dontmeantobepoliticalbut - Tumblr blog

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 8 days

Text

Shortly after wrapping up an inaugural legislative session in 2019 that included hiking the state’s minimum wage, legalizing cannabis and passing a historic $45 billion statewide construction program supported by expanded gambling and a host of increased taxes and fees, Gov. J.B. Pritzker sought to reassure a group of Chicago business leaders that he wasn’t just another tax-and-spend liberal.

Addressing the Executives’ Club of Chicago, Pritzker, a billionaire heir to the Hyatt Hotels fortune and a prominent tech investor, said he would pursue a “rational, pragmatic, progressive agenda” that ultimately would pay dividends for the state budget and Illinois’ economy.

“I’m a businessman. I’m a progressive. I’m a believer in growing the economy and lifting up people’s wages,” Pritzker said at the time.

Now in his second term and preparing to play host to this summer’s Democratic National Convention in Chicago, while also eyeing his own future White House run, Pritzker’s identity as a self-described “pragmatic progressive” is being put to the test. The state faces its most challenging budget outlook since the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the governor continues to grapple with controversies over his handling of criminal justice issues and leaders on both sides of the political divide say Pritzker’s approach sometimes falls short of fully addressing the state’s biggest problems.

The latest assessment of Pritzker’s strategy will undoubtedly play out in Springfield in the coming weeks.

With March primaries come and gone, work is underway in earnest on approving a state spending plan for the coming budget year before the General Assembly’s scheduled May 24 adjournment. The proposal Pritzker laid out in February attempted to build on past progressive successes — such as last year’s expansion of state-funded preschool programs — without overpromising and potentially jeopardizing the state’s hard-won credit upgrades, a core accomplishment the governor guards jealously.

It’s a balancing act that’s key to Pritzker’s political persona as he builds his national profile, and one that will hinge on the governor’s ability to satisfy Democratic lawmakers who want more money for their legislative priorities while not resorting to the kinds of budgetary gimmicks that created the state’s long-running fiscal instability.

“Obviously the governor and his administration carry forward sort of a number of elements of the core progressive banner in terms of policy and program, and that’s a part of an identity,” said Joe Ferguson, president of the Civic Federation, a nonpartisan budget watchdog. “What is not usually coupled with that identity is fiscal responsibility. … This sort of fiscal responsibility is a kind of kryptonite against the narrative that would usually come from conservatives.”

‘ISN’T ROOM FOR OTHER SPENDING’

While Pritzker promotes the “pragmatic progressive” agenda publicly, he also pushes it privately. In a February text to state Rep. Jehan Gordon-Booth of Peoria, the top budget negotiator for the House Democrats, the governor noted that “almost all of the few new things” he was introducing in his budget plan were at “no cost (or very low cost).”

“There is a bunch of stuff focused on the Black caucus, including addressing maternal mortality,” Pritzker wrote to Gordon-Booth in the message, obtained through an open-records request. “But there really isn’t room for other spending this year.”

Indeed, Pritzker’s plan both dabbles in progressive priorities — a child tax credit and a sales tax measure that will skim some funds away from big retailers — while also keeping an annual increase in school funding to the minimum amount required by law and steering clear of more structural tax changes pushed by progressives.

A few points the governor made in his proposal seemed tailor-made for bipartisan appeal: a $12 million child tax credit for low- and moderate-income families and the elimination of the state’s 1% sales tax on groceries.

While also popular with Republicans, elimination of the grocery tax has progressive appeal because Pritzker has framed it as an effort to abolish a regressive tax that hits those on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder the hardest. It’s also a tax cut that is easier on the state’s bottom line in a tight budget year because revenue from the tax flows not into the state’s coffers but to local governments.

The day after Pritzker’s budget address in February, state Sen. Donald DeWitte, a St. Charles Republican, said he was “thrilled” Pritzker proposed scrapping the grocery tax, but he said the governor should also be devising a way to ensure local governments don’t pass the burden of the lost revenue onto residents. While it’s possible Pritzker could be trying to appease the GOP, the proposal doesn’t go far enough, DeWitte said.

