Home Blog Page 28

Virginia Congressional Delegation *DEMOCRATS* Blast Trump Administration’s Attacks on CDC Programs that Address America’s Maternal Health Crisis

By
lowkell
-
0

Good stuff from Virginia’s Congressional delegation – but note that it’s ONLY the Democratic members, NOT any Republicans, so calling it the “Virginia Delegation” is both inaccurate and misleading. Not sure why Democrats do crap like this…but as usual they’re excellent at policy, not so great at framing, communications, politics, etc.

Virginia Delegation Blasts Trump Administration’s Attacks on CDC Programs that Address America’s Maternal Health Crisis

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Tim Kaine, a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, and Mark R. Warner (both D-VA) and U.S. Representatives Bobby Scott (D-VA-03), Gerry Connolly (D-VA-11), Don Beyer (D-VA-08), Jennifer McClellan (D-VA-04), Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA-10), and Eugene Vindman (D-VA-07) wrote to Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. expressing their grave concerns about President Donald Trump’s efforts to undermine the mission of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which have resulted in the dismantling of CDC programs aimed at addressing America’s maternal health crisis. In the letter, the members urge the Trump Administration to protect these vital programs and to strengthen the CDC’s public health efforts.

In 2022, the United States maternal mortality rate was 22.3 deaths per 100,000 live births. In Virginia, it was 32.7 deaths per 100,000 live births. According to the CDC, more than 80 percent of pregnancy-related deaths are preventable.

“The agency has historically played a vital role in promoting quality maternal health care and improving birth outcomes through surveillance, evidence-based awareness campaigns, and federal-state partnerships. Collecting and maintaining data on maternal morbidity and mortality is key to improving this care and targeting interventions,’” the members wrote. “Yet the Trump Administration has terminated or placed on leave senior scientists and staff with deep institutional knowledge, imposed nearly $3 billion in spending cuts, and demanded a complete overhaul and reorganization of the agency’s programming.”

“These actions have resulted in an abrupt halting of programs critical to maternal health which will set back the progress we have made to protect America’s moms and babies,” the members continued. “…Since the announced [Reductions in Force] (RIF), centers like the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion and the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities have been gutted, with most or all staff terminated and most of their maternal health activities stopped or significantly scaled back – putting moms and babies at risk.”

“Although the Administration previously stated that the RIF and subsequent restructuring at HHS would be aimed toward administrative roles and would increase efficiency, it is clear that the Administration’s actions are already harming America’s moms and babies,” the members wrote. “Under your leadership, these indiscriminate terminations and spending cuts have destabilized the CDC and limited the capability of the agency to provide critical, quality maternal health guidance and surveillance to Americans building families… We urge you to protect these vital programs and to support the strengthening of public health efforts at the CDC, especially for America’s moms and babies.”

In light of HHS’ harmful actions, the members demanded the Secretary:

  1. Provide an official number of terminations across the CDC, including a breakdown by center. Such information should also specify the job title of each employee and a description of the programs they contributed to, including maternal health programming.
  2. Provide an updated organizational chart that outlines programs run by each center at the CDC, including which programs will be terminated or shifted to another center as a result of the RIF and reorganization.
  3. Provide a list of programs previously run out of the CDC that will be transferred to a new agency or under a new authority and provide the rationale for such a move, including the relevant experience and expertise that the new agency or authority has to run such a program, including as it specifically pertains to the CDC’s maternal and child health programs.
  4. Provide a list of all maternal health programs across HHS, indicating which programs have been cut and which programs are duplicative and have therefore been combined.
  5. Explain how the administration will ensure continued collection of high-quality data for programs that are being shifted to a new agency or authority while protecting data security—given the CDC has unique data authority and infrastructure to protect sensitive information, ensuring that reported data is not identifiable. Other agencies under HHS do not have the same infrastructure, which the CDC has spent years developing.

Full text of the letter can be found here and below.

Dear Secretary Kennedy:

We write to express our concern regarding recent efforts to undermine the mission of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC is the premier public health agency in the country, leading the charge in protecting the health of nearly 350 million Americans through critical public health research, data collection, and evidence-based initiatives to address and prevent infectious and chronic diseases. Yet on March 27, 2025, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced massive staffing cuts to align with President Trump’s executive order, “Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Workforce Optimization Initiative.” These cuts – made through Reductions in Force (RIF) at agencies across HHS – include reducing the CDC workforce by 2,400 employees, or 18 percent of its total employment. President Trump’s efforts to undermine the mission of the CDC have resulted in the dismantling of vital CDC programs, including those aimed at addressing America’s maternal mortality crisis.

