumbent president. As was seen in 2008, Obama ran as one of the younger candidates in history and proved that running at the right time can overcome a lack of experience.

The large number of candidates further demonstrates that there are contributing factors such as the changes to campaign funding policies which further permit individuals running to raise exorbitant amounts of money through fundraising and sponsorship (think Republican Jeb Bush, and Democrat Hillary Clinton.) Although the FEC used to place strict monetary guidelines on candidates, the 2010 SCOTUS ruling on the Citizens United case essentially gutted those stipulations and made it a lot easier for candidates to raise massive sums of cash. Further, the influx of money as a result of the Citizens United ruling may have propelled and incentivized individuals with large personal wealth (think Republicans Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina) to declare their candidacies. CNN recently reported Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders as stating, “We now have a political situation where billionaires are literally able to buy elections and candidates.” Sanders quote is clearly reflected by the latest GOP poll as it shows one of the most famously wealthy men in United States, Donald Trump, leading the pack.

While many refer to the 2008 election as the “Facebook Election,” it appears that the 2016 election is covering a lot more than just one social media platform. In fact most of the top candidates in the GOP field are staying very active on Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat and Periscope. Senator Ted Cruz demonstrated his active social media dedication as he provided a live stream of his first major speech across all mediums of social media on March 23. Although GOP candidates are aware that the competition in their own field alone is very fierce, they also understand that the highly prioritized use of social media in the campaign will allow them many hours in the national spotlight. Many of the candidates may be seeking some sort of business venture, platform, or political deal as a realistic option from campaigning, and are in a great position with the constant celebrity-like attention they can get through social media.

Having won the previous eight years in the White House, the Democratic party is somewhat unified on its ideals while the Republican party is immensely divided. There are arguably four separate yet equally important constituencies which make up the GOP right now. The four of these are: the libertarians, the Tea Party goers, the social conservatives and the establishment, although of course there’s plenty of overlap as well as other ideologies. With that being said, it is very tough for one candidate to appeal to all four of the subgroups. However, granted that it is still very early on in the race, candidates have time to strategically plan how to reach their respective audiences within the party. Hypothetically speaking, if one candidate can somehow secure the following of all four groups, he or she would skyrocket in the race and have a very high chance of winning.

Whether all 16 candidates are in it to win it or simply for an experience to share some ideas, the fact remains that only one will win the GOP primary and eventually run against the Democratic rival. With that being said there will be 15 qualified (some more than others) and hungry losers looking to further their influence in politics. Candidates who have already lost may join and support a fellow constituent still in the running who shares similar ideals. Losing candidates might also join forces with those still in contention to make it more difficult for the competition to win. It is still early on, however, things are looking rather exciting for the Republican party as the field is stacked and surprises await.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s Raining Republicans: Why is the 2016 Field So Crowded? appeared first on Law Street.

Do Republican Newbies Have Any Chance in the GOP Primaries?

Alexis Evans — Tue, 05 May 2015 16:15:33 +0000

Image courtesy of [DonkeyHotey via Flickr]

Political newcomers Dr. Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina have formally announced their campaigns for the 2016 presidential election, adding more diversity to the growing cast of GOP contenders. However their chances of becoming the Republican nominee may be slim to none, seeing as both candidates have never held public office or had military experience. So, in an effort to learn what would possess a famous retired neurosurgeon and a former CEO to run for president, here’s a bit of backstory on these conservative POTUS hopefuls.

Dr. Ben Carson

Oddly enough, it was a Lifetime movie starring Cuba Gooding Jr. that first introduced me to Dr. Ben Carson. The inspiring yet cheesy biopic modeled after his autobiography entitled “Gifted Hands” chronicled the former pediatric neurosurgeon’s life and the events leading up to the 1987 surgery that made him famous. In that operation, he became the first surgeon to separate a pair of conjoined twins joined at the head.

In 2013 Carson decided to retire as a surgeon and begin inserting himself into the political realm, in what many accurately guessed was the makings of a presidential run. However since then, Carson’s political experience can be pretty much be summed up with his bashing of Obamacare and government intrusion in healthcare at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast.

At his campaign kickoff Monday in his home town of Detroit, Carson chose not to shy away from his inexperience, instead opting to capitalize on it, telling voters he is not a politician, reports the Atlantic. He stated:

I don’t want to be a politician because politicians do what is politically expedient. I want to do what’s right.

But before Carson educated voters about his conservative platform he decided to start things off with what may be the most unusual campaign launch/mini-concert ever. The strange highlights included his wife Candy playing the “National Anthem” on the violin and an evangelical choir singing a rendition of Eminem’s “Lose Yourself,” which is now available for download on iTunes.

Despite having zero experience or political clout, Carson claims he’s ready to go up against the crowded pack of Republican candidates. If he somehow manages to accomplish that, it will be one long uphill battle for the controversial hopeful, especially since he’s been quoted saying Obamacare is the “worst thing since slavery.” He also claims homosexuality is a choice, citing people who go to prison identifying as straight and end up having gay sex as proof.

I’m in it!

— Dr. Ben Carson (@RealBenCarson) May 4, 2015

Carly Fiorina

Unlike Carson, Carly Fiorina’s presidential campaign announcement strategically went without the theatrics, but she did throw a bit of shade at fellow female campaigner and Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton. In her campaign ad’s opening statement, Fiorina plays up her inexperience saying, “our founders never intended for us to have a professional political class” as she turns away from an image of Clinton.

Fiorina is a retired business executive who served as the CEO of Hewlett-Packard (HP) before being forced out in 2005 after a botched merger, lackluster revenues, falling stock prices, and innovation struggles. She’s also credited with laying off 30,000 HP and Compaq employees during her time as CEO, a fact not forgotten by one site using the domain name carlyfiorina.org, which Fiorina regrettably failed to register. The site called out Fiorina with thousands of frowny faces and the message:

Carly Fiorina failed to register this domain. So I’m using it to tell you how many people she laid off at Hewlett-Packard. That’s 30,000 people she laid off. People with families.

But Fiorinia wasn’t the only presidential candidate to make that mistake. Ted Cruz also failed to procure the domain name tedcruz.com, which now shows the message “Support President Obama. Immigration Reform Now!”

Running for president? Buy ALL your domains. Otherwise: http://t.co/cQx6Fw6hGw, http://t.co/9k3UPHQEBT #2016Election pic.twitter.com/yyACnGe94N

— Amina Khan (@aminawrite) May 5, 2015

On a more serious note, like Carson, Fiorina has no political experience and has never held elected office, even though she did make a failed Senate run in 2010. Fiorina did serve as an aide to John McCain during the 2008 presidential elections, but failed miserably when she dissed his running mate Sarah Palin saying she didn’t think she could run a major corporation like HP. Then she dug herself in a bigger hole with these follow up comments:

Well, I don’t think John McCain could run a major corporation, I don’t think Barack Obama could run a major corporation, I don’t think Joe Biden could run a major corporation.

Fiorina’s biggest challenge, besides overcoming her vast political shortcomings, may be avoiding chronic foot-in-mouth syndrome.

Newcomers to the political arena aren’t that surprising–we all remember Herman Caine from 2012. But whether or not Republican newbies Carson or Fiorina will actually have a chance with their outsider statuses will be up to the voters.

Alexis Evans

The post Do Republican Newbies Have Any Chance in the GOP Primaries? appeared first on Law Street.

What Part Will Hispanic Voters Play in the 2016 Elections?

Valeriya Metla — Sat, 02 May 2015 13:00:00 +0000

Image courtesy of [justgrimes via Flickr]

As the Hispanic population in the United States rapidly grows, so does its influence on the electorate. As Hispanic voters turn out in greater numbers, both Republicans and Democrats are trying to appeal to these communities across the country. Even if Democrats tend to be more favored by Hispanic voters, Republicans still have a chance to change the odds. One thing is clear: the Hispanic vote will matter a great deal in 2016.

The Hispanic Population in the United States

Hispanics are the largest ethnic minority group in the United States. In 1990, the Hispanic population amounted to 22 million, or only nine percent of the total population. In 2000, there were 35 million Hispanics, while in 2010 their numbers reached 51 million, or 13 percent of the total population. On average, one million Hispanic people are added to the American population yearly. As of 2013, Hispanics in the United States numbered 54 million, or 17 percent of the total population. Recent projections estimate that by 2060 Hispanics will account for 31 percent of the total population.

The largest group of Hispanic people is found in New Mexico (47.3 percent), followed by California with 14.4 million. They are also heavily represented in Texas (10 million) and Florida (4.5 million). In addition, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York all have more than one million Hispanic residents.

Hispanic Voter Turnout

The phrase “Hispanic vote” or “Latino vote” is often used by the media and politicians in reference to this specific electorate and its ability to alter election outcomes. According to recent voting trends, Hispanics constitute a significant bloc of American voters, and their numbers are likely to grow. In 2010, seven percent of all voters in federal elections were of Hispanic origin, but by 2012 they numbered 8.4 percent.

However, Hispanic Americans are less likely to be registered to vote than white or black Americans. According to 2013 data from Gallup, only 51 percent of all eligible Hispanic residents were registered to vote in the 2012 federal elections. At the same time, 85 percent of white voters, 60 percent of Asian voters, and 81 percent of black voters were registered. Similar numbers held for the 2014 midterm elections: 25.2 million Hispanics were eligible to vote, but the number of Hispanic voters was even lower than the already low nationwide turnout of 37 percent.

Even if not all eligible Hispanics are actually voting, they do boost the overall minority vote. Thus, recent ethnic dynamics of the American electorate suggest that a collective ethnic minorities’ voting preferences can alter the outcome of future presidential elections, especially when taking into account the declining numbers of white voters. During the 2012 federal elections, President Obama managed to win with only 39 percent of white electorate support, while Romney lost despite carrying 59 percent of white voters.

Statewide, eligible Hispanic voters amount to around 40.1 percent in New Mexico, 27.4 percent in Texas, 26.9 percent in California, 20.3 percent in Arizona, 17.1 percent in Florida, 15.9 percent in Nevada, 13.2 percent in New York, 12.8 percent in New Jersey, and 10.3 percent in Connecticut. Again, Hispanic voter turnout during the midterms was lower than that of other ethnic groups and nationwide. For example, in Florida, only 36.5 percent of Hispanic voters showed up to vote in the 2014 midterm elections, while the overall voter turnout was at 50.5 percent. Despite low turnout, however, Hispanic voters have the ability to strongly affect American elections.

Why is Hispanic turnout so low?

There’s no one answer to that question, but there are some important factors to keep in mind. The low voter registration numbers among Hispanics can be in part explained by the fact that many Hispanics are not American-born citizens. Only six out of ten Hispanic voters (35.6 percent) were born in the United States, but 75 percent of American-born Hispanics registered to vote in the 2012 federal elections. In contrast, those born in other nations registered at a much lower rate of 31 percent. Some Hispanics are ineligible to vote because of their immigration statuses. Hispanics who are permanent residents, but not citizens, are allowed to vote in some local and state elections, but are prohibited from participating in federal elections. Candidates for office are also sometimes blamed for low participation rates as they may not offer comprehensive platforms that include issues important to minority voters.

Party Lines

Hispanic voters tend to support Democrats rather than Republicans. In 2000 and 2002 Democrats garnered the votes of 60 percent of Hispanic voters, while Republicans earned only 35 percent and 37 percent respectively. In 2004, 44 percent of Hispanics voted for Republicans and 53 percent supported the Democratic Party. In 2006, more Hispanics than ever chose Democrats, at 69 percent, over Republicans at 30 percent. During the next two federal elections in 2008 and 2010, Hispanic voters supported Democrats slightly less, but still by commanding margins.

According to 2013 Gallup data, 58 percent of Hispanics who had registered to vote were Democrats, 26 percent were Republicans, and 13 percent were independents. In addition, 41 percent of unregistered Hispanics identified as Democrats, and only 17 percent identified Republicans.

While the majority of Hispanics are either Democrats or Independents, Republicans have recently gained a considerable share of Hispanic votes in gubernatorial elections. For example, during the midterm elections in Texas and Georgia, Republicans captured 40 percent of Latino voters.

Hispanic Voters in Swing States

Historically, certain states in the U.S. have always voted for either Democrats or Republicans, while there are states that swing back and forth between the two parties–“swing states.” Presidential candidates often campaign more in those states, as they will decide elections. In the 2016 elections, many states with large Hispanic populations are already being viewed as the states to win, including Florida, Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia.

Florida has the largest Hispanic population among the swing states, at more than four million. During the 2012 elections, the Hispanic electorate accounted for 17 percent of total voters. As Florida has a large population of Cubans who historically favor Republicans, the GOP has traditionally made a strong run in Florida. But recently, more Hispanics in Florida have been leaning toward the Democratic Party.

Colorado has the second largest Hispanic population among swing states, at a little over a million. Historically, Colorado has been overwhelmingly Republican, but recent demographic trends have changed the odds for the GOP. During the last two presidential elections, Hispanic constituencies overwhelmingly backed Obama over McCain and Romney, helping him to victory.

The voting situation in Nevada is also uncertain, as both Bush and Obama won the state twice. Obama won Nevada largely due to Hispanic voters who made up 14 percent of the total electorate. However, Obama didn’t do so well with white voters in Nevada, leaving significant chances for the Republican party to capture more non-Hispanic votes in this state.

Traditionally red state Texas may also turn into a swing state. Thirty percent of its eligible voters are Hispanic; as a result experts believe that the Hispanic vote can make a difference in Texas in 2016.

Even though the Hispanic populations in the swing states are likely to vote for Democrats, many non-Hispanic whites in those states are still overwhelmingly Republican, making it possible for the GOP to win through capturing more white votes. That means that Hispanic voters can play a pivotal role in the final voting decision, but won’t necessarily be the deciding factor anywhere.

Why do Hispanic voters prefer Democrats over Republicans?

While obviously not all Hispanics feel the same way about any given issue, there are certain stand-out issues that tend to draw many Hispanic voters to Democratic candidates. Hispanic voters’ views on major issues such as immigration reform, health care, criminal justice, the economy, and education tend to line up more closely with Democratic platforms.

For one, the traditional Republican stance on immigration is a big reason why they are less popular in Hispanic communities than Democrats, who tend to be more in support of comprehensive reform in this sphere. The 2014 National Survey of Latinos revealed that 66 percent of registered Hispanic voters considered comprehensive immigration legislation an urgent and very important matter. Often Republican-sponsored laws concerning immigration, such as Proposition 187 in California, don’t resonate well in Hispanic communities. Proposition 187, which allowed law enforcement to turn in undocumented immigrants to immigration authorities, is sometimes viewed as the end of the Red California, as the ensuing controversy led to many Democratic victories.

However, according to the 2014 National Survey of Latinos, 54 percent of registered Hispanic voters said that a candidate’s position on immigration is not the only factor in their voting decision. The economy and job creation were viewed as more important than other issues, including immigration and health care.

How will Hispanic voters affect the 2016 elections?

By some estimations, Republicans need to capture 30-40 percent of Hispanic voters in order to win the Presidential election. In order for Republicans to win the necessary Hispanic votes, their candidate must engage with Hispanic communities. Watch the video below to learn more about Hispanic voters and what many are looking for in 2016 presidential candidates.

Conclusion

It’s clear that both parties should seriously consider the Hispanic electorate during their 2016 campaigns. While there’s a lot of diversity within the American Hispanic population itself, there are certain issues that have stood as consistent concerns for many Hispanic voters. In any scenario, capturing the majority of Hispanic voters will be essential for both parties in 2016 and beyond.

Resources

Primary

Gallup: In U.S., Voter Registration Lags Among Hispanics and Asians

Latino Decisions: Mi Familia Vota Poll on Executive Action – Nov 2014

Pew Research Center: In 2014, Latinos Will Surpass Whites as Largest Racial/Ethnic Group in California

Pew Research Center: Mapping the Latino Electorate by State

Pew Research Center: Five Takeaways About the 2014 Latino Vote

Additional

Albuquerque Journal: Low Hispanic Voter Turnout Partly Fault of Candidates

Fox News Latino: GOP needs 40 Percent of Latino Votes to Win White House in 2016

Infoplease: Hispanic Americans by the Numbers

NBC News: Want Latino Votes? Think Ground Game and Messaging

International Business Times: Ted Cruz 2016: Why Hispanic Voters Might Not be Thrilled if Texas Senator Becomes First Latino President

International Business Times: Obama Immigration Orders Could Drive Latino Vote in Battleground States For 2016

Huffington Post: Latino Views on the 2016 GOP Field: Who Can Actually Win the Latino Vote?

Hispanic Voters 2012: Hispanics in America

MSNBC: Latino Voters Likely to Back Hillary in 2016

San Antonio Express News: New Books Dissect the Budding Latino Voter Boom

Washington Post: Handicapping the Hispanic Vote for 2016

Washington Post: Did the GOP Make Inroads With the Latino Vote?

The New York Times: Hispanic Voters Are Important For Republicans, But Not Indispensable

Texas Monthly: Will Texas be a Swing State by 2016?

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Part Will Hispanic Voters Play in the 2016 Elections? appeared first on Law Street.

