This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/keep_track by /u/rusticgorilla on 2023-08-03 18:33:00.

Housekeeping:

• HOW TO SUPPORT: If you are in the position to support my work, I have a patreon, venmo, and a paypal set up. Just three dollars a month makes a huge difference! No pressure though, I will keep posting these pieces publicly no matter what - paywalls suck.
• NOTIFICATIONS: You can signup to receive a monthly email with links to my posts or subscribe to Keep Track’s Substack (RSS link).

Heat waves

Climate change is causing the Earth's temperature to rise, which is leading to more deadly heat waves across the globe. According to the World Meteorological Organization, this July is the hottest month on record, with 21 of the first 23 days of July hotter than any previous days in the database. High temperatures in the southern United States have been unrelenting: El Paso, Texas, saw a 44-day streak of days over 100 degrees. Phoenix, Arizona, experienced a 31-day streak of days over 110 degrees, breaking the previous 18-day record. Meanwhile, the ocean water in Florida is 100 degrees, as hot as a hot tub, causing catastrophic damage to coral reefs and other marine life.

The effects of heat waves are mostly felt by lower-income people who cannot afford air conditioning and are often forced to work in extreme temperatures in order to keep their jobs. Lower-income populations currently face a 40% higher exposure to heat waves than people with higher incomes, one study found, with their vulnerability only predicted to increase in coming decades.

In the United States, people who work outdoors—like agricultural workers and delivery drivers—are in the most danger from extreme heat and lack federal protections. California, Oregon, Colorado, and Washington are the only states with mandated heat regulations. However, these only apply to some workers. In Washington, for example, employers are required to provide mandatory cool-down periods at temperatures of 90+ degrees but only if the worksite is outdoors. Employees inside a vehicle are not covered by the rule as long as it is equipped with fans or windows that open.

Business groups and lobbyists have opposed efforts to create heat protection rules at the state and federal level, claiming that such regulations place oppressing “burdens” on employers. Lobbying groups associated with the agricultural and construction fields are currently fighting against the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) proposed federal heat protection rule:

The powerful American Farm Bureau Federation has objected to the proposal. “Considering the variances in agricultural work and climate, AFBF questions whether the department can develop additional heat illness regulations without imposing new, onerous burdens on farmers and ranchers that will lead to economic losses,” it said in its comments on the rule.

The group has a long history of denying science around the climate crisis and has teamed up with fossil fuel interests in fights over climate policies.

The Construction Industry Safety Coalition (CISC) said while it “appreciates Osha’s rule-making in this area”, its members have “significant concerns with any regulatory approach that imposes complicated requirements on contractors and requirements that are triggered by threshold temperatures that are common in wide swaths of the country for much of the year”.

The National Demolition Association, a construction business group, said in its opposition “issues of heat exposure and the means to address it on the variety of construction worksites across the country are extremely complex”. The proposed rule “essentially dictates how and what should be included in an Osha standard for heat exposure, [and] does not account for the complexities of the issue”.

In Florida, the state Chamber of Commerce bragged about defeating a bill that would require employers in outdoor industries to provide workers with regular breaks, shade, and water when the heat index exceeds 90 degrees. Meanwhile, in Texas, the legislature passed a measure that nullifies current, and bans future, local ordinances mandating water breaks for outdoor workers. Not even two weeks after Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed the bill into law, nearly the entire state saw heat indexes rise over 100 degrees.

Delivery workers

Just weeks ago, United State Postal Service (USPS) carrier Eugene Gates Jr. died while delivering mail in the 115-degree heat in Dallas, Texas. At 66 years old, Gates worked for USPS for nearly 40 years. Months before his death, Gates was disciplined for stopping too many times on his route:

Eugene Gates Jr., was disciplined on May 2 for a "stationary event," according to the National Association of Letter Carriers Branch 132 President Kimetra Lewis. A stationary event is when a letter carrier's scanner reads as idle on a tracker. In these instances, carriers are questioned about inefficiencies in their performance and potentially penalized for stopping along their route… The letter says an investigative review was conducted on May 11, notes that Gates' stationary event was "in violation of postal rules and regulations," and warns that "future deficiencies will result in more severe disciplinary actions, including removal from the Postal Service."

OSHA has issued more than $1.3 million in fines against the Postal Service for heat hazards in eight years, covering the time that John Watzlawick, a postal veteran of 28 years, died after delivering mail during a Missouri heatwave and when Peggy Frank, a mail carrier from California, was found dead “in her non-air-conditioned mail truck” during 115-degree temperatures.

An analysis by the Center for Public Integrity last year found that the Postal Service had exposed about 900 workers to heat hazards since 2012, leading to muscle cramps, vomiting and loss of consciousness. Close to 100 workers had been hospitalized for heat-related illnesses since 2015, the site reported. Because the hospitalizations are self-reported by employers, the full tally over that span is likely higher and wouldn’t reflect the times when workers got sick but didn’t end up in the hospital.

