They Want to Burn the Place Down

 

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy sent the members of the US House home this weekend because the Republicans were in chaos. His members could not agree and get enough votes to pass a continuing resolution. They could not agree on the funding bills necessary to provide for the ongoing functions of the government. As he said in frustration about the radical members of his caucus, “They want to burn the place down,”

The Senate has already acted in a bipartisan fashion to continue to keep the government running. However, since funding must come from the House, any actions are stymied. So, in six days, the government will shut down if the bills or resolutions are not approved by both Houses.

Of course, this means that government employees will not receive their paychecks, and governmental facilities, not considered essential, will shut down. For example, Air Traffic Controllers are considered essential, so planes will continue to fly safely. The passport office is not in that category, so passport renewals and new applications will be delayed. They will restrict access to government buildings such as museums on the Mall to essential personnel. So, tourists cannot get into the museums or facilities run by the National Park Service if the rules from previous shut-downs are used again. However, Members of Congress will continue to receive their paychecks, even if government workers will not. (Usually, after a shutdown is resolved, retroactive bills are passed and workers get paid. For lower-level employees who might live paycheck-to-paycheck, getting those funds later will not buy groceries, or pay the rent or car payment due today.)

Fortunately, for the millions of Seniors on Social Security, who depend on their monthly checks, those funds come from a different funding source and should arrive on time. Military paychecks, however, may be delayed.

Previous shut-downs have interrupted valuable scientific research when staff was not on site to monitor experiments or take care of lab animals used in that research. With luck, staff will take measures to prevent this from happening again this year.

Some have said the shutdown is happening because DJT wants it to happen and mistakenly believes this chaos will delay his upcoming trials. The Justice Department will continue to function regardless, and hearings and motions will move forward on time. The trials in Georgia and New York State are outside of Federal funding and they will continue.

Statistically, whenever shutdowns have happened, Republicans are blamed. Rightfully so, in my mind, since they historically are the party pushing the shutdowns.

Shutdown	Days	Control of House
95-96	21	Republicans
2013	16	Republicans
Jan 2018	3	Republicans
2018–19	35	Republicans (until Jan 2019)

 

A lot of politicking relies on trust between two parties. A representative may go to a colleague and ask for support or funding for a cause or program they champion. In return, they might do the same later for that colleague's pet project. But, some in this Congress do not operate by that same rule, according to what their Speaker McCarthy said the other day, "You think you have an agreement with certain people, and by the time one gets to the floor, they have changed their mind and won't agree with the measure" If the agreements cannot and will not be honored, the Congress cannot function. The result is the chaos we now see.

Local commentators have referred to Representatives Marjorie Taylor Green and Matt Gaetz as the ones who are in reality running the House, while Speaker Mc Carthy is still trying to play by the old rules. He is on thin ice because if he crosses the radical members of his caucus and goes to the Democratic members to get these measures passed, the radicals can vote him out of office. So how scary does Speaker Gaetz or Greene sound? With any luck, the mainstream members will not go there. Remember, the Speaker of the House is third in the line of succession, should the President and VP become unable to serve.

Democrats indicated they would support the Speaker if he could bring clean legislation and agree to certain concessions they want to see. The more radical members of the caucus want to encumber the legislation with riders to reinforce their agendas. These riders make the bills impossible to pass as the House and Senate legislation has to agree. So far, even routine bills such as those that pay for the military services and the Farm Bill, usually an easy bipartisan measure, have not gotten passed.

Meanwhile, over in the Senate, two Republican Senators are trying to flex their tiny muscles–and brains- by placing holds on important functions.

Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama continues to hold up promotions for the military. The Senate approved a few military department heads this week, but that is a far cry from the hundreds of promotions still in the pipeline and needing action. Jumping on the bandwagon is another MAGA guy, Senator JD Vance of Ohio, who is now holding up appointments of new Federal prosecutors to the Justice Department, because he can. Minority leader Mitch McConnell no longer can control his caucus/ He has been ill recently and suffered injuries from a fall, so his usually strong leadership powers have been diminished.

If Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, recently indicted for corruption and misuse of his office, were to step down, the tenuous balance in the Senate would change to 50/50 until his replacement was in place. The replacement would also be a Democrat since the Governor in NJ is a Democrat. (However, he is the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and has had to step down from that powerful position. The evidence presented by the Justice Department seems damning, but innocent until proven guilty, as is said.) Recent reports noted that Senator Joe Manchin, who is likely to lose if he runs as a Democrat in the MAGA state of West Virginia, has not decided whether to run in 2024. Some say he might become an Independent if he runs. Others have encouraged him to join the new "No Labels" party and run on a ticket with former Republican Governor Larry Hogan from MD.(Hogan has not committed to such a ticket.) The party states it might not even form a slate and will wait until the Spring of 2024 to decide. In the meantime, the group is trying to qualify for the ballot in several states now and, ultimately, all of them. If this group runs a slate in 2024, pundits consider they will draw Independent voters from President Biden and hurt his chances of winning.

Other predictions consider the Senate will flip to Republican in 2024, simply because the numbers of races favor them, while the House is likely to become Democratic again. So, either way, there will be a divided government. Polls indicate voters do not favor President Biden to win, but he continues to demonstrate the quiet competency of his administration in multiple areas. He plans to join members of the United Auto Workers on the picket lines this week. The election is just over 13 months away.

Early state election voting has already started in the purple state of Virginia. I am waiting to see if Governor Youngkin's win was a fluke a few years ago, or if he has changed the state. He is supporting a 15-week abortion ban in Virginia, which will reduce the 24-week limit now in place. The state limits him to one term, so this election could be a referendum on the campaigns he promoted, such as parent control of schools, book-banning, and regulations against trans and LBGTQ students. The Virginia legislature is divided, but narrowly so, and could easily be tipped to the right or the left. I haven't heard about this off-year election being called a bell weather yet, but I think it is important to watch. Some say Fox founder Rupert Murdoch, would like Youngkin to run for President. Since he is a multi-millionaire, he could easily self-fund a campaign if he wished. He may also be waiting until the next election in 2028. He likes to come across as a moderate, but the policies he put in place, and the people he appointed are anything but moderate. Consider his plan to have a hotline where parents could anonymously complain to his office about their schools, or the health department policy director he appointed who was insensitive to racial issues. According to NPR, they quietly shut the tip line down after some time.

I will watch the House this week, as will many Americans. Certainly, I hope that Speaker McCarthy can get wiser heads in his party to step up, but I will make no predictions in this area. A shutdown would be detrimental to both Federal employees and the economy, so I hope it doesn't happen. Those who promote such actions are short-sighted, self-serving, and violate their oaths to work for the best interests of the country.

So, Til next week- Peace and hope!

"Pro-Baby" Does Not Mean Pro-Child

Some Republicans seem to have gotten the message that their anti-abortion antics are costing their party crucial votes in key states. So, they have rebranded themselves and instead of calling themselves the party of the "pro-lifers", they will now be known as the "pro-baby" party. While that seems to be an admirable position, it is utterly laughable when one looks at the moves their party continues to make that are anything but pro-baby, and are not pro-child. These moves affect families, the workforce, and our systems of healthcare and education.

It is hard to see how one can be "pro-baby" when one party continues to chip away at the social safety nets that have been in place for years. Welfare restrictions, Medicaid limitations, aid for pregnant mothers, and supplemental food programs have all come under fire recently. Programs that expanded medications for HIV/AIDS patients are also under attack both here and in USAID to other countries under the accusation that these programs support abortion when they teach safe sex practices. The PEPFAR program has long been one of our most successful outreach programs since it was started under President Bush. The Republican Congress is signaling more oversight according to the Kaiser Foundation, so those actions are uncertain.

Many states that have enacted strict abortion bans have also not expanded Medicaid benefits; some have made these benefits more difficult to enroll in. Brookings Institute reported that six million people have already lost Medicaid coverage after the COVID dis-enrollment ban ended. A few states that require work programs for those on welfare have decreased benefits for daycare services.