There’s Something Scarier Than Religious Freedom Going on in Indiana

Jennifer Polish — Thu, 16 Apr 2015 18:08:52 +0000

Image courtesy of alobos Life via Flickr]

Amid sustained calls to “fix this now” and the trending Twitter hashtag #boycottindiana, Indiana’s Republican leadership has quietly been maneuvering to maintain the increased discrimination against LGBT residents that Governor Mike Pence‘s “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” (RFRA) enabled. The Indiana legislature voted this week to deny protective provisions that would have ensured that religious protections cannot be used to discriminate against LGBT people. According to Think Progress editor Zack Ford, due to recent legal developments, “outside of the few municipalities with local protections, anti-LGBT discrimination is still legal throughout most of the state.”

And although #boycottindiana is trending hard on Twitter, the RFRA is hardly the only devastating bill to come out of Indiana recently.

But it’s the only one causing majors trends.

Why? One of the big reasons: mainstream (read: overwhelmingly white) LGBT advocates, organizations, and issues have largely gained the support of big businesses and corporations. (Yes, I know that the pizzeria that supported the RFRA made an absurd amount of money from the controversy. But that’s not the systemic trend, which favors corporations making profit off of and cooperating with upper- and middle-class, white LGB people and organizations.)

Whiteness must be decentralized from the LGBT movement. I’m sick of hearing about Leelah Alcorn and not Blake Brockington #HisNameWasBlake

— Ryan Mishler (@storyofryguy) April 9, 2015

So what could be trending under the hashtag #boycottindiana, but is not?

An incredibly scary amendment to Senate Bill 465, which addresses the operations of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, was passed in the Indiana House this week. Though much ire and rage have been focused on the Indiana Republican leadership that was responsible for the RFRA, it was Democratic Representative Terry Goodin who proposed adding the drug testing requirement to the bill.

Drug testing requirements in order to receive welfare fundamentally introduce even greater racism into welfare programs: even though white people tend to use illegal drugs at comparable or even higher rates than people of color, people of color are arrested and imprisoned at disproportionately higher rates for drug related “crimes” than white people. This means that people of color who are welfare recipients are going to be disproportionately targeted by the new provision’s requirement that recipients with histories of drug-related “crimes” be required to undergo testing. These folks will be stripped of their welfare benefits if they fail two tests.

So… Why is the #boycottindiana hashtag not blowing up with rage over this new twist to already-racist policies? Do my fellow white queers think racist laws are alright while homophobic laws are not?

Racial justice is LGBT justice.

So… Where are the trending boycotts against all kinds of racist laws across the country, like the resurgence of Jim Crow-esque laws that suppress the votes of Black and Latina people by mandating ID requirements for voting?

Where is the #boycottwhitenessinLGBTorganizations hashtag? The #boycottmassincarceration hashtag, or the #boycottracism hashtag? The #boycottwhitesupremacy hashtag?

Oh, yes. We can’t boycott those things. They’re too integrated into what makes this country operate.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post There’s Something Scarier Than Religious Freedom Going on in Indiana appeared first on Law Street.

Hey Senate Republicans: Iran Negotiations Involve Other Countries

Anneliese Mahoney — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 15:26:39 +0000

Image courtesy of [Zack Lee via Flickr]

There’s no gray area quite like international law. Historically speaking it’s a relatively new field, and every nation accepts various parts of it. But essentially there are a number of different treaties, measures, and conventions that mediate the ways in which our nations interact, both in war and peace. Nations have certain obligations, and despite the United States’ abysmal track record when it comes to international law, we’re held to them too. We don’t live in a vacuum. After the collective political hissy fit that 47 Senators just had in the form of a truly condescending letter to Iran, it’s time to remind Senate Republicans of that.

The United States has long been dismissive of international law, and understandably so. For example, we have refused to ratify the Rome Statute–the document that created the International Criminal Court–out of fear that our heads of state could ever be tried in an international court. In fact, the United States has long occupied a position upon a hypocritical throne, condemning the actions of others that don’t fall in line with international norms and agreements while seldom being held to other international standards ourselves. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. The U.S. has been the world’s superpower for decades, and we’ve acted the part.

Just because the United States is the only real superpower doesn’t mean that we got there on our own. We have allies, most of whom belong to NATO and are located in Western Europe. Could we be a superpower without Germany, and the United Kingdom, and France? Probably. Would it be harder? Almost certainly. Here’s an example: yesterday, U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus reached out to our allies asking them for help in the fight against ISIS. At a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting Mabus stated with regard to our international allies’ cooperation in the ISIS fight, “we can’t do it by ourselves and they have to carry their fair share of the burden.” Senator Roger Wicker, a Republican from Mississippi (who also signed the letter to Iran) said:

We are going to have to insist on more of a contribution from our international partners. We keep the lanes open for them. Our friends in Europe, our NATO friends and our other friends are depending upon what you are talking about. We are going to have to collectively come up with a plan to convince our partners that it is in their interests too to make the financial sacrifice.

We could deal with ISIS without our international partners, most likely. But any politicians who put us in that position would face a lot of backlash for the political and financial ramifications.

What does this have to do with Iran, and the remarkable letter that Senate Republicans sent to Iran’s government? Well, it’s important to remember that this deal, like any aspect of international politics, does not exist in a vacuum. Most importantly, this isn’t just a negotiation between Iran and the U.S., it involves five other countries and will be endorsed by a U.N. Security Council Resolution. We would prefer not to piss off the U.K., Germany, and France for the aforementioned reasons. Although our relationship with China is rocky at best, it’s hands down one of our biggest trading partners. Finally, the hot mess that is Putin’s Russia is at the very least a major player on the world stage, and it would probably be in our best interest to not piss it off either.

So, when Senate Republicans wrote that laughably snappish letter to Iran warning about a future president overturning a deal they don’t like “with the stroke of a pen,” that indicates that said fictional future president wouldn’t just be screwing a deal with Iran–they’d be doing the same thing to the U.K., Germany, France, China, and Russia as well. That doesn’t necessarily mean that anything would come of it–it would probably take a hell of a lot more to lose the loyalty of some of our closest allies–but it’s still not a good move for a new president to make.

That’s sort of the crux of the issue though. Either Senate Republicans don’t give a crap about the delicate balance of global politics, or they are so desperate to stick it to President Obama that they no longer care. Either way, the letter was an extraordinarily dumb move by a remarkably short-sighted group.

Anneliese Mahoney

The post Hey Senate Republicans: Iran Negotiations Involve Other Countries appeared first on Law Street.

SOTU All About the Middle Class, But Who Exactly is That?

Anneliese Mahoney — Wed, 21 Jan 2015 16:10:32 +0000

Image courtesy of [Barack Obama via Flickr]

President Obama gave his second-to-last State of the Union address last night, and it’s being lauded as a great one. He laid out a long to-do list, including addressing net neutrality, his education plan, a minimum wage hike, a tax code overhaul, and a fight against ISIS, despite the fact that he enters this year having to stand against a Republican-controlled Congress. In fact, much of the speech seemed like a challenge to a Congress made up of the very people who have consistently tried to stall Obama’s polices for the last seven years. Whether or not they decide to play nice will be up to the Republicans.

The Republican response to the speech, of course, was rather negative. The main criticism seemed to be that Obama didn’t focus enough on the middle class. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), who actually gave the Republican response to last year’s SOTU, commented:

You know, I was disappointed. I was disappointed that I didn’t hear more from the president as far as how we were going to help those middle-class families. I thought he painted a little rosy picture of how things are, at a time when people continue to see their wages actually shrink, take-home pay shrinking. Job opportunities are not enough.

That quote from McMorris Rodgers is pretty consistent with a lot of GOP responses to Obama’s SOTU speech last night–that he doesn’t understand the middle class and do enough to help the citizens who fall into that bracket. Most Democrats are insisting that the plans that Obama laid out–particularly those to give middle class families a tax break, as well as help ease the burden of college payments, are going to be great for these segment of the country.

As I sat here trying to work my way through all of the plans, all of the political rhetoric, all of the buzzwords that got thrown around last night, I had a realization. It’s not just that Democrats and Republicans can’t seem to agree on how to help the middle class. It might be that we can’t agree on what the “middle class” is.

It sounds silly–we all know what the middle class is, right? It must be that chunk of the population between those in poverty, and those who live in mansions. Is it blue-collar workers, or white-collar workers, or a little bit of both? Or is it more of a heritage–are we middle class because of the values that are instilled in us? I honestly don’t know anymore.

What I do know is that pretty much everyone thinks they’re middle class. In a 2012 Gallup Poll, 42 percent of respondents said they were middle class. Another 13 percent said they were upper-middle class. Then another 31 percent said they were “working class,” which makes this entire thing even less clear, given that working class is sometimes viewed as middle class. Most importantly, there were a plurality of people in every income bracket from $30,000-$100,000 who defined themselves as “middle class.”

The concept of the middle class has long been hailed as a bedrock of American society, and I’m not saying that’s a bad thing. But I think it does make it incredibly difficult to design policies for the “middle class” because when you’re talking about well over half the population, one size doesn’t even fit most. What I, as a 20-something living in Washington D.C., need, is significantly different than what a family in Iowa needs, which is different than someone about to retire in California needs, even if we all make about the same amount and identify as “middle class.”

To bring this back to last night’s speech, it’s that very definition problem that makes it easy for both the Democrats and the Republicans to point to their plans and say “look, it’s for the middle class.” For example, Obama’s statement last night:

That’s why this Congress still needs to pass a law that makes sure a woman is paid the same as a man for doing the same work. Really. It’s 2015. It’s time.

To me, that sounds like a tangible thing that would help the middle class. Given that it’s now pretty close to the norm for both men and women, even those married and/or with families, to work, ensuring that they both get fair pay seems like it would help the middle class to me. But then the Republicans see that Obama is also proposing a tax hike on the richest Americans, and will argue that that’s going to slow job growth, so paying men and women equally isn’t helpful if neither of them can find a job. It’s a messy, cyclical argument that’s more about politics than actually trying to help the middle class, no matter who we may be. And that’s a shame.

Anneliese Mahoney

The post SOTU All About the Middle Class, But Who Exactly is That? appeared first on Law Street.

How to Deal with Your Political Hangover

Anneliese Mahoney — Wed, 05 Nov 2014 20:30:10 +0000

Image courtesy of [Amir Jina via Flickr]

My guess is that a lot of you out there — especially those of you in Washington — are suffering from what I call a “political hangover.” It’s a lot like a regular hangover–you wake up in the morning having indulged in a gratuitous amount of your vice (in this case politics), feel groggy and slightly ashamed, and now have to deal with the ramifications. Whether you had a good night or bad, the morning after midterms is bound to be a little rough.

So, here’s a handy-dandy guide to making it through your post-election political hangover. Fair warning, while many of these tips are bipartisan, some apply more directly to those suffering a painful-Democratic-defeat hangover right now.

Imagine you’re somewhere else

We get to indulge in a pop-culture version of politics that is very different than what the political atmosphere actually looks like. Whether it’s the West Wing, Parks and Rec, House of Cards, or Scandal, maybe today’s the day to indulge in a little bit of fantasy.

Just an example.

Look at dog videos. Or cats. Or babies? Really, whatever calms you down.

There’s no better way to get over disappointment and/or exhaustion than by watching something cute to take your mind off of it for a bit. That’s definitely a scientific fact and not a theory that I use to excuse my frequent YouTube watching of puppies frolicking. Anyway, here’s my puppy video of the day for your enjoyment:

Take a break

This is not me telling you to take a nap at your desk. Unless you work at one of those cool offices with nap pods or something. I mean more in the general sense–take a break from the political coverage. There are some recounts and run-offs, but for the most part nothing big is going to be happening for the next couple of days. Go outside. There are people there. And things to do. Stop refreshing your browser for the elections that have not been called yet.

Because as much as we all obsess over the news and politics, those real people are the reason that we do it. For each of us who sits here arguing over the minutia of education policy, there are countless kids for whom education is the only possible lifeline they might get. We parse quotes from politicians about the economy, and it’s easy to forget about the decent number of people who are unemployed or too demoralized to look for jobs. We obsess over the potential of a recount when a lot of people in our justice system don’t really get second chances.

This isn’t to say that people who follow politics don’t think about the people–I think the vast majority of the time that’s pretty far from the truth. But there is something to be said for the political sensationalism that our modern media allows. At the end of the day, politics and the media that covers it is an industry unto itself. Media outlets, pundits, observers, and sometimes even politicians make money off of their political brand. After the 24/7 media slam of these elections, the most expensive midterm elections in the history of the U.S., and what will presumably be an exhausting 2016, I can’t imagine that a palate cleanser would be a bad thing.

Ask, “What’s Next?”

Many apologies for the double West Wing gif in this article, but I can’t help myself.

There’s a whole new crop of politicians coming to Washington, state capitals, and Governors’ mansions. And I think all that America wants is for them to do something. Granted, I probably won’t like what most of them do, but wow, do we all really need to do something. Partisan gridlock, government shutdowns, and petty politics are all useless.

I’m probably being overly optimistic here, but just remember this: there’s always more work to do. For those of us who were disappointed with what happened last night, we need to keep working. We can’t give up trying to make our voices heard. And for those who were pleased with the election results…show us you earned it.

Anneliese Mahoney

The post How to Deal with Your Political Hangover appeared first on Law Street.

How Not to Sue the President: No Progress for Speaker Boehner

Anneliese Mahoney — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 21:03:36 +0000

Image courtesy of [Take Radio News Service via Flickr, Pete Souza and Valerie A. Martinez via Wikimedia Commons]

A little while back, fellow Law Streeter Marisa Mostek wrote an excellent, handy-dandy guide entitled “How to Sue Your President: Obama Edition.” The inspiration for the guide was born out of the claim from Speaker of the House John Boehner that he was going to sue President Obama. The suit was intended to address what Speaker Boehner and House Republicans saw as failures to legally implement parts of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. Boehner announced his plan in a letter to members of the House of Representatives that also read:

On matters ranging from health care and energy to foreign policy and education, President Obama has repeatedly run an end-around on the American people and their elected legislators, straining the boundaries of the solemn oath he took on Inauguration Day. Everywhere I go in America outside of Washington, D.C., I’m asked: when will the House stand up on behalf of the people to stop the encroachment of executive power under President Obama? We elected a president, Americans note; we didn’t elect a monarch or king.

The guide that Marisa wrote was incredibly helpful. Speaker Boehner really should have checked it out, because as it turns out, the lawsuit hasn’t really gone anywhere. In fact, it’s been dropped twice by law firms who were working on the case for House Republicans. Interestingly enough, the House Republicans are blaming the fact that no one seems to be able to stay on their case on Democrats. A spokesperson for Speaker Boeher, Kevin Smith, stated:

The litigation remains on track, but we are examining the possibility of forgoing outside counsel and handling the litigation directly through the House, rather than through law firms that are susceptible to political pressure from wealthy, Democratic-leaning clients.

The idea of the House Republicans moving the suit in the actual House could be a smart one, given that currently, taxpayer money would be going to fund the payment of outside counsel. That being said, it doesn’t really look like there’s much action being taken.

In Marisa’s original “how to” piece she posed the question of whether or not this was a legitimate attempt by Speaker Boehner and House Republicans to bring a suit against the President, or whether it was all just a publicity stunt.

Right now, if the lawsuit can’t get off the ground, it seems like the latter may end up being true.

In the meantime, Speaker Boehner, and pretty much everyone else should check out “How to Sue Your President.” With the way that Speaker Boehner’s lawsuit is going, it couldn’t possibly hurt to get some guidance.

Anneliese Mahoney

The post How Not to Sue the President: No Progress for Speaker Boehner appeared first on Law Street.

Republicans Really Are People Too

Allison Dawson — Fri, 03 Oct 2014 18:55:53 +0000

Image courtesy of [Burns Library, Boston College via Flickr]

Hey y’all!

Yesterday I was watching The Five on Fox News and one of the topics was this new ad campaign that some former Mitt Romney “ad guru” came up with that has me feeling all kinds of different things. Another one of the writers here at Law Street got her fingers working on the same topic and I will address a little of what Anneliese had to say about the “Republicans Are People Too” campaign.

I get the message they’re trying to get across here, but I think it was done wrong. We all have a misconception of people we do not know or do not associate with, and this often goes along party lines. There have always been certain stereotypes attached to each party. Republicans and conservatives are typically viewed as heartless, racist, homophobic, gun-toting, war-loving, wife-beating, feminist-hating, uncaring-about-the-poor, mean-spirited, greedy, selfish, intolerant, drunk, one-percenters. Democrats and liberals are often viewed as tree-hugging, abortion-loving, gun-hating, politically correct, unpatriotic, lazy, looking-for-a-handout, entitled, big government-loving people who like to stick racism or sexism into every conversation.

These stereotypes are not true of everyone and that was what Vinny Minchillo was trying to put out there for the world in this ad. But I don’t think he did it the right way. And if he spent $60,000 to create that ad then he needs to get his money back because the supposed use of stock photos is just embarrassing. Not to mention the stuff he points out is just petty and shallow.

The one thing I do love about the ad is the moment when it states “Republicans like dogs and cats, but probably dogs a little more than cats.” It was the playful humor of this moment that made me like the ad. But to feel like you need to tell the world that even people with tattoos are Republicans drives me insane. I have 14 tattoos, I don’t drive a Prius, I do love dogs, and I’m a conservative, too!

Greg Gutfeld had an interesting point on The Five: “This commercial is not the answer. You shouldn’t be saying ‘we’re just like them.’ You should be saying why you’re better than them. You need to focus on why you’re right.” I like the point he makes but maybe not so much about being better than anyone else but simply saying why we think that our opinions and views are just as important and should be just as respected as those of another party.