According to the same report, approximately 70% of USPS delivery trucks do not have air conditioning. Plans to replace its fleet have been delayed many times, pushing the expected deployment date for new, air-conditioned trucks, back to mid-2024. It is unclear how quickly the aging vehicles can be replaced and if areas prone to extreme heat will be prioritized.

Other delivery companies likewise fail to protect employees from high temperatures. Last year, 24-year-old UPS driver Esteban Chavez collapsed and died from heatstroke while delivering packages in Pasadena, California. In 2022, 23-year-old Jose Cruz Rodriguez, Jr., died from a “heat-related illness” after his shift delivering packages in Waco, Texas.

[Attorney Rod] Tanner said the trucks are not air conditioned, and temperatures in the cargo holds can reach 150 degrees in the Texas heat…“As a package car driver for UPS, he was overcome by heat exhaustion during the cours...

Content cut off. Read original on https://old.reddit.com/r/Keep_Track/comments/15h8xiv/agricultural_workers_delivery_drivers_and_prison/

This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/keep_track by /u/rusticgorilla on 2023-07-27 18:46:46.

Housekeeping:

• HOW TO SUPPORT: If you are in the position to support my work, I have a patreon, venmo, and a paypal set up. Just three dollars a month makes a huge difference! No pressure though, I will keep posting these pieces publicly no matter what - paywalls suck.
• NOTIFICATIONS: You can signup to receive a monthly email with links to my posts or subscribe to Keep Track’s Substack (RSS link).

Tennessee

Tennessee made it more difficult for people convicted of felonies to restore their voting rights, creating what voting rights advocates call the most “strenuous and confusing” system in the nation.

Background

Two residents of Tennessee who were convicted of felonies in other states but had their voting rights restored were denied the right to vote in Tennessee. Ernest Falls was convicted of a felony in 1987 in Virginia and had his voting rights restored by a grant of clemency from then-Gov. Ralph Northam. Arthur Bledsoe was convicted of a felony in North Carolina in 1996 and had his rights restored automatically, under state law, after completing his sentence.

Both men moved to Tennessee and attempted to register to vote. According to Tennessee law, there are three ways for a person with an out-of-state felony conviction to have their voting rights restored in-state: [1] the governor or the other state may restore the individual’s rights, allowing them to vote in-state, [2] legal mechanisms, like a provision automatically restoring rights upon sentence completion, of the other state may allow a person to vote in-state, [3] a person may meet criteria under Tennessee law to have their voting rights restored in-state.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-19-143(3): No person who has been convicted in another state of a crime or offense which would constitute an infamous crime under the laws of this state, regardless of the sentence imposed, shall be allowed to register to vote or vote at any election in this state unless such person has been pardoned or restored to the rights of citizenship by the governor or other appropriate authority of other such state, or the person’s full rights of citizenship have otherwise been restored in accordance with the laws of such other state, or the law of this state. 

Falls had his rights restored under the first pathway and Bledsoe had his rights restored under the second pathway. However, when registering to vote in Tennessee, the state denied their application, saying that people with out-of-state felony convictions must satisfy the criteria of all three pathways in order to vote in Tennessee—not just one. In other words, an individual must have had their voting rights restored in the state of their conviction AND meet all requirements for a person with an in-state conviction to have their voting rights restored (under section 40-29-202). In Tennessee that means an individual with a felony conviction must also pay all victim restitution, pay all court costs and fines, and be current in all child support obligations—a scheme called pay-to-vote.

Court case

Falls and Bledsoe sued, arguing that the Tennessee attorney general’s office was erroneously denying their right to vote. The state supreme court ultimately ruled in favor of the state, finding that the word “unless” in § 2-19-143(3) (quoted above) means that the state does not have to acknowledge a person’s voting rights were restored out-of-state.

Accordingly, the text of section 2-19-143(3) that follows “unless” illustrates exceptions to the otherwise hardline rule that convicted infamous criminals are forbidden from voting or registering to vote. Nothing in the statute, however, leads us to conclude that compliance with an exception enumerated in that statute precludes the legislature from enacting further re-enfranchisement requirements in separate statutes. Rather, the statute reads as if compliance with one of the three section 2-19-143(3) exceptions provides for the possibility that a person’s suffrage rights will be restored…Article I, section 5 does not mandate that the legislature provide convicted infamous criminals with a pathway or pathways to regain the right to vote.

