Kansas House throws weight behind mutated child care bill with loosened vaccine rules
Statehouse scraps
Opinion editor Clay Wirestone's weekly roundup of legislative flotsam and jetsam. .
Brace yourselves for an especially scrappy version of Statehouse scraps today. I have a mammoth column coming Monday, but I can't ignore my Saturday duties.
So let's be quick yet purposeful.
First up, from the good folks at Kansas Action for Children, a warning about Substitute for House Bill 2294, a child care bill that passed the House on Thursday.
'While we supported the previous bipartisan compromise, the work by the House Committee on Commerce, Labor and Economic Development made this bill into something we can no longer support,' my former colleagues at KAC wrote on Friday.
Why's that? you ask. 'On Monday, the committee added two amendments that loosen vaccination requirements and could lead to deregulation of child care settings.'
Oh. Oh, dear.
The Immunize Kansas Coalition issued its own statement on the bill Friday.
The group was 'very disappointed this provision was not removed from the bill before its passage by the House (this change wasn't even mentioned in the much too brief floor debate!), especially now as Kansas is facing a significant measles outbreak. Our youngest children in child care settings — sometimes too young to be vaccinated yet for diseases like measles — are most at risk for complications from infectious diseases, and they rely on everyone around them to keep them safe.'
The bill now heads over to the Senate. It's clearly one to keep watching as the session shifts into overdrive.
Looks like we're going to have a dramatic and costly election next year to determine how the state Supreme Court works — and whether abortion remains legal in Kansas.
Stung by their failure to ban the widely popular medical procedure, Republicans have decided to target the legal system itself. (National Republicans seem to be doing the same.) The proposed constitutional amendment would switch Kansas to direct elections of justices, a surefire way to make big-money court elections part of the landscape. What a delightful prospect. As you might expect, advocacy groups had a lot to say.
'This is a blatant power grab by extremists who refuse to accept that Kansans have spoken — loudly and repeatedly — for fair courts and personal freedom, including the right to abortion,' said Emily Wales, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes. 'SCR 1611 isn't about judicial integrity; it's about rigging the system to force an agenda that has already been defeated. These lawmakers lost in court and at the ballot box. You don't get to fire the referee when you're losing the game, and Kansans will see this for exactly what it is. We'll dust off our Vote No signs and win again.'
'This is a blatant attack by the legislators on our justices, and it's part of a decades-long pattern of politicians attempting to punish the judicial branch for issuing decisions on education and reproductive freedom that they disagree with,' said Micah Kubic, ACLU of Kansas executive director. 'We are confident that, just as they did in 2022, the people of Kansas will see this attack for what it is — and once again take action to defend their constitutional rights from the power grabs of extremist politicians in Topeka.'
Finally, from the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association: 'There have been no issues regarding the Kansas Supreme Court that necessitated the proponents' push for this constitutional amendment. We trust Kansas voters will reject this amendment. We strongly believe that when voters are exposed to the realities of watching our state's Justices having to raise money and campaign for their seats and the negative impact it will have on our state, they will vote no.'
Funny, isn't it, that the issues Kansans get to vote on aren't Medicaid expansion or cannabis legalization, but (once again) banning abortion.
In the frothy brew of Statehouse news, these questions floated to the top for me this week.
A majority of senators voted against increasing special education funding and eliminating continuous eligibility for Medicaid coverage this week. Do they plan on running for office again?
Why do so many Kansas officials see open records laws as suggestions rather than, you know, laws?
Sure, a black mass might be 'a despicable, blasphemous and offensive sacrilege to not only Catholics but all people of goodwill.' But it's also protected speech under the First Amendment. Right?
Quoth state Sen. Virgil Peck about cheap office space for reporters at the Statehouse: 'When I mention this in a forum back home, people come unglued: 'You are only charging $100 a year for the press to write stories about you,' that frequently are inaccurate. Those are my words.' What stories does Peck think are inaccurate? When he suggested shooting illegal immigrants? Or when he talked about 'God's special creation — females' in supporting an anti-trans bill?
What department do Kansas Republican lawmakers think works well? If the answer is none, how is that possible given their decades-long hold of legislative power?
Apparently, House Speaker Dan Hawkins' dislike of journalists has been taken to a new level in the chamber he oversees.
As I tried to visit a House leadership office Friday, I was stopped by guards who said I couldn't even knock on a door or see a secretary. I had to have an appointment, they said, or be called back. No, the fact that I was a journalist made no difference.
Let's be clear: Every other representative has an office accessible through Statehouse hallways. On the other hand, House leaders' offices are located at the front the of the chamber and overseen by these handful of brave souls.
What about Hawkins' or Majority Leader Chris Croft's constituents? Can they only glimpse the office doors in the distance as well?