Which brings me to the petty comment that President Obama made the other day in a speech:

While good, affordable health care might seem like a fanged threat to the freedom of the American people on Fox News, it’s working pretty well in the real world.

Delusions of grandeur come to mind.

Why on EARTH, Mr. President, do you feel like you need to take jabs at Fox News? Are you threatened by the idea that you have not been such a great president and things are not actually working out the way you said they would!? Someone actually took the time to include this little jab in his speech. President Obama didn’t just go off the cuff and use his own wit to make this comment, but a speech writer actually wrote it in for him. When you are on your second term and this is what you and your speech writing team are talking about it is time to hang up your hat! Take a page from the fictional President Josiah “Jed” Bartlet of the West Wing and respect the other party, maybe even include them.

Yes, Anneliese, real Republicans actually use Macs. In fact, I am using one to write this right now! I love all things Apple; the iPhone 6, iPad mini, Apple TV and I even have two Mac laptops and a 27″ iMac. But now I have to wonder if me listing all of the Apple products that I own makes you think I am, yet again, your typical elitist Republican because Apple products are not cheap! I appreciate that you appreciate the fact that Republicans are just kind of tired of having a bad rap.

Now, I agree with Anneliese on the other ads she talks about — they are just horrible! But you can’t fault the party for trying. What’s even better is that the more you talk about these ads the longer they stick around and the more people they reach! So even if it is a ridiculous ad, you have given it the momentum to influence someone it may not have reached before. Or at least get someone thinking.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Republicans Really Are People Too appeared first on Law Street.

Republicans May Be ‘People Too,’ But They Sure Make Narrowminded Ads

Anneliese Mahoney — Thu, 02 Oct 2014 20:25:51 +0000

It’s officially October, which means that next month is election month, which means that shit is officially getting weird! Now, the Republican party has in recent years had a hard time connecting with a few groups of voters — namely women, young people, and minorities. In response, they’ve tried to switch some things up, and I do applaud them for that. But they might want to refine their plan a little more, because some of these ads created by Republican groups have just been plain weird. Without further ado, here are the three Republican ads I’ve seen in the past few weeks that have made me scratch my head.

Republicans are People Too

I don’t even fully count this one as any sort of political ad, but rather a…Public Service Announcement?

This spot is literally just a reminder to be nicer to Republicans. Which is nice I guess, but I feel like if the Republican party is at the point where it needs to remind potential voters that it’s composed of humans, the phrase “losing battle” may apply. The group that posted this video on YouTube was called “Republicans are People Too” and posted it with the disclosure:

It seems like it’s okay to say mean things about someone just because they’re Republican. That isn’t right. Before you write another mean post about Republicans, remember Republicans are people, too.

In a super awkward turn of events, it turns out that the “Republicans” in the video are actually stock photos. Which means I’m left with some terribly pressing question: do real Republicans actually use Macs???

Overall, this spot was a nice attempt at creating polite political discourse, but it came across a bit odd and sort of like aliens trying to communicate after observing Earth for just a few weeks.

Break up With Barack Obama

Americans for Shared Prosperity released this weird and creepy exercise in sexism a couple weeks ago.

First of all, why does he have to be her boyfriend? The message is perfectly fine! This spot is saying that she doesn’t like Obama anymore because he’s been bad for foreign policy and the economy and those are incredibly valid arguments! Why does it have to be framed like he’s an abusive boyfriend? It’s just distracting from the actual point of the ad!

To be fair, this isn’t a new tactic, during the 2012 elections, Lena Dunham starred in a weird Obama ad that compared voting for the first time to losing your virginity, and it was similarly weird and creepy.

I get that it’s supposed to be provocative or go viral or something, but it’s just weird. Also it makes it seem like you shouldn’t vote if you aren’t 100 percent sure about a candidate, which is not how democracy works.

But I digress. According to the head of Americans for Shared Prosperity, John Jordan, the goal of the ad was “to communicate with women voters in a way that outside groups and campaigns haven’t. The purpose of this is to treat women voters more like adults.” With all due respect Mr. Jordan, if you’d like to treat me like an adult, talk to me about the issues. Don’t make a creepy ad pretending that the president is my abusive boyfriend.

Say Yes to the Candidate

This ad is hands down my favorite, though. Similar to the ad above, it tries to relate to young female voters through something we can understand — DRESSES!!! Created by the College Republican National Committee for use by Rick Scott in the Florida gubernatorial race, it creates a metaphor between the candidates and dresses, say yes to the dress style.

Gag.

This is the one that has hit the news over the last few days, but the CRNC also made others for tough races, with just different candidates/facts inserted in.

There’s a big disconnect here with these three ads. The first tries to convince me that I need to realize that the Republican Party has a ton of diversity, but the next two try to target me, as a young woman, with apparently the only two things I’m interested in and can understand — boys and pretty dresses.

It is genuinely good that the Republican Party has realized that it needs to do something to win over the type of voters who have traditionally not voted for them. I hope it ends up leading to higher levels of discourse, compromise, and understanding. But these kind of ads are not the way to do it.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Ryan Heaney via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

The post Republicans May Be ‘People Too,’ But They Sure Make Narrowminded Ads appeared first on Law Street.

The GOP Blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act AGAIN

Hannah R. Winsten — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 10:33:50 +0000

You guys, I’m getting really fed up with the GOP.

This week, Senate Republicans voted unanimously to block the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill aimed at closing the gender wage gap.

It would have encouraged salary transparency among employees, protected workers who share salary information with one another, imposed more serious penalties for pay discrimination, and required employers to prove that any existing wage gaps are in place for reasons other than gender.

Basically, the Paycheck Fairness Act is exactly what it sounds like — a bill that seeks fair paychecks for everyone, regardless of gender.

You’d think that’d be a pretty standard, reasonable goal: pay everyone fairly based on the work that they do, not on the genitals they have! Easy enough, right? Well, apparently not. Because this is the fourth time that Republicans have blocked it.

It’s a pretty counter-intuitive move, considering that just a few weeks ago, the Republican National Committee claimed that, “All Republicans support equal pay.” It appears that these Senate Republicans are voting against the official party line.

This #LaborDay, the White House & Democrats believe paying women less than men is an acceptable practice. pic.twitter.com/AhCYH5RGgR

— RNC (@GOP) September 1, 2014

Not to mention, earlier this month, Politico leaked that the GOP was sorely lacking in support from single women, and would be targeting the Beyoncé-voters’ bloc come election season. Senate Republicans didn’t seem to get that memo, since their actions this week are only further alienating the key voting demographic they need to win over.

The Paycheck Fairness Act is a direct response to the realities of gender discrimination in the workplace — women earn an average of 77 cents to a man’s dollar. That statistic hasn’t changed in a decade. And while it’s true that it’s a fairly complex number, determined by a variety of factors, it’s still very real that the average female worker earns less than her male counterparts.

And Republicans are voting to keep it that way.

Women are paid less than men from the minute they enter the workforce right through to the moment they get promoted to the executive corner office. There are a ton of factors that go into the wage gap — industry, tenure, marital status, and education level, just to name a few — but women are getting paid less no matter which of these variables get thrown into the mix.

Passing the Paycheck Fairness Act would send a clear message that the federal government cares about women in the workforce. This bill would not only take real steps toward closing the pay gap between men and women, it would also communicate that female workers are valued. The way they’re treated, and how much they’re paid, matters.

But Republicans are voting to hang on to current practices, like salary secrecy, that work to keep women’s paychecks smaller and their professional contributions undervalued. Why? According to the Senators, they worry that the bill would cause employers to stop hiring female employees, fearful of discrimination lawsuits. They’ve also argued that the wage gap is exaggerated and that women are already protected from discrimination enough.

So basically, the Republican Senators who blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act on Monday night are sending a number of shitbag messages:

They’re dismissing the very real problem of pay discrimination, invalidating the experiences of women who are forced to support themselves on inadequate wages simply because they have vaginas.

They’re telling the world that women are not valuable workers, and that it’s perfectly acceptable for women to work just as hard as — if not harder than — their male counterparts, and get paid less.

They’re upholding a hostile, sexist culture in which, apparently, if employers are expected to treat their female workers in a non-discriminatory manner, they simply won’t hire female workers at all.

And finally, they’re sending a crystal clear message to women across the nation that the GOP does not take our priorities seriously. Instead, they’ll tell us our problems don’t exist, our concerns are invalid and unnecessary, and then vote in favor of policies that harm us.

The RNC’s Twitter account claims to be in support of equal pay for women, but actions speak louder than words.

You’re not fooling anyone, conserva-turds.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York City. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Gage Skidmore via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The GOP Blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act AGAIN appeared first on Law Street.

If You Need an Abortion in Missouri, Your Life Just Got Harder

Hannah R. Winsten — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:31:07 +0000

Image courtesy of [Dave Bledsoe via Flickr]

Happy Friday, folks! We’ve finally made it through the week. Phew! It’s been a long one, am I right?

Unfortunately, women in Missouri aren’t feeling much relief today. Legislators in the Midwestern state enacted a bill on Wednesday that mandates a 72-hour waiting period for any woman seeking an abortion. There are no exceptions to this rule, even in cases of rape or incest.

So, unless you are about to literally die as a result of a pregnancy gone terribly wrong, if you want an abortion in Missouri, you’ll have to wait it out through a mandatory, three-day “reflection period.” The bill becomes effective in 30 days.

Folks, this bill is extremely problematic for a bunch of reasons.

First, there are the practical ones. Requiring a standard medical procedure to span over a number of days places a real logistical burden on women seeking abortions. Since there’s only one abortion clinic left in the state, accessing abortion services is already super difficult. Many have to travel long distances to reach this single, lonely clinic — a trip that requires a steep financial investment of gas money, wear and tear on your car, and probably a day off from work.

And that’s all before you can even get the actual abortion, which will cost you money, since a number of restrictions on Obamacare and public employee coverage mean it’s pretty unlikely that your insurance will pay for it.

Now, multiply all that hassle by three. Thanks to this bill, not only do Missouri women have to go through all this mess, they also have to take multiple days off from work and book a hotel room.

Oh! And to top off this logistical disaster, that three-day waiting period? You have to go through counseling sessions before it can even begin. They’re specifically designed to misinform women about abortions, and are meant to discourage patients from going through with the procedure — so add another day to that hotel bill, ladies.

The problems with this bill don’t stop there, however. Aside from the practical issues it will cause Missouri women looking to access safe abortion services, it also wreaks a certain level of psychic havoc.

Forcing women to undergo a reflection period to reflect upon a decision they’ve already thought about and made is incredibly condescending, demeaning, and paternalistic. If you’ve traveled 100 miles to get this procedure done — the average distance a patient at St. Louis’ Planned Parenthood will travel to receive an abortion — you’ve already made your decision.

You’ve thought this through.

Abortion isn’t a decision to be taken lightly, and guess who knows that better than anyone else? WOMEN WHO ARE SEEKING ABORTIONS.

Imagine these women were seeking different kinds of medical procedures. A cystectomy, for example, or a colonoscopy. How absurd would it be for someone — aside from her doctor — to step in and tell her to hold on, she’d better think this through?

It would be ridiculous. But the Republican lawmakers of Missouri have decided not to treat abortions like what they are — standard medical procedures — and instead, to separate them out into a special circumstance where women cease to be independent, intelligent adults, capable of making their own decisions. Apparently, when abortions are on the table, the women of Missouri are to be treated like ignorant, irresponsible children.

Now, it’s important to note that this bill didn’t pass easily. When it was introduced earlier this year, Democrats and women’s rights activists protested it, and Governor Jay Nixon even vetoed it. But this week, Republican legislators voted to override the veto, then cut off a Democratic filibuster to force a new vote.

In other words, Missouri Republicans really, REALLY care about forcing women who need abortions to undergo 72 hours of physical, mental, and financial hardship before they’ll be allowed to receive medical care.

Why, exactly, is the GOP so concerned about women’s reproductive systems? The past few years have been filled to the brim with cases of Republican lawmakers restricting women’s access to safe, affordable birth control and abortion services.

New research points to the idea that conservatives believe that women simply shouldn’t be having consequence-free sex. A recent study that surveyed Americans on their views about promiscuity found that people who think casual sex is wrong, also believe that women need a man to financially support them.

So, basically, a woman who’s totally independent, both financially and sexually, is a really foreign and potentially threatening concept to many conservative folks. As a result, they’re trying to reign in our ability to have consequence-free sex — which any man can do, by the way, with a quick stop at a local convenience store.

And in Missouri, they’re doing a damn good job.

Hannah R. Winsten

The post If You Need an Abortion in Missouri, Your Life Just Got Harder appeared first on Law Street.

Debunking Common Myths About American Healthcare Costs

Morgan McMurray — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:54:52 +0000

Image courtesy of [United Workers via Flickr]

I’m going to take a break from feminist issues today and discuss something that is, literally, life or death: America’s horrible healthcare costs.

Recently, just as I had my first run-in with military dress codes, I also got to experience a military doctor’s office. I went in for a physical exam, waited maybe ten minutes all around, and ended up leaving without having to pay a cent for the appointment or prescriptions. The only thought on my mind was: why can’t everyone’s health care be this great?

Outside of the United States, healthcare is that great in several countries. Just last summer while studying abroad in London, my friend rushed herself to the hospital thinking her appendix was bursting. Turned out to be just a pulled muscle, but an ER visit didn’t cost her a pence — and she wasn’t even a citizen!

So what’s wrong with American health care? For a country whose citizens claim it to be number one, we are way behind on things that really matter. According to the World Health Organization, America ranks thirty-fifth in life expectancy and thirty-seventh in healthcare systems.

Yikes.

Why are we so low in the rankings? The answer is not simple.

American healthcare costs are alarmingly higher than in other developed countries. An MRI in the U.S. averages $1,121, while in the Netherlands it’s only $319. Need an angiogram? That’ll be $914, but you could have gotten it for $35 in Canada! Are you on the drug Lipitor? Then you know it’s around $124 a month — it costs $6 a month in New Zealand. Some may argue that we are wealthier than these countries, so it makes sense that we would spend a bit more. Sure, but the amount the United States spends on health care is way above what it should be.

Then there is the argument that countries with free health care pay more in taxes. False. The average U.S. citizen pays more in taxes toward public health care than the United Kingdom, Canada, and a whole list of other countries with free health care.

Some blame insurance. American citizens not having health insurance was a factor in rising healthcare costs, yes. Those who didn’t have it still needed care, then went bankrupt from trying to pay for it, so our tax money ended up paying for it. The Affordable Care Act has alleviated some of the problem, but it is still being fought over in congress.

Still others point to over-utilization and malpractice spending, saying that Americans simply go to the doctor more and therefore spend more, but there is no data to support that either. Plus, who would want to go to the doctor more than they need to, especially when a doctor’s visit will soon cost more than a car?

None of these issues is the one thing that has skyrocketed our health care spending. In fact, all of them are to blame. Therefore, there will be no simple solution. Reaching a fix is made harder by the fact that the topic of health care is gridlocked in our government. Republicans block Democrats because they’re not Republican, and vice versa.

A lot of people like to gripe about Obamacare.

Half of Congress even decided to throw a hissy fit over not getting their way on the subject, and shut down the government. Sure, the Affordable Care Act might not be perfect, but at least it’s something. Those people most vehemently opposing it aren’t offering up any better solutions. Until both parties can get over their pride, sit down and say “what is going to be best, and cost less, for the American people?” healthcare costs will continue to be higher than they need to be.

My opinion? Healthcare should be free and easily accessible for everyone. Period.

Data and statistics for this post came from the WHO website and this article from The New York Times.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Debunking Common Myths About American Healthcare Costs appeared first on Law Street.

Response: Let’s Stop with the Republican Bashing

Allison Dawson — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 20:52:56 +0000

Hey y’all!

This is going to be a fun one!

Some of y’all know a while ago I was writing a personal blog, stumbled across Law Street, and was fired up by one of the contributors, Hannah Winsten. I wrote a rebuttal and the rest is history. I’ve been writing for Law Street for a few months now and have had the greatest pleasure in doing so, the team rocks! But in the back of my mind I always wondered when I would be able to have another encounter with Hannah. I like to think of her as the antithesis of me, she stands for everything that I don’t believe in, but in a good way!

The day has finally come. Ladies and gentlemen, Hannah is back and she has fired me up!

Hannah wrote a piece this week entitled, “LADIES: Vote Republican and You’ll Get the D” and I thought this will be a fun one. Boy was I right! I love how she starts right off with a sarcastic tone, throwing in those traditional pop culture references before pulling out the big words like ‘racist,’ ‘sexist,’ ‘homophobic’ and ‘Republican.’

First, she certainly did get it right that President Obama is getting close to being a lame duck, actually at this point he’s checked out and moved on to retirement on the golf course while still in the White House. Things haven’t gone the way he planned and homeboy has chunked deuce on the country, as pointed out by fellow Law Street writer Katherine Fabian here.

Who isn’t ready for the 2016 elections? I know I am!

Here we go again with Hannah only selecting bits and pieces of a report, only outlining what is beneficial and relevant to how she thinks and not the whole story. Yes, Politico reported a survey that states 49 percent of single women hold a negative view of the Republican Party, but it also says that 39 percent view Democrats unfavorably. If you go deeper into the article you also see that 48 percent of married women prefer a Republican to a Democrat. It isn’t a very positive article for Republicans but at least it is the truth and they are trying to do something about it.