“Any opportunity to take stress off of Illinois families is a good thing,” said DeWitte, a former mayor of St. Charles who also serves as one of the Senate GOP’s budget negotiators. “But there are always ramifications that have to be dealt with, and so far, I don’t think the administration has been willing to deal with the ramifications of simply removing that tax without considering the other side of that revenue equation, which is the hit that will go to local governments.”

The Civic Federation still is evaluating the governor’s budget proposal, including the idea of eliminating the grocery tax, but Ferguson said it’s important to look at that idea in the full context of all the state funds that flow to local governments.

“You have to do the math on what additionally has been sent to the local level with what is essentially being taken away with the grocery tax and see what it amounts to,” Ferguson said. “It amounts to a far less dire situation than the localities appear to be projecting.”

Another idea with the potential to attract Republican support is the child tax credit. But both DeWitte and some progressives find themselves in the odd position of agreeing with each other in supporting the idea but also thinking it could be more ambitious.

“The governor has allocated $12 million for this, and that just doesn’t get you very far,” said state Rep. Will Guzzardi, a Chicago Democrat who co-chairs the House Progressive Caucus.

Democratic state Sen. Mike Simmons of Chicago has introduced a more robust tax credit than the one pitched by Pritzker; it would cover families with children up to age 17, rather than age 3.

Negotiations for the credit, as well as the rest of the budget, are ongoing.

“It was a win that the governor put this in his budget. It allows us to have this discussion at another level,” Simmons said.

TIGHT FISCAL REINS

Several of the governor’s belt-tightening measures — from increasing school funding by the bare minimum to cutting back on state-funded health care for immigrants who are in the country without legal permission — have drawn scrutiny from his political left.

While Pritzker speaks frequently about the importance of education funding and brags about boosting funding for elementary and high schools by more than $1.4 billion since taking office, the reality is that he’s only kept up with the minimum target of increasing state funding by $350 million per year.

Advocates long have warned that those increases are not enough to meet the state’s goals of adequately funding public schools under a state aid formula signed into law in 2017 by his predecessor, Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner.

Failing to go above the minimum increase has been a long-running source of frustration for Rep. Will Davis, a Democrat from south suburban Homewood who was one of the sponsors of the 2017 school funding overhaul and chairs the House Appropriations Committee that oversees K-12 funding.

“We tried to put a trajectory out there to try to get to full funding. And the reality, I don’t think we’ll ever actually get to that,” said Davis, who for years has pushed for at least a $500 million increase annually. “But we have to make bigger strides to at least show that we’re trying to get to what we would call full funding.”

Although Davis notes the education funding formula was crafted when Rauner, not Pritzker, was in office, the Democratic lawmaker said that doesn’t alter his overall message to Pritzker.

“Governor, why not work with us? Let’s make sure that we find the resources so that we can ramp up the funding in a different way,” Davis said a few days after Pritzker pitched his budget.

This year, Pritzker and state lawmakers will face added pressure to boost school funding from the politically progressive Chicago Teachers Union, which has signaled it will be looking to Springfield for more money for Chicago Public Schools as it negotiates a new contract with a City Hall run by its strongest ally, Mayor Brandon Johnson.

Tensions between Pritzker’s progressive ideals and his pragmatic approach also have arisen over state-funded health insurance for older Illinois residents who are in the country without legal permission.

The debate over how to deal with ballooning costs in the program delayed passage of the state budget last year, a dispute between Democratic factions — including Black and Latino lawmakers and moderates and progressives — that was only resolved when Pritzker agreed to a deal that gave his administration the power to rein in the program’s costs.

His moves to close enrollment for younger participants, begin charging co-pays and, more recently, to stop offering the program to green card holders who are in a five-year waiting period for federal Medicaid benefits, have drawn the ire of immigrant rights and health care advocates and some progressive lawmakers.

