Mediaboss Marketing

Democrats and reproductive rights activists pressed the Biden administration on Tuesday to take more aggressive action to stop a Texas law that prohibits abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, even as administration officials and legal experts acknowledged it would be difficult to curtail the law in the coming months.

House Democrats, following similar calls over the weekend from a leading liberal legal scholar, pushed Attorney General Merrick B. Garland to use the Justice Departments powers to prosecute Texas residents now empowered under the law to sue women seeking abortions.

We urge you to take legal action up to and including the criminal prosecution of would-be vigilantes attempting to use the private right of action established by that blatantly unconstitutional law, the House Judiciary Committee chairman, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, and 22 other House Democrats wrote in a letter to Mr. Garland.

The Justice Department referred reporters seeking a response to the letter back to a statement by Mr. Garland a day earlier, in which he said that law enforcement officials were urgently exploring options to challenge the Texas law in order to protect the constitutional rights of women and other persons, including access to an abortion.

The demands by House Democrats were the latest push from liberals after the Supreme Court decided last week to allow the Texas law to take effect. Instead of using the law enforcement powers of the state, the law gives private citizens the right to sue anyone who helps a woman obtain an abortion. Under the law, those plaintiffs can win $10,000 and recover their legal fees if they win.

The law has emerged as the starkest example of how former President Donald J. Trump tipped the balance of the Supreme Court to the right by appointing three conservative justices.

Now, President Bidens base is pushing for him to do more. But because of the novel way the Texas law was written, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court and the slow pace of the judicial system, Biden administration officials have few options to protect abortion rights in Texas in the short-term.

The Department of Justice has few legal avenues likely to succeed, and the federal courts are not likely to be receptive to their challenges, said Elizabeth W. Sepper, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin.

Mr. Biden signaled his outrage last week by calling the law almost un-American and ordered the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services to find ways to ensure women can safely seek abortions in Texas, a task that administration officials say will take some time and creativity.

Mr. Garland said in his statement on Monday that the federal government would beef up its enforcement of a 1994 law designed to protect women from harassment and intimidation as they sought abortions.

The department will provide support from federal law enforcement when an abortion clinic or reproductive health center is under attack, Mr. Garland said. We have reached out to U.S. Attorneys Offices and F.B.I. field offices in Texas and across the country to discuss our enforcement authorities.

In the face of the calls by Democrats for the administration to do more, the White House and the Justice Department declined to say on Tuesday what else they might have in store.

The White House Counsels Office, the Justice Department, the Department of Health and Human Services are continuing to look for ways to expand womens access to health care, the White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, told reporters.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, also called on Democrats to investigate whether the Texas law was part of a national campaign being waged by conservative groups and funded by unnamed donors that was intended to push certain legislation, like voter suppression laws.

Citizens, not the state, will enforce the law. The law effectively deputizes ordinary citizens including those from outside Texas allowing them to sue clinics and others who violate the law. It awards them at least $10,000 per illegal abortion if they are successful.

We have done a rotten job at exposing that, Mr. Whitehouse said. We have been negligent, not just weak, in letting this transpire and not doing the work to tell the American public about it.

The idea of using the prosecutorial powers of the Justice Department to take on the Texas law gained traction this weekend through an opinion essay in The Washington Post by the constitutional scholar Laurence H. Tribe. The best way for Democrats to protect abortion rights is for Congress to pass a law, Mr. Tribe argued. But he said that Democrats likely do not have enough votes in Congress and warned that the Supreme Court could overturn such a law anyway.

Instead, Mr. Tribe said, Mr. Garland has the power to take legal action against those who seek to deprive someone of their constitutional rights.

Mr. Tribe said that the law Mr. Garland needed to use had been passed in the years after the Civil War to stop members of the Ku Klux Klan from lynching Black people and trying to stop them from voting.