Yes, the Republican Party has been perceived as the “good ole boys” party and women were neglected in some respects. But there are still plenty of Republican women in the country and I’m sorry but the idea that Republicans support rape and domestic violence is just vile. Does Hannah see all Republicans as toothless, alcoholic, wife-beating-if-they-step-out-of-the-kitchen inbreds? Referring to conservatives as ‘conserva-turds’ is almost as ridiculous as your girl, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, making the comment that “What Republican tea party extremists like Scott Walker are doing is they are grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back.” Maybe you and Debbie get together in the last few days and brainstormed creative ways of calling the Republican Party abusive? Even people in the Democratic Party are distancing themselves from that foolish woman and her hideous remarks.

Nowhere in any Republican initiative or in that specific poll does it say that Republicans are planning to tell anyone that they are wrong. Nowhere. The report says that it is a “lack of understanding” between women and Republicans that “closes many minds to Republican policy solutions.” But let’s be honest, we don’t need a poll to tell us that there is a lack of understanding between the American people and politics. Not many in my generation or in younger generations take the time to understand politics, they just go with what they hear on television and we both know that is not an accurate depiction of politics at its core.

Hannah claims that Republicans will basically shake their fingers at all women, tell them they are wrong, and expect them to go out and vote for the GOP. What exactly are you reading that says any of that? Oh right, it is all based on opinion, not fact. Let’s go back to the Politico article where it states that the group that took the poll suggests “Republicans deal honestly with any disagreement on abortion, and then move to other issues.” Again, the report suggests this for Republicans. On the upside, there have been several Republicans who have come out in support of over-the-counter birth control, and many conservatives in general are Pro-Choice. Yes, Republicans should deal with the abortion topic with real facts, solutions, ideas, and then move on. Unlike Democrats who are still ignoring the facts of the IRS scandal, the Benghazi issue, ISIS, and most importantly Obamacare.

R.R. Reno made valid points in his opinion piece on the dilemma facing social conservatives, but my dear Hannah took what she wanted and neglected the rest. She assumes that this piece is to attack single women, assuming that they live with 12 cats and are terrified that they will end up alone so they recognize the strengths of getting a hand out when they are older and thus support the Democratic Party. What Reno was doing was quoting a statistic about marriage and vulnerability and then putting his two cents in on why McKinsey, a fictional character, may feel judged when someone “opposes gay marriage, because she intuitively senses that being pro-traditional marriage involves asserting male-female marriage as the norm — and therefore that her life isn’t on the right path.”

That is a valid argument and a valid way of thinking. I know that I was raised to believe that the order of life is to graduate high school, go to college, get a job, get married and have kids all under the age of 30. Guess what? I’m 29, I have two degrees (working on a third), and two jobs, but I am not married or have kids and it is a scary idea sometimes. Our parents’ traditional ways were engraved in our minds as young children, but the path our parents and older generations took is not what our generation wants to take. It will take time, but not everyone feels supported in their ventures because we aren’t doing what we were “supposed” to do. I’m glad I messed up and took a different path. I’m a better person for it. Reno was simply putting those ideals in a simple statement and showing that McKinsey chose to reject the norm so that she could feel accepted in her choices, and nothing is wrong with that.

I hate to break it to you, Hannah, but if you think women are voting Democrat because they “want to have control over their own bodies, their own reproductive systems, and their own lives. They want to be able to support ourselves. They want to lead lives that aren’t wracked with violence,” then you should probably vote for the unrepresented party. Democrats are taking away more of your rights than Republicans. Remember that tiny thing called Obamacare? Yeah, do some research and you will find there are more restrictions than advantages. You want to live your own life without someone dictating what you can and can’t do? Should probably take another look at the Democratic Party and its belief in big government, controlling every aspect of our lives and making people believe that they are entitled to handouts instead of working hard for what they have in life. Democrats would rather rich people do the work and hand the benefits to the less fortunate and lazy. Democrats believe in helping everyone but also in accruing more debt — that doesn’t help the economy, it hurts it.

At least Republicans are trying to fix their issues, listen to the people, and change (slowly) with the times more so than Democrats. Not to mention they are taking responsibility for their errors.

If you think Hillary is going to be in the White House in 2016 you’ve got another thing coming. The same “what difference does it make?” Hillary who was so flustered and frustrated about being questioned on the topic of Benghazi that she lost her cool? The same Hillary Clinton who admitted to leaving the White House with her husband President Bill Clinton, personally $10 million in debt? I’m not sure that is someone I would want in the oval office. Let’s be truly honest. We all know that while President Clinton was busy getting blow jobs in the Oval Office Hillary was really running the country. So she’s been president, just behind the scenes, and we don’t need her again.

I’ve said this before, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but the moment that opinion turns into something disrespectful I have an issue with it. The holier than thou, self-righteous, talking down to anyone who doesn’t agree with you tone is not cool. I enjoy Hannah’s quick wit and sarcasm but sometimes she crosses the line. Republicans are people too and in most cases highly educated people who just don’t share your views. Ease up on the conservative detest because you are simply putting yourself in the category of abuse that you talk so much about hating.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Joe Wolf via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

The post Response: Let’s Stop with the Republican Bashing appeared first on Law Street.

LADIES: Vote Republican and You’ll Get the D

Hannah R. Winsten — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 14:28:43 +0000

Image courtesy of [H. Michael Karshis via Flickr]

Happy Back to School, folks!

While I was traveling around Canada last month, all of you were clearly partying up your last few weeks of summer, right? RIGHT? I hope so, because law school is now officially back in session.

And you know what that means!

You need me back in the saddle to keep you informed about all the racist, sexist, homophobic legal bullshit that’s going on! (Also, to give you lots of procrastination material. Let’s be real.)

So! Let’s talk about the Republicans and women, shall we?

This is going to be good.

Now that President Obama is getting depressingly close to being a lame duck, all the politicians are really starting to get antsy about the 2016 election. Candidates are being tapped, strategies are being thought out, and groundwork is being laid to win over the decisive voting blocs.

For the Republicans, a key point of concern is the Beyoncé Voters. All the single ladies — and even plenty of the not-so-single ladies — are seriously skeptical of conservatives these days. According to a recent GOP report leaked by Politico, 49 percent of women hold a negative view of the Republican Party. It bluntly reported that women believe Republican policies to be misaligned with their own priorities and to be lacking in compassion and understanding.

As a result, the ladies are taking their votes elsewhere. And for good reason. Women aren’t wrong when they say that conservative politicians aren’t acting in their best interest. Republican policies advocate restricted access to birth control, virtually no access to safe abortion services, the continued entrenchment of rape culture and domestic violence, as well as a hearty LOL at equal pay.

So nope — we’re not voting for policies that take away our bodily autonomy, restrict our access to safe and affordable healthcare, leave us vulnerable to violence, and also make us poorer.

Goodness, what a mystery that more of us aren’t voting for you, conserva-turds!

Well, apparently, Republicans have solved the mystery, and are rolling out a new initiative to win the vaginal vote in 2016.

Are you ready for it?

They’re going to calmly explain to us little ladies that we’ve been mistaken this whole time — the Republican Party really is acting in our best interest — and now that we’ve cleared that whole mess up, won’t you please vote for us, darlin’?

They aren’t going to actually change any of their policies. They aren’t going to actually do anything different AT ALL.

The big, awesome, Republican strategy is to tell women that they know us better than we know ourselves, expect us to laugh good naturedly at our silly, womanly inability to understand the complex, crazy world of politics, and agreeably hand over our votes, glad to have been educated about our own feminine ineptitude.

What exactly will this episode of mansplaining look like? Republicans are going to attack the Democratic claim that their policies are unfair to women — without interrogating or changing those policies, mind you — and every time abortion comes up, they’ll change the subject as quickly as possible.

Conservatives seem to genuinely think this is a good plan.

R.R. Reno, an editor for the conservative journal First Things, wrote a completely serious, non-satirical essay about just how this plan would work in practice.

In it, he creates a fictional woman to use as an example of all the women who are mistakenly eschewing Republican policies. She’s a single, 35-year-old consultant, living in the suburbs of Chicago, “who thinks of herself as vulnerable and votes for enhanced social programs designed to protect against the dangers and uncertainties of life.”

Translation: She’s a misinformed damsel in distress who presumably owns about 12 cats.

Apparently, this woman is in favor of social safety net-type Democratic policies — not because she believes that all people should have access to a baseline quality of life — but because she has no man to provide for her, which is clearly TERRIFYING. She dislikes Republican policies that take away her bodily autonomy and expect her to lead a traditional life of wife and motherhood NOT because they’re sexist and terrible and render her, legally, as a quasi-human/permanent child, but because “she wants to get married and feels vulnerable because she isn’t and vulnerable because she’s not confident she can.”

So basically, all the women who aren’t voting Republican are in serious need of the D. And according to Reno, conservatives can and will deliver it.

He goes on to theorize that our fictitious cat lady should support Republican policies because a pro-marriage culture will increase her likelihood of getting married, therefore increasing her overall happiness. All we have to do is explain that to her! And then she’ll vote for us! Yay! Problem solved!

What Reno, and his conservative compatriots, fail to realize, is that women aren’t voting Democrat because of their inability to legally bind themselves to a penis.

We’re voting Democrat because we want to have control over our own bodies, our own reproductive systems, and our own lives. We want to be able to support ourselves. We want to lead lives that aren’t wracked with violence.

Also, they’re clearly forgetting that some of us don’t even like the D. (Fellow clam divers, I see you.)

So, Republicans, I totally applaud your strategy for locking down the vaginal vote in 2016. It’s a really great idea.

Because you’re buying Hillary a one-way ticket to the Oval Office.

Hannah R. Winsten

The post LADIES: Vote Republican and You’ll Get the D appeared first on Law Street.

Ralph Nader and the Millennials

Jake Ephros — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 10:33:09 +0000

Ralph Nader and the Millennials may seem like an uncommon pairing, if not an obscure band name. But the similarities between the legendary, octogenarian political activist and the youngest generation are striking; neither Nader nor the Millennials hate an active government, or despise a free market. Both believe in the powers of good governance and capitalism. Yet they reserve a deep distrust of big state intervention and corporate control. Falling in the cracks between liberal and conservative, Nader and the Millennials embody a unique American political ideology that remains unlabeled.

It’s Complicated

A study that came out last month by the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank, reveals the seemingly contradictory political allegiances of Millennials. The generation wants increased government spending “on welfare for the poor, even if it leads it to higher taxes.” Yet they remain split on whether or not the government should attempt to reduce the income gap. Further, “Millennials simultaneously favor policies that limit and policies that expand government.” The study also finds that Millennials trust neither Democrats nor Republicans on a vast majority of issues. Even more so than older generations, Millennials are not easily compartmentalized.

As he champions both strict regulation of dangerous business practices and a laissez-faire approach to government, Nader is equally difficult to label. In his most recent book, Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State, he focuses on points of possible convergence between the left and right to combat the deeply entrenched corporate-state relationship.

In an interview, I questioned the optimism of the title considering the cynicism that surrounds our politics. Nader suggests that the nature of liberals and conservatives locking arms is a hopeful one, and lists a number of successful convergence movements in the past. “Cynicism,” he adds, “is nothing but the indulgence of quitters.” Even the book’s back cover is optimistic, including praise from both Grover Norquist, the Libertarian anti-tax crusader, and Cornel West, the Democratic Socialist philosopher.

Nader may not dismiss labels outright, but Unstoppable illustrates the detrimental effects they can have. When people identify with an easy label, they “don’t engage in the complexity of these traditions, they put themselves at risk of being unable to detect the hypocrisy of the leaders of their own camp.” When I asked if he felt comfortable identifying with any label, Nader neglected to assign himself a traditional political marker, instead saying he is a “seeker of justice.”

The Corporate State

Unstoppable suggests that the current state of political polarization is largely the result of intense lobbying efforts by corporations to hinder compromise and partnership; when the left and right are arguing incessantly, “they are distracted from collaborating on shared goals, which would otherwise cause serious discomfort for corporatists.” Nader denounces this and writes that, “Corporatism, which so often targets conservatives, is increasingly targeting so-called liberals and creating the opposite type of convergence than the one this book is promoting.”

Bill Curry, who served as White House counsel under President Clinton, agrees with Nader in a recent Salon piece: “Democrats today defend the triage liberalism of social service spending but limit their populism to hollow phrase mongering…The rank and file seem oblivious to the party’s long Wall Street tryst.” If Curry is right, then ties to corporate interests may be the most that Democrats and Republicans have in common these days.

The fear of corporations heavily influencing or completely dominating our government resonates with young Americans. New York Magazine conducted a small poll of Occupy Wall Street protesters in 2011, in which 60 percent of the participants were under 30 years old. That year, Paul Campos at the Daily Beast wrote on why older Americans do not understand the qualms of the young Occupiers. Sympathizing with the Millennials, he says, “Now as the protests spread across the country, the core of the Occupy Wall Street movement—young, overeducated, and underemployed—is beginning to find common cause with many other people disillusioned with a social system that continues to grant its privileged elite ever-greater rewards.”

It isn’t hard to understand why the youngest generation is skeptical of excessive government, big business, and America’s two parties. In the Salon article, Curry gives a scathing review of his own Democrats and criticizes the president for misunderstanding the recession of 2008. “Obama mistook massive fraud for faulty computer modeling and a middle-class meltdown for a mere turn of the business cycle… By buying into Bush’s bailout, Obama co-signed the biggest check ever cut by a government, made out to the culprits, not the victims,” he writes. Millennials grew up during a financial crisis created by predatory business actions and, arguably, endorsed by both parties in government.

Convergence, Not Contradiction

Are Millennials a generation especially equipped for convergence? Nader says yes, but simply because they are young and “only in the sense that they’re lacking hardened ideological rigidity.” Nader may be correct, but what seems unique is their waning trust in both government and business, in both Democrats and Republicans. It signals that Millennials’ ideologies would only calcify into an even more complex category.

Just as “Millennials simultaneously favor policies that limit and policies that expand government,” Nader’s book calls for policies that do not seem to match up at first glance. Unstoppable is carried by 25 of his suggestions including centrist, or unlabelable, reforms such as auditing the Department of Defense’s budget, expanding direct democracy, and reducing commercial influence over children.

The real triumph of Unstoppable, though, is that it rejects the notion that these proposals are impossible to reconcile. “A combination of populist conservatives, industrial unionists, and smart progressives could form the convergence alliance” and enact some real reforms, Nader argues. Not only are these reforms reciprocal, but the actors needed to make them happen are complementary. They are our best hope for some bipartisanship and comprise a prescription that falls in line with the Millennial ideology.

Nader told me his best guess for the next big convergence movement lies in the minimum wage. Listing conservative Republicans like Mitt Romney and Bill O’Reilly who actually support the idea, he believes that tying the minimum wage to inflation–number four on Unstoppable’s list of proposals–will come to fruition soon.

A New Millennium

“Millennials came of a politically impressionable age in the years shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, experiencing the steady erosion of civil liberties under two different parties, fighting in long and costly military interventions overseas, and bearing the heaviest brunt of one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression.”

– Millennials: The Unclaimed Generation, Reason-Rupe

At sixty-six years old, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader made his fifth presidential run in 2000. It is argued that he stole votes away from Gore, handing the election to Bush. Whether or not that is true, the election and the ensuing 14 years of turmoil handed Millennials an ideology that is tired of the government finding more bedfellows in big business than in bipartisanship; they also want a “left-right alliance to dismantle the corporate state.” As the 2000 election designed the Millennials’ complicated politics, it created the unlabelable constituents who Nader needed.

Sorry we’re late.

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [soundfromwayout via Flickr]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ralph Nader and the Millennials appeared first on Law Street.

Moderates Rebel Against Tea Party in Kansas

Matt DeWilde — Thu, 17 Jul 2014 20:08:32 +0000

“We aren’t in Kansas anymore.” That must be what Republican Kansas Governor Sam Brownback is thinking right now, after over 100 Republicans defected and offered their support to his Democratic challenger, Paul Davis. The defectors are mainly moderate Republicans that have been bullied by Brownback and the Tea Party movement. This major political defection is their way of striking back. In the continuing war between the Tea Party and the Republican establishment, this sends a powerful message–a centrist Democrat is closer to moderate Republican values than a Tea Partier is.

This defection comes partly as a form of political payback and partly from an actual belief that Paul Davis is the better choice for Kansas. Early in his governorship, Brownback led a charge to purge moderate Republicans from the state government. For example, Steve Morris, former president of the Kansas State Senate, was ousted by a primary challenger whose political beliefs fell further to the right. He has said that Brownback privately told him that he could have stopped the upset but chose not too, as Morris and Brownback often fought over policy. So it shouldn’t be surprising that Morris is now supporting Davis. In a recent interview, in reference to Brownback, Davis commented, “he essentially declared war with moderate Republicans during the last State Senate election. Many moderate Republicans saw that, and they are coming to support my campaign.”

Many of the other 100-odd defectors, including state legislators, mayors, and delegates to the Republican National Convention, broke from Brownback for ideological reasons. The list of reasons why is long, with many focusing on the consequences of Brownback’s extreme tax cuts. The tax cuts have caused an increase in deficit spending, massive cuts in education spending, a depletion of Kansas’s highway funds, and have offered none of the promised job creation. Other reasons for the defection include Brownback offering judgeships as political prizes and pushing extremely socially conservative legislation.