Clay Wirestone is Kansas Reflector opinion editor. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
a few seconds ago
- Newsweek
Republicans Passed the One Big Beautiful Bill to Secure Our Borders—Here's What We Must Do Next
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act was the product of many months of hard work by Congress and the unwavering leadership of President Donald Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson. The legislation stands as a landmark achievement, and it represents a sea change for border security and immigration enforcement. That change is long overdue, particularly as we work to undo the devastation of the Biden-Harris border crisis. President Donald Trump and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson speak to members of the media at the U.S. Capitol on May 20, 2025, in Washington, D.C. President Donald Trump and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson speak to members of the media at the U.S. Capitol on May 20, 2025, in Washington, the turnaround are historic investments in Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Among other achievements, Republicans approved more than $46 billion to finish construction of the strategic border barrier system, $45 billion to expand ICE's ability to detain illegal aliens, and approximately $35 billion to recruit, hire, and retain thousands more CBP and ICE officers, agents, and support personnel. But the work to ensure long-lasting border security and interior enforcement is far from over. While Republicans maintain majorities in Washington, we must advance the ball even further. There are three key areas in which we still have a long way to go—but the path is clear. First, we must act quickly to codify President Trump's executive orders. As we learned when President Joe Biden took office and ended essentially every effective border security and enforcement policy of the first Trump administration, executive actions can be undone—sometimes with devastating consequences. If we want the policy wins of the second Trump administration to be guaranteed for future generations, we must turn those executive orders into law. The reconciliation process allowed us to secure many key victories, but the rules of that process also prevented us from enacting policy changes without a clear fiscal impact. That means there are numerous reforms still on the table demanding our attention and action. For starters, to prevent future abuse of our immigration laws and protect our families and communities from the scourge of the fentanyl crisis, we must advance and expand upon the policies put forward in H.R.2, the Secure the Border Act, a historic border security and immigration reform bill that passed the House last Congress but was ignored by the Democrat-led Senate. Some of those reforms include explicitly prohibiting mass parole and nationality-based parole programs, closing asylum and catch-and-release loopholes, expanding expedited removal, cracking down on visa overstays, and expanding grounds for inadmissibility. The American people support such strong measures. They resoundingly endorsed these policies in the 2024 election after President Trump ran on a platform of mass deportations. Poll after poll shows continued support for that platform, despite increasingly outrageous Democrat rhetoric. Second, Republicans need to ramp up our investigative and accountability efforts, starting with looking deeply into the Biden-era officials who crafted, implemented, and defended the unlawful open-borders policies that caused untold harm to our nation. The burgeoning "auto-pen" scandal of the Biden administration—which casts into doubt whether President Biden was of sound mind and personally responsible for many of the policy decisions of his administration, even from its earliest days—sparks some troubling questions. Chief among these is how many of the radical policy decisions on border security and immigration enforcement were driven not by the president, but by others in the White House who saw the opportunity to systemically undermine longstanding U.S. immigration law in pursuit of open-borders, anti-enforcement policies? We have already identified a number of individuals involved in the Biden transition team and the administration that played a role in this crisis, and we must aggressively expand our investigation into them and pursue accountability where we can. Third and finally, we need to hold accountable the nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that helped facilitate the Biden-Harris administration's border crisis. The House Committee on Homeland Security has devoted substantial time and effort into uncovering how these NGOs served as a conduit for illegal immigration under the previous administration, often to their own substantial financial benefit. A few weeks ago, we sent a letter to more than 200 NGOs suspected of providing services and benefits to illegal aliens, seeking information about how these groups have used federal taxpayer dollars. We need to expand these probes, and as chairman of the Committee's Border Security and Enforcement Subcommittee, I fully intend to do so. No organization should be allowed to subvert or undermine U.S. laws, and they most certainly should not be doing so with taxpayer money. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened under Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, and we need to not only prevent further abuse via legislative solutions but also demonstrate that those who do will answer for their actions. This is a bold agenda for the House Republican conference and the House Committee on Homeland Security. But the American people have spoken unequivocally. Just like President Trump, they want the border secured, illegal aliens removed, and their communities made safe. They also want accountability for the harm caused to our country and a firm commitment to advancing President Trump's proven border security agenda. We must show that we are up to the task. Congressman Michael Guest is the chairman of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement and is currently serving his fourth term as the U.S. representative for Mississippi's 3rd Congressional District. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Newsweek
a few seconds ago
- Newsweek
Medicaid Turns 60 Today. America Needs It Now More Than Ever