Last month, for example, Rep. Norma Hernández, a Democrat from Melrose Park elected in 2022 with the backing of progressive stalwart U.S. Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García, criticized the latest move as a “short-term cost-saving measure, not a long-term” solution.

In his proposal, Pritzker suggested spending on the program from the state’s general fund be reduced to $440 million, which is $110 million less than what was committed this fiscal year. But the administration is also proposing spending nearly $200 million more on the program from other funding sources, with much of that money coming from a federal match to emergency services funding.

The maneuvers have created some dissonance between Pritzker’s actions and political rhetoric. In a news release touting the expansion of eligibility to those ages 42 to 54 in 2022, he declared: “From day one of my administration, equity has been — and will always be — our north star. Everyone, regardless of documentation status, deserves access to holistic health care coverage.”

‘GROW THE PIE’

In the longer term, some progressives are looking for additional moves that would bring in more revenue from the richest Illinoisans and large corporations, Guzzardi said.

A tax change for retailers was one example that made it into the proposed budget, Guzzardi said. Pritzker proposed capping the money retailers can keep from sales taxes, essentially resulting in higher taxes for those businesses and more revenue for the state.

Beyond that, progressives have other ideas “about how we could grow the pie,” Guzzardi said.

“The governor’s introduced budgets don’t include those ideas, that’s true. But working within the framework of the dollars that we have, I think the governor has done a really strategic job of investing those dollars in our shared progressive priorities,” he said.

Since Pritzker’s boldest progressive proposal to change the state’s tax structure — a state constitutional amendment to create a graduated-rate income tax — was resoundingly defeated at the ballot box in 2020, thanks in large part to efforts by the state’s business community, the governor has focused on more arcane ways of boosting state tax revenue.

Aside from the retailer sales tax change for next year, an idea that’s been proposed and rejected previously, Pritzker is also suggesting limiting an inflation-based increase in the personal income tax exemption, essentially increasing taxes on individuals by $93 million.

PRISONER REVIEW BOARD TUMULT

The state budget isn’t the only arena in which Pritzker at times has had to triangulate his progressive policy positions with pressures from the political center and the right.

Recent tumult at the state Prisoner Review Board brought the spotlight back on the Pritzker-controlled institution that decides which state prisoners are paroled.

The makeup of the Prisoner Review Board has changed noticeably during Pritzker’s time in office — early on being labeled by Republicans as too liberal and later being criticized by some prisoners’ rights and criminal justice reform advocates for taking too hard of a line and preventing older inmates from getting the paroles they sought, moves conservatives applauded.

But in March the review board became a focus yet again when parolee Crosetti Brand was charged with stabbing 11-year-old Jayden Perkins to death and seriously injuring his mother, with whom Brand used to be in a relationship.

Released on parole in October for a separate crime, Brand was back in state custody in February after he allegedly tried to break into the residence where Jayden and his mother lived. But a three-member review board panel decided to release Brand after determining the panel didn’t have enough evidence from Jayden’s mother’s allegations to keep him behind bars.

Days after the attack made headlines, the board’s chairman, Donald Shelton, and another member resigned.

In announcing one of the resignations, Pritzker said it was clear “that evidence in this case was not given the careful consideration that victims of domestic violence deserve” and suggested reforms could be made to the way the board functions.

For Pritzker, the resignations should be “a feather in his cap,” showing that he’s willing to admit there was a grave mistake within an agency that falls under his purview, said Christopher Mooney, an emeritus professor of political science at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

But Mooney also said the board’s actions in the Brand case could entice Republicans or any other detractors to politicize Jayden’s death and use it against Pritzker if he tries to run for president.

It’s been done before, Mooney said, referring most notably to the 1988 presidential election when Republican George H.W. Bush used the early release of Willie Horton, a Massachusetts murderer who went on to commit other crimes, to paint Democrat Michael Dukakis as soft on crime.

Already, Senate Republicans have used Jayden’s death against the governor.

Illinois Sen. Jason Plummer, a Republican from Edwardsville who sits on the Executive Appointments Committee, blamed Pritzker in two lengthy social media threads about the board’s shortcomings, criticisms he echoed at a news conference and in an appearance on Fox News.

