Vermont

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Three Palestinian students shot and wounded in Vermont, police say

      by

      Three college students described as being of Palestinian descent were shot and wounded on Saturday evening in Burlington, Vermont, on their way to a family dinner.The head of the Palestinian mission to the UK, Husam Zomlot, identified the victims as Hisham Awartani, Tahseen Ahmed and Kinnan Abdalhamid, undergraduate students at Brown, Haverford and Trinity. Zomlot said on X – formerly known as Twitter – that each of the victims was wearing the Palestinian keffiyeh when they were attacked, though authorities have stopped short of publicly discussing a possible motive for the triple shooting.Meanwhile, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee added in a separate post on X: “We have reason to believe that the shooting was motivated by the three [victims] being Arab.“The three victims were wearing a kuffiyeh and speaking Arabic. A man shouted and harassed the victims.”According to Seven Days Vermont, local authorities have only said three people were shot near the University of Vermont campus just before 6.30pm Saturday. The victims were taken to the University of Vermont medical center for treatment.As of Sunday, police had not announced any suspects or arrests. Authorities had asked the public to avoid the area.The Council on American Islamic Relations (Cair) National is offering a $10,000 reward for any information leading to the arrest and prosecution of the perpetrator or perpetrators of the crime.Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont issued a statement calling news of the shooting, “shocking and deeply upsetting”.The families of the three victims issued a joint statement.“We call on law enforcement to conduct a thorough investigation, including treating this as a hate crime,” said the statement. “We will not be comfortable until the shooter is brought to justice.”CBS news local affiliate Channel Three confirmed all three shooting victims are of Palestinian descent but did not name them.The Ramallah Friends School issued a statement on Facebook naming the victims and describing them as graduates of the Palestinian high school.“We extend our thoughts and prayers to them and their families for a full recovery, especially considering the severity of injuries – as Hisham has been shot in the back, Tahseen in the chest, and Kinnan with minor injuries,” the post said. “While we are relieved to know that they are alive, we remain uncertain about their condition and hold them in the light.”Basil Awartani posted on X that his cousin Hisham Awartani is one of the shooting victims and alleged the attack was a hate crime. He asserted that the victims were targeted for speaking Arabic and wearing kuffiyehs.“My cousin Hisham has been shot in the back while walking with his friends in Burlington for simply wearing kuffiyehs and speaking Arabic,” Basil Awartani wrote. “Dangerous performative rhetoric from US pundits and politicians as well as constant dehumanization of Palestinians has a real life cost.”The FBI is aware of the shooting and said the agency will investigate if local investigation uncovers any possible federal violation. The White House said President Joe Biden has been briefed on the situation and will continue to monitor it as the investigation is ongoing.The allegations about the shooting’s circumstances come amid a reported rise of Islamophobia and antisemitism in the US after the Israel-Hamas war erupted in Gaza in October.The Council on American-Islamic Relations (Cair) reported receiving 1,283 requests for help and reports of bias from the beginning of October to early November, an increase of 216% compared to 2022.The Anti-Defamation League reported a nearly 400% increase in antisemitic incidents compared to 2022. And the New York police department reported a 214% in reported hate crimes against Jews in October.The Los Angeles police department was investigating a protest outside the home of American Israel Public Affairs Committee president Michael Tuchin on Thanksgiving as a possible hate crime. Authorities said demonstrators set off smoke bombs and spattered fake blood on the property.Saturday’s shooting occurred a little more than a week after a man reportedly selling Muslim goods outside a mosque in Rhode Island’s capital city, Providence, was shot and wounded.Police haven’t given any updates since the shooting about possible suspects or a potential motive, leading to a sense of unease for the local Muslim community, the Providence Journal reported.Zomlot on Saturday alluded to the killing of Wadea Al-Fayoume, 6, in Illinois in October. Authorities accused Al-Fayoume’s family’s landord of stabbing the child to death – and wounding his mother – because they were Muslims.“The hate crimes against Palestinians must stop,” Zomlot wrote on X. “Palestinians everywhere need protection.” More