The expanded Child-care credits (EITC) enacted under emergency COVID legislation decreased the child poverty levels in America to around 5%. Refusals from many in Congress (including Democratic Senator Joe Manchin) to renew this benefit caused the child poverty level in just one year (as reported by the Brookings Institute) to rebound to over 12%. The expiration of federal support for day care centers serving essential workers and others will further affect this worker group, many of whom work off hours and need specialized centers. Day care has become an ever-increasing budget item for lower-income families, but it is necessary for them to keep their jobs. The Biden administration attempted to relieve this problem by issuing an executive order in July. He issued an order for block grants that would assure that low income families would pay only a certain percentage of their income for child care. According to CNN:

Nearly 80,000 families would pay less for child care, thanks to the 7% cap, according to the administration. Also, nearly 200,000 providers would get paid earlier, and more than 100,000 providers would start getting paid based on enrollment so their payments aren't adjusted downward if children miss days.

The block grant supports 900,000 families and 1.5 million children. However, federal funding falls short of allowing every eligible family to be served.

Low-income families often spend one-third of their yearly income on child care, more than on rent or their mortgage, Vice President Kamala Harris told reporters on a press call.

"No family should have to choose between high-quality care for their child or to give up their career or put food on the table," Harris said

Average child care costs range from $10,000 to $20,000 for toddlers and up to $25,000 for infants. There are dire predictions about the loss of parental income, provider income, and the ultimate costs to the economy if they do not continue these subsidies in some form.

Early in the pandemic, over 20,000 centers closed; mothers mostly endured this happening as they left the workforce in large numbers to return home and care for their children. Now, just as they are returning to work, this reduction in care availability is looming. The day care workforce is paid low wages, often $12-$15 hourly. If this group loses their jobs, it is doubtful they will return.

According to the Century Foundation, unless Congress acts by the end of September, centers that expanded during the COVID emergency will lose federal funding and might have to close.

They state:

"Beginning September 30, 2023, states will face a steep drop-off in federal child care investment. Without Congressional action, this cliff will have dire consequences. More than three million children are projected to lose access to childcare nationwide. Seventy-thousand childcare programs are likely to close. This will have ripple effects for parents forced out of work or to cut their work hours, for businesses who will lose valuable employees or experience the impact of their employees' childcare disruptions, and state economies that will lose tax revenue and jobs in the childcare sector as a result."

So, now is the time for parents to contact their Congressional offices to encourage the continuation of these subsidies. Of course, the Republicans in the House are so tied up with investigations of Hunter Biden, an impeachment inquiry against President Biden, and fighting amongst themselves that they have failed to pass the necessary legislation to prevent a government shutdown on September 30^th, the end of the fiscal year. The Senate has already done its part, all the House has to do is agree to pass the Continuing Resolution to move funding forward. But they are mired in dysfunction and so condemn the American public to suffer from their maladies. Could the refusal to continue the daycare funds be on purpose? Look at the charts from the Century Foundation. They show which states will be most affected if there are widespread daycare shutdowns. Florida and Texas are among those with the highest impact. Just wondering.

This year has seen a record number of strikes as income inequality is evermore clear. The CEO of the United Parcel Service (UPS) is currently paid over 19 million dollars a year. In 2022, the company had revenue of over 100 billion dollars. The UPS strike, which looked at a two-tier workforce; part-timers, making up 60% of the total hires had fewer benefits and were hired at a $15.50 hourly rate. The workers threatened to strike, but they settled just before the deadline. In the final contract, the company increased hourly rates for part-timers to over $20.00, with annual raises for five years, and reduced mandatory overtime. They agreed to equip vehicles with air conditioning, a necessity in these times of excessive heat.

I have previously discussed the strikes by writers and actors, threatened by increasing uses of Artificial Intelligence in both scripts and films. Those strikes have continued for months and do not seem close to any resolution. Studios that are paying fewer residuals with reruns and streaming, and the use of manufactured street scenes, no longer need real people. Some are saying the lack of film ready for the fall viewing season might prompt a move toward settlement, but that is uncertain.