Although Pritzker called for additional training for review board members on how to handle cases where domestic violence is involved, the Senate Republicans are pushing for broader changes.

Their proposal includes requiring that appointees to the board have 20 years of experience in the criminal justice system as a prosecutor, criminal defense attorney, judge, probation officer or public defender. The GOP plan also would require victims be immediately notified of a prisoner’s release under certain circumstances and increase transparency requirements for the board.

While Senate Republicans were previously successful in 2022, when crime was a key campaign issue both statewide and nationally, in pressuring Democratic colleagues to oppose a couple of Pritzker’s appointments to the board, it’s unclear whether the GOP’s superminority will be successful again.

But Mooney and other observers have questioned how effective the Republicans will be.

“As it stands right now, it doesn’t sound like it’s going to go very far,” Mooney said the day after the board’s resignations were announced. “No. 1, because Pritzker’s all over it.”

3 notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 8 days

Text

The Supreme Court on Monday said Idaho can enforce a law banning gender transition care for minors, stepping into the debate over an issue that has divided lower courts.

The court did so over the objections of the three liberal justices.

It’s the first case about restrictions on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender people under age 18 that the court has acted on. But it does not get to the underlying legal questions of the ban itself, an issue that has divided lower federal courts and is part of a wave of conservative legislation and litigation aimed at transgender Americans.

Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson, writing for herself and Justice Sonya Sotomayor, criticized the majority for granting Idaho’s request through its “emergency” route, rather than letting it proceed through the regular channels.

“This Court is not compelled to rise and respond every time an applicant rushes to us with an alleged emergency, and it is especially important for us to refrain from doing so in novel, highly charged, and unsettled circumstances,” Jackson wrote.

But Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, said the district court went further than it should have when it blocked the state from enforcing any aspect of the law while it’s being litigated. That decision threatened to suspend the law indefinitely because it can take years to reach final judgment, Gorsuch wrote.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote his own defense of the majority’s order in a concurrence joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Chief Justice John Roberts did not make his position public.

The court could also decide soon whether it will review such bans in Tennessee and Kentucky. That election-year decision would come as transgender issues have become an increasingly potent political issue.

Passed last year, Idaho’s law is being challenged by the families of two transgender teenagers.

After lower courts temporarily blocked enforcement, Idaho asked the Supreme Court to let it go into effect with an exception carved out for the challengers.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the two Idaho families, said that option won't protect the teenagers as medical providers won't want to risk triggering a law that could put them behind bars for a decade. Also, the teens would have to give up their anonymity.

AN 'AWFUL RESULT FOR TRANSGENDER YOUTH'

The ACLU called the Supreme Court's decision an "awful result for transgender youth and their families across the state."

"Today's ruling allows the state to shut down the care that thousands of families rely on while sowing further confusion and disruption," the group said in a statement.

Praising the court's decision, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador said the law ensures minors will not be subjected to life-altering drugs and procedures.

"Denying the basic truth that boys and girls are biologically different hurts our kids," he said in a statement.

Filed as an emergency request, Idaho’s appeal to the high court is a prelude to the larger pending issue: Whether the justices will uphold such bans, which have proliferated in recent years.

KENTUCKY, TENNESSEE TRANSGENDER CASES MAY COME NEXT

Families of transgender children have asked the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling by the Cincinnati-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit allowing Kentucky and Tennessee to ban gender-affirming medical care for minors.

The Justice Department has weighed in on the side of the families, telling the court that its input is “urgently needed” to definitively resolve whether the bans are discriminatory.

“These laws, and the conflicting court decisions about their validity, are creating profound uncertainty for transgender adolescents and their families around the nation,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said in a filing.

The court could announce as early as this month if they will hear the appeals.

Combined with other state actions to restrict the bathrooms transgender students can use and what sports teams they can join, the laws are expected to be a major issue in this year’s elections.