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Shining a Light on Postpartum Depression

      by

      More from our inbox:How Climate Change Feeds ‘Eco-Anxiety’Domestic ViolenceTrump’s Strategy: StallMaking a Minyan to Mourn Together Travis Dove for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “A Look at Life in the Throes of Postpartum Depression” (news article, July 6):Thank you for bringing attention to postpartum depression. Unfortunately, it is estimated that up to half of women with it never get screened and identified. And fewer get effective and adequate treatment.Because so many of its symptoms, such as lack of energy and trouble concentrating, overlap with what normally occurs after delivery, it may not be suspected.But when these symptoms coexist with a predominantly depressed mood that is present all day, when there is a loss of interest and a lack of pleasure, and when the symptoms last for at least two weeks, that is not a normal consequence of childbirth. And it needs to be evaluated and treated.Without treatment, depression can last for months or years. In addition to the personal suffering, the depression can interfere with the mother’s ability to connect and interact with her baby, which can negatively affect the child’s development.Deciding between the two types of treatment mentioned in your article, psychotherapy and medication, need not always be an either/or choice. As with many other forms of depression, a combination of the two may be most effective.Monica N. StarkmanAnn Arbor, Mich.The writer is an active emerita professor of psychiatry at the University of Michigan.To the Editor:As the mom of a 6-week-old (she is asleep in my arms as I write this), I appreciate the increased coverage of postpartum depression and anxiety that I’ve noticed lately in this newspaper and other sources.Since giving birth, I’ve been screened for those conditions more times than I can count — in the hospital, at my OB-GYN’s office and at my daughter’s pediatrician visits.However, in my household, there are two moms: me (the birthing parent) and my wife. Though she may not be experiencing the same shifting hormones or bodily changes and demands as I am, my wife is certainly undergoing the radical life transformations associated with new parenthood.Despite that, she has never been screened for postpartum depression or anxiety, though she currently suffers from the latter to the point that she can hardly sleep.We should be screening all parents — birthing and non-birthing, regardless of gender or biological affiliation with the child — for postpartum depression and anxiety. And we should be including discussion about those individuals in publications such as this one to increase awareness.Andrea B. ScottAustin, TexasHow Climate Change Feeds ‘Eco-Anxiety’A search and rescue worker in Cambridge, Vt. Officials said access to some communities remained almost completely cut off.Hilary Swift for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Urgent Call in Vermont for Better Preparedness” (news article, July 13):Vermont’s catastrophic flooding, and the flooding, fires, tornadoes and severe heat currently engulfing much of the nation, are obvious byproducts of climate change. Our growing fears over these destructive events are less obvious, since they are often left out of the conversation over climate change, even with the devastation left in our communities and the loss of lives that almost always follows these tragic events.An unanticipated consequence of deadly climate change is “eco-anxiety,” the chronic fear of environmental collapse and community destruction. As therapists, we see more and more patients struggling with overwhelming feelings ranging from terror, disgust and rage to grief, sadness and despair.A study of eco-anxiety published in The Lancet showed that 46 percent of young adults in the U.S., and 56 percent globally, believe we are all doomed by climate change, especially with young people experiencing greater anxiety over their futures.Fighting climate change requires science and action. It also requires integrating climate-aware therapy into the equation. We must provide mental resilience for our minds so that we can sustain the fight to repair climate change.Barbara EasterlinLeslie DavenportSan FranciscoThe writers lead the California Institute of Integral Studies’ climate psychology certificate program.Domestic Violence Illustration by Shoshana Schultz/The New York Times; photographs by Michael Ochs Archives and Adam Gault/Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “Another Threat to Domestic Abuse Survivors,” by Kathy Hochul (Opinion guest essay, July 12):Firearms and domestic violence are a deadly mix. Every day on average three women are killed by a current or former partner. When a male abuser has access to a gun, the risk he will kill a female partner increases by 1,000 percent. Abusers also use guns to wound, threaten, intimidate and terrorize victims.Governor Hochul is right to be concerned for the safety of domestic violence survivors. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in United States v. Rahimi was dangerous and callously put millions of survivors and their children at risk. It also recklessly disposed of a law effective in reducing intimate partner homicides.Dangerous abusers and others intent on harm should not have access to firearms. The National Network to End Domestic Violence urges the U.S. Supreme Court to put survivor safety front and center and overturn the Fifth Circuit’s misguided decision. Lives are at stake.Melina MilazzoWashingtonThe writer is deputy director of public policy, National Network to End Domestic Violence.Trump’s Strategy: Stall Jordan Gale for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Trump Bid to Delay Florida Trial Poses Key Early Test for Judge” (front page, July 12):Donald Trump’s legal strategy is now clear: Delay, delay, delay until after the 2024 presidential election and do everything possible, legal or otherwise, to win that election, so that he will be able to either pardon himself or install a puppet attorney general who will dismiss all charges.It may not be constitutional for him to pardon himself, but that would ultimately likely be decided by the Supreme Court, with its six-member right-wing supermajority, half of which was appointed by him.It follows that for there to be any hope of justice being done, Mr. Trump can’t be allowed to use his presidential candidacy as an excuse to stall prosecution and can’t be allowed to regain the White House and use the power of the presidency to escape justice.Eric B. LippsStaten IslandMaking a Minyan to Mourn Together Illustration by Shoshana Schultz/The New York Times; photograph by Jeff Swensen/GettyTo the Editor:Re “By Killing 11 Jews, He Killed Something Else, Too,” by Mark Oppenheimer (Opinion guest essay, July 1):Mr. Oppenheimer writes that the massacre of 11 Jews at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh (the city where I was born and raised) not only tragically took the lives of these individuals but also has made it difficult for the synagogue to make a minyan, the quorum of 10 Jews required to recite the Mourner’s Kaddish, among other prayers.The reality is that making a minyan has been a problem for synagogues in this country long before the most recent wave of antisemitic events. As the ritual vice president for a Conservative synagogue in a heavily Jewish suburb of Chicago, I see this problem firsthand.We constantly struggle to get a full minyan at our weeknight services, potentially depriving those in mourning or observing a yahrzeit (anniversary of a death) the opportunity to recite Kaddish.The requirement of a minyan reinforces a central value of Judaism: that we do not mourn alone, but as part of a supportive community. It’s incumbent on synagogues to convey this message to their congregations and preserve this age-old tradition.Josh CharlsonDeerfield, Ill. More