Ensuring moms have access to quality health care, including prenatal and postpartum services, is a critical component to supporting moms and addressing pregnancy-related deaths. In 2022, the national maternal mortality rate was 22.3 deaths per 100,000 live births. In Virginia, it was 32.7 deaths per 100,00 live births. According to the CDC, more than 80 percent of pregnancy-related deaths are preventable. The agency has historically played a vital role in promoting quality maternal health care and improving birth outcomes through surveillance, evidence-based awareness campaigns, and federal-state partnerships. Collecting and maintaining data on maternal morbidity and mortality is key to improving this care and targeting interventions. Yet the Trump Administration has terminated or placed on leave senior scientists and staff with deep institutional knowledge, imposed nearly $3 billion in spending cuts, and demanded a complete overhaul and reorganization of the agency’s programming.[5] These actions have resulted in an abrupt halting of programs critical to maternal health which will set back the progress we have made to protect America’s moms and babies.

As directed by Congress, the CDC is statutorily required to carry out multiple activities to address maternal health. Since the announced RIF, centers like the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion and the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities have been gutted, with most or all staff terminated and most of their maternal health activities stopped or significantly scaled back – putting moms and babies at risk. This undermining of CDC programs harms public health agencies across the Commonwealth that utilize CDC data and funding to support local initiatives to increase access to care and reduce maternal mortality.

  • As required by statute, the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring Systems (PRAMS) is a surveillance system designed to reduce infant morbidity and mortality through education and support for moms. Running continuously since 1987, PRAMS is a partnership between the federal government and state and local public health agencies. PRAMS is the only public health survey system that provides state-specific, population-based data from women about their pregnancy and the months after birth. This unique data system is critical for informing efforts to reduce infant and maternal morbidity and mortality through interventions before, during, and shortly after pregnancy. This multi-decade-long program is on an indefinite pause, hurting states, moms, and babies. In Virginia, despite receiving a notice of award for the fifth year of their PRAMS grant cycle, public health officials have not been able to move forward with regular grant activities and may be forced to shut down operations at the end of their grant cycle should additional funding not become available.
  • As also required by statute, the CDC monitors pregnancy success rates for Assisted Reproductive Technologies, including in-vitro fertilization (IVF), at clinics across the nation. This program helps ensure families are able to make an informed decision regarding their choice to start or build their family. Yet recent executive actions have resulted in the termination of CDC staff who ran this program, impeding the ability of the CDC to fulfill its congressional mandates and harming American families. Virginia has a long-standing history of supporting access to IVF: the first person born in the U.S. via IVF was born in Virginia over 40 years ago.

The CDC also coordinates across agencies to administer programs that support the safety and surveillance of maternal health and birth outcomes at a state and local level. The CDC provides valuable resources that enable state and local officials to conduct targeted outreach to improve maternal health outcomes.

  • In coordination with the Health Resources and Services Administration, the CDC administers the Maternal and Child Health Epidemiology Program (MCHEP). Through MCHEP, the CDC places senior epidemiologists in state, local, and Tribal public health agencies to support projects to improve maternal health outcomes. These highly qualified and experienced epidemiologists often serve in public health agencies that, without the help of the CDC, would not otherwise be able to support such a position. Historically, 26 states have benefitted from the MCHEP, yet because of actions by the Trump Administration, seven of the current 10 epidemiologists have been placed on leave. The critical work of MCHEP cannot continue without these epidemiologists and any disruption in programs will lead to devastating consequences.
  • In coordination with HHS’s Office of Women’s Health, the CDC has historically been a leader in supporting state surveillance on stillbirth incidence. The PRAMS Study of Associated Risks of Stillbirths (SOARS) survey was developed through a partnership between the CDC and the Utah Department of Health. This survey gathered essential data for monitoring stillbirth and other relevant factors while also raising awareness on the prevalence of the issue and combatting the stigma around stillbirth. Prior to the Administration’s recent actions, the CDC intended to expand this work and begin implementation of task force recommendations to address stillbirth. The future of this work is in jeopardy due to the Administration’s actions. 
  • In coordination with state and local public health agencies, the CDC has historically supported a coordinated response to public health emergencies that could have an impact on pregnant and postpartum women. For example, during the 2016 Zika virus outbreak, Virginia public health officials utilized PRAMS data to target communications and surveillance for pregnant women, as they were recognized as a highly vulnerable population, and report to the CDC’s U.S. Zika Pregnancy Registry for future monitoring and follow-up of birth outcomes. The recent reduction in staffing levels will undoubtedly impede the CDC’s ability to coordinate a swift response to future public health emergencies that could impact moms and babies.