TRUMP SAYS HE WILL PUSH TO BAN GENDER-AFFIRMING CARE FOR MINORS

Former President Donald Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee, has said he will press Congress to pass a law banning gender-affirming care for minors and will cut federal funding for schools pushing “transgender insanity” if he returns to the White House.

President Joe Biden has boasted about steps he’s taken to strengthen the rights of “transgender and all LGBTQI+ Americans.”

The issue has gained prominence with startling speed, despite the tiny fraction of Americans who are transgender.

Since 2022, the number of states taking steps to limit access to gender-affirming care for minors has grown from four to 23, according to the nonpartisan health research organization KFF. Restrictions were fully in effect in 17 states as of January.

That’s despite the fact that most major medical groups support youth access to gender-affirming care.

The American Medical Association has called the state bans a “dangerous intrusion of government into the practice of medicine and the criminalization of health care decision-making.”

“Gender-affirming care is medically necessary, evidence-based care that improves the physical and mental health of transgender and gender-diverse people,” Dr. Michael Suk, a member of the AMA board, said when the group reinforced its opposition to state bans in 2021.

DEPRESSION, ANXIETY AND SELF-HARM

One of the transgender teenage girls challenging Idaho’s law suffered from depression, anxiety and self-harm before starting gender-affirming medical care, according to filings. The mental health of the other teen likewise deteriorated as puberty began.

Their parents have told the courts they’re terrified about the impact on their daughters’ health and lives if they can’t continue treatment.

Labrador, Idaho's attorney general, argued the law is needed to protect “vulnerable children” from what he called “risky and dangerous medical procedures.”

“Idaho should be able to protect children from experimental medical procedures that cause irreversible and life-long harms,” Labrador wrote in his appeal to the Supreme Court.

Originally scheduled to go into effect in January, Idaho's law was temporarily blocked by a district court judge in Idaho while it’s being litigated. The San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld that decision in January.

Despite the litigation swirling around transgender minors, the Supreme Court has largely been silent on the issue. In April, the high court sided with a 12-year-old transgender girl who was challenging a West Virginia ban on transgender athletes joining girls sports teams, temporarily blocking the state from enforcing the prohibition. The ruling came on the court's emergency docket and did not resolve the underlying questions in the case.

In January, the Supreme Court declined to decide whether schools can bar transgender students from using a bathroom that reflects their gender identity, leaving in place a lower court ruling that allowed a transgender middle school boy in Indiana to use the boys' bathroom.

9 notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 12 days

Text

On Monday evening, Tennessee passed a bill allowing parents with “religious or moral beliefs” that being LGBTQ+ is wrong to adopt LGBTQ+ children. This bill could expose these children to harmful practices such as conversion therapy or familial rejection of their gender identity or sexuality. If signed into law, it could also come into conflict with federal rules that require safe placements for LGBTQ youth. The bill now goes to Governor Bill Lee’s desk, amid calls from leading LGBTQ+ organizations for a veto.

Senate Bill 1738, which passed on a party-line vote of 73-20, states that prospective foster parents cannot be required to “affirm, accept, or support” any policy regarding sexual orientation or gender identity if it conflicts with their “religious moral belief.” Furthermore, the bill mandates that non-affirming foster parents have access to LGBTQ+ children for fostering or adoption. It asserts that beliefs “regarding sexual orientation or gender identity… do not create a presumption that any particular placement is contrary to the best interest of the child.”

See the relevant provisions here:

Under this bill, Tennessee would be prohibited from deeming parents unfit for adoption if they reject transgender youth, believing such identities to be sinful. Similarly, the state would be required to allow parents who are religiously or morally opposed to homosexuality to adopt gay children. If a parent believes that conversion therapy through their church can “cure” LGBTQ+ identification, this belief cannot be considered contrary to the best interest of an LGBTQ+ child. The bill risks exposing every LGBTQ+ child in the state to potential religious abuse, conversion therapy, and family rejection.