    • 200 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘They can survive just fine’: Bernie Sanders says income over $1bn should be taxed at 100%

      by

      The US government should confiscate 100% of any money that Americans make above $999m, the leftwing independent senator Bernie Sanders said late last week.Sanders expressed that belief in an exchange on Friday evening with the host of Who’s Talking to Chris Wallace? on HBO Max.Wallace had asked Sanders about the general assertion in his book It’s OK to Be Angry About Capitalism that billionaires should not exist.“Are you basically saying that once you get to $999m that the government should confiscate all the rest?” Matthews asked the US senator from Vermont, who is an independent but caucuses with Democrats and has helped them attain their current slim majority in the upper congressional chamber.“Yeah,” Sanders replied. “You may disagree with me but, fine, I think people can make it on $999m. I think that they can survive just fine.”Wallace had earlier mentioned how the late Sam Walton could make the giant retail chain Walmart the largest single private employer in the US thanks to his family’s net worth of about $225bn. Sanders countered that Walmart in many cases pays starvation wages to its 1.2 million employees despite how rich the Waltons are.“Many of their workers are on Medicaid or food stamps,” Sanders said, referring to forms of government assistance for which low-income Americans can qualify. “In other words, taxpayers are subsidizing the wealthiest family in the country. Do I think that’s right? No, I don’t.”Nonetheless, Sanders said his comments on the matter weren’t a personal attack against the Waltons or other billionaires.“It is an attack upon a system,” Sanders said. “You can have a vibrant economy without [a few] people owning more wealth than the bottom half of American society” combined.He added that if he were in charge: “If you make a whole lot of money, you’re going to pay a whole lot of money.”Sanders’s remarks are unlikely to ingratiate him with proponents of the US political right who already dismiss him as a communist. But they have never been a part of his base of supporters.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe 81-year-old has held one of Vermont’s US Senate seats since 2007. He had spent the previous 16 years representing the state in the US House of Representatives, helping him become the longest-serving independent in American congressional history.Sanders, who has previously run unsuccessfully to become a Democratic presidential candidate, published It’s OK to Be Angry About Capitalism in February. In it, he notes that one-tenth of 1% of the US population owns 90% of the nation’s wealth, among other things.He also argues that “unfettered capitalism … destroys anything that gets in its way in the pursuit of profits”, including the environment, democracy and human rights.On Friday, Sanders told Wallace that he believes “people who work hard and create businesses should be rich”, but the concept of some being billionaires offended him deeply when a half-million Americans are homeless and 85 million of them cannot afford to buy health insurance. More