Instead, the majority reasoned, an individual who was pardoned for an out-of-state felony conviction must also meet all the criteria for in-state voting rights restoration:

To comply with the first exception set forth in section 2-19-143(3), a person must be “pardoned or restored to the rights of citizenship by the governor or other appropriate authority of such other state.” But, to regain the right of suffrage, that person must also fulfill the requirements laid out in section 40-29-202. To comply with the second 2-19-143(3) exception, one must have “full rights of citizenship … restored in accordance with the laws [of the state of prosecution].” To regain the right of suffrage, that person also must fulfill the requirements laid out in section 40-29-202. To comply with the third exception, one must comply with all of chapter 29 of the Tennessee Code, including sections 40-29-101 through -109. Yet, to regain the right of suffrage, that person must also fulfill the requirements laid out in section 40-29-202.

Judge Sharon Lee dissented, writing that “Mr. Falls’ voting rights were fully restored; he should not be denied his constitutional right to vote.”

Adopted at different times, in different Titles of the Code, and for different purposes, section 40-29-202 and section 2-19-143 neither cross-reference the provisions of the other nor indicate the sections should be read together. Had the General Assembly intended to do so, it could easily have incorporated or referenced section 2-19-143 when later enacting section 40-29-202. Even though both statutes touch on voting, piggybacking the requirements of one onto the other stretches in pari materia construction beyond its proper scope.

Impact

Tennessee already has one of the highest felony disenfranchisement rates in the nation, with more than 9% of the voting-age population unable to vote due to a conviction. Of the estimated disenfranchised population in Tennessee (over 471,000), nearly 174,000 are Black, accounting for more than 21% of the Black voting age population – likely the highest rate of Black disenfranchisement in the United States. The expansion of the pay-to-vote scheme to include out-of-state convictions will only increase the number of people unable to restore their voting rights.

“It’s very hard to get your restoration of citizenship - even harder than getting a certificate of restoration,” said Blair Bowie, an attorney at the Campaign Legal Center who has been involved in a number of lawsuits challenging Tennessee’s rules around felon disenfranchisement, including the Falls case.

“The new process is more difficult than the procedures that existed before the legislature created certificates of restoration in 2006 and it puts Tennessee in the bottom of the barrel on rights restoration as one of the only states with a fully discretionary process, alongside Mississippi and Virginia.”

Florida

The Florida Rights Restoration Coalition and several Florida citizens filed a federal lawsuit against Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and other state officials challenging the state’s disenfranchisement scheme and “election police” force.

Background

In 2018, 65% of Florida voters approved Amendment 4 to automatically restore the voting rights of people with felony convictions “after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation.” Approximately 1.4 million Floridians, almost 7% of the state's population, would have had their right to vote restored.

About six months later, the Florida legislature passed Senate Bill 7066, adding a requirement that people with felony convictions pay all “fines and fees” in order to have their sentence considered “complete.” Gov. DeSantis signed the bill into law in June 2019, thereby adding a significant obstacle to voting rights restoration that the voters did not approve.

Lawsuit

The plaintiffs allege that the state of Florida has “created and perpetuated a bureaucratic morass that prevents people with prior felony convictions from voting, or even determining whether they are eligible to vote.” In addition to adding the onerous pay-to-vote ...

Content cut off. Read original on https://old.reddit.com/r/Keep_Track/comments/15b6uiz/tennessee_intensifies_felony_disenfranchisement/

This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/keep_track by /u/rusticgorilla on 2023-07-24 18:36:22.

Housekeeping:

• HOW TO SUPPORT: If you are in the position to support my work, I have a patreon, venmo, and a paypal set up. Just three dollars a month makes a huge difference! No pressure though, I will keep posting these pieces publicly no matter what - paywalls suck.
• NOTIFICATIONS: You can signup to receive a monthly email with links to my posts or subscribe to Keep Track’s Substack (RSS link).

Medical records

18 Republican attorneys general are seeking out-of-state medical records in order to investigate and potentially prosecute people who have an abortion in less-restrictive states.

In April, the Biden administration proposed a new HIPAA rule to prohibit healthcare providers from sharing an individual’s health information when the purpose is “to investigate, sue, or prosecute an individual, a healthcare provider, or a loved one simply because that person sought, obtained, provided, or facilitated legal reproductive health care, including abortion.” Currently, it is legal for healthcare workers to share abortion information with law enforcement when they believe a crime was committed. The new rule would require a court order, like a subpoena, in order for officials to obtain the out-of-state abortion information of an individual.

A letter signed by nearly 50 Congressional Democrats, led by Sens. Ron Wyden (OR) and Patty Murray (WA), argues that the proposed rule does not go far enough and should require law enforcement to obtain a warrant. Further, the lawmakers say the proposed rule should cover all health information, not just abortion-related healthcare. States that ban gender-affirming care, for example, could seek information on residents that travel to another state to obtain hormone therapy.