Although the Administration previously stated that the RIF and subsequent restructuring at HHS would be aimed toward administrative roles and would increase efficiency, it is clear that the Administration’s actions are already harming America’s moms and babies. Under your leadership, these indiscriminate terminations and spending cuts have destabilized the CDC and limited the capability of the agency to provide critical, quality maternal health guidance and surveillance to Americans building families. In light of your harmful actions, please respond to the following questions by May 23, 2025:

  1. Provide an official number of terminations across the CDC, including a breakdown by center. Such information should also specify the job title of each employee and a description of the programs they contributed to, including maternal health programming.
  2. Provide an updated organizational chart that outlines programs run by each center at the CDC, including which programs will be terminated or shifted to another center as a result of the RIF and reorganization.
  3. Provide a list of programs previously run out of the CDC that will be transferred to a new agency or under a new authority and provide the rationale for such a move, including the relevant experience and expertise that the new agency or authority has to run such a program, including as it specifically pertains to the CDC’s maternal and child health programs.
  4. HHS has justified the RIF and subsequent reorganization by stating that “18% of notices were at duplicative programs, primarily maternal health (and HIV) programs”. Provide a list of all maternal health programs across HHS, indicating which programs have been cut and which programs are duplicative and have therefore been combined.
  5. The CDC has unique data authority and infrastructure to protect sensitive information, ensuring that reported data is not identifiable. Other agencies under HHS do not have the same infrastructure, which the CDC has spent years developing. For programs that are being shifted to a new agency or authority, how will the administration ensure the continued collection of high-quality data while protecting data security?

A healthy nation starts and ends with healthy moms and babies. Recent administrative actions have disrupted maternal health care and will only contribute to the maternal mortality crisis in Virginia and our country. We urge you to protect these vital programs and to support the strengthening of public health efforts at the CDC, especially for America’s moms and babies.

Sincerely,

###

All Virginia Republican Members of Congress (Wittman, Kiggans, McGuire, Cline, Griffith) Vote to Rename the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America”

By
lowkell
-
0

So obviously, the Trump administration and Republican Congress are doing MUCH worse things than this:

“The House has passed a Republican-led bill that would rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, moving a step closer to codifying President Donald Trump’s push to rename the body of water…Sponsored by Trump ally Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and backed by House GOP leadership, the bill would require federal agencies to update all maps and documents with the name Gulf of America.”

So yeah, this is bad, but in the grand scheme of things, it’s more stupid and crazy than anything. But it DOES illustrate how much of a cult of personality the Republican Party has become under their Dear Leader, Donald Trump. So today, they’re renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America.” And tomorrow? It will be …whatever Dear Leader says, no matter how stupid, ignorant, crazy, ridiculous, absurd, harmful, etc. it might be. I mean, why not rename New Mexico while we’re at it, to New America or whatever? Moronic, right? And yet, I bet the vast majority of Republicans would fall right in line, no matter how insane Trump’s latest whim happened to be. Invade Greenland or Canada? Sure why not, House Republicans will say! Let Trump run for a third term, ignore court rulings, etc? Again – sure, let’s do it, say House Republicans!

Anyway, in this case, only ONE Republican member of Congress – Don Bacon of Nebraska – voted no to rename the Gulf of Mexico, while ALL other Republicans (including all from Virginia) voted yes. So the next time you have a chance to vote in VA01, VA02, VA05, etc., make sure you do NOT vote for Rob Wittman, Jen Kiggans, John McGuire, etc. Because their pathetic votes to call the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America” are just the tip of the (melting) iceberg, as they vote in lockstep with Trump (or simply allow him to get away with whatever he wants to do) to trash the federal government, destroy our democracy, run the most corrupt administration by FAR in American history, etc.

This is HILARIOUS and 100% spot-on by Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA10)!

Thursday News: Youngkin’s Buddy Kari Lake Turns VOA Into Far-Right-Propaganda Network; “Trump picks conspiracy theorist with no medical license” for Surgeon General; “GOP Plans To Cut Medicaid Would Kick Millions Off Health Insurance”; “Salacious Saga…revealed a stunning lack of political juice from Mr. Youngkin”

By
lowkell
-
0

by Lowell

Here are a few international, national and Virginia news headlines, political and otherwise, for Thursday, May 8.

DCCC on House GOP’s Proposed Massive Cuts to Medicaid: “No more bullshit letters or cable news appearances from fake moderates like Rob Wittman and Jen Kiggans.”