    • 150 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Keir Starmer Is Quietly Bending the U.K. Labour Party to His Will

      by

      Political observers from his own side say he has been “ruthless” in reshaping the party as it looks to reclaim power.LONDON — The leader of Britain’s opposition, Keir Starmer, can often seem more like the technocratic human rights lawyer he once was than the no-holds-barred politician now reshaping the Labour Party with an eye toward making it more electable.But as his former allies on the left wing of his party have discovered, appearances can be deceptive.Mr. Starmer prompted a bitter rift recently when he banned his leftist predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn, from running as a Labour lawmaker, leaving the former leader claiming democratic procedures had been trampled and warning that his supporters were “not going anywhere.”But beneath the ugly media brawl, the unceremonious purging of Mr. Corbyn was a substantive victory for Mr. Starmer, strengthening his already firm grip over the party. Three years after taking over, he has quietly but efficiently marginalized Labour’s once ascendant left-wing, enforced strict discipline over his top political team and grabbed control of the party machinery, including its selection of Labour candidates for Parliament.“So far the processes that he has put in place have been utterly ruthless, and the left underestimated him,” said John McTernan, a political strategist and onetime aide to the former prime minister, Tony Blair.The lesson for his enemies is perhaps not to mistake Mr. Starmer’s courteous and mild-mannered bearing — or absence of fanfare — for a lack of willingness to play political hardball.“Keir Starmer is not narrating what he’s doing,” Mr. McTernan added. “He’s just doing it.”Mr. Starmer banned his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn, center from running as a Labour lawmaker.Henry Nicholls/ReutersTom Baldwin, a senior adviser to another former Labour leader, Ed Miliband, agrees. “In his absolute determination to remove all obstacles to victory, Keir Starmer is more ruthless and competitive than any Labour leader I’ve ever seen,” he said.He added: “Tony Blair had a very clear view about where he wanted to go, but did he chuck any of his predecessors out of the party? No.”A spokesman for Mr. Starmer did not respond to a request for comment.Under Mr. Corbyn’s leadership, Labour’s 2017 general election campaign scored an upset by depriving the prime minister at the time, Theresa May of the Conservative Party, of her parliamentary majority, signaling her political decline. At that zenith of his political career Mr. Corbyn, often likened to Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, basked in the adulation of enthusiastic young supporters, some of whom sang his name at the Glastonbury rock festival.Two years later the bubble burst and Labour suffered its worst general-election defeat since 1935, while Mr. Corbyn’s leadership was tarnished by cases of antisemitism in his party.There followed a highly critical report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission into Labour’s handling of antisemitism complaints. In 2020, when Mr. Corbyn claimed that the scale of the problem was “dramatically overstated” by opponents, Mr. Starmer suspended him from Labour’s parliamentary group, forcing him to sit as an independent.It was at Mr. Starmer’s behest that Labour’s governing body, its National Executive Committee, completed the political purge of the former leader last month, provoking a surprisingly muted reaction from the party’s left wing that underscored its dwindling influence.Jon Lansman, a founder of Momentum, a left-wing pressure group within the Labour movement, told Times Radio that Mr. Starmer “unfortunately is behaving as if he was some kind of Putin of the Labour Party. That is not the way we do politics.”But asked if he would campaign for Mr. Corbyn were the former leader to run for election not as a Labour Party candidate but as an independent, Mr. Lansman replied: “No, I