Red states, on the other hand, argue that the proposed rule interferes with state’s rights. The attorneys general of 18 states—Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah—signed a letter saying the HIPAA change “would unlawfully interfere with States’ authority to enforce their laws, and does not serve any legitimate need.”

The proposed rule cannot be reconciled with our constitutional system. Under our system, States have broad authority to protect health and safety. And States have the corresponding authority (and duty) to address violations of their laws. The proposed rule trespasses on and interferes with state authority…The proposed rule would interfere with States’ ability to obtain evidence that could reveal violations of their laws. This intrudes on core state authority…As the Supreme Court recently made clear, however, States have a compelling interest in protecting life, health, and the medical profession in the context of abortion. Dobbs, 142 S. Ct. at 2284. And States’ authority to enact and enforce laws furthering those interests does not depend on HHS’s say so. The proposed rule is at odds with the Constitution.

The Republican AGs continue, saying they are concerned that the proposed rule would also be used to protect gender-affirming care obtained in other states:

The proposed rule focuses on abortion. But its broad definition of reproductive health care includes “health care related to reproductive organs, regardless of whether the health care is related to an individual’s pregnancy or whether the individual is of reproductive age.” Given its far-reaching and radical approach to transgender issues, the Administration may intend to use the proposed rule to obstruct state laws concerning experimental gender-transition procedures for minors (such as puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgical interventions).

The letter suggests that a red state coalition would likely sue if the Biden administration moves to finalize the rule.

• Note that Idaho’s Attorney General, Raúl Labrador, signed onto the letter. Idaho recently created a crime called “abortion trafficking” that makes it a felony to help a minor get an abortion across state lines without parental consent. The law gives sole discretion to the Idaho attorney general to bring charges if a county prosecutor declines to do so and could potentially be used to charge physicians who refer patients to out-of-state abortion providers.

Some on the right want to go even further than allowing state officials to investigate out-of-state abortions: Roger Severino of the Heritage Foundation (and a former Trump official) is advocating for healthcare providers to be mandated abortion reporters.

“If someone says, ‘I’m going to kill myself’ or ‘I’m going to kill somebody else,’ medical providers are allowed and in some cases required to disclose that information to law enforcement,” he said. “But if there’s an imminent threat to an unborn person in a pro-life state, this rule would prohibit the provider from disclosing that information to save that life. They’re creating an abortion exception to the HIPAA regime for the sake of pleasing the left base that Biden and Becerra answer to.”

License plates

Medical records aren’t the only way that law enforcement could prosecute women for obtaining out-of-state abortions. Last month, civil liberties groups revealed that California police departments have been illegally sharing license plate data with out-of-state agencies.

According to information collected by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (ACLU NorCal), and the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California (ACLU SoCal), 71 California police agencies in 22 counties are sharing automated license plate reader (ALPR) data:

ALPR technology is a powerful surveillance system that can be used to invade the privacy of individuals and violate the rights of entire communities. ALPR systems collect and store location information about drivers whose cars pass through ALPR cameras’ fields of view, which, along with the date and time of capture, can be built into a database that reveals sensitive details about where individuals work, live, associate, worship, seek medical care, and travel…Law enforcement officers in anti-abortion jurisdictions who receive the locations of drivers collected by California-based ALPRs may seek to use that information to monitor abortion clinics and the vehicles seen around them and closely track the movements of abortion seekers and providers.This threatens even those obtaining or providing abortions in California, since several anti-abortion states plan to criminalize and prosecute those who seek or assist in out-of-state abortions.

A recent report, entitled “Roadblock to Care: Barriers to Out-of-State Travel for Abortion and Gender-Affirming Care” by the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (STOP), warns that lawmakers in states that seek to protect abortion and gender-affirming care must take action to preserve the right to travel anonymously and safely.

Healthcare seekers’ very need to travel can be used against them. Prosecutors bringing criminalized healthcare charges have relied on digital surveillance data in healthcare prosecutions. Typically, the data comes from smartphones: a person’s texts, their internet search history, or their online purchase records. The Federal Trade Commission and tech companies like Google have rushed to prevent prosecutors and state officials from using phones’ geolocation data to place individuals at healthcare clinics. But even when smartphone data is out of reach, travel data can be used to corroborate accusations against known healthcare travelers and to identify yet unknown healthcare seekers. License plate data, Uber and Lyft data, and even bikeshare data can be used to reveal that someone traveled to a reproductive or gender-affirming healthcare clinic…

State bans on vital healthcare are creating a crisis right here in the U.S.. State laws that counter these bans by creating healthcare sanctuaries help travelers. But as long as states, private companies, and federal agencies continue to restrict or prohibit anonymous travel and cash payment, and collect and leak healthcare seekers’ personal data—travel data, healthcare data, smartphone data, payment data—they will not effectively shield healthcare seekers from investigation and prosecution.

