Mediaboss Marketing

Maryland Del. Nic Kipke, R-Anne Arundel, apologized to House Speaker Adrienne Jones Tuesday afternoon after he told her to sit down in the final minutes of this years General Assembly session in a harsh exchange over a provision to cannabis legislation.

A debate between Democrats and Republicans arose over HB1071, a bill that would prohibit a law enforcement officer from conducting a search on a motor vehicle based on the scent of marijuana alone. As the legislatures required midnight adjournment for the year was just a few minutes away, Jones stopped Republicans from explaining their votes, which angered Kipke.

Kipke raised his voice and pointed his finger at Jones, telling her to sit down, and let the speaker pro-tem handle the intense situation. Even though Jones gaveled him down, he quoted provisions in the House rules and continued to yell into the microphone.

I did call the speaker to apologize for the tone that I used I respect the speaker, Im very fond of her, Kipke said to Capital News Service. I did listen to my speech and I felt like I was a little disrespectful, and I didnt mean to be disrespectful. I was just upset.

Kipkes apology is a quick shift from how he talked about apologizing to Jones on Monday night, the General Assemblys mandated deadline. He initially told The Baltimore Banner that he didnt apologize for standing up for the voice of the Republicans in the chamber and was only sorry if someones feelings were hurt.

When asked how the apology went, Kipke declined to go into detail and said it was a personal conversation, but mentioned Jones was very gracious about it.

After the conversation between the delegate and speaker, Jones issued a statement saying, Delegate Kipke and I have served together for a long time, and I believe that when he called me this afternoon to apologize, it was genuine.

Some Democratic legislators found Kipkes behavior shameful. In a tweet on Tuesday morning, Jheanelle Wilkins, D-Montgomery, said Kipke was intoxicated and belligerent on the House floor, adding that he must apologize immediately and consider if his future is in the House.

I think thats ridiculousI was tired, Kipke told Capital News Service in response to Wilkinss tweet, adding that she wasnt near him to truly know if he was drinking. The only thing that I could have done differently is I could have been more respectful in my tone, which I will definitely keep in mind.

In another tweet, Wilkins said, Women in leadership especially Black women should NEVER be told to sit down. Wilkins is the chair of the Black Caucus, which also called on Kipke to publicly apologize to Jones.

Kipke wasnt alone when it came to his frustration and challenge towards the speaker. Other Republican delegates walked off the floor during the last minutes of session, protesting the speakers curtailing of their ability to explain their vote.

But what (Republicans) were standing up for, is the right to be heard and to be treated fairly, Kipke said. Were going to stand up and were going to be heard because we have an obligation to the voters that sent us there.

House Minority Leader Jason Buckel, R-Allegany, who urged the walk out among the Republican delegates, told CNS that not allowing the Republican delegates to speak or ask a question about a bill was unfair. If the rules werent going to be recognized to allow any of our members to explain their votes, theres really very little purpose of us being there, he added.

When asked if he thinks this incident will strain the relationship between House Democrats and Republicans, Buckel said that it will be resolved by the next session. Buckel also talked to Jones Tuesday morning at Gov. Wes Moores first bill-signing event, in which he expressed his respect for her and what both Democrat and Republican members can do to accomplish goals.

Speaker Jones and her staff are professionals, Buckel said. Theyre good people uniformly.

This article was originally published on CNSMaryland.org and is republished with permission.

Like Loading...

Related

More:
Republicans apologize for harsh tone that ended House session - The Southern Maryland Chronicle

Pat Heintzelman has been teaching for more than 22 years, but she isnt confident shell have a job come this summer.

Heintzelman, an untenured English instructor at a regional university in Texas, got an ominous letter along with others in her department several months ago. The letter reminded them they should have no expectation of having their contracts renewed.

Heintzelman is president of the Texas Faculty Association; she has a track record of speaking out. Now, shes scared of teaching her usual curriculum, which includes novels that discuss topics such as racism that conservatives have decried as divisive. When she testifies in front of lawmakers, she doesnt specify which institution she teaches at.

If you dont have tenure, you dont have a voice, Heintzelman said.

A bill in Texas would do away with tenure altogether, prohibiting public colleges and universities from offering it to faculty members hired after this September. The legislation -- accompanied by calls from Texas Lieutenant Gov. Dan Patrick to ban the practice -- is one of several efforts across the country seeking to chip away at professors' job protections through practices such as post-tenure reviews.

Proponents say tenure reforms will improve the student experience and allow for more freedom of expression. But academics say they will do the reverse, dampening state colleges competitive edge and chilling speech in classrooms at a time when tenure is already becoming less common.