certainly wouldn’t. I want to see Keir Starmer elected as prime minister of this country, and we need a Labour government.”Keir Starmer is widely expected to become the next occupant of 10 Downing Street.Henry Nicholls/ReutersOther internal critics have kept a low profile sensing that they, too, might fall victim to the purge. After all, Mr. Corbyn was not the first left-winger to be exiled to Labour’s equivalent of Siberia. In 2020, Mr. Starmer fired a lawmaker, Rebecca Long-Bailey, from his top team after she shared on Twitter an interview with Maxine Peake in which the actress claimed that the U.S. police tactics that killed George Floyd were learned from Israeli secret services.The silence from internal critics spoke of the political transformation Mr. Starmer has achieved seemingly out of public sight.Elected to Parliament in 2015, Mr. Starmer never adhered to the hard left of the party but nonetheless served in Mr. Corbyn’s top team and campaigned to make him prime minister.When Mr. Corbyn quit as leader in 2019, Mr. Starmer straddled the internal factions, reassuring the left by arguing that Labour should not “oversteer” away from his predecessor’s agenda.Mr. Corbyn’s supporters say that is exactly what Mr. Starmer has done, while other critics argue he has offered no vision to excite voters, seeming content to capitalize on the current Conservative government’s unpopularity.But breaking with Mr. Corbyn, as part of a wider “detoxification” strategy, seems to have helped opinion poll ratings that now put Labour well ahead of the Conservatives.National voting must take place by January 2025. With Mr. Starmer in a seemingly commanding position to become the next prime minister after four successive general-election defeats, Labour lawmakers have found a new discipline, reinforcing their leader’s authority.Mr. Starmer and Rachel Reeves, who leads economic policy for the Labour Party, canvassing last month in Swindon, England.Isabel Infantes/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesFor Mr. Starmer there are some dangers in purging his predecessor. Were Mr. Corbyn to run as an independent in the constituency in north London that he has represented since 1983 (including for more than a decade when Mr. Blair led the party), he might win. Even if he lost, Mr. Corbyn could attract media attention and distract from Labour’s wider campaign.Another risk is that the party loses some of the young, enthusiastic supporters that Mr. Corbyn attracted.James Schneider, a former aide to Mr. Corbyn, described Mr. Starmer’s approach as a “barefaced political attack on the ideas and social forces that were mobilizing to redistribute wealth and power in this country, and that came quite close to taking office” in the 2017 general election.The assault on the left had, Mr. Schneider conceded, been “in a technical sense extremely effective and swift,” catching that wing of the party off guard, adding, “I don’t think anyone thought it would be quite so dramatic and quite so total as it has been.”Such is the stifling control exercised by Mr. Starmer’s allies that only one candidate from the left has so far succeeded in dozens of Labour internal selections for parliamentary candidates, Mr. Schneider said.Critics have accused the party leadership of fixing the process, weeding out candidates it dislikes with “due diligence” checks (claims it denies).But ensuring that Mr. Starmer can rely on those elected on a Labour ticket could be critical if the next general election is close, and if the party wins a small majority.Allies say Mr. Starmer’s uncompromising tactics have paid off. Mr. McTernan, the former Blair aide, described his hold over Labour as “undislodgeable,” adding that he has tight control over its lawmakers, the National Executive Committee and the shadow cabinet — Mr. Starmer’s top team.“He also has the trade unions loyally lined up behind him, so it’s hard to know what else he needs to do,” Mr. McTernan said. More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans lead charge to ban noncitizens from voting in local elections