The attorney general should announce, as swiftly as possible, that he will use federal law to the extent possible to deter and prevent bounty hunters from employing the Texas law, Mr. Tribe wrote. If Texas wants to empower private vigilantes to intimidate abortion providers from serving women, why not make bounty hunters think twice before engaging in that intimidation?

But Brian Fallon, the executive director of the progressive group Demand Justice, which advocates expanding the number of seats on the Supreme Court, called on Democrats to focus on that larger target, saying it could affect myriad policy issues.

Thats a problem that is much bigger and harder to solve, and a lot of people continue to avoid it all together, Mr. Fallon said. The current reality is there will be further innovations beyond the Texas statute that we can expect in the months and years to come.

Read the rest here:
Democrats Press Biden to Take On Texas Abortion Law - The New York Times

The battle over the Democrats' proposed $3.5 trillion infrastructure plan is just beginning, but the House Ways and Means Committee has already started to outline measures that will be included in the package.

One measure that's in the panel's markup of the Build Back Better Act: 12 weeks of universal paid family and medical leave. It's a measure intended to guarantee workers with time off to raise newborn children or deal with a medical emergency.

"Later this week, the Ways and Means Committee will put an end to the idea that only some workers are worthy of 'perks' like paid leave, child care, and assistance in saving for retirement," Chairman Richard E. Neal, a Massachusetts representative, said in a statement.

The benefits would kick in 2023 on a sliding scale with lower-earning workers experiencing the largest bulk of their pay replaced. It would be paid out monthly.

Democrats are hashing out the $3.5 trillion spending plan, which they will approve over what's to be likely unanimous GOP opposition using a partisan process known as reconciliation.

Neal had introduced a plan to establish those benefits in April. Under Neal's plan, the typical worker would see two-thirds of wages replaced, with benefits based on workers' monthly average earnings.

"This is our historic opportunity to support working families and ensure our economy is stronger, more inclusive, and more resilient for generations to come," Neal said of the Build Back Better Act.

According to Pew Research, the US is a notable outlier when it comes to paid parental leave: Across 41 countries, America is the only that does not mandate paid leave. The US similarly lags behind peers in paid sick leave, with no federal sick leave mandates.

In Washington state, paid leave was implemented in early 2020 right before the COVID-19 pandemic swept across the country.

"We've been able to see that it has been helpful as a part of our economic recovery here in Washington state," Washington state treasurer Mike Pellicciotti told Insider in April.

An analysis from think tank New America notes that paid leave may lead to higher earnings for women, healthier children, and stronger economic growth. For instance, an analysis from the University of Massachusetts Amherst found that paid leave would increase Americans' incomes by $28.5 billion every year.

In California, which instituted paid family leave in 2002, research from the Bay Area Council found that the policy increased employment for new mothers and that worker labor costs were actually lower when those workers took leave.

"This would bring us closer to where many of our peer countries are," Vicki Shabo, a paid leave expert at think tank New America, previously told Insider.

Shabo said that it would "establish, for the first time, both a policy and cultural standard that says you should be able to both be a worker and a caregiver, and you should be able to provide and receive care without jeopardizing your income or your job."

Go here to read the rest:
12 weeks of paid family leave in Democrat $3.5 trillion social spending plan - Business Insider

A running back who scores five touchdowns in one game is quite a feat in football at any level.

But for that back to score five touchdowns on only 10 carries is staggering, especially when you consider he scored once on every two carries.

Thats what sophomore DaShawn Chairs did on Friday to lead Elkins to a 49-14 victory over Greenland in a nonconference game. Chairs averaged 23 yards per carry while accounting for 201 of Elkins 361 yards rushing. Chairs also caught 4 passes for 38 yards and his coach credited him for doing a good job of blocking in the backfield.

For his effort, Chairs is the Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Player of the Week for Northwest Arkansas. Randon Ray of Booneville is the Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Player of the Week for the River Valley.

Chairs eye-popping performance didnt come against a losing program that struggles to put players on the field. Greenland finished 9-3 last season, including 6-1 in the 3A-1 Conference. Yet, Chairs had his way with the Greenland defenders.