By
lowkell
-
7

Exactly right by the DCCC. By the way, if you’re a journalist and you’re still referring to right wingers like Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA01) and Jen Kiggans (R-VA02) as “moderates,” you really need to NOT be a “journalist” (whether with or without air quotes) anymore – because you totally suck.

Nonpartisan CBO Confirms: Rob Wittman and Jen Kiggans’ Plan Will Slash Medicaid And Kick People Off Their Insurance

Today, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office confirmed that proposed Republican cuts to Medicaid would rip millions of working Americans off their health insurance, all to fund trillions in tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy.

According to the CBO, different policy proposals backed by House Republicans – including the so-called moderates – would kick people off Medicaid, resulting in an increase in the number of uninsured Americans by millions.

Rob Wittman and Jen Kiggans voted to greenlight an extreme budget blueprint that instructs the Energy & Commerce Committee to find $880 billion in cuts to Medicaid. Now facing backlash from their constituents, Wittman and Kiggans are trying to talk their way out of it. This new CBO report makes clear they will not be able to.

DCCC Spokesperson Justin Chermol:
“No more bullshit letters or cable news appearances from fake moderates like Rob Wittman and Jen Kiggans. If they really wanted to save Medicaid, they had the opportunity to vote ‘NO’ on the extreme GOP budget – twice – but refused. This new CBO report proves their words are meaningless.”

Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-VA07) Has Mostly Been Excellent So Far, But Being One of “35 House Democrats [Who] Joined Republicans Against a Major Climate Policy” Is Not Cool. At All.

By
lowkell
-
1

When Eugene Vindman first started running for the VA07 Democratic nomination back in November 2023, mostly what I knew about him was that he was “the twin brother of retired US Army Col. Alexander Vindman – one of the high-profile witnesses during former President Donald Trump’s first impeachment,” and that he was “a behind-the-scenes advisor for his brother during those proceedings, and like his brother was eventually forced out of that role by the Trump administration as retaliation.” In short, I knew about the Vindmans as American heroes, fighting back after “phone calls between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that ultimately led to the U.S. president’s first impeachment trial.”

As for Eugene Vindman’s political viewpoints, I had absolutely no idea – mostly assumed he was apolitical, heard rumors that he had some Republican leanings, but who knows; it didn’t particularly matter in the context of Trump’s appalling behavior. But when Vindman started running as a Democrat to succeed Abigail Spanberger in the U.S. House, obviously his political ideology and positions became relevant. And, while my guess was that he either *was* a relatively conservative Democrat or would position himself as one for political purposes in “purple”/competitive VA07, I didn’t really know.

At this point, though, we’ve gotten a bunch of votes, so we can start to draw some tentative conclusions. According to the Progressive Punch scorecard, Vindman ranks #200 in the U.S. House in terms of his progressive score, also as the least-progressive Democrat in the Virginia U.S. House delegation, and with a “C” progressive score “vs. district tilt.” Which is pretty much what one might expect for someone representing a district like VA07, I guess, so no particular surprises there.

I’d also note that, at least so far, I’ve been mostly pleased with Rep. Vindman, particularly his strong stances for democracy, for Ukraine, against Trump’s authoritarianism, etc. For a few examples of what I’m referring to, see Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-VA07) Condemns “Blatant Lies and Intimidation from US Attorney Pushing Trump’s Retribution Campaign” (Rep. Vindman: Trump is “weaponizing government and lying to intimidate and silence public servants like me, and it’s not going to work.”); Video: Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-VA07) First 45 Days of Trump Administration Have “Truly Been an Abomination”; Sees “Rapid Retreat” from the American Dream; Video: Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-VA07) Says Trump, a “Mad King” Surrounded by “third-rate fanatics and clowns from the MAGA world,” Is Turning “American foreign policy from a force for good in the world to a force for evil”; Video: Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-VA07) Rips Trump for Having “pretty much given away the farm” on Ukraine and for His “lawful but awful” Firings of Top Military Leadership; Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-VA07) Argues “Nazism has full-on invaded the GOP,” While “Trump referred to himself as a KING” (Vindman vows to “do everything in my power to fight back against MAGA hatred and extremism”); etc. All great stuff.

So…with that intro about how I’ve mostly been very happy with Rep. Vindman, there *have* been a few votes that I take strong exception with – one of which I’ll focus on, below, as it just happened the other day, the other two being the Laken Riley Act (which, as Sen. Tim Kaine said, “would require Immigration and Customs Enforcement to use its limited time and detention facilities to indefinitely detain undocumented people who have been arrested for very minor crimes, regardless of whether they actually pose a danger to the community”), the second being his vote, as one of just 11 House Democrats to vote with House Republicans, to undo the Biden administration’s energy efficiency standards for gas tankless water heaters (these standards would both save people money and reduce greenhouse gas emissions).