      by

      Republicans lead charge to ban noncitizens from voting in local electionsEight states have passed laws against ballot access, even as some progressive cities are extending local voting rights Louisiana voters recently approved a constitutional amendment barring anyone who is not a US citizen from participating in elections, becoming the eighth state to push back against the growing number of progressive cities deciding to allow noncitizens to vote in local elections.Conservative donors pour ‘dark money’ into case that could upend US voting lawRead moreWhile noncitizens are prohibited from voting in federal elections and no states allow noncitizens to vote for statewide office, ambiguous language in constitutions has allowed localities to pass statutes legalizing noncitizen voting in local or school board elections. A short but expanding list of cities include two cities in Vermont, almost a dozen in Maryland, and San Francisco.Other cities are trying to join that list, including Boston and Washington DC, where the latter city’s council in October passed legislation allowing noncitizens who have lived in the city for at least 30 days to vote in local elections. New York City’s council also passed a measure in December to allow close to 900,000 green card holders and those with work authorization to vote in local elections, but a state trial court struck it down in June, finding it violated the state constitution. The ruling is currently being appealed.The potential for major cities like DC and New York to expand their electorates prompted backlash from Republican lawmakers.“This vote sends a clear message that the radical election policies of places like San Francisco, New York City and Washington, DC have no place in Louisiana,” Kyle Ardoin, the Republican secretary of state, said in a statement after the passage of the constitutional amendment, which he said will “ensure the continued integrity of Louisiana’s elections”.Louisiana law already prohibits anyone who is “not a citizen of the state” from voting, so voting rights advocates say the new amendment is an effort by Republicans in the state to limit voting based on false allegations that noncitizens are committing voter fraud by participating in elections.Louisiana’s amendment made it on to the 10 December ballot after it was passed by both chambers of the state legislature. Over 73% of Louisiana voters approved it, making Louisiana the latest in a series of states moving to explicitly write bans into their constitutions.Before 2020, just Arizona and North Dakota specifically prohibited noncitizens from voting in local and state elections, but voters in Alabama, Colorado and Florida all approved constitutional amendments in 2020 and Ohio approved one in November.Ohio’s amendment came after one town in the state, Yellow Springs, passed an initiative in 2019 to allow noncitizens to vote, giving voting rights in local elections to just a few dozen people in the small town. A few years later in 2022, Republican lawmakers proposed what would eventually become the constitutional amendment banning the practice and revoking the right from noncitizens in Yellow Springs.Fulvia Vargas-De Leon, senior counsel at LatinoJustice PRLDEF, a New York-based immigrant rights group, said the movement for ballot amendments is just one way that some lawmakers are trying to restrict voting rights.“It is a response to the expansion of the right to vote, and our concern is that since 2020, we’ve seen such attacks on the right to vote,” she said, adding that the pushback was coming because of an anti-immigrant sentiment “but also a larger effort to try to ban who has access to the ballot”.The United States allowed noncitizens to vote for much of its early history. From the founding of the country through 1926, noncitizens could vote in local, state and federal elections. But anti-immigrant sentiment led to lawmakers in most states to push for an end to the practice.“Resurgent nativism, wartime xenophobia, and corruption concerns pushed lawmakers to curtail noncitizen voting, and citizenship became a voting prerequisite in every state by 1926,” William & Mary professor Alan H Kennedy wrote in a paper published in the Journal of Policy History this year.In 1996, Congress passed a law prohibiting noncitizens from voting in federal elections, making illegal voting punishable by fines, imprisonment and deportation.But on the local level, the subject has re-emerged as a topic for debate in recent decades, as the populations of permanent noncitizen immigrants has grown in many cities.Advocates for noncitizen voting argue that documented immigrants pay taxes and contribute to their local communities and should have their voices heard when it comes to local policy.“We should have a representative democracy, where everyone who is part of the fabric of the community, who is involved, who pays taxes, should have a say in it,” said Vargas-De Leon, whose group intervened in the New York litigation and has filed the appeal.But conservative groups say that allowing noncitizens to vote dilutes the votes of citizens. Republican strategist Christopher Arps started the Missouri-based Americans for Citizen Voting to help states amend their constitutions to explicitly say that only US citizens can vote. He said that people who want to vote should “at least have some skin in the game” by completing the citizenship process.“We’ve been hearing for the past five, six years about foreign interference, Russia and other countries,” he said. “Well to me, this is a type of foreign interference in our elections.”It would also be a “bureaucratic nightmare”, he said, for states to have to maintain two separate voter rolls for federal and local elections, and could lead to illegal voting if noncitizens accidentally vote in a federal election.Though noncitizen voting still has not been signed into law in DC, Republicans in Congress have already introduced legislation to block it. One bill, introduced by the Texas senator Ted Cruz last month, would bar DC from using federal funds to facilitate noncitizen voting.“Allowing noncitizens and illegal immigrants to vote in our elections opens our country up to foreign influence, and allows those who are openly violating US law or even working for hostile foreign governments to take advantage and direct our resources against our will,” Cruz said in a statement.But Vargas-De Leon pointed to the benefits of expanding the electorate to include the country’s 12.9 million legal permanent residents and other documented immigrants.“All we’re trying to do here is ensure that everyone has a say in our government,” she said.TopicsUS newsThe fight for democracyUS politicsLaw (US)LouisianaOhioFloridaVermontfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US states vote to protect reproductive rights in rebuke to anti-abortion push