Even before this defection, Brownback faced a challenging reelection bid. Nate Silver’s prediction on fivethirtyeight.com gave Brownback only a 60 percent chance of winning based on polling data. Though still favored, 60 percent was a relatively small margin for a state as red Kansas. Now with this defection, I have to imagine his chances have shrunken significantly.

In many ways this election is not a Republican versus a Democrat, nor is it an election where voters have to decide between traditional Republican or Democratic values. It is an election where voters have to choose between Tea Party values or very centrist values; a continuation of the war between moderate Republicans and the Tea Party. Davis is setting himself up to win by opposing Brownback on hot issues such as taxes and spending on schools and highways, but has taken a more conservative view on issues that could rile up Brownback’s base–the religious right. For instance, Davis has said he would leave Kansas’ very strict abortion laws in place. This election is now about moderate Republicans striking back at the Tea Party, not a Democrat challenging a Republican.

Brownback would probably deny the moderate legitimacy of his challenger, saying voters do not know who Davis is, and that he is just an Obama-style Democrat. Brownback has said that voters will have to choose between a Reagan approach or an Obama approach to government. What Brownback may be failing to realize is that moderate Republicans would never abandon someone who governed like Reagan, but they may not fall in line with someone who governs like a Tea Partier.

As much as I would love to think that this will become a trend and we would see moderate Republicans defect across the country, that is probably not going to happen. Kansas had a perfect storm of conditions that led to this rebellion. One is that Kansas has a particularly inept governor that went out of his way to exile moderates and pass much-maligned laws. Another is that there was a very centrist Democratic candidate that already had a chance to win. This was important because it gave the Republican defection substance; it was not merely symbolic. It is unlikely that this would happen under any other conditions–we really shouldn’t expect moderates from either party to defect anywhere else, anytime soon. Which is unfortunate, because our country sure could use movement towards the center of the political spectrum like we are seeing in Kansas.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [mar is sea Y via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Moderates Rebel Against Tea Party in Kansas appeared first on Law Street.

Fail of the Week: Michigan’s Rape Insurance Law

Ashley Powell — Wed, 14 May 2014 18:46:30 +0000

Remember when F-Word blogger Hannah R. Winsten reported back in December that Michigan lawmakers were debating a bill that would prevent health insurance plans from covering abortion, essentially requiring women to purchase what came to be known as rape insurance? Well, that revolting bill is now a revolting law thanks to the Michigan GOP and (I am disappointed to say) three Democrats. Yep, rape insurance is real, people.

However, the real doozy is that abortion riders don’t exist. (Straight swindle!)

As the Detroit News explains, “the state “opt-out” rider law clashes with provisions of the Affordable Care Act, which outlaws both separate riders and any government subsidy of abortion. Under federal law insurers cannot offer a rider to a standard, inclusive policy. And new state law bars insurers from including elective abortion coverage in any policy, on or off the exchange.”

What this means: Michigan women who purchase their health insurance as an individual and not part of a group plan don’t have the ‘promised’ option to purchase the abortion rider. Because the bill passed violates the Affordable Care Act’s provisions of outlawing separate riders and government subsidies on a standard policy. This makes it impossible for any insurer to give the option of selling a separate rider to individual women.

That, my friends, is what we call a grade-A cluster fuck.

It is hard to say whether the politicians knew and just didn’t care that the bill clashes with the federal healthcare law; however, it is easy to confirm who pays the price. Michigan women have only one option: pay that abortion fee.

—

Ashley Powell (@danceAPdance)

Click here to read the original post published December 5, 2013.

Happy almost Friday, folks! This week is almost over. THANK GOODNESS. Coming back after a holiday is rough, am I right?

If you have a uterus and you live in Michigan, your week has been especially rough. Shit is getting REAL over there in the Mid-West. Lawmakers in the Great Lakes State are currently debating a bill that would require women to buy rape insurance.

That’s right. Rape insurance.

I tell you, this shit just gets more ridiculous every week I write about it. It’s actually insane.

Here’s how it’s going down. Lawmakers in Michigan don’t want health insurance to cover abortion. Why? They’re not fans of a woman’s right to choose, and so, while they can’t completely outlaw abortion, they can use insurance technicalities to restrict women’s options.

What happens when insurance doesn’t cover abortions? Women either have babies that they don’t want or are unable to carry, or they pay a hefty price to terminate. Obviously, not ideal. So! While Wolverine legislators were batting around this nifty little bill, the same question came up that always comes up when we start talking about restricting women’s access to abortions.

“But what about cases of rape and incest?!” Because, empathy. For like, five seconds.

The legislators of Michigan had an answer ready and waiting. Make women buy additional insurance to cover the possibility of needing an abortion in the future.

This little tidbit prompted Republican Gov. Rick Snyder to veto the bill last year when it was first introduced. He wasn’t too keen on legislation that required women to pay for abortions out of pocket, unless of course, they had paid extra for that separate insurance rider. “I don’t believe it is appropriate to tell a woman who becomes pregnant due to a rape that she needed to select elective insurance coverage,” Snyder said when he rejected the bill last winter.

Well, duh. Obviously.

That would be like telling a man who had a heart attack that he couldn’t have life-saving surgery, because he didn’t plan ahead and book an operating room beforehand. Or like telling a cancer patient that she can’t receive treatment because she hadn’t reserved a chemo supply ahead of time. Plan ahead, people, be prepared! For all of the possible things that could happen to you ever! (Because that’s possible.)

Folks, let’s get one thing straight. No one plans to get an abortion. Needing one is definitely not a desirable situation to be in. Really, abortions are a last resort. An emergency measure, taken after something has unintentionally gone wrong. Maybe she got raped. Maybe the condom broke. Maybe she forgot to take her birth control pill that day. Maybe she just discovered that the baby won’t survive the pregnancy or infanthood.

Whatever the situation, abortions are last ditch efforts to rectify a bad situation that wasn’t planned for. So asking women to plan for unplanned emergencies — and be monetarily penalized either way — makes absolutely no sense.

It’s about as logical as this guy.

But, alas, the anti-choicers think it does make sense, and they’ve got a rage-inducing argument as to why that is. One prominent advocate of the bill claimed that rape is like a car accident, and it was totally fine to make women pay for extra insurance in order to prepare for it.

This is so incredibly gross on so many levels.

First of all, we’re comparing women’s bodies to cars right now. To cars. Inanimate objects that can be damaged, fixed, or replaced. One car is much like another—it gets you from A to B. Women’s bodies are not like cars. They are not replaceable. Their value doesn’t depreciate after a traumatic event. They are not interchangeable. They are not for you to use.

Actually, women’s bodies are attached to living, breathing, human beings. They happen to have vaginas. But they also have lives, passions, emotions, and agency. And when you liken their bodies being raped to a car being crashed, you ignore the human involved in the trauma. You assume she’s an object, instead of a subject.

Stop that right now.

Second of all, expecting women to prepare themselves for rape is absurd and cruel.

Preparation assumes the inevitable. You prepare for a car accident—if we’re going to follow through with this terrible example—because being involved in one, someday, is more or less inevitable. People are stupid. Let a bunch of idiots operate heavy machinery near each other, and things are bound to go wrong eventually. Better prepare yourself for the asshole who forgot to use his blinker and caused a pileup on the freeway.

But rape? That shouldn’t be inevitable. Rape doesn’t happen because of human error. Rape isn’t something that idiots do. Rape happens when one person makes a conscious decision to violate another person. Consent isn’t given. Accidents aren’t made. This isn’t an “oops I didn’t mean to get sexually violent with you, my bad,” kind of situation.

Not at all.

When we treat rape like it is inevitable, we give rapists a free pass. We’re sending them the message that, hey, you’re only human! People make mistakes. No big deal. But it is a big deal. And it wasn’t a mistake. This isn’t like forgetting to use your blinker, or running a red light. This is violence and coercion. And there’s always another option.

So, to all the anti-choicers of Michigan, I have a question for you: If a man was shot, and he had to pay out of pocket to have the bullet removed because he hadn’t planned ahead with elective murder insurance, how would you feel about that?

Probably like this kid.

Not so good, I’m guessing. Because it’s ridiculous to ask a man to prepare himself for the possibility that one day, he might be a homicide victim. No one expects to be on the receiving end of that kind of violence.

So stop asking women to do the same. We don’t need to prepare for our impending rape. We shouldn’t be waiting expectantly, insurance policy in hand, to be the victims of sexual violence. And we sure as hell aren’t cool with legislators putting a price tag on our uteruses.

So, stop it, OK? Just stop it.

Stop restricting our access to safe abortions. Stop legislating our bodies. Stop objectifying us. And stop being so cavalier when it comes to rape.

Do you think the GOP can handle that, folks? Discuss!

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [ProgressOhio via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fail of the Week: Michigan’s Rape Insurance Law appeared first on Law Street.

Paycheck Fairness Act Fails in the Senate

Dennis Futoryan — Wed, 09 Apr 2014 19:50:18 +0000

The Senate shot down debate on paycheck fairness 53-44 today. Sixty votes are necessary to overcome cloture on the matter. While Democrats and Republicans are using the issue as a political ploy for the midterm elections, there are American women who are waiting for their paychecks to become, if not equal to, as close as possible to the pay grade of their male counterparts. The actual act in question would have closed loopholes seen in the Equal Pay Act of 1963 that aimed to close the gap between male and female wages in the first place. This issue has been contentious for that long, and is not a modern phenomena.

What Congress was attempting to do with this new bill is protect employees from being punished for sharing salary information with their peers, a practice some businesses employ in order to avoid workplace unrest. Such a situation gave way to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which resets the 180-day statute of limitations on gender discrimination with each paycheck given to the aggrieved employee. On top of not being allowed to stop their employees from sharing their salary information, businesses have to show that the pay disparity between two employees is due to performance, and not their gender. Critics of the Paycheck Fairness Act claim that this would open floodgates for lawyers to litigate a slew of discrimination cases. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said on Wednesday, “[T]his legislation would double down on job loss all while lining the pockets of trial lawyers.” Supporters may counter that the requirement for businesses to show the reasons behind pay disparity only clears up the situation and can strengthen the position of the employer.

While Congress is stuck debating paycheck fairness for women, the President took matters into his own hands yesterday with two executive orders. On the eve of news that New York City has a pay disparity of 88 cents for every dollar earned between women and men, President Barack Obama signed an executive order mandating that federal contractors report salaries by gender. The other executive order would make it easy for other agencies or contractors to access this data. “Pay secrecy fosters discrimination, and we should not tolerate it, not in federal contracting or anywhere else,” the President said as he signed the orders. Currently, the sound bite being spread around by politicians is that the wage gap between women and men is 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. According to the Pew Research Center, this only accounts for full-time workers. When you account for full-time and part-time workers, the wage gap is more likely to be 84 percent of what men earn, and the gap narrows even more for young women – 93 percent.

As the rhetorical war over paycheck fairness continues, pay attention to the hand-picked figures used by both parties in a year when a lot of Congressional jobs are on the line. Despite the various attempts at closing the wage gap between the two genders, it will be a long time before we see serious progress. As the Pew Research Center points out, women will have to work more in order to cover the gap — yet this does not account for maternity leave or the specific types of labor that skew toward a male demographic, such as construction and other labor-intensive tasks. One thing is clear — the debate is not over, even if it was shot down in Congress.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [Martijn Schornagel via Flickr]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paycheck Fairness Act Fails in the Senate appeared first on Law Street.

What SCOTUS’ McCutcheon Decision Means for the Future of US Elections

Dennis Futoryan — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 14:41:22 +0000

Get ready for even more money to enter politics. The Supreme Court overturned limits on federal political donations yesterday. In an election year in which every Representative and a third of the Senate is fighting to keep his or her job, expect this to be the year of record-breaking campaign donations. In a 5-4 decision along ideological lines, SCOTUS ruled that any caps and limitations on federal campaign donations are unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. Whereas the infamous Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling allowed for unlimited outside political spending by corporations, the outcome of McCutcheon v. FEC now expands unlimited contributions directly to politicians and their parties.

This does not mean that now every American can send in as much money as they want in a single check to their desired politician. An individual contribution in one check still stands at $2,600 per politico. What has been struck down, however, are the aggregate limitations per two-year cycle of $48,600 and $74,600 to candidates and parties, respectively. Now a donor has free reign in terms of the amount of checks they want to send within any given time frame.

In the majority ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. explained that even if there is popular sentiment that money corrupts the American political system, it is still protected under the First Amendment like other “repugnant” actions.

“Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects … If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades — despite the profound offense such spectacles cause — it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”

Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, and Thomas joined the Chief Justice in his majority opinion, with Clarence Thomas even going so far as suggesting all campaign contribution limits should have been struck down.

Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan signed onto Breyer’s dissent authoring the call that “[the ruling] creates a loophole that will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or a candidate’s campaign … The methods for using today’s opinion to evade the law’s individual contribution limits are complex, but they are well known, or will become well known, to party fundraisers.”

The case was brought forth by plaintiff Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama Republican and CEO of Coalmont Electrical Development. Explaining how he was injured by the campaign limits put forth by the Federal Election Commission in an editorial he authored for Politico, he said, “Somehow, I can give the individual limit, now $2,600, to 17 candidates without corrupting the system. But as soon as I give that same amount to an 18th candidate, our democracy is suddenly at risk.” By arguing the unconstitutionality of campaign finance limits, McCutcheon set himself up to be included alongside legal precedent – and with this ruling he has guaranteed his name in the history books.

But does striking down campaign finance rules under the guise of a healthy democracy truly achieve that aim? As Breyer pointed out in the dissent, allowing more money to flow into the political system can only hurt it more but disenfranchising those who do not donate to their elected official. A report by the Campaign Finance Institute points out that in 2012, the cost of winning a seat in the House chamber was nearly $1.6 million. It is even worse for the Senate, where nearly 10 times the amount, $10.35 million, is needed to win a seat in that chamber. The average voter does not have the same “purchasing power” behind their contributions, as the majority of contributions come from the wealthiest individuals through their companies and organizations. According to OpenSecrets, an organization dedicated to campaign finance transparency, those who give $200 to a politician, political action committee, or party committee only represent 0.12 percent of the United States population.

Pay attention to how politicians and their bases raise money, as it can be expected in this crucial midterm election year to break records for the amount raised and spent. With a Supreme Court more apt to protecting the right of individuals and corporations to donate as much as they would like as frequently as they would like, it would seem that we are on a road to limitless campaign contributions.

—

Featured image courtesy of [dnkbdotcom via Flickr]

Dennis Futoryan

The post What SCOTUS’ McCutcheon Decision Means for the Future of US Elections appeared first on Law Street.

Why Conservatives & Liberals Are Both Wrong About Minimum Wage

Bo Donoghue — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 14:47:24 +0000

Recently, I have noticed with the talk of 2014 midterm elections, articles about minimum wage are starting to pop up more in my daily reading. The problem with these articles (one, two, and three) is no one completely gets the argument right. The problem is not that that the wealthy made more money, but that the rate at which they are making more money is increasing more quickly compared to other groups. Between 1979-2007, the ‘99%’ saw a 53% change in comprehensive income, while the top ‘1%’ had a 314% increase. The concern surrounding this trend has given rise to the hot political debate of a suggested federal minimum wage increase to $10.10. But, as we continue to discuss the validity of minimum wage legislation, we need to be clear on its effectiveness, purpose, and discuss more powerful alternatives like unionization and collective bargaining.

Why Conservatives Are Wrong About the Minimum Wage

There is a very popular myth among conservatives that the minimum wage always hurts job growth and in fact leads to a decrease in available jobs. We need to realize that this not always the case, and in fact, significant amount of data suggests that increasing the minimum wage is a very practical thing to do because it provides needed benefits to workers with zero impact on employment levels. According to Madland and Bunker at the Center for American Progress, “at least five different academic studies focusing on increases to the minimum wage… find an increase in the minimum wage has no significant effect on employment levels.” People often forget that an increase in the minimum wage does have benefits, and it seems these benefits prove to be very effective and helpful during times of high unemployment. A minimum wage increase results in ‘boosts in demand and reduction in turnover’.

Contrary to conservative doctrine, it is actually the consumer that keeps the economy going. This is for two reasons. First, when more people are buying products the economy grows faster. Second, people with less money, spend more money. Director of the CBO Doug Elmendorf notes that “increases in disposable income are likely to boost purchases more for lower-income than for higher-income households,” thus a minimum wage increase provides more money for these families and that results in more spending which boosts demand.

Turnover refers to the process of workers quitting and companies having to re-hire and re-train new employees, thus high levels of turnover create a very inefficient system. Some companies, such as Costco, have implemented ‘efficiency wages’ to avoid high turn-over among workers. Costco pays its employees $15.60 per hour, which is significantly over the minimum wage. Their philosophy is that a higher wage will yield more productivity with less turnover and retention of good workers. This model has been extremely successful. Consider their numbers in comparison to Wal-Mart, which pursues the path of cheap labor.

Why Liberals Are Wrong About the Minimum Wage

What we need to understand is that liberals have two goals in mind with the minimum wage. The first is to create a level of income that constitutes a living wage. The second, and more philosophical reason, has to do with establishing a sense of equity in society. The United States is currently the third most unequal society among OECD nations. We have extremely low social and economic mobility, which means that the likelihood of someone moving from a low-income status to the middle class or from the middle class to a high-income status is extremely unlikely. I suggest that the protection and promotion of unions would be a more efficient policy for achieving both of the liberal’s goals — helping workers obtain a living wage and instilling equity in our society.

