States (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      New York Court Blocks Texas From Filing Summons Against Doctor Over Abortion Pills

      by

      The showdown catapults the interstate abortion wars to a new level.A New York state court on Thursday blocked Texas from filing a legal action against a New York doctor for prescribing and sending abortion pills to a Texas woman.The unprecedented move catapults the interstate abortion wars to a new level, setting the stage for a high-stakes legal battle between states that ban abortion and states that support abortion rights.The dispute is widely expected to reach the Supreme Court, pitting Texas, which has a near-total abortion ban, against New York, which has a shield law that is intended to protect abortion providers who send medications to patients in other states.New York is one of eight states that have enacted “telemedicine abortion shield laws” after the Supreme Court overturned the national right to an abortion in 2022. The laws prevent officials from extraditing abortion providers to other states or from responding to subpoenas and other legal actions — a stark departure from typical interstate practices of cooperating in such cases.The action by the New York court is the first time that an abortion shield law has been used.This case involves Dr. Margaret Daley Carpenter of New Paltz, N.Y., who works with telemedicine abortion organizations to provide abortion pills to patients across the country. In December, the Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, sued Dr. Carpenter, who is not licensed in Texas, accusing her of sending abortion pills to a Texas woman, in violation of the state’s ban.Dr. Carpenter and her lawyers did not respond to the lawsuit and did not show up for a court hearing last month in Texas. Judge Bryan Gantt of Collin County District Court issued a default judgment, ordering Dr. Carpenter to pay a penalty of $113,000 and to stop sending abortion medication to Texas.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      West Virginia Bans 7 Artificial Food Dyes, Citing Health Concerns

      by

      At least 20 other states are considering bills restricting the use of certain food dyes and additives.In the most sweeping move of its kind, West Virginia has banned foods containing most artificial food dyes and two preservatives, citing their potential health risks.The legislation, signed into law Monday by Gov. Patrick Morrisey, will go into effect in 2028. At least 20 states are considering similar restrictions on food chemicals, but West Virginia is the first to ban virtually all artificial dyes from foods sold statewide. The new law will also prohibit products containing the dyes from being served in school meals starting this August.“Everybody realizes that we’ve got to do something about food in general,” said Adam Burkhammer, a Republican state representative who introduced the bill in February. It quickly passed both legislative houses with broad bipartisan support. Mr. Burkhammer said he hopes the law will improve the health of children in his state and spur other states to take similar actions.California has passed similar measures, though they were narrower in scope. One, passed in 2023, banned four food additives statewide. And in 2024, state lawmakers banned artificial food dyes from school meals.Jennifer Pomeranz, an associate professor of public health policy and management at New York University, said the California measures likely led state lawmakers to realize they could move faster than the Food and Drug Administration to act on food additives that carried health concerns.She added that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who was confirmed as health secretary last month and has spoken frequently of his concerns about food dyes, has also brought more attention to the issue. Earlier this month, at a meeting with executives from large food companies including PepsiCo and General Mills, Mr. Kennedy said that it was an “urgent priority” to eliminate artificial dyes from foods and drinks sold nationwide. At another meeting, he encouraged people to call Gov. Morrissey in support of the West Virginia law.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      How Trump’s Medical Research Cuts Would Hit Colleges and Hospitals in Every State

      by

      A proposal by the Trump administration to reduce the size of grants for institutions conducting medical research would have far-reaching effects, and not just for elite universities and the coastal states where many are located. Also at risk could be grants from the National Institutes of Health to numerous hospitals that conduct clinical research on […] More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Lawsuit Seeks to Block New York’s Climate Change Law Targeting Energy Companies

      by

      Emboldened by President Trump, West Virginia and other states are challenging a law that makes corporate polluters pay for past emissions.Twenty-two states, led by West Virginia, are suing to block a recently approved New York law that requires fossil fuel companies to pay billions of dollars a year for contributing to climate change.Under the law, called the Climate Change Superfund Act, the country’s biggest producers of greenhouse gas emissions between the years 2000 and 2024 must pay a combined total of $3 billion annually for the next 25 years.The collected funds will help to repair and upgrade infrastructure in New York that is damaged or threatened by extreme weather, which is becoming more common because of emissions generated by such companies. Some projects could include the restoration of coastal wetlands, improvements to storm water drainage systems, and the installation of energy-efficient cooling systems in buildings.The measure, which was signed into law in December, is slated to go into effect in 2028.At a news conference on Thursday unveiling the legal challenge, the attorney general of West Virginia, John B. McCuskey, said the legislation overreached by seeking to hold energy companies liable in New York no matter where they are based.“This lawsuit is to ensure that these misguided policies, being forced from one state onto the entire nation, will not lead America into the doldrums of an energy crisis, allowing China, India and Russia to overtake our energy independence,” Mr. McCuskey said in a statement.West Virginia, a top producer of coal, is joined in the lawsuit by 21 other states, including major oil, gas or coal producers like Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma and North Dakota. The West Virginia Coal Association and the Gas and Oil Association of West Virginia are also among the plaintiffs.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Why States Are Offering Workers at Private Companies Access to I.R.A.s