      by

      US states vote to protect reproductive rights in rebuke to anti-abortion pushVermont, Michigan and California deliver blows to Republican agenda bent on dismantling the right to choose

      US midterm election results 2022: live
      US midterm elections 2022 – latest live news updates
      Voters in multiple states passed measures to enshrine the right to abortion during Tuesday’s midterm elections, delivering a rebuke to the crackdown on reproductive freedoms taking place across the US.In Michigan, abortion rights campaigners declared victory on a ballot initiative looking to secure a constitutional right to abortion, meaning the state will now escape the imposition of a 1931 abortion ban that was on the books.JD Vance wins Ohio Senate race by wider margin than predictedRead moreThe state is the first in the US to fight off a pre-existing abortion ban with a ballot proposal, called Proposal 3, in a move that campaigners across the country see as a possible road map for other states.“Proposal 3’s passage marks an historic victory for abortion access in our state and in our country – and Michigan has paved the way for future efforts to restore the rights and protections of Roe v Wade nationwide,” Darci McConnell, the communication director for Reproductive Freedom For All, wrote in a statement, announcing the news after it was called by ABC and NBC.The news broke as other US states too saw victories for abortion rights initiatives.Vermont became the first state in America to protect abortion rights in its state constitution just before Michigan, calling their result on Tuesday after its voters resoundingly backed a ballot initiative by a huge margin. And in California, voters were on track to overwhelmingly pass a measure to enshrine into the state’s constitution the right to an abortion and contraception.“Vermont voters made history tonight,” said the Vermont for Reproductive Liberty Ballot Committee, which campaigned for the amendment, according to local news. All votes had not yet been counted at 11pm ET, but the yes campaign was leading by 77% to 22%.“Vermonters support reproductive freedom in all four corners of the state … and they believe that our reproductive decisions are ours to make without interference from politicians,” the committee said in a statement.In Vermont, the outcome was always expected, in a New England state so pro-choice that even the Republican governor backed Proposal 5. The proposal, brought by pro-choice advocates, means the constitution now determines that an “individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course”.California’s Proposition 1, meanwhile, was positioned as a direct response to the US supreme court’s decision that overturned decades of established access and thrust the country into turmoil. Voter’s decisive support for Prop 1 will further enhance the state’s reputation as a haven for reproductive care just as restrictions – and political divisions – deepen across the country.The state’s governor, Gavin Newsom – who won re-election on Tuesday with a large majority – joined in the celebrations at a Prop 1 rally.Gavin Newsom speaking now at Proposition 1 rally, which is poised to pass by a huge margin to enshrine right to abortion in California constitution: “We affirmed we are a true freedom state.”— Ashley Zavala (@ZavalaA) November 9, 2022
      “Governor Newsom made it clear that he wants California to be visible as a haven for people seeking reproductive healthcare and Proposition 1 is part of that,” said constitutional law professor Cary Franklin, who also serves as Faculty Director of the Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy at the University of California Los Angeles. “It will get media attention and people will be made more aware that California is a place they can go.”The measure had been expected to easily pass, and analysts said support for reproductive rights could draw even more women and young people to the polls, which could play positively for Democrats in California’s conservative pockets.These wins deliver more blows for Republicans who are increasingly finding that, when put to a vote, Americans frequently do not agree with a sweeping agenda to dismantle abortion rights.So far, the anti-abortion movement has relied on judges, state houses and Republican lawmakers to curtail reproductive rights.But since the supreme court dismantled the constitutional right to abortion on 24 June, pro-choice advocates are increasingly looking to ballot initiatives as a way of shoring up rights. The anti-abortion movement suffered a huge blow over the summer when Kansas – a usually reliably red state – slammed down a proposal brought by the Republicans, looking to confirm there was no right to abortion in the state constitution.In Michigan the mood was already jubilant at the yes campaign’s watch party before they called the result, with voters screaming loudly, banging on tables and whooping in support of local voters, doctors and speakers from the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood.“My name is Nicholas, and I live in Ingham county,” one campaigner took to the stage to say. Speaking about him and his girlfriend, he added: “We knocked on over 1,500 doors and walked over a hundred miles, talking to neighbors who – like the rest of us here – agree this is a fundamental right,” to screams and cheers.Nicole Wells Stallworth, executive director at Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan later added: “We are living in a time like no other. The US supreme court did something they have never done: They reversed Roe. They tried it. And as such, we needed a campaign like none other. This campaign turned out to be just that.”TopicsAbortionUS midterm elections 2022US politicsVermontRoe v WadeCalifornianewsReuse this content More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Five States Have Abortion Referendums on the Ballot