Unions and Living Wages

We find that unions, like the minimum wage, are effective in helping ensure workers are making a living wage. Lawrence Mishel and Matthew Walters of the Economic Policy Institute, complete a thorough analysis of data sets, and conclude that “unions raise wages of unionized workers by roughly 20%.” However, one of the advantages of unions over the minimum wage, is that unions do more than just help provide workers with better compensation. Unionized workers are much more likely to receive benefits that many would consider fundamental to a stable economic status. Mishel and Walters also point out that

Unionized workers are more likely than their nonunionized counterparts to receive paid leave, are approximately 18% to 28% more likely to have employer-provided health insurance, and are 23% to 54% more likely to be in employer-provided pension plans.

These benefits are not included in a minimum wage increase, yet they are extremely important to helping people stay at the ‘living wage’ threshold. It used to be the case that a majority firms offered employer-based health insurance. However, over the last thirty years, the number of firms offering this benefit has been on the decline along with the presence of unions in the labor market. Since it was the strong unionized labor force the procured benefits like employer-provided health insurance in the first place, it shouldn’t be a surprise that as unions have decreased so have worker benefits.

Unions and Equity

Liberals support minimum wage legislation also to establish a sense of equity in society. This goal will not be achieved through a minimum wage increase, and in fact, supporting an increase may be further perpetuating a system of inequality. In Why Nations Fail, M.I.T. economist Daron Acemoglu and the Harvard political scientist James A. Robinson provide an account of what factors contribute to the constitution of a successful and flourishing nation. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman does a nice job of summarizing the main thesis of the book, “nations thrive when they develop ‘inclusive’ political and economic institutions, and they fail when those institutions become ‘extractive’ and concentrate power and opportunity in the hands of only a few. The important thing is that you need to have both a politically and economically inclusive system, because they depend on each other. Without one, you will lose the other, and that in turn creates a downward spiral into collapse and failure.

What does this have to do with Unions? My contention is this: the best way to ensure that the people experience political and economic inclusivity is through the presence of unions and collective bargaining in the work force.

We have already seen that unions are effective at improving the economic well-being of its members. However, members of society still need political inclusivity. Interestingly, in their conclusion, Mishel and Walters make an important observation, namely that, “unions enable due process in the workplace and facilitate a strong worker voice in the broader community and in politics.” Unlike an increase in the minimum wage, an increase in unionization can help citizens improve their political standing along with their economic position.

Citizen’s United

It is quite clear that we have become a very economic exclusive society with extreme income inequality, relatively high-poverty, and an low social mobility.

When it comes to the status of political inclusivity, things are a little more gray. It would seem that the US must be politically inclusive because it is a democratic-republic and everybody has the right to vote for elected leaders. However, the rise of big-money in politics has greatly changed the political landscape. In the current system corporations have the right to spend money on political campaigns, so companies like Bank of America and Goldman Sach’s donating over a million dollars to political campaigns through Super PACs. These extremely large donations allow significant access to the candidate, and a platform to communicate what they would like to see from their candidate while in office.

Low income and middle class citizens are losing political power, because their one vote is not as valuable as a million dollars in campaign financing, and unfortunately, it seems there is no solution to this problem except for reversing Citizen’s United, which is not a promising outlook.

If this problem cannot be fixed directly through the political sector, maybe it can be solved through unionization. Collective bargaining is a form of political power. Unions have a history of being key players in political movements such as the struggle for civil rights, the fight for Fair Employment Practices Commission, the Montgomery Bus Boycott, etc.

If conservatives and liberals really are interested into making the United States a thriving democracy, we really need to rethink our attitude towards Unions. They may be our best option for preserving and restoring economic and political inclusion which are fundamental components of a successful society.

[EPI] [NY Times] [OpenSecrets] [CBPP] [EPI – Mishel]

—

Bo Donoghue

Featured Image Courtesy of [Flickr/401(K) 2012]

Bo Donoghue

Bo Donoghue is a student at The George Washington University. Contact Bo at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Conservatives & Liberals Are Both Wrong About Minimum Wage appeared first on Law Street.

Young Conservatives Actually Have No Clue Why They’re Conservative

Hannah R. Winsten — Tue, 11 Mar 2014 21:12:10 +0000

Hello loves! How many of you went to CPAC last week?

Hopefully none of you. But! A whole bunch of young people did — obviously as props to debunk the claim that the GOP is full of rich, white men. (I’m just kidding.) (Kind of not really.)

Anyway! As a result of this Millennial pilgrimage to the land of Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin, the NRCC took the opportunity to ask its youngins’ why they identified as conservatives. The results are laughable.

First of all — the most concrete piece of new information we’ve learned from this little exercise is that Republicans can’t count. While the NRCC claims to have asked 37 Millennials why they were fans of the Grand Old Party, there are 45 individuals pictured on their countdown. Likewise, the Independent Journal Review, which reposted the piece, claims 26 individuals in the headline, 37 individuals in the slug, and pictures only 33.

Learn your 1, 2, 3s here, people. What kind of nonsense is this?

No, we’re not giving you one more chance.

So, clearly, we’ve established that this little study is anything but scientific. Also, not well produced. If the Republican question-askers and statisticians can’t even keep their numbers straight, shouldn’t your standard, run of the mill copy editor notice something’s up? You’d think so. You’d also be wrong.

Anyway, mathematical challenges aside, let’s let these young Republicans speak for themselves, shall we? Here are a few reasons why they’re counting themselves conservative this year.

That’s pretty vague. Courtesy of NRCC.org

Even vaguer. Courtesy of NRCC.org

Courtesy of NRCC.org

Really?

Am I the only one who’s noticing that something’s up here? None of these reasons are actually reasons. They’re just meaningless buzzwords.

You’re conservative because…taxes? Do you mean that you like how the Republican party has rigged the system so that gazillionaires and corporations get tax breaks, while YOU, lowly 20-something, are paying taxes through your nose? If that’s what you meant by, “I’m conservative because taxes,” then I guess you’re in the right place. A self-defeating one, mind you.

Courtesy of NRCC.org

And what about fiscal responsibility? These folks are on the tax train too — as in, they’d like to pay fewer of them. They’re all kinds of pissed off about having their tax dollars funneled into the social safety net, because no one wants to subsidize those lazy, mooching, poor people! The blasphemy!

I’m guessing they all have health insurance, and aren’t particularly worried about falling ill and going bankrupt. Also, they probably aren’t aware that the group who benefits most from the social safety net is, in fact, their grandparents.

Courtesy of NRCC.org

Then, of course, there are the Jobby McJobersons, who are conservatives because jobs. I’m guessing they want more of them? If so, maybe they should be a little more specific about the kinds of jobs they’re looking for.

Because among job creators in the GOP, new positions typically don’t pay a living wage or include benefits. Take Walmart, for example. Owned by the Waltons, an incredibly rich and incredibly conservative family, it’s the single largest employer in the country. Its employees also hold food drives for each other, because they don’t actually make enough money to buy food themselves.

Walmart holding canned food drive for its own underpaid employees http://t.co/SkUrh7tP53 pic.twitter.com/h9ZmJHfekZ

— Scott Keyes (@smkeyes) November 18, 2013

I feel like those aren’t the kinds of jobs that’ll pay off your student loans, young CPAC attendees.

There were a few young people who were more thoughtful in their responses. Take this girl, for example, who’s being really clear about how much she’d like to preserve her privilege as a white, cis-gender, straight, Christian woman, at the expense of queers, people of color, and poor folks.

Courtesy of NRCC.org

Then there’s this guy, who’s affiliated with the GOP because he’s disappointed in Obama’s performance as President. You know what, love? I totally agree with you. Obama hasn’t been able to create the hope and change he promised. A huge factor in that, though, is the unwillingness of Republicans to cooperate with him on literally anything.

Courtesy of NRCC.org

Now, I’m all for listening to young Republicans as the reflect on and explain why they identify as conservatives. But that’s not what’s happening here. These 20-somethings aren’t reflecting on much, and they aren’t explaining anything at all. They’re mindlessly spewing one-word, canned talking points.

And that’s not helping anybody. You need to improve your communication skills here, CPAC’ers! You should take a lesson from these awesome people, who are fabulous at explaining their political alignment. Notice how they all use full sentences and complete thoughts.

PS – Handsome person in the top right corner, give me a call sometime, mmkay? Courtesy of Tumblr.com

So, young Republicans, do me a favor. Get your fucking acts together. Think more critically about why you identify as conservative, and give us more than the same tired, one-word answers a million people used before you. You don’t need to understand a damn thing about life or politics to write “Jobs” on a piece of paper.

And we need you to understand things. Because you’re pretty close to taking over this show yourselves.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Gage Skidmore via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

The post Young Conservatives Actually Have No Clue Why They’re Conservative appeared first on Law Street.

Campaign Deception: Read Before You Click

Matt DiCenso — Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:00:31 +0000

When Randy Frails clicked “donate,” he thought his $1,000 was going to the campaign of Georgia Congressman and Democrat John Barrow. Instead, his donation ended up in the pocket of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

In an effort to increase their online presence for upcoming elections, the NRCC has been building fake campaign websites – sites that appear to belong to Democratic candidates, but actually spread a pro-Republican message. The phony John Barrow site that fooled Frails is one of at least 15 fake Democrat campaign sites created by the NRCC.

While many are calling this tactic deception, NRCC Press Secretary Daniel Scarpinato thinks it’s brilliant. “The idea is people who are looking for information on the candidate, one of the places we all go now is online and so this is a way for folks to find out more about the candidates and information they may not find on the candidate’s own site,” Scarpinato said in an interview with CNN. “…We are very proud of this program,” he continued.

At first glance, it’s clear that faux-campaign sites for Democratic candidates like John Barrow, John Lewis, and Ann Kirkpatrick were designed to trick viewers into thinking they are visiting official campaign sites. According to TIME, “the tactic smacks of ‘spoofing’ scams, whereby spammers masquerade under fake phone numbers or email addresses to win trust.” If you stop to read the actual text on the sites, however, you’ll find lines like “John Lewis is bad for Montana” and “Kirkpatrick is a huge embarrassment to Arizona.” The problem is that most people, thinking they’re on a legitimate campaign site, do not take the time to read the “fine print” and skip right to donating. Like Frails, a doctor in Florida fell victim to a spoof site for Democrat Alex Sink and mistakenly donated.

While these fake campaign sites are certainly causing both confusion and controversy, this isn’t the first time websites and URLs have been used deceptively. Democrats in Florida created the website jollyforcongress.com, which by its URL leads viewers to believe it’s a site for Republican David Jolly. With the Democrat’s site however, a key difference is that there is no option to donate and the site itself looks much more like a negative ad rather than a legitimate campaign site. With the way the NRCC’s sites are set up, the most pressing question is whether or not they have gone too far.

According to regulations set forth by the Federal Election Commission, sites like these are allowed if they “clearly indicate opposition to the named candidate.” Paul S. Ryan, a campaign law expert at the Campaign Legal Center, believes the nature of the NRCC websites crosses the legal line. “In my view it is not the case that these websites clearly and unambiguously show opposition,” Ryan told TIME. “On the contrary the URLs of these websites would lead a reasonable viewer to think the websites are supporting the candidate,” he said.

In an interview with TPM, election law attorney Joseph Birkenstock said although he has seen this type of tactic before, the deception of the NRCC’s sites is on another level. “This is different. This is the first time I’ve seen one where they use a banner where by its own terms is actually express advocacy on behalf of that candidate. One word at the end of the line contradicts the banner and contradicts the URL,” Birkenstock said.

Despite these claims, Scarpinato and the NRCC continue to back their political tactic.

“I think that sites are clear in terms of the disclosure and the content where were coming from,” Scarpinato told CNN. “And I also think it’s important for voters to get all the perspectives on the candidates. So just as a candidate is going to put information out about themselves, we’re going to put out information about the candidate that they are not putting out that we think is important for voters to know,” he said.

All things considered, it’s not yet clear whether the NRCC has violated any laws. Experts say the FEC will consider the case, but not to expect a ruling anytime soon. The FEC is infamously slow in their investigation and it’s doubtful they will reach a decision before midterm elections.

Even if the phony campaign sites are deemed legal by the FEC, Birkenstock and other campaign law experts are worried they could have further negative consequences – namely deterring voter donations in the future. “It sows confusion. Now other people are reading these articles when they go to their actual website, it’s not inconceivable to me that somebody says when they go to that actual website they say ‘well, man I don’t know now,’” Birkenstock told TPM. “This looks like it’s the right page but so did the other one. How sure can I be that when I click donate that she’s actually going to get the money that I want to give her?” he added.

Overall, fake campaign websites are a questionable move by the Republican Party, whose reputation has suffered in recent years. Even for those who sympathize with the GOP, it’s difficult to call this most recent political tactic anything but deceptive. With midterm elections around the corner, it will be interesting to see whether or not the strategy was effective.

Whether you call it deception or ingenuity, tactics like these certainly shed light on a disturbing trend within American politics. In the words of Kathy Kiely of the Sunlight Foundation, “it’s just another example of how un-transparent and shady the system of funding political campaigns has become.”

[CNN] [TIME] [TPM] [The Wire]

—

Matt DiCenso (@mdicenso24)

Featured image courtesy of [Donkey Hotey via Flickr]

Matt DiCenso

Matt DiCenso is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Campaign Deception: Read Before You Click appeared first on Law Street.

What Is and Isn’t Important About Huckabee’s ‘Libido’ Comment

Sarah Helden — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 20:42:11 +0000

Former Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is facing criticism for comments he made during a speech on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at the Republican National Committee’s Winter Meeting. Ironically, the former Arkansas Governor was discussing how Republicans need to increase their efforts to attract women voters when he stated, “If the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it.”

There was instant outrage as soon as Huckabee finished delivering his speech. The Democratic National Committee was quick to jump at the chance to attack the Republican Party for Huckabee’s words. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stated that Huckabee’s comment “sounds offensive.” And a storm of tweets related to the subject were issued after the speech, including this one from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi:

Even 100 years ago, it would have been hard to imagine a man making a statement as ridiculous as what Mr. Huckabee said today.

— Nancy Pelosi (@NancyPelosi) January 23, 2014

What is not important about his statement is the fact that his comments have been easily misconstrued to mean that women can’t control their sexual urges. Though it may have seemed that Huckabee said women have uncontrollable libidos, the former Governor actually meant something else entirely. Reading into the context of the quotation, Huckabee was really discussing that, in his view, Democrats are using the ‘war on women’ to portray women as needing the government’s help to manage their reproductive systems.

However, the actual meaning of Huckabee’s comment is what is truly disconcerting for the three reasons:

1. Huckabee believes that women don’t need the government’s aid with respect to their reproductive health.

Due to a key provision in the Affordable Care Act, women are now able to get their prescribed FDA-approved contraceptives without co-payment. This measure is huge for lower income women who, prior to the passage of the legislation, couldn’t fit the payment for contraceptives into their already tight budgets. If the federal government did not mandate that contraceptives be free to women through their insurance, many women would not be able to gain access to birth control. Thus, it is very concerning that Huckabee’s statement suggests woman do not need the government to step in to protect their reproductive rights.

2. The comment echos the common misconception that birth control is only for preventing pregnancy.

Huckabee’s statement draws further evidence to the fact that many have the wrong idea about birth control. Contraceptives are not solely used to prevent unplanned pregnancies while engaging in sexual activity (though it is extremely important that woman have access to birth control to control what happens in their own bodies). Birth control is prescribed to many women for a variety of reasons. In response to Huckabee’s speech, Planned Parenthood released a statement noting that birth control “helps women plan their pregnancies and manage their lives, and many women use it for a variety of other medical reasons, including treatment of endometriosis that can lead to infertility.” In addition to treating endometriosis, there are many other uses for birth control, including regulating a woman’s menstrual cycle, relieving menstrual pain, and clearing acne. In addition, according to a study done by the Guttmacher Institute, more than half of women surveyed who use a contraceptive use birth control for purposes other than pregnancy prevention. Thus contraceptives are not merely used for preventing pregnancy but for a multitude of other important issues related to women’s health.

3. Huckabee’s statement exposes his own hypocrisy with regard to government law on contraceptive coverage.

By claiming that the government should stay out of contraceptive coverage for women, Mike Huckabee ignores his own past as Governor of Arkansas. Bill Scher of Campaign for America’s Future noted that in 2005, Huckabee signed into law a measure that required Arkansas insurance plans to include coverage of birth control and other kinds of contraception. And Huckabee was not the only Republican supporting mandated contraceptive coverage for insurance. Five other GOP governors were responsible for signing similar bills into law, and George W. Bush never challenged federal mandates on contraception during his presidency. However, as soon as birth control became a partisan issue, Republicans were quick to move away from supporting state-mandated contraceptive coverage. If Huckabee believes that government should not sponsor birth control coverage, he should not stop at blaming only Democrats, but should also include his own past actions and those of other Republicans.