The latest strike is a different kind of strike. United Auto Workers (UAW) announced a strike against all three major auto companies: General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis. The union has 150,000 members. However, instead of shutting down each company's plants, they targeted one plant from each company. According to the New York Times:

"The union has been pushing for a 40 percent wage increase over four years, improved retiree benefits and shorter work hours as well as an end to a tiered wage system that starts new hires at much lower wages than the top U.A.W. pay of $32 an hour."

Other important issues concern the moves toward increased automation and the move toward electronic vehicles that require fewer work hours to assemble. The companies claim that paying higher wages will make them less competitive with companies such as Tesla and European car makers of electronic vehicles. But several years ago, during the economic downturn, when the government rescued the industry, unions gave up benefits to keep the companies running. They would now like those benefits, including retiree healthcare and other issues increased.

The average automaker's salary is $80,000 while the CEOs of Ford, GM, and Stellantis make over 20 million dollars each, with the GM CEO leading the pack with 29 million dollars. As for income inequality, that amounts to about 281 times more than the average worker.

President Biden has shown inflation is going down, but workers do not see it at the grocery store as product sneak creep is expanding. Those eight hot dog packages you used to see are now six, the detergent package looks about the same but contains less product, and the tissue box now has fewer tissues. Workers and retired shoppers notice such things. He brags about a record number of employed workers, but as strikes expand and daycares close, these claims may no longer be a suitable campaign tool for him. Biden has long said he sides with the union workers and his people are trying to help resolve the strikes. However, if they continue, the MAGA crowd will try to move in. The Reagan Democrats started the ball rolling for union workers and many left the Democratic fold for the MAGA message. Unions seemed to head back to the Democrats in 2020, we shall see if this was a permanent move. According to Statistica:

"According to exit polling in the 2020 Presidential Election in the United States, 57% of surveyed voters with a union member in their household reported voting for former Vice President Joe Biden. In the race to become the next President of the United States, 48% of voters without a union member in their household reported voting for incumbent President Donald Trump."

There is so much in the news this week, but that is all I have time for tonight.

‘Til next week-Peace,

Memories and Thoughts

Tomorrow (Monday, September 11, 2023), our country will commemorate yet another anniversary of the horrific events from that date in 2001. The unexpected attacks on our country united us as a nation for a while. However, that unity did not hold and some are trying hard to divide us even more today.

Memories of 911 remain fresh in the minds of many still. In the twenty-two years that have passed since that day, what has changed? Are Americans wiser and more worldly or have they become more suspicious and xenophobic? What did we learn from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were waged after the attacks on that day? Have we extended democracy and gained international friends through those efforts?

I guess that the tragedies of 911 won us friends and support for a while, as NATO countries and others initially were supportive of efforts in Afghanistan to find the perpetrators of those horrific acts. But, President Bush’s mission to destroy Iraqi leaders and Saddam Hussein, who were not complicit in the attacks, and his decisions to not condemn Saudi leaders for their role in supporting terrorists, hurt American efforts. This allowed our enemies to say, with some verity, that our wars were more about oil than injury. In the long run, these wars did not end the suffering of the families who lost their lives in the attacks. They cost America dearly with military injuries, deaths, and defense costs. Now, Iraq is a failed country with inconsistent governance. The Taliban, who rule by some sort of medieval religious fiat, have overtaken Afghanistan and condemned women to live lives that are out of sight and to remain mostly uneducated. Two decades of war brought Americans less, not more, stability.

Our international diplomacy has succeeded in Ukraine, to an extent, thanks to huge efforts by this administration. Although the Ukrainians may be in this for the long haul, the resolve of our allies may not be if their economies suffer. Even in this country, the nay-sayers on the right are attacking President Biden and his efforts to support Ukraine. Some Republican Presidential candidates claim that the war effort is depriving Americans of needed benefits. These candidates and some representatives are even falsely claiming that FEMA efforts in Maui to help the fire victims or in Florida after the hurricane were diminished because of support for Ukraine.