And the most recent vote that I strongly disagreed with was…this one, ‘Congressional disapproval, of the rule submitted by the EPA relating to “California State Motor Vehicle and Engine Pollution Control Standards; Advanced Clean Cars II.'” For an excellent explanation for many of the reasons why this was a really, really bad vote, see this NY Times article (“Why 35 House Democrats Joined Republicans Against a Major Climate Policy”) which explains that 35 Democrats (including Rep. Vindman):

“[J]oined…last week to help Republicans repeal [the] landmark requirement that all new vehicles sold in California be electric or otherwise nonpolluting by 2035. In doing so, [they] helped President Trump and the Republican majority to undercut the nation’s transition away from gasoline-powered cars.”

UGH. The NY Times article also notes:

  • “The 246-to-164 vote in the House stunned environmentalists, who said they were struggling to understand why nearly three dozen Democrats voted to kill one of the most ambitious climate policies in the country“
  • “California’s plan would “save money, put the country in position to fight climate change and allow us to compete in the global marketplace,” Ms. Oge said, nodding to the fact that electric vehicles are cheaper to operate and maintain over the long run than gas-powered cars.”
  • “To overturn the state’s action, House Republicans invoked the Congressional Review Act, a 1996 law that permits lawmakers to reverse recently adopted regulations with a simple majority vote. But the California ban is not a federal regulation. It’s a waiver under the Clean Air Act, something that has been granted more than a hundred times over the years by administrations of both parties. And it is not subject to congressional review, according to a 2023 decision by the Government Accountability Office and the Senate parliamentarian. Still, the Senate is expected to act within weeks. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, warned Monday of “dangerous and irreparable consequences” if Senate Republicans defied the parliamentarian.”
  • “Senator Alex Padilla, Democrat of California, said he was ‘disappointed but not surprised’ in the number of lawmakers from his party who voted against the policy. ‘I chalk it up to the intense and misleading lobbying by the oil industry,’ he said. He accused Republicans of ‘misguided and cynical attempts to gut the Clean Air Act and undercut California’s climate leadership.'”
  • “Federal records show that since January oil and gas companies along with automakers, car dealers and free market groups spent more than $10 million lobbying lawmakers about the California plan. That’s in addition to a seven-figure campaign by the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, which represents petroleum refiners.”
  • “‘There’s no sugar coating this,’ said Tiernan Sittenfeld, the senior vice president of government affairs for the League of Conservation Voters. ‘This was a terrible vote.'”

So…yeah, “this was a terrible vote” by Vindman and the other 34 Dems (none from Virginia – all Dems from our delegation, other than Rep. Vindman, voted no) who voted the same way, for a bunch of important reasons. First of all, the vote was ILLEGAL, as California’s standards are “not subject to congressional review.” Period. Second, it’s misguided in terms of economics (more fuel efficient vehicles save consumers money over the life of the vehicle), environment (more efficient vehicles pollute less), etc. As the Environmental Defense Fund explains, the California standards:

“…are vital to reducing air pollution, such as fine particulate matter and smog, that causes deaths and serious health harms, like heart attacks and strokes, and can trigger asthma attacks. They also will save people in California and states that have adopted the standards hundreds of billions of dollars through 2050 in reduced fuel, maintenance and repair costs.”

Perhaps most importantly, as Public Citizen explains:

“The independent GAO and the respected Senate Parliamentarian have reaffirmed decades of precedent that the Clean Air Act’s waivers for California and aligned states are not subject to the Congressional Review Act. With House Republicans moving these legally baseless CRA resolutions forward, they are not only undermining state rights but also setting a dangerous precedent for all administrative actions moving forward.

“Abusing the CRA to target policies far outside its reach would be a calamity both within and well beyond the scope of environmental protections. If the House passes these baseless and harmful CRAs, it would not only violate long held precedent but open a Pandora’s Box of reckless attacks on vital safeguards for Americans in nearly every aspect of our lives. The House should stop wasting its time on reckless votes and allow California and other aligned states to set stronger clean air standards without interference.”