Board shake-ups, threats to tenure: How conservatives are reshaping colleges

The concept of tenure emerged in the mid-20th century as a means of supporting academic freedom. Professors granted tenure can speak, teach and conduct research about controversial issues without putting their job at risk. Its a lifetime appointment, barring extreme circumstances criminal conduct, for example.

Even before the latest round of bills, however, tenure was already fading in prevalence. Fewer than a quarter of U.S. college faculty members were tenured in fall 2021, according to research by the American Association of University Professors, down from roughly 39% in 1987. Nearly half of faculty members at U.S. colleges and universities were employed part-time in 2021, compared with about a third in 1987.

Story continues

Women and people of color are far more likely than men and white faculty members to serve in part-time or contingent appointments.

DEI came to colleges with a bang: Now, these red states are on a mission to snuff it out.

Laws that weaken tenure would exacerbate the already grave disparities in job security, pay and scholarship priorities that exist on campus, said Marc Stein, a professor and LGBTQ+ history scholar at San Francisco State University who has studied the topic.

The average salary of a tenured professor is about $150,000 on average, compared with roughly $66,000 for an untenured instructor. Heintzelman, for example, said she makes $42,000.

Weakened tenure protections would also undermine a university's ability to attract and retain talented faculty members, said Glenn Colby, senior researcher for the American Association of University Professors.

"When you take away the protections that tenure affords then people who are considering entering academia might think twice about it," Colby said. It "makes the institution less able to fulfill its mission of providing students with access to diverse opinions, ideas and experiences."

Not just Nikole Hannah-Jones: Black women are underrepresented among tenured faculty

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis passed a law last year requiring post-tenure reviews every five years for professors at state colleges. The state's higher education governing body recently established a process for those reviews, which will assess how productive and successful faculty members are in relation to their assigned duties and allow for the termination of those who are "unsatisfactory." A bill introduced earlier this year would further allow university trustees to call for a tenure review at any time.

Now, post-tenure review policies are making their way through legislatures in other states.

In Louisiana, Republican State Sen. Stewart Cathey late last month introduced legislation that would require annual performance reviews for tenured professors and establish processes for dismissing those who get bad marks.

A bill in Ohio, meanwhile, would among other changes require annual performance evaluations for faculty members in various categories, such as teaching and research, and establish a post-tenure preview process. Student reviews would count for 50% of the teaching component, with one of the mandatory questions asking: Does the faculty member create a classroom atmosphere free of political, racial, gender and religious bias?

More: Ohio may prohibit employees at public universities, colleges from striking

According to Stein, such scrutiny is unnecessary given the lack of evidence that tenured professors contribute less to student learning and scholarship.

But it can also cause real harm to faculty and students, Stein said, citing the perception or reality that faculty work is under surveillance" and the reviews' immense workload.

In Texas, Heintzelman said the threats to tenure are already having an impact.

The bills havent even passed yet, but the chilling effect in the classroom is definitely there, she said. If you dont have tenure you live in fear your contract wont be renewed.

The climate is similar in Florida. Last week, the Tampa Bay Times reported that the interim president of New College of Florida, a public liberal arts college, has asked seven faculty members to withdraw their tenure applications.

New College of Florida: Emotional meeting ends with DeSantis-appointed board abolishing diversity office

More: Can Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis re-create Michigan's Hillsdale College in his state?

Contact Alia Wong at (202) 507-2256 or awong@usatoday.com. Follow her on Twitter at @aliaemily.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Tenure track for professors in states like Texas may disappear

Link:
Tenure was already in decline. Now some Republicans want it gone from colleges for good. - Yahoo News

WHY THIS MATTERS: New polling findslarge majorities of American voters supporting Californias new law to fight gas price gouging, with 70% of voters supporting limits on oil company profits at the pump, which includes 63% support amongst Republicans.

SACRAMENTO Last month, Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation to hold Big Oil accountable with some of the strongest transparencyand oversight measures in the country, including authorizing the state to establish a price gouging penalty on the oil industry.

According to a Morning Consult report yesterday, voters across the country want a similar law in their states, finding that at least 3 in 5 voters would back similar laws in their own states and 7 in 10 voters support limits on oil and gas company profits at the pump.

Notable stats:

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT

Morning Consult: A California Law Limiting Gas Price Gouging Is Popular With Democrats and Republicans

At least 3 in 5 voters say they would support measures similar to those in Californias recent gas price gouging law in their own states

By Julia Martinez

April 10, 2023

California fired a shot against oil and gas companies with the passage of a law that caps the amount of profit those companies can make at the pump. Seven in 10 voters support the measure, according to a new Morning Consult survey, and at least 3 in 5 voters would back similar laws in their own states.