Its not shocking to see him have a game like that, first-year Elkins coach Zach Watson said. Hes going to have more games like that in his career because of how hard DaShawn works. He is extremely focused and he takes coaching and soaks up all that knowledge hes being taught. Hes a special athlete and a great kid.

Both Chairs and Watson commended the Elks offensive line for creating running room against a Greenland defense that features J.J. Hollingsworth, who is committed to Arkansas.

They were phenomenal, Chairs said. Without them, I wouldnt have had the success I had.

Offensive line play is also an area of strength at Booneville, where senior quarterback Randon Ray led the Bearcats to a 42-12 victory over Ozark. Ray rushed for 133 yards and two touchdowns on 13 carries. He also completed a 25-yard pass to Rayce Blansett for a score.

Ray followed a 2-yard touchdown run with a 61-yard score to help Booneville to a 22-0 lead at halftime over the Hillbillies.

We knew he would pop one eventually, Booneville coach Doc Crowley said of Ray, who rushed for over 1,700 yards and 25 touchdowns last season. We just kept waiting for it. He just got past everyone and did a good job finishing the run off.

See the article here:
NWA Democrat-Gazette Players of the Week: Chairs, Ray excel in running game - Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

There are close to 40 million people in poverty in the US. The Democrats' $3.5 trillion social welfare bill aims to change that, with one proposal aiming to take on the impoverished elderly and disabled communities in the country.

The Urban Institute, a left-leaning nonprofit, released a report on Monday that found Democrats' proposal to boost the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program would lift 3.3 million people out of poverty and cut the poverty rate of SSI recipients by more than half.

To put that spending in perspective, US GDP in 2020 was $20.9 trillion, while the Treasury Department estimated the tax gap the difference between what's owed to the Internal Revenue Service and what's collected was $600 billion in 2019. If left unaddressed, Treasury says that gap could rise to $7 trillion over the next decade. There's money to pay for lifting people out of poverty, in other words, and the question is whether a fraction of $3.5 trillion is worth it.

The SSI program provides monthly checks to those who have a disability or are over the age of 65 and are low-income, but according to the report, the maximum federal SSI benefit is $794 per month $279 below the federal poverty level. In June, Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown reintroduced the Supplemental Security Income Restoration Act to assist the nearly 8 million Americans relying on those monthly checks, who fell victim to "decades of shameful federal neglect," Brown said in a statement.

According to the Urban Institute, these four measures in Brown's bill would significantly reduce poverty:

"The gains from these policy changes would be highly targeted to a population experiencing serious economic hardship, including children and adults who are blind or have severe disabilities that prevent them from working and people over age 65," the report said.

The Democrats' $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill includes other measures to address poverty, like giving families with children monthly checks through an extended child tax credit. But the size of the bill has some more moderate Democrats concerned, and given that fully funding Brown's bill would require about $510 billion in new spending, according to the Social Security Administration, its inclusion won't be easy.

Insider reported last week that West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a moderate Democrat, called on his colleagues to put a "pause" on the bill given its price tag, which could imperil the passage of many proposals, such as an SSI boost, universal pre-K, and free community college.

But, as Brown wrote in a letter to the Social Security Administration, raising asset limits would cost just $8 billion, showing potential for some of the measures in his bill to be included in the spending package if the whole proposal doesn't make the cut.

"The promise of Social Security is to ensure that no one in America should live in poverty least of all our nation's seniors and people with disabilities," Brown said in a statement, adding that "Congress must prioritize these long-overdue reforms as part of upcoming recovery legislation."

Excerpt from:
Report: 3.3 million to be lifted out of poverty with Democratic plan - Business Insider

Just two days after the U.S. ended its 20-year war in Afghanistan, more than a dozen Democrats with strong ties to the military establishment defied President Joe Biden and voted to add nearly $24 billion to the defense budget for fiscal year 2022.