To me, that alone should have been sufficient for EVERY member of the US House to vote no on this. Of course, given that Republicans are completely off the deep end, there was no hope they’d ever do the right thing. But *Democrats*??? C’mon, what the hell are you doing voting for this illegal, dangerous, polluting, dishonest garbage? And no, this would NOT save working people money; in fact, studies consistently show that zero-emissions vehicles *save* consumers money – a lot of it, actually, over the lifetime of the vehicle (sure, you can just look at up-front costs, but if you use that reasoning, then it is an argument against basically ALL efficiency standards, or solar panels on your roof or whatever, since these almost ALWAYS pay off over time…and then start making you money, but that doesn’t happen on Day #1, obviously).

The bottom line for me is that Rep. Vindman’s vote for this was both surprising and disappointing, for a bunch of substantive reasons, but first and foremost because it’s a classic example of far-right/MAGA Republicans: a) trampling on “states’ rights,” which they claimed for decades to care deeply about, but obviously don’t GAF about; b) violating the law, in this case that the California standards are clearly NOT subject to the Congressional Review Act (which is why Chuck Schumer cites “dangerous and irreparable consequences” if Congress proceeds down this path); c) caving to polluters and trashing the environment; d) actually COSTING working people money; e) slowing the absolutely crucial transition off of fossil fuel-powered vehicles; etc. The fact that any Democrats would vote for this is really baffling, not to mention troubling. Let’s hope this was an aberration, never to be repeated, because we really can’t afford to make Trump’s path towards authoritarianism any easier, or to commit major “unforced errors” such as this appalling vote.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Video: VA State Sen. Stella Pekarsky Announces Her Candidacy for VA11

By
lowkell
-
0

State Senator Stella Pekarsky, who formerly served on the Fairfax County School Board, is now the second major candidate to announce for the Democratic nomination in VA11. Pekarsky’s announcement follows that of Fairfax County Supervisor James Walkinshaw yesterday (and Walkinshaw’s endorsement by Rep. Gerry Connolly this morning). And I’m hearing that there could be as many as 10 Democrats running for this deep-blue seat, with other names including Del. Dan Helmer and former VA Speaker Eileen Filler-Corn. I’m very curious what the method of nomination for this will be – “firehouse primary?” regular primary? – and when the election will be. So far, at least, Rep. Gerry Connolly hasn’t specified, other than that this will be his last term in Congress (due to declining health, unfortunately)…

As for Stella Pekarsky, I don’t know her well, but from what I’ve seen and to the extent I’ve talked to her, I’ve been impressed. Of course, in the end, it’s going to come down to how many resources each candidate has to communicate with voters, what those voters are looking for exactly (in terms of policy, style, experience, endorsements, gender, ethnicity, whatever).  So stay tuned…more candidate announcements coming, I’m sure, as this is just getting started.

Video: Virginia Women Leaders Call Out Winsome Earle-Sears for Her Extreme Record on Reproductive Rights 

By
Blue Virginia
-
0

From DPVA:

Virginia Women Leaders Call Out Winsome Earle-Sears for Her Extreme Record on Reproductive Rights 

Sarah Goodman: “Virginians deserve a leader who will fight to protect their right to contraception and reproductive care” 

VIRGINIA – Today, following the veto of the Right to Contraception Act, State Senator and Chief Patron of the bill Ghazala Hashmi, Delegate Candi Mundon King, Delegate Destiny LeVere Bolling, and a Virginian with a personal contraception story called out Winsome Earle-Sears’ extreme record on reproductive rights and highlighted why Virginians need a leader who will protect their fundamental freedoms.

The veto comes after Winsome Earle-Sears cast a tie breaking vote against the Right to Contraception Act earlier this year. Sears recently broke her silence on the vote, saying that “this legislation is more about pushing a political agenda than protecting women’s health.”


Watch the press call by clicking the image above.

“For the second year in a row, Governor Youngkin has vetoed the Right to Contraception Act – legislation that Winsome Earle-Sears cast the tie-breaking vote against – choosing politics over the personal freedom of Virginians. This bill was clear and direct — it defined contraception and protected the right to use it, including IUDs and emergency contraception. That should not be controversial in 2025,” said Chief Patron of the Senate bill Senator Ghazala Hashmi.

“The Right to Contraception Act would have ensured Virginia women have access to contraception and Winsome Earle-Sears’ vote against it signals the extreme agenda she would enact if she has the chance. Virginia deserves better than that,” said Chief Patron of the House bill Delegate Cia Price.

“In the case of the Right to Contraception Act, Virginians deserve a governor who will sign it into law – instead of gutting it and then vetoing it. I’ll always fight to ensure women and their doctors make their healthcare decisions, not politicians. And I know that Abigail Spanberger will do the same,” said Delegate Candi Mundon King.