Other right-wing Republicans in the House were furious when Speaker McCarthy allowed funds for Ukraine to remain in the budget when he negotiated with President Biden. Following that, some are now threatening to shut down the Government and not approve a continuing resolution for funding past September 30^th. Rep. Green threatened to hold up the budget unless the House supported her motion to impeach President Biden. (Of course, she is such a whacko, that she could not establish any grounds for this, but has been trying to do this since she was first seated.) But, she is a power in his party and can help keep McCarthy in his leadership post, so he must at least listen to her.

Some recent polls showed that if the election were held now, President Biden and his MAGA opponent would be in a neck-and-neck race. Of course, the election remains about 14 months away and a lot could change between now and then. (I can hope that DJT will be a convicted felon long before the election.) Although these two candidates are only four years apart in age, Republicans, and their media friends, continue to berate President Biden about his age and supposed lack of fitness to be President. He appears to be in better shape than his potential opponent - who is not known for his working out routine.

I think President Biden has done a pretty good job, although, with all the noise about the indictments of DJT and others and the press fury on that news, his accomplishments have not gotten the news they deserve.

Just look at where we are now. The economy continues to do well. Inflation is coming down, even as mortgage interest rates remain high. The jobs market is robust and many jobs are going unfilled. Employment for minorities remains better than has been seen in decades. Manufacturing has increased in part because of the Inflation Reduction Act, the Chips program, and attempts to bring more jobs back to America. Working from home remains popular with American workers, but less so with their bosses and mayors of big cities. That is one problem that has not yet been resolved. Climate change issues continue to be a problem as we are seeing more weather extremes. We have addressed some climate problems by adding electric vehicles and increased charging stations. Students are becoming more involved with being part of the solutions and are demanding more from their leaders. Solar power and alternative energy sources are increasing, but we still have a way to go. The energy blocs and lobbyists are working hard to keep the old ways in place. Some dinosaurs such as Senator Manchin on the Democratic side and Republicans from oil-producing states are trying to thwart progress. In the long run, I think they cannot succeed and wiser heads will prevail with productive legislation.

Some problems remain. Many involve social issues, such as healthcare, immigration, and housing.

Housing for the large numbers of “street people” or the “unhoused” is becoming more of a national issue. As climate changes bring higher temperatures to the warmer climates that have long been the domain for this population, there have to be improved efforts to house this group. The Washington Post had an article this week about a man suffering from schizophrenia who died from heat stroke, despite his family’s efforts to keep him safe. I am certain he was one of many such deaths. We cannot leave this problem just to the cities. Many in this population have mental illness, and they self-medicate with drugs and alcohol. Society has set others adrift because they cannot figure life out; they need help. Some are veterans or victims dealing with PTSD. The issue has long been a dual one; those with mental health problems are better treated when they are not living on the streets. Institutionalization is also not the answer. Housing such injured people helps them find the stability that they need. Having a safe bed to sleep in takes away some terrors of the night. We can do this. This should be better addressed by the federal government and not in a piecemeal fashion as it is now. Current estimates are that half a million people in the US are daily experiencing homelessness. Los Angeles counts around 75 thousand homeless men and women alone in that area.

Republicans continue to shout out about problems at the border, even as President Biden has worked to better humanize this issue. This seems to be another attempt to further divide Americans. The issues of immigration remain unsolved. Congress refuses to legitimize millions of Dreamers and continues onerous rules for them to follow as they continue their lives in some kind of limbo. Members of Congress would rather blame the Administration for immigration issues than try to legislate a solution.

Texas governor Greg Abbott was told by the Courts this week to remove the barriers (of ballasts and razor wire) he ordered placed in the Rio Grande in violation of international borders with Mexico and violation of human rights concerns. Some immigrants have already died attempting to get around these barriers. He continues to send busloads of asylum-seeking immigrants to northern cities that then attempt to deal with the unexpected arrivals. New York Mayor Eric Adams spoke out against this practice and the difficulties his city must address with these arrivals. Since they arrive with little, they must get medical care as necessary and be housed, fed, clothed, and educated. To ease the burden on the city, they need to find jobs. Often, there are language barriers as people come from Venezuela, Russia, Ecuador, and East Africa. Mayor Adams states that the arrival of 10,000 immigrants each month has created a tremendous burden on his city. In just over a year, more than one million people have arrived in New York City. Once famous as a melting pot, such a rapid influx of needy individuals has strained city facilities.