On Wednesday,14 Democrats joined 28 Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee to adopt an amendment from Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., to the fiscal year 2022 defense authorization bill that would boost Bidens $715 billion spending proposal to $738.9 billion. The move follows the Senate Armed Services Committees vote to similarly raise the top line to more than $740 billion in its July markup of the bill.

The 14 House Democrats to support the defense spending were Reps. Jim Langevinof Rhode Island; Joe Courtneyof Connecticut; Jared Goldenof Maine; Elaine Luriaof Virginia;Mikie Sherrillof New Jersey; Stephanie Murphyof Florida; Anthony Brownof Maryland; Filemon Velaof Texas; Seth Moultonof Massachusetts; Salud Carbajalof California; Elissa Slotkinof Michigan; Kai Kaheleof Hawaii; Marc Veaseyof Texas; and Steven Horsfordof Nevada.

The decision by these lawmakers to approve the higher budget is not necessarily shocking in a political environmentin which the militarys leaders demand an annual budget growth of 3 to 5 percent above inflation. Bidens $715 billion proposal was a 1.5 percent nonadjusted increase above this years spending level.

One congressional staffer, who was not permitted to speak on the record, said in an email, many Dems, especially when serving [on the House Armed Services Committee] are reluctant to look soft on defense by opposing increases to the defense budget, so in some ways its surprising the majority of Dems still voted against the topline increase. (Seventeen Democrats voted against Rogerss amendment, not enough to prevent its inclusion in the bill.)

Many ofthe Democrats who voted for the $24 billion increase have close ties to the defense establishment. Their districts are home to job-promoting manufacturing sites and military bases, and much of the extra funding will go directly to projects at those locations. Many of the Democrats have also received generous campaign donations from contractors. In fact, Federal Election Commission data shows that in the first six months of this year, the 14 Democrats collectively received at least $135,000 from PACs representing the countrys top 10 defense vendors: Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, L3Harris, Huntington Ingalls Industries, Leidos, Honeywell, and Booz Allen Hamilton.

A closer look reveals potentially strong incentives for those Democrats to support an increase in defense spending:

Meanwhile, some of the 14 Democrats who defied Biden to vote for greater defense spending have also tried to blow up their partys efforts to achieve the presidents domestic policy goalsmost notably, Medicare expansion, paid family leave, an extension of the child tax credit, and billions of dollars for clean energy and other climate initiatives. Golden and Vela joined New Jersey Democrat Josh Gottheimer last month to insist that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., hold an immediate vote on a $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure bill rather than wait to finish Democrats flagship $3.5 trillion reconciliation package. Murphy later joined that call, airing concerns about the size of the reconciliation bill. Their demands were ultimately unsuccessful.

Despite so many members of Congress voting to add money to the defense budgets, 17 Democrats still opposed Rogerss amendment, including committee chair Adam Smith of Washington, who received $32,000 in donations from the PACs of the top 10 defense contractors in the first half of this year the most of any Democrat on the panel.

Despite disagreeing with the increase, Smith and most of the others still voted to approve the overarching defense legislation and advance it to the floor anyway. (In fact, the 15 Democrats who voted against the higher budget but nevertheless passed the bill collectively received a few thousand dollars more in donations from the top 10 military contractors than the 14 who supported Rogerss amendment.) Only California Reps. Sara Jacobs and Ro Khanna who got no money from the vendors stood their ground and voted against the bills passage.

[A]fter twenty years of war in Afghanistan, twenty years of our servicemembers and their families answering the call, trillions of dollars in funding from the American people, I cant support another misguided effort to overflow the Pentagons budget beyond what our military leaders are even requesting, Jacobs said in a press release.

For Khanna, Wednesday was the first time he voted against moving the annual defense bill out of committee in five years; he argued that the $24 billion would be better spent on helping veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder, resettling Afghan allies and refugees, or vaccinating people against Covid-19.

More:
Democrats Who Joined Republicans to Increase Military Budget Have Strong Defense Ties - The Intercept