      by

      With the plans, workers are automatically enrolled and contribute through payroll deductions. The goal is to help more Americans save for retirement.Traditional pensions are increasingly rare. About half of employees at private companies don’t have access to a retirement plan. And retirees themselves say they haven’t saved enough.That is why states have decided to step in and offer retirement accounts for private-sector employees, helping workers to save more and, new research shows, perhaps even spurring companies to offer their own workplace retirement plans.Automatic individual retirement account programs, known as “auto-I.R.A.s,” typically require private employers that don’t offer workplace retirement plans like 401(k)s to register for state-run plans.Workers are automatically enrolled in I.R.A.s, often with 3 to 5 percent of their income deducted from their paychecks, but can change the amount or opt out if they prefer. The employers — typically small businesses and nonprofits — provide access to payroll deductions to ease worker contributions, but don’t oversee the plan or pay fees.Auto-I.R.A.s are now available in 10 states, including New Jersey and Delaware, which started plans this summer, and soon will be in seven more, according to the Georgetown University Center for Retirement Initiatives. At the end of October, there were more than 930,000 accounts with $1.7 billion in savings for the eight plans for which data was available, according to the Georgetown center.Workers can, of course, open an I.R.A. on their own at a bank or brokerage. But few workers do so, perhaps because of inertia or because they are intimidated about making investment choices.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 188 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Cinturón del sol, cinturón industrial, cinturón de la barbacoa: las regiones debatibles en EE. UU.

      by

      Estados Unidos es un mosaico de regiones cuyos límites pueden ser confusos y objeto de debate. Sobre todo el día de las elecciones.Cinturón industrial. Cinturón del sol. Cinturón de la Biblia. Cinturón del grano. Cinturón de la barbacoa. Circunvalación.Estados Unidos es un mosaico de regiones. Y ahora estos términos y otros, que evolucionaron a partir de una abreviatura para describir agrupaciones geográficas, están teniendo un ejercicio cuatrienal a medida que la campaña presidencial se acerca a su fin. Pero, ¿qué significan realmente?“Estados Unidos es un país increíblemente complicado”, dijo Colin Woodard, autor de American Nations, una historia de las culturas regionales de Norteamérica. “Las cosas subyacentes reales que la gente intenta describir a menudo no coinciden con las fronteras estatales”.Mientras las cadenas de televisión ponen a prueba estos términos regionales en la noche electoral, las designaciones geográficas pueden resultar increíblemente confusas para quien no esté pegado a la pizarra mágica de Steve Kornacki. Nosotros te ayudamos.Empecemos por lo básico: el código de coloresDurante décadas, los estados en los que los votantes se decantan mayoritariamente por los republicanos se han conocido como estados rojos, y los estados que se inclinan por los demócratas, como estados azules. Cuando la televisión pasó a ser a todo color, la decisión de qué color iba con qué partido era en gran medida arbitraria entre los productores y no había consenso entre las empresas de medios de comunicación. Eso cambió en las elecciones presidenciales de 2000, cuando los resultados se prolongaron durante semanas y las empresas de comunicación, entre ellas The New York Times, ansiaban coherencia.No es tan sencillo como rojo y azulLos votantes de los estados morados, más conocidos como estados de tendencia electoral incierta o estados disputados, muestran un apoyo prácticamente igual a los dos partidos mayoritarios. En la mayoría de las elecciones, estos estados determinan el resultado de la contienda presidencial. En un extremo del espectro de colores está el muro azul, un grupo de estados que históricamente han votado mayoritariamente por los demócratas en las elecciones presidenciales. Entre ellos están Nueva York, Massachusetts, Oregón y California.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      What to Know About the Electoral College

      by

      “This is a very unique and bespoke system that I think nobody would create again today,” one expert said.Voters are already casting ballots for local offices, state legislators, governors, every member of the U.S. House and one-third of the U.S. Senate as Election Day nears.They are also choosing the next president but with a twist: Americans will actually select the electors, who will, in turn, elect Kamala Harris or Donald J. Trump, and their running mates.Yes, there are really two elections: one in which voters cast their ballots, and a second in which the electoral votes are cast and counted. Or, in other words, the winner of the most votes nationally is not assured victory.This is the way it has been done for more than 200 years, and it is likely to endure, even though a majority of Americans would prefer to have the winner of the most votes nationally rise to the presidency.What is the Electoral College?The Electoral College is made up of 538 elected members, one for each U.S. senator and U.S. representative, plus three for Washington, D.C.A presidential candidate needs to win a simple majority of them (270) to win the White House. The electors meet and cast votes for president and vice president in mid-December.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Rejects Bid to Block Count of Some Pennsylvania Provisional Ballots

      by

      Republicans had sought to block the counting of provisional ballots by voters whose mail-in ballots were deemed invalid. Democrats celebrated the ruling as a win in a crucial state.The Supreme Court cleared the way on Friday for some voters in Pennsylvania whose mail-in ballots had been deemed invalid to cast provisional ballots in person, rejecting an appeal by Republicans not to count such votes.Democrats immediately celebrated the decision, which like in many such emergency petitions was unsigned and gave no reasoning, as a victory in a state crucial to each party’s presidential and Senate hopes. It could affect thousands of mail-in ballots in a contest where the latest polls show Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald J. Trump virtually tied.The ruling was one in a string of court victories for Democrats, whose voters are more likely to use mail ballots and were therefore more likely to have had their votes tossed out if Republicans had succeeded in the case.“In Pennsylvania and across the country, Trump and his allies are trying to make it harder for your vote to count, but our institutions are stronger than his shameful attacks,” the Harris campaign said in a statement after the ruling. “Today’s decision confirms that for every eligible voter, the right to vote means the right to have your vote counted.”The Republican National Committee was “disappointed” in the court’s ruling, a spokeswoman said.In a brief statement attached to the court’s order, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote that the case was “a matter of considerable importance.” But he said the justices had no way to give the Republicans what they were asking for — a statewide block on allowing these provisional ballots.Only Butler County elections officials were parties to the case, he wrote, which meant the justices could not force elections officials in other counties to block those ballots. He was joined by two other conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More