What is certain about Huckabee’s statement is that it won’t help the Republican party gain an influx of female voters. From this comment to Todd Akin’s infamous ‘legitimate rape’ gaffe, there are so many instances that prove Republicans are failing to properly address and understand women’s issues. And while Huckabee’s comment has been misinterpreted as being more offensive than what he actual meant, perhaps the former Governor should have taken time to ensure his words would be clear before making a public speech that would be covered extensively by the media. Moreover, in bringing up the issue of women’s reproductive rights in an attempt to gain political clout for his party, Huckabee demonstrates that politicians are still politicizing an issue that needn’t be controversial at all: the right for women to control their own choices.

[Washington Post] [Twitter] [CBS News] [Guttmacher] [Campaign for America’s Future] [LA Times]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Mike Nozell via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post What Is and Isn’t Important About Huckabee’s ‘Libido’ Comment appeared first on Law Street.

Happy New Year! Your Birth Control’s No Longer Covered

Hannah R. Winsten — Thu, 02 Jan 2014 23:12:15 +0000

Happy New Year, folks! Welcome to 2014.

This is going to be one hell of a year — and it’s already kicked off with a bang. Not a fun, happy, feminist bang, but a bang nonetheless.

During her final moments of 2013, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor signed a temporary stay on the enforcement of the contraceptive coverage requirements in the Affordable Care Act. What does that mean? Basically, she just made it that much harder for women across the country to access birth control.

Not your finest moment, Justice Sotomayor. Courtesy of the Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States, Steve Petteway source via Wikipedia.

Here’s how it went down. As of December 30, 2013, the Affordable Care Act requires employer-sponsored health insurance to cover birth control. So, basically, if you get health insurance on your day job’s dime, you legally cannot be prevented from using it to snag some birth control pills. Awesome.

But! As always, some folks were pretty pissed off about this. Namely, Christian folks. A whole slew of Christian-values nonprofits and businesses objected to this piece of the ACA, claiming it infringed on their religious freedom. The logic here, is that if Christian values include not supporting contraception or abortion, a Christian employer shouldn’t have to subsidize those services for its employees.

Fair enough, churchgoers. The government can’t force you to support — financially or otherwise — actions that are forbidden by your religion. That’s what religious freedom is all about, right? Getting to practice your faith freely, without anyone telling you it’s not allowed?

Yes! Absolutely. But, there’s another side to the freedom of religion coin. While the government can’t prevent anyone from freely practicing their faith, it also can’t push any particular faith on its citizens. So, while the government can’t stop Catholics from attending church on Sundays, it also can’t force Jews to celebrate Christmas. The street runs both ways.

And this is where things get tricky. While Christian organizations have a fair point — being legally forced to subsidize contraception if they’re religiously opposed to it is majorly problematic — they’re also forgetting the other side of the coin. They’re right in asserting that they can’t be forced to do anything that interferes with their religious beliefs, but they can’t, in turn, force their religious beliefs on anyone else.

And that’s the tragic flaw in their anti-Obamacare logic. If Christian businesses were given their way — and allowed to forego contraceptive coverage for their employees — they would be forcing workers to live by a set of Christian standards, unless they paid a steep price tag. What happens when the employees of a Christian company aren’t Christian themselves? What happens when they’re Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, or Atheist? Can those employees be forced to live by Christian values?

Absolutely not. Now you’re infringing on their religious freedom.

And here lies the central problem. Forcing Christian businesses to pay for contraceptive coverage might be infringing on their religious freedom — but allowing them to not pay for it might infringe on workers’ religious freedom.

It’s a lose-lose situation.

But! As per a compromise cooked up by the Department of Health and Human Services, there seemed to be a solution. Under this plan, Christian companies and nonprofits had to sign a form stating their religious affiliation, and instead of paying for contraceptive coverage themselves, the insurers paid for it, and were reimbursed.

Yay solutions!

Awesome! Way to use your problem solving skills, people. This way, religiously opposed employers don’t have to pay for contraception, but employees can still access those services if they choose.

But, this wasn’t good enough for many a Christian employer. Signing a form was, apparently, too much to ask. So lawsuits poured in. And Justice Sotomayor was sympathetic.

So, with the hourglass running down on 2013, she signed a mandate preventing this piece of the law being enforced. What does that mean? Religious employers can deny workers contraceptive coverage. For folks working at Christian institutions, birth control will only be an option if they can afford to pay a whole ton of money out of pocket. Which really means, birth control won’t be an option at all.

The Obama administration has until tomorrow to respond. From there, we’ll all just have to wait around for the Supreme Court to make a final decision sometime this summer, after it’s had a chance to sift through all of the case filings. And, mind you, things aren’t looking too good on that front, considering this problem was brought about by one of the most feministy of Justices. If Sotomayor is making it hard for women to access birth control, who the fuck is going to make it any easier?

We’re looking at you, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The tricky business of religious freedom has been a constant roadblock for women and feminism. What do you think about this latest Obamacare battle?

—

Featured image courtesy of [Parenting Patch via Wikipedia]

Hannah R. Winsten

The post Happy New Year! Your Birth Control’s No Longer Covered appeared first on Law Street.

New Year’s Resolution: Fuck Shit Up with Miranda Hobbes

Hannah R. Winsten — Tue, 31 Dec 2013 20:52:25 +0000

Happy New Year’s Eve, lovelies!

Folks, I can’t wrap my head around this 2014 business. I literally feel like 2013 didn’t happen. A year has never passed so quickly in my entire life. (Don’t I say that every year? Whatever.) Anyway! In honor of this super awesome day — a day that marks fresh starts, new beginnings, and exciting adventures — I thought we should talk about resolutions.

That’s right. New Year’s Resolutions. And not those bullshit ones about losing weight and juicing half your food and spending more time on Skype with your long distance friends. No one ever sticks to those. I’m talking about some resolutions we can really believe in, à la Miranda Hobbes.

Buzzfeed did a fabulous post last week about how the red-headed attorney was the most empowering of the four Sex and the City characters, and I’d have to agree. If she was a real person, I’m pretty sure she’d be a fan of The F Word, am I right?

So! Without further ado, let’s be more like Miranda this year, mmkay?

Resolution #1: Don’t be afraid to tell someone to fuck off. Ever. Embrace that power gladly.

HBO / Via loveforlabels.eu

Miranda may have been the queen of no-fuss breakups, but this resolution doesn’t just apply to romantic relationships. Republican douchebags preventing you from accessing a safe abortion? Tell ’em to go fuck themselves. Obamacare failing to provide you with real health insurance? Tell ’em to fuck that. Say it loud and say it proud, folks. Because that’s the only way we’re going to make anything better.

Resolution #2: Fuck up the patriarchy and its traditional gender roles.

Thanks HBO!

Loves, Miranda may have been a totally femme straight lady, but she rocked a suit and tie like nobody’s business. She also earned more money than any of her boyfriends, failed to romanticize marriage and motherhood, and even embraced a lesbian identity (albeit, a fake one) in order to make partner at her law firm.

Remember when Miranda bought that ginormous apartment all by herself? Or when she told all of her friends to STFU about their man problems and focus the conversation on something more substantive?

Miranda subverted all the patriarchal expectations surrounding gender — namely, that women should be quiet, submissive, and dependent on a man. And you know what? She was fucking awesome at it.

Let’s resolve to be equally awesome at toppling the patriarchy.

Resolution #3: Don’t apologize for your sexuality.

HBO / Via tumblr.com

Anybody remember the scene we’re referencing here? It’s epic.

Miranda’s been going through a dry spell, and one day, as she’s walking down the street, a group of rowdy construction workers starts catcalling her. Like any good feminist, Miranda got pissed about the street harassment that follows women fucking everywhere. But, she took a unique and super badass approach to handling it. She walked right up to her catcallers and asked them if they were actually interested in fucking her. Because she was horny, and had no time for silly games. Be prepared to make good on your offer — or STFU.

Not surprisingly, her harassers were totally intimidated and basically tried to curl up into little balls and disappear right there in the middle of the street. What can we learn from Miranda here? Don’t be ashamed of your sexuality. Know your needs and seek to have them met, unapologetically. Get it, grrrl.

Resolution #4: Don’t second guess yourself. Call bullshit when you see it — and stand up for yourself.

HBO / Via tumblr.com

While the three other ladies of SATC bitched about how to keep a man, Miranda told them how it is, plain and simple. As a feminine presenting person, you’re often expected to metaphorically — and sometimes, literally — bow down to your partner if you want your relationship to stay intact.

Well, loves, Miranda says fuck that. And I do too.

Let’s all resolve to stay empowered as individuals this year. Let’s be the best people we can be, independently. And if somebody doesn’t like that — whether it’s your partner, your boss, your professor, or the entire Republican party — fuck ’em. Life’s too short.

See folks? Isn’t Miranda awesome? I told you.

Are you with me on these resolutions for 2014? What would you add to the list? Blow it up in the comments!

—

Featured image courtesy of [John Gilbert Leavitt via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

The post New Year’s Resolution: Fuck Shit Up with Miranda Hobbes appeared first on Law Street.

GOP to Hungry Kids: You Don’t Work Hard Enough

Hannah R. Winsten — Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:46:39 +0000

Happy Thursday, folks! You’re almost there. Breathe with me. Friday’s coming.

In the meantime, let’s get to our biweekly session of bitching about the GOP, shall we? Today, we’re talking about school lunches. And poor kids. And how Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia is a gigantic asshole.

Here’s what happened. Across the nation, kids from families whose income levels are below 130 percent of the poverty line can receive free school lunches. Kids from families with income levels between 130 and 185 percent of the federal poverty line are eligible for reduced lunch prices. This is news to no one.

Trust me on this. My awesome wife teaches in Newark, one of the poorest cities in New Jersey. Literally all of the kids at her school get free lunch. Free lunch for low income kids is nothing new.

Said no one.

Anyway! Rep. Kingston decided to make news out of something that’s not new — a common talent for many GOP rainmakers. This week, he went on the record saying that poor kids should NOT get free lunch — oh no! The blasphemy!

Instead, he made the following suggestions:

“Why don’t we have the kids pay a dime, pay a nickel to instill in them that there is, in fact, no such thing as a free lunch? Or maybe sweep the floor of the cafeteria — and yes, I understand that that would be an administrative problem, and I understand that it would probably lose you money. But think what we would gain as a society in getting people — getting the myth out of their head that there is such a thing as a free lunch.”

Oh my gosh I CAN’T. I cannot. What are you doing, Rep. Kingston? Really.

Friends is on my level today.

Let’s start with the first and most obvious issue with your solution to a non-problem: children are not possessors of money. They don’t work. That’s what being a child means. So, really, they all get free lunches. Every single one of them. Even the richest of rich kids are getting a free lunch. Because it’s not their money that paid for it. It’s their parents’ money.

Take me for example. I was a solidly middle-class child. My parents, being the health nuts that they are, were not big fans of the idea of me eating mystery meat in my elementary school cafeteria. So, every day, they dutifully packed me a brown bag lunch. I got a peanut butter and jelly sandwich on whole wheat bread and a handful of cookies, virtually every single day. For me, that lunch was free.

I didn’t pay for it. I didn’t even know that food cost money. Or that when my parents went to work, they were paid in money. I kind of just thought working was a thing that grownups had to do — the same way kids had to go to school — and all of the other stuff like food and housing was just magically bestowed upon people who followed the rules.

Baby me did not understand how much this leather jacket probably cost my big sister.

Clearly, I was a naïve child.

But! There was a kernel of truth in my naivety. For me, food really didn’t cost money. It just appeared in my brown bag every day, as if by magic. Nowadays, as a precariously middle-class adult who has to purchase food before it lands in my brown bag (I’m still packing a whole wheat PB&J for work, I’ll admit it), I’m fully aware that food was free when I was a kid.

I’m even more aware of it when my now gray-haired parents take me out for lunch.

My reaction whenever my parents invite me out to dinner.

Anyway! All children get free lunch. They aren’t working the night-shift to pay for their sandwiches. So, your argument is already inherently flawed, Rep. Kingston.

Moving right along. What is this obsession with punishing poor people for being poor? Seriously. The GOP is fixated on it. When you suggest forcing children to sweep the floors in order to earn their lunch, you’re talking about child labor. That’s bad enough, but when you’re only suggesting the poor kids participate, you’re talking about a caste system.

You’re talking about a world where rich kids learn early on that only certain people sweep floors. Namely, not them. You’re teaching them that someone else will always clean up after them. Someone else will always have to beg for their scraps.

Then, you wind up with kids like this boy, who killed 4 people because of pathological rich kid syndrome.

And, you’re teaching the poor kids that they’re the ones who need to beg for those scraps. Because of the social standing of their family — which they have zero control over — poor kids will understand themselves to be inherently less than. That’s a traumatic and debilitating lesson to learn at such a formative age.

Finally, there’s the looming issue at hand — the solution that Rep. Kingston is obviously hinting at, but isn’t explicitly articulating.

He’s saying that it would be better if these kids didn’t get a free school lunch at all. If we HAVE to give it to them, at least make them work for it, he’s saying. But really, his best case scenario is equally expensive lunches for all.

Folks, this is a classic case of a Republican who lacks empathy. It’s an alarmingly common quality among headline-making GOP’ers.

Where my wife teaches, all of the students qualify for free lunch. Every single one of them. These kids are poor. They don’t have the luxury to grow up naïve like I did. They know food costs money because they don’t have any of it. As in, neither food nor money.

For many of her kids, lunch is the only meal they eat. They hardly eat at all on weekends. Why? Because they’re poor. They can’t afford food. And the little food they do have at home, they give to their baby brothers and sisters.

My wife’s students are good kids. They’re smart and loving and talented, and hysterically funny. And they deserve to fucking eat.

So, Rep. Kingston? Shut the fuck up.

Stop talking about child labor, and a (not really) new caste system, and the idea that poor kids shouldn’t be fed lunch on the school’s dime. Stop talking out of your ass, and start feeding some children.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Philippe Put via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

The post GOP to Hungry Kids: You Don’t Work Hard Enough appeared first on Law Street.

You Should Vote Republican Because You’re a Basket Case

Hannah R. Winsten — Thu, 12 Dec 2013 17:07:33 +0000

Good afternoon, folks! Are you ready for the weekend? I am. I’ll be organizing a march on Rush Limbaugh’s recording studio. Everyone who participates has to wear eyes over their boobs!

Anyway! Rush isn’t the only conservative doofus who has no idea how to relate to women. Apparently, a senior House Republican strategist is training the GOP on how to talk to women voters. It isn’t going well.

The unnamed strategist doesn’t seem to be hopping on the, “Tell your breasts to stop staring at my eyes!” bandwagon. Yay! But he is advising conservative, non-uterus laden politicians to be more sensitive. Yup. Apparently the gender gap in pro-GOP votes is because women have too many feelings. Cue the tiny violins.

This senior strategist, who’s remaining anonymous — probably because his strategy is terrible — is urging his trainees to refer to themselves as husbands and fathers. He’s advising them to make blanket, disapproving statements about rape. And he’s telling them to connect with women on an emotional level.

So, basically, he’s telling Republican politicians that women are a big glob of emotional basket cases, making hysterical, irrational decisions not to vote for them. Appeal to those sobbing nut jobs! Win back those votes!

Are you kidding me?

You’re all idiots.

This guy is probably the worst strategist on the planet. Which isn’t really a bad thing, because less votes for the Republicans! Yay! But seriously, what is going on here?

First of all, if you’re trying to appeal to a group of people by first assuming that they’re crazy, you’re not going anywhere fast. People—not just women—respond well to positive reinforcement and respect. They don’t really appreciate being treated like loony tunes. It’s condescending, insulting, and all around not fun.

So, if you want women to like you, maybe start by assuming that they’re smart? Capable of sound decisionmaking? Worthy of respect? These are the kinds of assumptions that lead to positive interactions between people—and in the Republican case—more votes.

Second, the conservative assumption that women are too sensitive to vote correctly isn’t just patronizing. It’s downright sexist. The image of the emotionally unstable woman is a gendered stereotype as old and tired as you feel after a night of super fun debauchery.

But actually. Ever heard of hysteria? It used to be a common medical diagnosis. Women would be deemed “hysterical” if they were plagued by excessive emotions. And, conveniently, since the cause of illness was a disturbance of the womb, only women could be hysterical.

So, basically, a man consumed with violent rage is just angry. But a woman in the same state is physically and mentally ill. Great! Just drop me off at the nearest insane asylum, would you dear?

Anyway! This whole “women are hysterical” crap is seriously old. Like, YAWN you’re so unoriginal I’m actually being bored back to sleep, kind of old. It’s 2013, people. Can’t you at least get a little creative with your gross and depressing sexism?

Apparently not. Appealing to women’s emotions is the foundation of the new Republican strategy to snag lady voters. And guess what? Not only does it prove that the Right still hasn’t managed to stop being sexist—it also shows that they can’t manage to come up with any new and creative solutions to old problems. Probably not the most qualified people to be running a country, am I right?

NOPE.

Finally, and perhaps most amusingly, the anonymous Republican strategist is advising his trainees to identify themselves first and foremost as husbands and fathers, and to broadly denounce rape. (You know it’s bad when you have to explain that rape is not something to be taken lightly.)

This shit cracks me up. For ages, women have been identified and valued primarily because of their relationships to other people. A woman is always someone’s wife, mother, sister, or daughter first. Is she also a business executive? A writer? A surgeon? Much less important. That comes second.