This could be particularly harmful given the high overrepresentation of LGBTQ+ youth in the foster care system. For example, studies indicate that 30% of youth in the foster care system identify as LGBTQ+, and 5% as transgender. Many of these youth have faced rejection or abuse from their families of origin. They are also more likely to have a history of being subjected to conversion therapy. Placement with new families that subject them to the same harmful practices could have disastrous outcomes. LGBTQ+ youth who are subjected to conversion therapy are more than 2.5 times as likely to report multiple suicide attempts in the previous year.

#us politics #news #truthout #erin in the morning #2024 #adoption #homophobia #equality #gov. bill lee #Senate Bill 1738 #foster parents #lgbtqia+ rights #lgbtqia+#tennessee #Tennessee Foster and Adoptive Parent Protection Act

8 notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 12 days

Text

Uganda's highest court upheld a law criminalizing same-sex relationships earlier this week, using an anti-abortion ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court as precedent.

Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Act 2023 (AHA23) punishes individuals who engage in same-sex sexual relations with prison sentences of up to 20 years, making certain instances punishable by death. The nation's highest court rejected a petition to overturn the law on Wednesday, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson decision in their ruling.

“In coming to its decision, the Constitutional Court considered ... the recent developments in the human rights jurisprudence including the decision of the US Supreme Court in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization ... where the Court considered the nation’s history and traditions, as well as the dictates of democracy and rule of law, to over-rule the broader right to individual autonomy," the justices wrote.

Dobbs v. Jackson overturned the previous Supreme Court ruling, Roe v. Wade, which protected the right to have an abortion. Conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion at the time that the court should also revisit and overrule decisions that prevent state restrictions on contraception, marriage equality, sodomy and other private consensual sex acts, calling the rulings "demonstrably erroneous."

The Alabama state Supreme Court also cited the Dobbs decision in its February ruling that declared frozen embryos as people, shuttering fertility clinics and halting in vitro fertilization (IVF) throughout the state.

Advocates have long warned that the Dobbs decision can be used reverse to other personal liberties, such as marriage equality, contraception, and gender-affirming care. GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis told The Advocate that "any time any court votes to restrict freedoms and limit the fundamental human rights of its citizens, it puts all people, in that court's jurisdiction and globally, in harm's way."

"Extremists on the U.S. Supreme Court have bluntly stated that the Dobbs decision opens the door to reconsider bedrock court rulings including deeply personal private behavior, access to contraception, and the right to marry who we love," she said. "This abhorrent decision has been utilized to justify banning medically-necessary health care for transgender people, to ban IVF for all prospective parents, and now to uphold one of the world's harshest anti-LGBTQ laws."

"The United States' biggest export should not be discrimination and hate. The U.S. should lead the world in ways to expand freedom, justice and safety for all," Ellis said.

Wisconsin Rep. Mark Pocan, an out gay Democrat who serves as Chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, previously challenged U.S. conservative groups over their connections to AHA23. He said in a statement to The Advocate that "for Uganda’s constitutional court to have been, even in part, inspired by the Dobbs decision in their refusal to strike down Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act earlier this week is incredibly troubling."

"The mention and misapplication of Dobbs by the Ugandan Court was no accident — there are U.S. organizations that celebrated the Dobbs decision who are also championing anti-LGBTQI+ legislation abroad," Pocan said. “This is just the latest in a long line of anti-equality extremists’ attempts to further limit the rights and autonomy of marginalized communities around the world.”

10 notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 12 days

Text

Today, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed the Tennessee Disability and Aging Act, legislation that merges Tennessee’s Department of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (DIDD) and Commission on Aging and Disability (TCAD), creating a new Department of Disability and Aging (DDA). The bill received unanimous, bipartisan legislative support and was backed by numerous stakeholders.

“When I became governor, I made a commitment to shrink the size of government, ensuring we efficiently and effectively serve all Tennesseans,” said Gov. Lee. “Creating a new Department of Disability and Aging is one example of our work to deliver on that promise, enabling better coordination and stronger advocacy.”