This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/keep_track by /u/rusticgorilla on 2023-07-17 12:08:35.

Housekeeping:

• HOW TO SUPPORT: If you are in the position to support my work, I have a patreon, venmo, and a paypal set up. Just three dollars a month makes a huge difference! No pressure though, I will keep posting these pieces publicly no matter what - paywalls suck.
• NOTIFICATIONS: You can signup to receive a monthly email with links to my posts or subscribe to Keep Track’s Substack (RSS link).

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) authorizes funding levels and provides authorities for the U.S. military and other critical defense priorities, ensuring U.S. troops have the training, equipment, and resources they need to carry out their missions.

The House NDAA passed last week would authorize $874.2 billion in national defense spending, including $841.5 billion for the Defense Department and $32.2 billion for national security programs within the Energy Department. It would also provide a 5.2 percent military pay increase.

The final vote was 219-210, with all but four Democrats voting against it: Reps. Don Davis (D-NC), Jared Golden (D-ME), Perez (D-WA), and Vasquez (D-NM) voted for the NDAA despite numerous amendments that advance GOP “culture war” issues sure to doom the bill in the Senate (where Democratic support is required to reach the 60-vote threshold). Four Republicans, all members of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, voted against final passage. In Rep. Andy Biggs’ (R-AZ) words, the NDAA did not go far enough to “rein in the Biden Administration's disastrous policies.”

All clips can be found on C-Span: July 13 and July 14.

Reproductive care

Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX) introduced an amendment to prohibit the Defense Department from reimbursing personnel for travel expenses related to abortion services. The policy, announced earlier this year, was designed to make it easier for service members and their dependents to access reproductive health care after a slew of states banned or restricted abortion procedures.

The amendment passed 221-213, with only one Democrat—Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas—voting in favor. Two Republicans, Reps. John Duarte (CA) and Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), opposed the measure.

In arguing for his amendment, Rep. Ronny Jackson accused the Department of Defense of illegally “sidestepping” the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade:

“I urge all of my colleagues to vote in strong support of my amendment to repeal the Department of Defense’s illegal and immoral abortion policy. In the wake of the Supreme Court's historic Dobbs decision, overturning Roe vs. Wade, the Biden administration immediately set out to sidestep the court's ruling and circumvent the law wherever possible. The Biden administration has encouraged every federal agency to create rules and adopt policies that not only expand abortion access but also leave American taxpayers on the hook to subsidize abortion services… It is the Biden administration who has sidestepped existing law and given the department permission to take this illegal action. This has left us with no choice but to take corrective measures and pass additional legislation. The days of the radical left ignoring the law and pushing their destructive social agenda in the military are done. I absolutely will not waver in my defense of the rule of law, therefore, ensuring that taxpayer money is not used to kill innocent babies and, in doing so, ensure that our military service members can focus on the jobs that they have in front of them and their families instead of being used for the political gain of the Biden administration.”

Democratic Rep. Mikie Sherrill (NJ) spoke in opposition, pointing out that almost 50% of women in U.S. military service do not live/are not stationed in an area with access to abortion care:

“I rise today in vehement opposition to the amendment proposed by Rep. Jackson. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to thank the troops and talk about honoring their sacrifice and that's all, frankly, empty words and broken promises if this amendment passes. This amendment puts servicewomen and military families' lives at risk by denying the basic right to travel for health care, no longer available where they are stationed. Now that Iowa passed anti-abortion restrictions, 46% of servicewomen do not have access to abortion care. This would enact a dangerous health care travel ban. Service members signed up to put their lives on the line for our freedoms, our national values, our constitutional rights—they did not sign up to put their lives on the line or their spouse's lives on the line because they could not get access to basic care. I was an officer in the Navy. What I learned was that good leaders protect their squadron. They don't abandon them in favor of their own politics or agenda. How am I supposed to recommend to young girls in my district that they should attend a service academy like I did when we know this amendment would mean they would be signing away their right to basic health care? This makes our servicewomen pawns in their extreme agenda and is a stepping stone to larger bans, restrictions, and wholesale disregard for women's health care in America.”

Gender-affirming care

Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-MT) introduced an amendment to ban military health insurance and the Department of Defense from providing or covering gender-affirming treatment for transgender people. The measure, Rosendale admitted on the floor, is a shortcut to banning transgender people from the U.S. military:

“Gender reassignment surgery…and psychotherapy for gender dysphoria…does nothing to help our troops continue to be the most effective fighting force on Earth and is nothing but a distraction and waste of valuable taxpayer dollars. The government has no business funding these procedures on the taxpayer’s dime. The question that must be asked is whether having transgender individuals makes the United States a more lethal force and whether it helps recruit the best and most effective talent for the United States military — and the answer to that is a clear and resounding no.”