Voters want gas price gouging laws similar to Californias in their own states

California leads the charge against price gouging at the pump

Following a year of record profits for oil and gas companies around the world and ahead of what could be another summer of high gasoline prices, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) last month signed SBX1-2 into law, which aims to stop price gouging at the pump.

Among other things, the legislation sets a maximum gross gasoline refining margin and issues a penalty for any California-based refineries that surpass that margin.

Newsoms office called the legislation the strongest state-level oversight and accountability measures on Big Oil in the nation. The industry, however, contends that measures like SBX1-2 do not increase supply or reduce prices, but instead can have the opposite effect less investment, less gasoline supply, and ultimately higher costs for Californians.

Perhaps the most crucial part of the bill is the fact that it requires oil companies to disclose their pricing information to the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission. The commission also creates a Division of Petroleum Market Oversight, tasked with the power to monitor and investigate the oil market and subpoena oil company executives.

The legislation is Californias latest shot at oil and gas companies. State regulators last year unanimously voted to phase out the sale of new gasoline-powered cars starting in 2035.

The survey was conducted March 31-April 2, 2023, among a representative sample of 1,959 registered voters, with an unweighted margin of error of +/-2 percentage points. Figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

Read more here:
ICYMI: A California Law Limiting Gas Price Gouging Is Popular With ... - Office of Governor Gavin Newsom

Illustration: Natalie Peeples/Axios

House Democrats are pressuring Biden-district Republicans to support a bill that would counter a federal judge's explosive ruling pausing the FDA's approval of a common abortion drug or face the political fallout.

Why it matters: Nearly a year after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Democrats' strategy of relentlessly hammering Republicans on abortion has continued to pay dividends.

Driving the news: Rep. Pat Ryan (D-N.Y.), whose special election victory in August was viewed as the first test of Democrats' post-Roe abortion message, told Axios that he invited all members to co-sponsor his bill reasserting the FDA's authority to approve medications, including the abortion pill mifepristone.

What they're saying: These Republicans have a choice, Ryan told Axios in an interview. "They can stand for freedom, they can sign on to the bill, or not. And it will be noted."

The other side: Molinaro, who lost to Ryan in the special election but was elected to Congress after redistricting, called the ruling "a dangerous precedent."

Between the lines: A senior staffer to another New York Republican pushed back on Ryan's comments by noting that the emails were sent out over Easter and Passover weekend, making it more difficult for offices with observant staffers to respond.

Context: U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk issued a decision last week suspending the FDAs approval of mifepristone. If the ruling takes effect Saturday, manufacturing, selling and distributing the drug in the U.S. would be illegal.

What we're watching: Top Democratic operatives are signaling that the legislation is poised to be a centerpiece of their abortion messaging in 2024.

See the rest here:
Democrats squeeze vulnerable Republicans over abortion pill ruling - Axios

WASHINGTON, DC Patients, caregivers, and practitioners will soon see fewer cures should the Biden Administration move forward with implementing its drug price-setting guidance, write House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith (MO-08), House Energy and Commerce Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-05), and U.S. Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, in a letter to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Becerra and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Brooks-LaSure.

The members note the guidance will deter product improvements for existing drugs, discourage public-private partnerships, weaken intellectual property protections and fail to provide stakeholders with adequate transparency.

From the letter:

We write to express disappointment and concern with recent implementation guidance for the drug price-setting provisions included in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA, Pub. L. 117-169). This guidance exacerbates the laws statutory flaws and compounds the profound uncertainty and risk posed by the legislations sweeping drug price controls.

The Administrations guidance clearly values government power and overreach above precedent and statute, at the expense of patients seeking potentially life-saving treatments.

We urge you to work diligently and quickly to address these and other issues as you begin implementing this far-reaching new price control program. The preliminary decisions made through this initial guidance process, if carried out without greater reflection and input from the public, will have dire consequences for American patients for decades to come.

Read the full letter hereor below:

Dear Secretary Becerra and Administrator Brooks-LaSure:

We write to express disappointment and concern with recent implementation guidance for the drug price-setting provisions included in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA, Pub. L. 117-169). This guidance exacerbates the laws statutory flaws and compounds the profound uncertainty and risk posed by the legislations sweeping drug price controls. We encourage you to reconsider the many components of the initial guidance that will otherwise stifle medical innovation and quality improvement, discourage proven public-private partnerships, undermine American intellectual property (IP) protections, and provide unacceptable conditions for public feedback. If finalized as proposed, these provisions will serve to make bad policy worse, harming patients, caregivers, and health care providers across the United States for generations to come.