“With the Right to Contraception Act, we were on track to ensure that all Virginians have access to birth control and contraception and can make these decisions with their doctors, not politicians. Republican leadership vetoing the bill and Winsome Earle-Sears’ vote against it, means the door to extreme restrictions on contraception is wide open,” said Delegate Destiny LeVere Bolling.

“My story is one that many women across Virginia share. Every Virginian deserves a leader who will fight to protect our right to contraception and reproductive care,” said Sarah Goodman, a Virginian with a personal contraception story.

Read more about Sears’ dangerous record on reproductive rights: 

  • Sears admitted she would not sign the Right to Contraception Act into law saying “[…] this legislation is more about pushing a political agenda […].”
  • Sears “couldn’t resist” voting against this legislation to guarantee Virginia women’s access to contraception.
    • She refused to answer questions from the media about her tie-breaking vote denying Virginians access to contraception and birth control.
  • Sears supports an extreme six week abortion ban similar to the law that took effect in Texas that bans abortion before most women know they are pregnant.
  • Sears has said that she would support an abortion ban with no exceptions for rape or incest.
    • January 2021: The Winchester Star reported that Sears said she wanted to make abortion illegal in all cases, unless the life of the mother was at risk.

Fmr. VA LG Bill Bolling, a Conservative Republican and Trump Voter: “No citizen should want…to give the President unlimited and unchecked power”

By
lowkell
-
2

Former VA Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling, a conservative Republican and Trump voter, had the following to say this morning. I strongly agree with him – whether we’re talking about Trump becoming a de facto dictator, or about ANY PRESIDENT who tries to “put Executive power above the Congress, the Courts, the Constitution and the law.” That’s simply not what the United States of America is supposed to be, and if it happens, we will NOT be the United States of America anymore – at least as we’ve known it for 250 years. So we’d all better make damn sure that doesn’t happen!

P.S. It’s always worth reminding everyone that Bolling voted for Trump, despite MANY misgivings, because he was unhinged/hysterical about Kamala Harris supposedly being a “socialist” who would have “open borders,” blah blah blah. How can someone as smart as Bolling have been sooooo stupid in voting to give wannabe dictator Trump unlimited power? Decades of right-wing propaganda, plus some racism and misogyny thrown in to boot?

********************

UNDERSTANDING THE EVOLUTION OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER

If one thing is clear from the first 100 days of the Trump administration 2.0, it is that the President and his advisors intend to do everything they can to unilaterally exercise maximum presidential power, even if that means challenging established norms regarding the power of the presidency.

Over the years, presidential power in the United States has changed dramatically.

In the early years of our nation, most Presidents practiced what was generally referred to as the Limited Presidential Theory.
The Limited Presidential Theory held that the presidency was a constrained office. This theory was characterized by the belief that the president’s duties were primarily administrative, and the president was not a policy leader. That role was reserved for Congress.

Most presidents in the 18th and 19th centuries adhered to the Limited Presidential Theory, with a few notable exceptions. These presidents believed that they could only exercise those powers that were specifically given to them in the Constitution.

However, by the early 20th century the country had become larger and more complex, and Presidents like Teddy Roosevelt believed the President needed to assume more power. They advanced the Stewardship Theory of the presidency.

Unlike the Limited Presidential Theory, the Stewardship Theory called for a “strong presidency” that was limited, not by what the constitution allowed, but by what it prohibited.

Teddy Roosevelt, in defending the Stewardship Theory of the presidency, once remarked: “My belief was that it was not only the president’s right but his duty to do anything the needs of the nation demanded unless such action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the law.”

During the 20th century, many Presidents used the Stewardship Theory to significantly expand presidential powers, most notably President Franklin Roosevelt during the decade of the 1930s, which was characterized by The Great Depression and the outbreak of WWII.

One of the characteristics of presidential power that has subsequently grown over the decades is the expanded use of Executive Orders.

Executive Orders are nothing new. They go all the way back to George Washington, the nation’s very first President.
However, historically Executive Orders were primarily used to set forth the President’s approach to managing the administrative tasks of the Executive branch, not for embarking on new or substantive policy initiatives.

In recent years, Executive Orders are being used much more aggressively to accomplish substantive policy goals that the President cannot accomplish through normal legislative channels.
Take for example President Biden’s use of Executive Orders to drastically expand student loan forgiveness, or President Trump’s recent Executive Orders to try and change birthright citizenship or withhold funding from certain government agencies and programs.

The expanded use of Executive Orders to increase the power of the President is just one reason why many political scientists argue that we are now living in an area that goes beyond the Stewardship Theory of the presidency. They have referred to this as the era of the Unitary Presidency.