      by

      The Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade in June at first appeared like it might change Democratic fortunes in this year’s midterm elections, giving the party an energizing issue even as inflation remained high and President Biden’s approval ratings remained low.That momentum was clear in August, when voters in deep-red Kansas rejected a proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would have allowed legislators to enact abortion restrictions.But Republicans have gained an edge as voters have expressed concern about the inflation and the economy. Democrats are bracing for a red wave in the House, and control of the Senate hinges on close contests.Even so, abortion remained a hot-button topic heading into Election Day. Races for governor and legislature in several states could have implications for future abortion legislation. And in five states, abortion is directly on the ballot.Here are the states where abortion referendums will be decided on Election Day.MichiganMichigan’s Reproductive Freedom For All proposal would protect the right to make decisions about “all matters relating to pregnancy” in the state, where a 1931 law that would make abortion illegal was blocked from taking effect by a court ruling earlier this fall.The proposal would allow the state to regulate abortion after fetal viability, which is usually around 24 weeks, except in cases where abortions are medically necessary to protect the “physical or mental health” of the woman. The 1931 law does not include exceptions for rape, incest or the health of the mother, and it threatens doctors who perform the procedure with up to 15 years in prison. CaliforniaVoters will decide whether to enshrine abortion rights in the state Constitution. Separately, California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, has urged Hollywood companies to stop filming in states like Oklahoma and Georgia, where stricter abortion laws are in place, and recently signed a package of 12 bills meant to strengthen abortion rights in the state, where the procedure is permitted up to fetal viability.KentuckyKentucky voters will be asked to approve a revision to the state Constitution to make clear it does not protect the right to abortion. It is a safeguard against potential legal challenges to the state’s existing law restricting abortion, which went into effect over the summer.MontanaThe ballot initiative won’t affect typical abortion access in the state, where the procedure is permitted until viability or if necessary to prevent a serious health risk to the mother.Rather, the measure would require mandatory medical interventions to save those the state defines as “born-alive” infants — which can include fetuses diagnosed as nonviable — and establish criminal penalties for health care providers who refuse to intervene.VermontThe Reproductive Liberty Amendment, if enacted, would enshrine the right to an abortion in the state Constitution. Abortion is already legal in the state, without a time limit, and that will continue even if the amendment fails.Lauren McCarthy More