“A report commissioned by general Mattis found that service members with claims of gender dysphoria are 8 times more likely to attempt suicide than other service members. It also found that these individuals are nine times more likely to have negative mental health episodes than other service members. As Thomas Spore, a former army lieutenant general, put it: if those with gender dysphoria are at a much higher risk of suicide, crippling anxiety, or mental breakdowns than their peers, those serving next to them will be reluctant to rely on them. Permitting them to serve also violates the principle of not placing individuals at greater risk of injury in harm’s way. To summarize this: anything that does not contribute to making our fighting force the most effective fighting force on Earth is nothing more than a distraction and I will not ask the people of Montana or the United States to pay for it.”

Democratic Rep. Adam Smith (WA), ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, argued that gender-affirming care should be treated like any other healthcare service members may need:

“The ignorance contained in these comments is breathtaking. Transgender people who have normal regular health care are no more to likely commit suicide than anybody else. So basically, the statistics that he is showing, once someone identifies they are having a problem, they’re more likely to have a problem. That would be like saying we have identified that service members that complain of PTSD symptoms are more likely to commit suicide. The point is to get proper care for transgender people and you don’t have these issues. It is the ignorance that has prevented them from getting that proper care…We need transgender people to serve in the military and this amendment should be defeated.”

The amendment passed 222-211, with Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar (TX) voting in favor and Republican Rep. John Duarte (CA) voting in opposition.

Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) introduced a similar amendment to prohibit the Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP), a program for military family members with special needs, from providing gender-affirming treatment to minor dependent children. After saying that people “who don’t know whether they are a man or woman” should not be allowed to serve in the military, Norman suggested that providing gender-affirmi...

Content cut off. Read original on https://old.reddit.com/r/Keep_Track/comments/151xqcu/house_republicans_pass_ndaa_that_bans_abortion/

This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/keep_track by /u/rusticgorilla on 2023-07-13 12:24:14.

Housekeeping:

• HOW TO SUPPORT: If you are in the position to support my work, I have a patreon, venmo, and a paypal set up. Just three dollars a month makes a huge difference! No pressure though, I will keep posting these pieces publicly no matter what - paywalls suck.
• NOTIFICATIONS: You can signup to receive a monthly email with links to my posts or subscribe to Keep Track’s Substack (RSS link).

Iowa abortion ban

Iowa Republicans passed a ban on abortion at 6 weeks of pregnancy in the middle of the night Tuesday during a one day special session.

The bill, House File 732, claims to ban abortion after a “fetal heartbeat” is detected. However, there is no actual heartbeat at 6 weeks of gestation because the heart of the embryo has not yet fully developed:

"At six weeks of gestation, those valves don't exist," she explains. "The flickering that we're seeing on the ultrasound that early in the development of the pregnancy is actually electrical activity, and the sound that you 'hear' is actually manufactured by the ultrasound machine."

That's why "the term 'fetal heartbeat' is pretty misleading," says Dr. Jennifer Kerns, an OB-GYN and associate professor at the University of California, San Francisco.

"What we're really detecting is a grouping of cells that are initiating some electrical activity," she explains. "In no way is this detecting a functional cardiovascular system or a functional heart."

After a marathon session marked by passionate protests, nearly all Republicans in the state House and Senate voted to pass the bill. House Reps. Mark Cisneros (R-Muscatine) and Zach Dieken (R-Granville) joined all Democrats in opposition; Sen. Mike Klimesh (R-Spillville) was the lone Senate Republican to join Democrats in opposition in the final 11 p.m. vote.

The entire process lasted 15 hours, from introduction to final passage. Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) has promised to sign the bill into law on Friday.

“Today, the Iowa legislature once again voted to protect life and end abortion at a heartbeat, with exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother.”

“The Iowa Supreme Court questioned whether this legislature would pass the same law they did in 2018, and today they have a clear answer. The voices of Iowans and their democratically elected representatives cannot be ignored any longer, and justice for the unborn should not be delayed.”

“As a pro-life Governor, I am also committed to continuing policies to support women in planning for motherhood, promote the importance of fatherhood, and encourage strong families. Our state and country will be stronger because of it.”

Absent from the governor’s statement is the fact that over 60% of Iowans “believe abortion should be legal in most or all cases.”

A coalition of abortion providers and the ACLU sued to block the law on Wednesday.

Nebraska illegal abortion charges

A Nebraskan mother and daughter pleaded guilty last week to facilitating an illegal abortion after Facebook turned over their chat messages to law enforcement.

Police first launched an investigation into Jessica Burgess, 42, and Celeste Burgess, then 17 years old, last year when they received a tip that Celeste had miscarried and her mom helped bury the body. A Norfolk police detective obtained Celeste’s medical records, determined that she was approximately 23 weeks pregnant, and then confronted the pair.