The Administrations guidance clearly values government power and overreach above precedent and statute, at the expense of patients seeking potentially life-saving treatments. In an apparent effort to subject as many medications as possible to the IRAs price-setting program, the guidance uses an unusual definition of qualifying single-source drugs that aggregates entirely different medications according to their active ingredient or moiety, thereby discouraging research into future drug indications. This approach will blunt incentives for meaningful product improvements, in addition to punishing products that treat more than one disease.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) misguided drug definition will chill efforts to mitigate side effects, improve adherence, bolster quality, and identify new uses and patient populations that might benefit from a given product. As outlined by Professor Erika Lietzan in a 2018 study, Development of new uses for already approved drugs, in particular, can make profound contributions to the public health.Another analysis, released that same year, details a lengthy list of examples along these lines, such as a failed attempt to a cancer drug repurposed decades later to become the first breakthrough in AIDS therapy.By reducing complex drugs and biologics to their active ingredients and collapsing new drug applications into a single product for price-setting purposes, the definition included in CMS guidance will decrease the likelihood of these types of groundbreaking developments moving forward. In light of this risk, we urge CMS to adopt a more conventional definition with a credible basis in the statute.

Even more alarmingly, this guidance appears to serve as a backdoor mechanism for achieving partisan policy goals, to the detriment of Americans health care. Specifically, the guidance treats federal financial support at any stage of drug discovery or development as grounds for further price manipulation by the Secretary under the program, resulting in a de facto expansion of so-called march-in authority, as referenced, but never imposed, under the Bayh-Dole Act. This effort comes despite consistent rejections, including by the Biden Administration, of attempts to rely on federal funding for a drug as grounds to impose price controls.In fact, the Bayh-Dole Acts bipartisan authors repeatedly affirmed that their framework aimed to incentivize public-private partnerships and accelerate access to meaningful medical innovations, rather than to discourage such collaborations or to punish innovators and research centers through pricing restrictions. The price-setting programs treatment of federal support risks undercutting private-sector interest in partnering with the government, further harming American patients.

Anti-innovation policymaking pervades the agencys initial guidance. Drugs with longer remaining patent terms or exclusivities, for instance, will see a downward adjustment in their Secretary-mandated prices, inverting the IP incentive structure that has driven most major inventions and breakthroughs since our nations founding. Research and development costs, meanwhile, would receive insufficient consideration during the price-setting process, with a narrow definition that ignores the complexities of drug development. In this way, CMS perpetuates a troubling pattern of mission creep, whereby the agency bypasses Congress and other federal departments to pursue goals outside of its jurisdiction.

In addition to these and other substantive policy concerns with the Administrations drug price-setting program, we also urge CMS to incorporate meaningful transparency and accountability into every stage of the new initiatives implementation. Already, we find the opportunity for public comment and its unduly brief response period leaving patients, caregivers, and other stakeholders inadequate time and opportunity to review and consider the vast new government rules and regulations at stake. CMS should provide longer comment periods and should not attempt to shield any portions of its regulatory proposals from public feedback or engagement. Furthermore, in implementing the price-setting program, the agency has an obligation to extend offers for additional meetings to hear feedback and input directly from those subjected to or otherwise affected by the process. For any number of conditions, from Alzheimers disease and cancer to the 95 percent of rare diseases that currently lack an approved treatment option, CMS must also ensure that patients can play a proactive and consistent role in the decision-making process.

Additionally, we have major concerns with the guidances severe limitations on basic due process protections, including for small businesses. The proposed policies would prohibit the disclosure of materials sent by the agency during the price-setting process, and manufacturers would ultimately need to destroy any such information, effectively undercutting the potential for the predictability, precedent, and stability that govern virtually all adjudication processes. When coupled with the laws broad restrictions on judicial and administrative review, these proposals stifle any opportunity for accountability, program integrity, or recourse for aggrieved parties.

We urge you to work diligently and quickly to address these and other issues as you begin implementing this far-reaching new price control program. The preliminary decisions made through this initial guidance process, if carried out without greater reflection and input from the public, will have dire consequences for American patients for decades to come.

If you have questions about this request, please contact Conor Sheehey of the Senate Finance Committee staff, Alec Aramanda of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Patrick Dumas of the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Sincerely,

Read the rest here:
Congressional Republicans Call for Reconsideration of ... - Ways and Means Republicans