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Today, on the 60th anniversary of Medicaid, America faces a health care crisis of its own making. Medicaid isn't just a lifeline for the poor. It's the backbone of our entire health care system and economic stability. Just in time for the 60th anniversary of Medicaid, however, Republicans made extraordinary cuts to the program in the "big beautiful bill," despite scientific and expert warnings. These cuts to Medicaid could translate to more than 42,000 preventable deaths each year. That's almost half a million lives lost over a decade simply because of bad policy choices. Slashing Medicaid isn't fiscal responsibility. It's a ticking time bomb for families, hospitals, and the economy. President Lyndon B. Johnson established Medicaid, alongside Medicare, on July 30, 1965. In the past 60 years, Medicaid has significantly expanded access to health care, including basic doctor's appointments and check ups, prescription drugs, and long-term care. The proposed cuts threaten to rip coverage away from millions. Studies show that when Medicaid shrinks, more people delay care, more hospitals go bankrupt, and preventable deaths rise. The Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, built on the existing Medicaid system. That expansion has saved nearly 30,000 lives. In states that expanded Medicaid, premature deaths fell. In states that didn't, they rose. Instead of building on that success, Republicans have taken a chainsaw to the program, and millions will lose their coverage. Today, one in five Americans rely on Medicaid. Republicans paint a false picture of young men sitting on their couches, too lazy to get jobs, playing video games all day as the ones eating up Medicaid tax dollars. In reality, more than half of Medicaid spending goes toward the elderly and people with disabilities. The majority of adults on Medicaid are employed either full- or part-time. Nearly half of all U.S. births are covered by Medicaid. About two-thirds of nursing home residents depend on it. Medicaid serves people in every corner of this country, from inner cities to small rural towns, Democrats to Republicans. In fact, about 20 million Medicaid beneficiaries lean Republican. According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly 17 million more Americans will become uninsured by 2034 due to the bill's changes. Republicans insist they didn't change Medicaid eligibility rules. While that's true, it ignores the fact that the bureaucratic barriers of extra forms, tighter deadlines, and poor communication will ultimately cause mass disenrollment. Here's what that means in practice: People won't know they've lost coverage until they show up in the ER. Parents will skip pediatric checkups. Cancer patients will delay follow-up care. Preventable conditions will become fatal. WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 23: Care workers with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) participate in a living cemetery protest at the US Capitol June 23, 2025 in Washington, DC. WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 23: Care workers with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) participate in a living cemetery protest at the US Capitol June 23, 2025 in Washington, economic health relies heavily on a community's physical health. Republicans are supposedly the party of small businesses, but the proposed cuts will end up hurting small businesses in the long run. Once the cuts go through, more small businesses will have to pay and offer health care plans to their employees. Ironically, Medicaid cuts will end up hurting Republicans' own constituents the most. In rural areas, where politics often skew to the right, hospitals will have to enforce layoffs and potentially shut down due to patients being unable to pay for their care. This isn't about partisan politics, though. Ultimately, people will die and American lives will be lost. Republican or Democrat, we will all feel the crippling effects of slashing Medicaid. Conservatives value strong families and thriving small towns—Medicaid cuts will devastate both. Liberals champion social safety nets—this would shred one of the biggest. Both sides claim to protect working Americans. Medicaid covers millions of Americans who are employed but earn too little to afford private insurance. When one in five Americans loses their safety net from Medicaid, we all feel the consequences. So what can people do if they're at risk of losing Medicaid? First, make sure your contact information is current with your local Medicaid office. If you've moved recently, the system likely doesn't know. The government won't track you down to keep you covered. Second, if you lose coverage, act quickly: you'll have a limited window to enroll through the ACA marketplace, your employer, or another public option. Visit or contact a Medicaid navigator for help. Many hospitals and local officials also have staff who can walk you through next steps. Cutting Medicaid will not make America healthier. It will do the opposite: create health care deserts, saddle hospitals with unpaid bills, and force taxpayers to absorb higher costs elsewhere. Sixty years ago today, Medicaid was born. Today, we see the entire system at risk. If we truly want to make America a healthier, more resilient nation, we must protect Medicaid—not as charity, but as infrastructure. Dr. Anahita Dua is a vascular surgeon, Associate Professor of Surgery at Harvard Medical School, and the Founder and Chair of Healthcare for Action. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
USA Today
2 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump approval rating sinks to 40%, the lowest of his term, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
WASHINGTON, July 29 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's approval rating dropped one percentage point to 40%, the lowest level of his second term in office, as Americans remained concerned about his handling of the economy and immigration, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found. The three-day poll, which closed on Monday, surveyed 1,023 U.S. adults nationwide and had a margin of error of 3 percentage points. It showed a nation deeply polarized over Trump, with 83% of Republicans and just 3% of Democrats approving of his performance. About one-third of independents approved. More: Poll: Trump's immigration approval rating at an all time low in second term Trump had a 41% approval rating in Reuters/Ipsos' most recent prior poll, conducted on July 15 and 16. The Republican campaigned on promises to supercharge the U.S. economy and crack down on immigration, and the poll found that Americans gave him mixed marks on both those areas, where his administration is using aggressive tactics. More: Trump's trade deal with the EU: What it means for your wallet Some 38% of respondents approved of Trump's handling of the economy, up from 35% approval in the mid-July poll. His numbers were also up slightly on immigration, with 43% of respondents approving, compared with 41% in the earlier poll. All the shifts were within the poll's margin of error. (Reporting by Nicole Jeanine Johnson; Editing by Scott Malone and Nia Williams)