When he interviewed them a few days later, they told him Celeste Burgess had unexpectedly given birth to her stillborn baby in the shower, in the early morning hours after midnight, court records say.

She woke her mother, and they put the baby’s body in a bag and stowed it in the back of their van, he wrote.

Later — the records don’t say when — they drove a few miles north of town and buried the body, with help from a 22-year-old man.

After confirming the location of the body, the investigating officer, Ben McBride, served Meta with a warrant seeking their Facebook messages. The evidence he found suggested that Jessica Burgess had obtained abortion pills for her daughter and gave her instructions on how to take them.

The Facebook messages appear to show Celeste and Jessica talking about taking abortion medication:

Celeste: "Are we starting it today?"

Jessica: "We can if u want the one will stop the hormones"

Celeste: "Ok"

Jessica: "Ya the 1 pill stops the hormones an rehn [sic] u gotta wait 24 HR 2 take the other"

Celeste: "Ok"

Celeste: "Remember we burn the evidence"

Facebook DMs obtained by law enforcement were then used as the main basis for a second search warrant, in which 13 laptops and smartphones were seized from the Burgesses; 24 gigabytes of data including images, messages, and web histories from their phones was extracted for the case.

"Celeste Burgess talks about how she can't wait to get this 'thing' out of her body and reaffirms it with Jessica Burgess that they will burn the evidence afterwards," McBride wrote in an affidavit requesting permission to seize the Burgess' electronics. "I know from prior training and experience, and conversations with other seasoned criminal investigators, people involved in criminal activity frequently have conversations regarding their criminal activities through various social networking sites … computer hardware, software, and data are instrumentalities and evidence in the commission of this crime."

Jessica pleaded guilty to providing an abortion after 20 weeks of gestation, false reporting, and tampering with human skeletal remains. She faces up to two years in prison. Celeste was charged as an adult and pleaded guilty to removing, concealing, or abandoning a dead body, which also carries a sentence of up to two years in prison.

At the time of Celeste’s abortion, the procedure was banned after 20 weeks gestation. Gov. Jim Pillen (R) signed a bill into law in May 2023 that bans abortion at 12 weeks.

Idaho dissolves maternal death committee

Idaho is now the only state without a committee to examine maternal deaths related to pregnancy and make policy recommendations to improve outcomes.

The committee, called a Maternal Mortality Review Committee (MMRC), was made up of a family medicine physician, an OB-GYN, a midwife, a coroner, and a social worker. It lost its legal status when the Republican-controlled state legislature declined to advance legislation extending its mandate.

The legislation that established the MMRC gave members legal protection to review specific case information for maternal deaths and the authority to request records from health and law enforcement agencies.

A bill to extend the MMRC beyond its June sunset date was tabled in the state House Health and Welfare Committee this past legislative session.

“Absent the statute, or the enabling legislation, the committee can’t function in the same way,” Elke Shaw-Tulloch, with the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, told Boise State Public Radio in May.

The MMRC’s latest recommendations give a hint as to why Idaho Republicans were against the project: expanding postpartum Medicaid coverage, giving pregnant women priority for subsidized housing, increasing social services funding and support, and expanding access to the opioid overdose treatment naloxone—all traditionally associated with Democratic policies.

Furthermore, Idaho has one of the most extreme abortion bans in the country, outlaw...

Content cut off. Read original on https://old.reddit.com/r/Keep_Track/comments/14yh1da/iowa_passes_6week_abortion_ban_during_late_night/

This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/keep_track by /u/rusticgorilla on 2023-07-11 12:39:51.

Housekeeping:

• HOW TO SUPPORT: If you are in the position to support my work, I have a patreon, venmo, and a paypal set up. Just three dollars a month makes a huge difference! No pressure though, I will keep posting these pieces publicly no matter what - paywalls suck.
• NOTIFICATIONS: You can signup to receive a monthly email with links to my posts or subscribe to Keep Track’s Substack (RSS link).

The state of Louisiana asked the 5th Circuit on Thursday to require a district court to consider throwing out Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — a move designed to bring the case to the conservative Supreme Court majority.

Background

The case, Robinson v. Ardoin, was brought against Louisiana in 2022 by civil rights groups and local voters to challenge the state’s congressional redistricting plan. “Louisiana’s 2022 congressional map,” the lawsuit said, “continues the State of Louisiana’s long history of maximizing political power for white citizens by disenfranchising and discriminating against Black Louisianans.” Despite making up 31% of the state’s population, the Republican-controlled legislature created just one majority Black congressional district, representing 17% of House districts. White residents, in contrast, represent the majority in 83% of House districts but make up 56% of the population.

The 2022 congressional map dilutes Black voting strength in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”) by “packing” large numbers of Black voters into a single majority-Black congressional district, and “cracking” the State’s remaining Black voters among the five remaining districts, where they constitute an ineffective minority unable to participate equally in the electoral process.