Adults 65 years and older are the fastest-growing demographic in Tennessee. With a rapidly increasing aging population, the state must ensure it has the infrastructure in place to serve the needs of older adults.

TCAD is Tennessee’s federally designated “state unit on aging,” currently overseeing Older Americans Act programs and providing leadership relative to aging issues throughout state government. Tennessee is one of two states that did not previously house its “state unit on aging” within a cabinet-level agency.

Additionally, there are many similarities in the supports and services DIDD and TCAD provide to enhance the quality of life and independence of the populations they serve. Unifying these two agencies will provide for better coordination on areas of shared priorities.

“The consolidation of these government agencies will enhance coordination and advocacy for all Tennesseans to live and age with as much independence and dignity as possible. I appreciate Governor Lee for his commitment to ensuring our government operates efficiently while also providing better services to our citizens.” - Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson, R-Franklin

“Tennessee is a model for the nation when it comes to making government work more cooperatively and efficiently for our citizens. Unifying these agencies will enable better coordination and stronger advocacy helping all Tennesseans live and age with as much independence as possible.” - House Majority Leader William Lamberth, R-Portland

“The merging of the Department of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities with the Tennessee Commission on Aging and Disability is an advantageous step in ensuring all Tennesseans can live and age with independence. I was pleased to sponsor this legislation so both individuals with disabilities and our seniors can be represented by a Commissioner and Department that totally focuses on issues and services important to them. I am confident the newly formed Department of Disability and Aging will offer exceptional service and provide a voice for these valued citizens.” - Senator Becky Massey, R-Knoxville

“People with disabilities and older adults should have the opportunity to age in place while having independence, health, and a high quality of life. I’m excited to work with our partners in both communities to ensure the Department of Disability and Aging is doing all it can to support people to live the lives they envision for themselves.” - Commissioner Brad Turner, Department of Disability and Aging

“We are witnessing a significant milestone with the creation of a new cabinet level department merging the state Department of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and the Commission on Aging and Disabilities. This is an important step forward for the aging community for today, tomorrow and generations to come. Community advocates representing the 129,000 Tennesseans living with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias in addition to the over 360,000 family caregivers celebrating the actions taken here today.” -Janice Wade Whitehead, Tennessee Commission on Aging & Disability, President & CEO of Alzheimer’s Tennessee

#wbbj tv #us politics #news #tennessee #2024 #gov. Bill Lee #Tennessee Disability and Aging Act #Tennessee Department of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities #Tennessee Commission on Aging and Disability #Tennessee Department of Disability and Aging #Older Americans Act #sen. Jack Johnson #rep. William Lamberth #sen. Becky Massey #Brad Turner #Janice Wade Whitehead

0 notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 14 days

Text

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) signed a law on Monday that adds crucial protections for LGBTQ+ couples using fertility treatments to build a family.

The Michigan Family Protection Act includes a series of provisions to protect families of all kinds. Most notably for the LGBTQ+ community, it changes “outdated state law to treat LGBTQ+ families equally and eliminate the need for them to go through a costly and invasive process to get documentation confirming their parental status,” as a press release from the governor’s office explains, adding that “Even if they move to a state that does not respect these basic rights, these bills help ensure they cannot be denied their relationship to their child.”

The law also repeals a law that made Michigan the only state in the country to criminalize surrogacy contracts; increases protections for surrogates, parents, and children; ensures equal legal treatment of children born through surrogacy and assisted reproduction; and streamlines the process for families to establish legal connections to their children.

“The Michigan Family Protection Act takes commonsense, long-overdue action to repeal Michigan’s ban on surrogacy, protect families formed by IVF, and ensure LGBTQ+ parents are treated equally,” Gov. Whitmer said in a statement. “Your family’s decisions should be up to you, and my legislative partners and I will keep fighting like hell to protect reproductive freedom in Michigan and make our state the best place to start, raise, and grow your family.”

Stephanie Jones, founder of the Michigan Fertility Alliance, called the legislation “an incredible victory for all Michigan families formed through assisted reproduction, including IVF and surrogacy, and for LGBTQ+ families.”