Of course, New York is not the only city that Texas is sending buses of asylum seekers to. This policy abuses our system of asylum and must be stopped. It is using people who are fleeing terrors at home only to find themselves used as political pawns by a cynical governor who cares little about the rights of these people as humans with wants and needs.

So, that is about all for today. We have made some progress in addressing our national problems; more will come in the future, I hope.

‘Til next week-Peace.

Freedoms Under Attack - The Right to Travel

 

Recent proposals from some anti-abortion legislators have convinced me that many in positions of authority in some states either have not read our Constitution or do not believe that its' provisions apply to women.

In her Substack posting for September 1, 2023, Heather Cox Richardson writes of moves by some legislators to punish or restrict movement by women who seek to leave the state to receive abortion services. heathercoxrichardson@substack.com

She writes, in part:

“Meanwhile, Republicans continue to focus on ending abortion, and their determination is leading them to assert power over citizens of Republican-dominated states in a way that is commonly associated with authoritarian governments.   

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall claimed in a court filing on Monday that Alabama, which has one of the strictest abortion bans in the country, can prosecute people who help women travel out of the state to obtain an abortion as part of a "criminal conspiracy." 

Today, Caroline Kitchener reported in the Washington Post that at least 51 jurisdictions in Texas have passed ordinances to make it illegal to transport anyone on roads within city or county limits to get an abortion. Their hope is to target interstates and the roads around airports to block off routes out of Texas and keep pregnant women trapped in the antiabortion state. 

The laws also allow any private citizen to sue any person or organization they think is violating the ordinance, leading to expensive lawsuits against the friends and family members of the most economically vulnerable people in society. Antiabortion activists call aid to women seeking abortions "abortion trafficking," which makes it sound like women are being forced to get an abortion, when in fact, the ordinances ensnare women who want to get an abortion and their friends, preventing them from leaving an antiabortion state. Even if such an ordinance is impossible to enforce, it legally endangers the people who would help someone trying to get an abortion, moving such reproductive care beyond the financial reach of many women, and makes people hesitant to help each other. 

Such barriers are precisely the same as those for people trying to leave authoritarian countries. Someone who is prohibited from leaving a jurisdiction is not a citizen but a subject. Free and full citizens of a democracy have the right to travel, both inside the country and out of it. That right is guaranteed to U.S. citizens by the Constitution. But authoritarian countries often restrict travel for their subjects outside their borders out of concern that exposure to freer countries will weaken the authority of the government at home.” 

Richardson continues by likening the rights of women restricted in this manner to the restrictions placed on enslaved persons during the times before emancipation. They were not given the rights of citizenship, so did not have the right of free movement.

So, is the AG of Alabama now claiming that women do not have the right to free movement in and out of that state?

Will women need to take a pregnancy test to get on a plane or drive across the state line? Will they need a doctor's note to go on a family vacation? Has he read the Constitution, which allows for transit from one state to another without restriction?

Specifically, travel is permitted in several places:

"The Supreme Court has over the years defined the right to travel (or the freedom of movement) as one of the "unenumerated rights" of the Constitution. Specifically, the Supreme Court has ruled that this right to travel includes the right of citizens to move freely between states, the right to be treated equally in all states when visiting, and the rights of new citizens to be treated like longtime citizens of a state." (Annenberg Classroom)

We find these rights in the Constitution in article IV of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states:

"The Privileges and Immunities Clause says that a citizen of one state is entitled to the privileges in another state, from which a right to travel to that other state may be inferred. Under this clause, such an internal passport, which is in use in a small minority of countries, would be unconstitutional."

As I read this interpretation, I see that citizens of one state may travel to another state and enjoy the rights and privileges accorded to citizens living there. There is nothing here that infers that if one state does not like the privileges granted by state number two, state number one may refuse travel to that state by its residents. Nothing indicates that a state may question such travel or deny it for any reason.