The plaintiffs argued that the maps violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which prohibits “any voting standard, practice, or procedure that results in the denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race [or] color,” and asked the courts to require the creation of a second majority-Black district.

Chief District Judge Shelly Dick (an Obama appointee) ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that they were “substantially likely to prevail on the merits of their claims brought under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act” and ordering the state to draw a fair congressional map.

Louisiana’s Secretary of State ultimately appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2022. The six conservative justices granted the state’s request for a stay of the district court’s order, allowing the map with only one majority Black district to be used in that year’s midterm elections.

Fast forward to June 2023 when the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Allen v. Milligan that Alabama’s congressional districts likely violated Section 2 of the VRA. In that case, like in Louisiana, the Republican-controlled legislature only drew one majority Black district (out of seven congressional districts total) despite Black people making up 34% of the state’s population. Consequently, the Alabama legislature will be convening a special session to draw a new map that complies with the VRA.

In light of their decision in Milligan, the Supreme Court lifted the stay in Louisiana’s Robinson case and sent it back to the 5th Circuit “for review in the ordinary course and in advance of the 2024 congressional elections.”

Current situation

With Robinson back before the 5th Circuit, Louisiana and the coalition of civil rights organizations and voters have a chance to re-argue the case.

Louisiana revealed its strategy in a brief to the court filed last week arguing that the entirety of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act should be ruled unconstitutional on the basis of two recent Supreme Court opinions.

First, the state says that because the six conservative justices blocked race-conscious university admissions policies, race-conscious voting rights laws should also be thrown out. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in that case, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard, considering race in admissions is illegal racial discrimination. Louisiana seized on his words in its brief to the 5th Circuit:

SFFA has considerably altered the landscape of cases, such as this one, that involve state action requiring racial classifications. 2023 WL 4239254, at *12 (“Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”). Indeed, the SFFA Court made clear that as statutes requiring race-based classification achieve their intended ends, they will necessarily become obsolete. See id. at *14–21 (explaining that Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 306 (2003), “made clear that race-based admissions programs eventually had to end” and that the instant facts demonstrated that the time had come)

Louisiana goes on to cite another of Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinions — Shelby County v. Holder, in which he wrote that racial discrimination in state election laws is too inconsequential for federal intervention. As a result, the court invalidated the formula for determining whether changes to a state's voting procedure should be federally reviewed.

Louisiana:

And we have seen similarly once-permissible racial classifications be held unconstitutional when the facts justifying their existence were no more—specifically in the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”) context. See Shelby Cnty. v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529, 557 (2013) (holding part of the VRA unconstitutional because “[o]ur country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions”). Consequently, the district court should be permitted to address, in the first instance, whether the facts on the ground here similarly warrant a rejection of Section 2 of the VRA, as applied, because it is no longer necessary. See id. at 536 (“[C]urrent burdens . . . must be justified by current needs.” (quoting Nw. Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U.S. 193, 203 (2009))).

Second, the state cites Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion and Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissenting opinion in Allen v. Milligan to argue that, like affirmative action and the coverage formula, the authority to consider race in redistricting is also time-limited:

Notably, this temporal argument was acknowledged by members of the Milligan Court but, because it was not properly raised, the Court did not consider it. 143 S. Ct. at 1519 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (“Justice Thomas notes, however, that even if Congress in 1982 could constitutionally authorize race-based redistricting under §2 for some period of time, the authority to conduct race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the future. See post, at 1543–1544 (dissenting opinion). But Alabama did not raise that temporal argument in this Court, and I therefore would not consider it at this time.”). Indeed, eight Justices in Milligan appeared to conclude that the first Gingles precondition cannot be satisfied where race is the predominant factor in the creation of an illustrative comparator. See 143 S. Ct. at 1510–12; id. at 1527 (Thomas, J., dissenting). That predominance test is essential to mitigate the problem of race-based classifications identified in SFFA, and the district court should address the interplay of these decisions, as applied to this case, in the first instance on remand.

It is unclear how the 5th Circuit will rule on Louisiana’s request. However, it is the most conservative in the nation, with six Trump appointees, four G.W. Bush appointees, and two Reagan appointees among its 16 active judges.

Vox (Dec. 2022): The Fifth Circuit has, in recent months, declared an entire federal agency unconstitutional and stripped another of its authority to enforce federal laws protecting investors from fraud. It permitted Texas Republicans to effectively seize control of content moderation at social media sites like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. Less than a year ago, the Fifth Circuit forced the Navy to deploy sailors who defied an order to take the Covid vaccine, despite the Navy’s warning that...

Content cut off. Read original on https://old.reddit.com/r/Keep_Track/comments/14wnmvc/louisiana_asks_the_most_conservative_court_in_the/