The press release also acknowledged the attacks on reproductive rights taking place across the country, most notably the 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade and the 2024 Alabama Supreme Court’s declaration that embryos created through IVF have the same legal rights as children.

“As other states seek to restrict IVF, ban abortion, and make it harder to start a family, Michigan is supporting women and protecting reproductive freedoms for everyone,” the release stated.

One fierce advocate, Tammy Myers, has been fighting for the decriminalization of surrogacy in the state for the past four years. She told 7 Action News, “The tipping point, I think, is seeing that rights are being taken across the nation and we all need to fight for reproductive freedom.”

Polly Crozier, director of family advocacy at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), added in a statement, “Michigan has shown us what strengthening families should look like in 2024: making it more possible for people to fulfill their dreams of building a family and more accessible for all families, including LGBTQ+ families, to obtain the safety and stability that comes with legal parentage.”

“Amid efforts to restrict Americans’ reproductive freedom and roll back protections for LGBTQ+ people and their families, the Michigan Family Protection Act is an inspiring example for other states where gaps in parentage laws leave families vulnerable.”

47 notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 14 days

Text

Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen has notified the state and national Democratic parties that the scheduled date of the Democratic National Convention is a few days after the deadline for the party to put its nominees for president and vice president on the ballot for the general election in November.

The Republican National Convention came after the same deadline in 2020, but the Legislature passed a bill to allow ballot access. President Joe Biden’s campaign released a statement Tuesday night in response to Allen’s letter, saying the deadline would not keep the president off the ballot.

“Joe Biden will be on the ballot in all 50 states,” the campaign said. “State officials have the ability to grant provisional ballot access certification prior to the conclusion of presidential nominating conventions. In 2020 alone, states like Alabama, Illinois, Montana, and Washington all allowed provisional certification for Democratic and Republican nominees.”

Allen, who is a Republican, said state law requires parties to provide a certification of nomination for president and vice president no later than Aug. 15.

“It has recently come to my attention that the Democratic National Convention is currently scheduled to convene on August 19, 2024, which is after the State of Alabama’s statutory deadline for political parties to provide a certificate of nomination for President and Vice President,” Allen wrote in a letter to Randy Kelley, Chair of the Alabama Democratic Party. “If this Office has not received a valid certificate of nomination from the Democratic Party following its convention by the statutory deadline, I will be unable to certify the names of the Democratic Party’s candidates for President and Vice President for ballot preparation for the 2024 general election.”

Allen’s office also sent a copy of the letter to Jaime R. Harrison, Chair of the Democratic National Committee.

The 82-day deadline has been in Alabama’s election law since 1975, according to the Allen’s office.

The Democrats are expected to nominate Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for a rematch with the presumed Republican nominee, Donald Trump.

Four years ago, when Republicans held their convention Aug. 24-27, the Legislature passed a bill to make a one-time change in the deadlines and accommodate the GOP.

Alabama code section 17-14-31(b) says parties must certify their candidates “no later than the 82nd day preceding the day fixed for the election.” With this year’s election on Nov. 5, that makes Aug. 15 the 82nd preceding day, Allen said in the letter.

Allen said the secretary of state’s office has published the certification deadline on its website since June 2023.

Allen said, “If those certificates are not in my office on time, there will be no certification and no appearance on the Alabama general election ballot in accordance with sections 17-13-22 and 17-14-31(a) of the Code of Alabama. With this letter, we are providing ample notification to the leadership of the Democratic Party at the state and national level that the burden of providing those certifications by the statutorily set deadline is a requirement that they must meet.”

The Republican Party is scheduled to hold its national convention July 15-18, well ahead of the Alabama deadline.

Here is a link to the letter from Allen to the Democratic Party.

#us politics #news #al #alabama #republicans #conservatives #gop #biden administration #2024 #2024 elections #Wes Allen #Democratic National Convention #Republican National Convention #Jaime R. Harrison #Randy Kelley

5 notes · View notes