I am convinced that any laws restricting this travel of women or attempts to prohibit travel among consenting adults, mislabeled 'abortion trafficking' will not be upheld by the courts.

Take a moment and look at countries that do not allow their citizens to have free movement: North Korea, China, and Russia come to mind. Do we wish to copy these authoritarian countries, often considered among the worst in humanitarian rights? Are elected officials in anti-abortion states so convinced of their zealous philosophies that they will overlook their oaths to uphold the Constitution?

The Washington Post in the article mentioned above goes into great detail about the efforts anti-abortion supporters are making, allowing average citizens to challenge neighbors or strangers they believe are engaging in 'abortion trafficking'. While they have not yet challenged the laws, some believe they are difficult to bring to court.

"While these restrictions appear to violate the U.S. Constitution — which protects a person's right to travel — they are extremely difficult to challenge in court, said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California at Davis who focuses on abortion. Because the laws can be enforced by any private citizen, abortion rights groups have no clear government official to sue in a case seeking to block the law."

The article describes the consternation in the town of Llano, Texas which anti-abortion activist Mark Dickson, a Director of the east Texas Right to Life movement, targeted because it sits at the nexus of many highways in the state and could be a stopping point for travelers. In his remarks to the town council, he spoke of the passage of the restrictions on travel in other jurisdictions in the state. He claimed a ‘baby-murdering cartel' was coming for Texas residents. When questioned about the legality of the proposal, he likened it to the Mann Act, which prohibits interstate travel for immoral purposes:

"Asked about the constitutionality of his ordinances, Dickson cites the Mann Act, a federal law from 1910 that makes it illegal to transport "any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose." If the Mann Act is constitutional, he says, so is this. "

He claimed that the 'unborn child' would be forced to travel against its will. I cannot accept the idiocy of this statement.

The reporter, Caroline Kitchener, spoke with people in the town, which voted overwhelmingly for DJT in the two previous elections. Many in the town and on the council were supporters of abortion restrictions but were divided about this proposal, which some felt went too far. Residents of nearby Chandler, Texas did not approve the proposals when presented to them recently; the council in Odessa passed it. So, Dickson traveled to the next town on his list and will probably continue on his quest to deprive women of their rights.

Others in the state of Missouri have attempted to pass similar restrictions.

Republicans in Wisconsin are now trying to impeach the newly seated justice on their Supreme Court because she was publicly supportive of abortion rights and that community financially contributed to her election. It was the most costly ever in the state as the conservatives battled the progressives for control of the Court. Now that they lost, Republicans are trying to change the rules.

According to the Hill Newspaper:

“Wisconsin's Republican-controlled Legislature is talking about impeaching a newly elected liberal state Supreme Court justice even before she has heard a case.

The unprecedented attempt to impeach and remove Justice Janet Protasiewicz from office comes as the court is being asked to throw out legislative electoral maps drawn by the Republican-controlled Legislature in 2011 that cemented the party's majorities, which now stand at 65-34 in the Assembly and a 22-11 supermajority in the Senate.”

Actions such as those discussed above make me even more concerned about elections in 2024. We have always been primarily a nation of laws. We play by the rules in our various states. Gerrymandering is a terrible precedent. I say this even though I live in a state that is a big offender. Wisconsin, under former Governor Scott Walker, threw out many rules and did away with some unions and local districts. They redrew lines that were disallowed by the courts but reasserted them, anyway. Even though Democrats won a majority of votes, due to gerrymandering, they only control about one-third of the legislature. Now that this power might be threatened, they are trying to again change the rules.

Will we be able to have free and fair elections across the country or will these radical legislative bodies refuse to choose electors according to the popular vote in their states? We won't need false electors if the real ones don't follow the laws. I think it is quite past the time to do away with the Electoral College. But, with a divided Congress, this is unlikely to happen.

I am fearful about our future freedoms since so many elected officials no longer appear to believe in Democracy and our Constitution.

‘Til next week-Peace.