The Unitary Presidential Theory is characterized by Presidents seeking to exercise authority on their own that was previously reserved for Congress. For example, creating and implementing new government programs, allocating funds to these programs; or reducing or eliminating funding for programs they do not agree with.

Based on the furor with which President Trump has issued Executive Orders in the first 100 days of his second administration, it is apparent that this is a tool he wants to use to dramatically increase presidential power. It could take the Unitary Presidential Theory to a new level.

Predictably, many of the efforts President Trump has made to use Executive Orders to implement his agenda have been challenged by Democrats and other interest groups in the courts. The courts have suspended many of these Executive Orders, leaving the Trump administration frustrated.

This has prompted some Trump administration officials, including Vice President J.D. Vance, to go on record questioning the authority of the courts to provide this type of check on the Executive branch.

They have not only expressed their disagreement with the court’s decision, which is certainly their right (that’s what judicial appeals are all about); but they have used language that some have interpreted as questioning the power of the Judicial branch to oversee the actions of the Executive branch.

The power of the Judicial branch to oversee the actions of the Executive and Legislative branches of our government, which is known as Judicial Review, has been a longstanding principle that dates to the 1803 Supreme Court decision in the case of Marbury v Madison.

If the Trump administration were to argue that the Judicial branch does not have the authority to exercise a check on Executive power, and refuse to abide by judicial decrees, they would create a modern constitutional crisis. It would give the President almost unlimited powers. I refer to this as the Imperial Presidency.

The Imperial Presidency would be characterized by the belief that presidents can do almost anything they want, whenever they want and however they want. It would, essentially, put Executive power above the Congress, the Courts, the Constitution and the law.

There are nations around the world that give their leaders almost unlimited powers, but they are not democratic Republics like the United States. They are Monarchies, Communist states, or nations that follow a totalitarian, authoritarian or dictatorial approach to governance.

No citizen should want a President – this President or any President – to be able to exercise more power than they are properly given under the Constitution; and they certainly should not want to give the President unlimited and unchecked power.

Wednesday News: “Biden Torches Trump in First Interview Since Leaving Office: ‘What the Hell’s Going on Here?’”; “Trump’s Rants About Young Girls’ Dolls Just Got Weirder and Darker”; “Youngkin defends Trump even as he’s forced to fix the president’s mess”

By
lowkell
-
12

by Lowell

Here are a few international, national and Virginia news headlines, political and otherwise, for Wednesday, May 7.

Sen. Tim Kaine: “Should Trump order unauthorized military action in Mexico or Greenland, I will immediately file legislation to force a vote to stop it.”

By
Blue Virginia
-
12

From Sen. Tim Kaine’s office: 

KAINE STATEMENT ON PRESIDENT TRUMP’S THREATS TO USE MILITARY FORCE IN MEXICO AND GREENLAND 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the lead Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Western Hemisphere subcommittee, released the following statement regarding President Donald Trump’s statements threatening to use U.S. military force to violate Mexican sovereignty and invade a NATO ally:

“Throughout my travels in Virginia, I’m hearing about the need to stabilize our economy and lower prices—not start new wars right across our southern border in Mexico, or with our NATO ally Denmark. Using U.S. military personnel in this manner would be a waste of taxpayer money and military resources at a time when we should be focusing on how to best counter real adversaries like China, Russia and Iran, and on serious law enforcement initiatives to tackle the threats posed by cartels. 

“The Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare wars and to authorize the use of military force; there is no authorization for military action within Mexican or Danish territory. Should Trump order unauthorized military action in Mexico or Greenland, I will immediately file legislation to force a vote to stop it. If we’re going to order our young men and women in uniform to risk their lives in conflict, we owe it to them to have a robust debate and vote.”

For years, Kaine has been the leading voice in Congress raising concerns over Presidents’ efforts to expand the use of military force without congressional authorization. In September of 2017, Kaine wrote a piece in TIME warning of the consequences if Trump pulled out of the nuclear deal with Iran. In July of 2018, Kaine wrote a piece in The Atlantic warning that President Trump was blundering toward war with Iran. In 2020, Kaine’s bipartisan war powers resolution seeking to avoid a needless war with Iran passed both houses of Congress with bipartisan majorities. Kaine’s bipartisan legislation to repeal the 1991 and 2002 Authorizations of Military Force and formally end the Gulf and Iraq Wars was passed by the Senate in 2023.

1...272829...3,397Page 28 of 3,397












EVEN MORE NEWS

POPULAR CATEGORY

©