And that’s irritating as fuck! Women should be valued on their own terms, as individuals with societal contributions to make—not just as caretakers and companions. But no one’s telling the Republicans that. No conservatives are looking to subvert the sexism that assumes women are most useful when they’re behind the scenes. Nope. Instead, they’ve just decided to half-assedly stoop to a woman’s level on the campaign trail. Identify as a father first, a Congressman second. Meanwhile, we all know who’s more likely to be at home, potty training that father’s children. (Hint: Not him.)

So, ladies, the next time you want your elected official to vote against abortion restrictions, food stamp cuts, or affordable healthcare, start crying. Throw a tantrum. Get hysterical. Accuse your legislator of being insensitive.

Because apparently they’re being trained to respond to that.

–

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Hermann Kaser via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

The post You Should Vote Republican Because You’re a Basket Case appeared first on Law Street.

LADIES: Michigan Says You Need Rape Insurance

Hannah R. Winsten — Thu, 05 Dec 2013 11:30:06 +0000

Happy almost Friday, folks! This week is almost over. THANK GOODNESS. Coming back after a holiday is rough, am I right?

That’s right. Rape insurance.

I tell you, this shit just gets more ridiculous every week I write about it. It’s actually insane.

“But what about cases of rape and incest?!” Because, empathy. For like, five seconds.

The legislators of Michigan had an answer ready and waiting. Make women buy additional insurance to cover the possibility of needing an abortion in the future.

Well, duh. Obviously.

It’s about as logical as this guy.

This is so incredibly gross on so many levels.

Stop that right now.

Second of all, expecting women to prepare themselves for rape is absurd and cruel.

Not at all.

Probably like this kid.

So, stop it, OK? Just stop it.

Stop restricting our access to safe abortions. Stop legislating our bodies. Stop objectifying us. And stop being so cavalier when it comes to rape.

Do you think the GOP can handle that, folks? Discuss!

—

Featured image courtesy of [American Life League via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

The post LADIES: Michigan Says You Need Rape Insurance appeared first on Law Street.

Texas Handles Rape Case Without Slut Shaming, Cue Applause

Hannah R. Winsten — Tue, 03 Dec 2013 05:05:58 +0000

Good morning, loves! Happy turkey week!

Thanksgiving is my all-time favorite holiday. I am a Thanksgiving super-fan. So, unsurprisingly, I’m having a super fabulous week because I’m just so EXCITED!

But the impending day of butter-soaked tryptophan isn’t the only reason I’m pumped this morning. I’m also pumped because Texas did something right.

Shocking, right? Rick Perry runs the Lone Star state. That’s never promising, especially not for women. But! Apparently we’ve got some super-awesome Texans who are not fans of abusing and oppressing vagina-laden people.

YAY.

Here’s what happened: Over the weekend, a 19 year old woman accused 40-year-old police officer Jackie Len Neal of handcuffing and raping her while he was on duty.

According to her account of the events, Officer Neal pulled her over on the grounds that the car she was driving had been reported stolen. She produced a sales slip, proving ownership of the car, but Officer Neal wasn’t satisfied. He asked her to get out of the car so that he could pat her down.

The woman protested, asking for a female officer to perform the pat down, but Officer Neal ignored her. Instead, he groped her, put her in handcuffs, and then took her to the backseat of his patrol car and raped her. Then, he told her to keep the whole encounter a secret. Conveniently, the police car’s security cameras were not working properly.

What happened to this 19-year-old woman is terrible. This is the kind of shit I worry about when I think about getting pulled over. (Luckily, I’ve never been pulled over before—all-star driver over here.)

So, obviously, the actual rape is not why I’m pumped about Texas this morning. I’m excited because the San Antonio Police Department is handling it really well.

Cue gasps all around.

When the victim reported this crime, do you know what the SAPD did?

They ARRESTED Officer Neal.

There was no victim blaming or slut shaming. There was no ridiculing. There was no sweeping this incident under the rug.

Nope. Instead, Police Chief William McManus went on record to praise the victim for coming forward, to urge other victims to do the same, and to denounce Officer Neal’s awful behavior.

“There is no such thing as consensual sex on duty,” said McManus. “I feel silly even saying that we won’t tolerate it. Of course we won’t tolerate it. There is no gray area. This is a criminal offense.”

TEXAS FOR THE WIN!

Loves, here’s why this whole case is so exciting. Texas is a blood-red state, run by a far Right, uber-religious, Tea Party governor, who’s famous for enacting draconian legislation that screws everyone who’s not rich, white, straight, and male.

But actually.

This is the same state that, in 2011, tried to rewrite K-12 history textbooks to refer to slavery as the “Atlantic triangular trade,” demonize Social Security, valorize witch hunter Sen. Joseph McCarthy, and omit Pres. Thomas Jefferson and Pres. Obama from the record entirely.

Just a few days ago, the Guardian reported that the Texas Board of Education was trying to amend biology books to teach creationism and deny climate change. They’ve also, apparently, started referring to slaves as “unpaid interns” who were compensated not with money, but with “valuable career experience…and ample networking opportunities.”

Not to mention, just last week, Texas got the go ahead to start enforcing a law that would seriously restrict women’s access to safe abortions in the state. Its passage has caused abortion clinics to close left and right, and will deny 20,000 women access to abortion altogether, with many more facing delays and increased risks.

All things considered, Texas has a bad reputation when it comes to women. Really, really bad. That’s certainly not to say that all Texans are woman haters, or that Texas itself is an awful place to be.

But it is to say that, when it comes to the Texans who make the rules, they overwhelmingly support legislation that’s radically Right-wing and anti-feminist.

So this week, when a 19 year old woman accused a police officer of raping her, I had low expectations.

I assumed the police department would laugh in her face. They’d protect their own. They’d sweep the whole thing under the rug, telling her she must have wanted it, she must have enjoyed it, she doesn’t have any proof anyway, she shouldn’t have been driving alone.

Similar things have happened in states with less conservative reputations. Hell, it’s happened in the bluest of blue states. It happens fucking everywhere. This is why rape is so under reported.

But then, I got a pleasant surprise. The SAPD didn’t do any of those things.

Instead, they held the rapist responsible, while treating the victim (publicly, at least) with compassion and respect.

This is how rape cases should be handled.

So, you see, this isn’t just an awesome week for turkey. It’s also an awesome week for women, for rape victims, and (weirdly), for Texas.

Congratulatory back slaps all around! Let’s keep this up, law enforcement, mmkay?

—

Featured image courtesy of [Jack via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

The post Texas Handles Rape Case Without Slut Shaming, Cue Applause appeared first on Law Street.

ABA Lends Support to House Bill Honoring Gay Vets

Jimmy Hoover — Sat, 30 Nov 2013 01:20:52 +0000

In a letter to a congressional subcommittee on Nov. 21, American Bar Association President (ABA) James Silkenat voiced his support for the Restore Honor to Service Members Act, a bill that would upgrade the statuses of gay and lesbian veterans discharged under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT.)

Addressing chairman Joe Wilson and ranking member Susan Davis of the Armed Services Committee, Silkenat characterized the bill as comprising “the final steps necessary to bring about an end to the unfortunate remnants of [DADT],” adding, “this legislation is crucial for the thousands of our veterans who are still experiencing the consequences of that policy and its even more oppressive predecessors.

The bill would create new panels to hear cases from veterans who, because of the discriminatory nature of previous laws, were kicked out of the armed forces. It aims not only to honor due federal benefits for those veterans, but also to remove the blemish of their discharge, and the unfair consequences incurred as a result. However, it falls short of providing monetary recompensation for lost wages and other damages.

The ABA has had a long history of supporting gay rights: first, by opposing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in 1993 when it was enacted, and later in 2010, when the organization came out in support of gay marriage. Silkenat says that, in this case, because of the “sensitive special status of the armed forces” and ABA’s relationship with the Department of Defense, he was compelled to make his stance known.

Despite its 138 cosponsors, the bill has a very slim chance of making it out of the notoriously rigid Armed Services Committee. Compounding its grim odds is the fact that, of those 138 cosponsors, only one is Republican. In the Republican-controlled House, that alone is a death sentence.

It need not be said that blatant injustices like the ones targeted in the new bill should stoke a rallying cry in the legal community. If the politicians on the Hill can’t scrub the ugly anachronism of homophobia from our society then, in the spirit of Thurgood Marshall, it seems the only thing left to do is to go “through the courts.” So, channeling my inner Stephen Colbert, I give a tip of the hat to you Mr. Silkenat, and a wag of the finger to you, House Republicans.

[ABA Journal]

—

Featured image courtesy of [DVIDSHUB/Sgt. Randall Clinton via Flickr]

Jimmy Hoover

Jimmy Hoover is a graduate of the University of Maryland College Park and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Jimmy at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ABA Lends Support to House Bill Honoring Gay Vets appeared first on Law Street.

Conservatives Are Deliberately Hacking Healthcare.Gov

Hannah R. Winsten — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 03:00:35 +0000

How was your weekend, loves? Mine was fabulous!

But Obamacare’s weekend was kind of rough.

On Sunday, The Daily Kos reported that the frustrating, glitchy, failure-face of a website that is Healthcare.gov is such a mess, in part, because of coordinated conservative hackattacks.

That’s right. You heard me correctly.

Conservatives are hacking into Healthcare.gov to prevent it from working correctly.

Specifically, hackers have been launching DDoS attacks—an acronym that stands for Distributed Denial of Service—against the site, which function to make a network unavailable to users.

Sound familiar? I think so! How many gazillions of stories have you heard about uninsured, Obamacare-enthused folks getting kicked off the site, denied access to sign up for their government-sponsored health benefits?

Probably a lot.

These cons are SERIOUSLY getting on my nerves.

And that’s not all. In addition to these hackattacks—which are being launched with a tool called “Destroy Obama Care,” no joke—conservative lawmakers are encouraging insurance companies to fraudulently screw over their customers, and blame Obamacare for the ridiculousness.

For example, in Florida, douchebag extraordinaire Governor Rick Scott required insurance companies to blame Obamacare for any canceled plans, even if their reasons for canceling those plans had NOTHING AT ALL to do with Obamacare.

Lie, he said. It will be profitable, he said.

But actually. Because let’s be real here. Insurance companies make a lot of money for doing very, very little. They make healthcare prohibitively expensive. They’ve made medicine less about saving lives, and more about making money.

I mean really. The U.S. is the only country in the world where Breaking Bad makes any goddamn sense.

So when conservative lawmakers freak out about how horrible Obamacare will be, they’re really just lamenting the oncoming fall of big business. Of insane wealth disparities. Of that line in the sand that separates the haves from the have-nots.

Because what LOGICAL reason exists to vehemently defend the existence of companies that make healthcare INACCESSIBLE to the vast majority of Americans?

Seriously. Let’s look at a hypothetical example, shall we?

Mom gets breast cancer. It’s fairly advanced, but not untreatable.

She doesn’t have health insurance, because it’s way too expensive. She made a choice between paying for her monthly groceries, and electricity, and heat, and part of her mortgage payment—OR paying for health insurance. Years ago, she chose the former.

So now, here we are. Breast cancer. It wasn’t caught earlier because Mom lives in a state where women’s health funding has been slashed. Her local women’s clinic closed down. (Thanks Republicans.) She hasn’t had a mammogram in years. Preventive care wasn’t readily available to her.

Now that she has her diagnosis, Mom faces a choice. She can get treatment for her breast cancer, but she’ll go bankrupt paying for it. Or, she can forgo treatment, continue scraping by for now, and wait for the inevitable.

This is a bullshit choice.

The reality for Americans without insurance is completely absurd. They live in a wealthy, developed nation, where there are clean hospitals, abundant medicine, and well-equipped doctors. Quality medical treatment is right here. It’s there for the taking.

But it’ll cost you your house. And your groceries. And the clothes on your back. Actually, if you take advantage of all those lifesaving facilities, you’ll likely wind up bankrupt and homeless.

So really, for these Americans—for this fictional, hypothetical working mom with breast cancer—what’s the point of being American? What’s the point of living in the United States? She might as well live in a struggling, rural nation that has very few hospitals, and very little medicine. Her access to those facilities would be roughly the same.

And that’s completely insane. It makes no sense that uninsured people in the United States must choose between two life-destroying options: forgo treatment and wait for death, or go into total financial ruin.

I really wish I was, Chelsea.

The only reason anyone should forgo medical treatment is if treatment does not exist. You can’t go to the hospital for chemotherapy if there is no hospital, if there is no chemo.

But we do have hospitals. We do have chemo. And so, people should be able to use them. While also keeping a roof over their heads and food in their mouths.

This is not a difficult argument to make. This is just common sense.

But conservatives are abandoning that logic. They’ve made it their mission to defend a system that clearly isn’t working. They’re defending a healthcare system that bankrupts people. They’re defending insurance companies that lie and swindle their customers. They’re encouraging those insurance companies to act fraudulently.

This is stupid, am I right?

So lovelies, let’s try and put an end to this madness, mmkay? Obamacare is not ideal, but it’s a step in the right direction. It’s a step toward affordable and accessible healthcare for all. So let’s get behind it.

—

Featured image courtesy of [LaDawna Howard via Flickr]

[Featured image courtesy of the LA Times]

Hannah R. Winsten

The post Conservatives Are Deliberately Hacking Healthcare.Gov appeared first on Law Street.

Decision 2013: I’ll See Your Christie, and Raise You de Blasio

Hannah R. Winsten — Thu, 07 Nov 2013 14:54:50 +0000

Well, Election Day has come and gone, and things are looking (un)surprisingly bright for the tri-state area.

Folks, I live in Hoboken, New Jersey, and I commute into New York City almost every day. That means I was pretty invested in both the New Jersey gubernatorial race and the New York mayoral race. So now that the results are in, let’s chat about them, mmkay?

Republican Chris Christie won reelection in New Jersey last night, with Democrat Bill de Blasio winning the mayoral seat in New York. No one was even a little bit surprised—to the point where Politico reported Christie’s victory hours before polls even closed.

Now, we all know I’m no fan of the Republicans. Christie’s conservatism irks me, and I’ve called him a douche many, many times over the course of his first term. Especially when it comes to his education policy, which actually drives me insane.

But seriously. Dude’s always railing against teachers, cutting public school budgets, and pushing charter schools. These are policies that kill fair labor laws, devalue an incredibly important job (educating the next generation, NO BIG DEAL), and exacerbate socio-economic inequality. Don’t believe me? Los Angeles has more charter schools than any other district in the country—let them tell you how much they suck.

So, obviously, I’m not Christie’s biggest fan. But, he’s the frontrunner for the GOP’s 2016 Presidential bid, and I’m weirdly happy about that. Why? A surprising side effect of my Post Traumatic Sandy Disorder is a much more positive vision of Gov. Christie.

While I was totally freaking out about the apocalyptic flooding outside my apartment, Christie was consistently calm and attentive. He made regular TV appearances, updating residents on the situation while we waited for the storm to make landfall. After disaster struck, he came and visited Hoboken—as well as many other affected New Jersey towns—to assess the damage and address his constituents.

Many have claimed that Christie used the storm as a publicity stunt, pumping up his approval ratings without giving enough material aid to affected residents. That may be true. But, he also proved himself to be a calm and effective leader who could successfully navigate an emergency situation. He made a lot of people, myself included, feel safe under terrible circumstances.

And that’s a really big deal. Since Sandy, he’s arguably toned down his conservatism—choosing not to fight against the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage, for example—establishing himself as a centrist politician who’s more concerned about being realistic and representative than pushing his own agenda.

Now, I’m not a huge fan of Republicans—but that’s one I can potentially get behind.

Across the Hudson, New York has taken a very different turn. Bill de Blasio will be the first Democratic City mayor in over 20 years—and he’s not just any Democrat. He ran on a seriously liberal platform, and trotted out his biracial family as proof that he could follow through on his promises.

When his afro-bearing son, Dante, told cameras that his dad opposed stop-and-frisk, New Yorkers believed him. Why? Because de Blasio’s strong ties to people of color—his entire immediate family—must mean that he’s personally invested in ending a policy that targets and harasses them. This isn’t hypothetical for him—it’s sitting in his living room.

De Blasio’s platform also included a plan to raise taxes in an effort to decrease the city’s wealth gap, which has grown to epic proportions. YAY! Will he be able to deliver on that noble goal? Only time will tell, but the awesome factor of the First Lady is indicative of good things.

Bill’s wife, Chirlane McCray, is a black feminist, a writer, a marketing maven, and used to identify as a lesbian. Since marrying Bill, she’s gotten queerer, explaining (why does this still need to be explained?!) that sexuality is fluid. She’s also a former member of the Combahee River Collective—one of the most important black, lesbian, feminist organizations of the 1970s and 80s.

Seriously, people. I read about the Combahee River Collective when I was a Gender & Sexuality Studies major at NYU. Hardly anyone outside the department had ever heard of it, mainly because feminist history is terribly whitewashed. Gloria Steinem gets the glory over Audre Lorde every time.

So, the fact that a former member is set to move into Gracie Mansion (unless the family opts to stay in Brooklyn, which would be super rad) is a huge deal. Like, absolutely huge.

With McCray by his side, Bill de Blasio’s mayoral victory is more than just a change of pace for New York City. It could be revolutionary.

So Tuesday’s election went pretty well, I’d say. Gov. Christie’s a pretty acceptable conservative, and Mayor de Blasio’s a super exciting liberal.

The tri-state area is going places, people.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Bill de Blasio via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

The post Decision 2013: I’ll See Your Christie, and Raise You de Blasio appeared first on Law Street.