Bipartisan bill in Congress would name Zablocki VA women's clinic after Anna Mae Robertson
The Women's Well Clinic, which provides services like primary care, gynecology, maternity care and mental health care, would be named the Anna Mae Robertson VA Well Women Clinic.
The VA as a whole, named after former Milwaukee congressman Clement J. Zablocki, would keep its name.
The bill is authored by Democratic U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore and has the support of three Wisconsin Republicans — Reps. Bryan Steil, Scott Fitzgerald and Tony Wied. Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan also backs the legislation.
'As our community and her family mourn her passing, I am pleased that my Wisconsin colleagues from both sides of the aisle have come together to help honor her in this way," Moore said in a news release.
Wied, a Republican who represents the northeastern part of the state, said Robertson "exemplifies the best of Wisconsin." And Stiel, from southeastern Wisconsin, said "it's fitting that she receives recognition for her service to our nation and her fellow veterans at the facility she dedicated her time and talents.'
Robertson was among the 855 women in the 6888th Central Postal Directory Battalion, the only all-Black female unit stationed overseas during World War II. With the slogan 'No Mail, Low Morale,' they cleared a nearly three-year logjam of mail destined for homesick soldiers in just three months.
After decades of little recognition of their service, the Six Triple Eight's story became a Netflix film directed by Tyler Perry and starring Kerry Washington.
More: Milwaukee's Anna Mae Robertson, one of last surviving members of World War II's famed Six Triple Eight unit, dies at 101
In 2022, Robertson, then 98, and other members of the Six Triple Eight were awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, one of the highest civilian honors awarded in the United States. At the time, there were only six known living veterans of the unit.
Robertson's celebration of life was held June 7.
If the clinic is named after Robertson, her name will grace a place that was closely connected to her life.
After moving to Milwaukee post-war, Robertson worked as a nurse's aide, caring for sick veterans at the veteran's hospital. Eventually, she too received care from the VA.
'The VA hospital was wonderful to my mother,' Sheree Robertson told the Journal Sentinel. 'They provided her with such loving care, and any time she needed any equipment, it was provided to her."
She thanked Moore for recognizing her mother in a profound way and 'for doing the tough work to get this legislation passed.'
'I just wished that people would remember the life she lived and be inspired by it,' Robertson said. "I think it is only fitting that they name (the) women's clinic after my mother, so everyone who goes to that clinic would know about my mother's history, her life, the story of the Six Triple Eight … and that she proudly served her country.'
The clinic could become even more important in the coming years. Women are the fastest-growing segment of the veteran population, projected to make up 18% of all veterans in 2040, compared to just 4% in 2000.
Democratic lawmakers in the state Capitol — including Moore's son, state Rep. Supreme Moore Omokunde from Milwaukee — also introduced a joint resolution early this month to honor Robertson.
Resolutions express lawmakers' opinion and don't carry the force of law.
Two Republicans have signed onto the resolution, according to Moore Omokunde's office, and GOP legislative leaders could choose to schedule it for a vote during an upcoming floor session.
Robertson "(leaves) behind a profound legacy of resilience, service, and inspiration," the resolution reads.
This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Milwaukee VA women's clinic could be named after Six Triple Eight hero
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Your kid is getting a ‘Trump account.' Should you put your money in it?
Republicans' 'big, beautiful bill' includes a gift to millions of families: $1,000 in an investment account for every eligible newborn. The new savings vehicles, akin to Individual Retirement Accounts, are designated for children who are U.S. citizens born from 2025 through 2028. In addition to the one-time government contribution, parents and others can chip in as much as $5,000 a year to the accounts, which beneficiaries can access at 18, with some constraints. Subscribe to The Post Most newsletter for the most important and interesting stories from The Washington Post. The seed money is a boon for recipients and will grow tax-deferred. Financial planners say parents and guardians might do better putting their money into existing investment vehicles such as a 529 plan, a savings plan designed to cover college expenses. But 529s are limited to education, while backers say the new accounts can help their recipients beyond college. Republican lawmakers call the accounts 'Trump accounts,' though the Senate's plan to officially name them after the president did not make it to the final version of the legislation, which was signed Friday. They deliver on an idea that both Democrats and Republicans have floated for years: to invest money for all children at birth. Withdrawals from a 529 are not subject to state or federal taxes as long as the funds go toward qualified education expenses - a feature the new investment accounts don't share. And in the new accounts, parents' deposits don't qualify for a tax deduction, notes Greg Leiserson, a senior fellow at the Tax Law Center at New York University. 'You have this very slight or minimal-to-nonexistent tax benefit,' he said. 'What is the point here?' Financial adviser Amy Spalding of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, said she will continue to steer her clients to 529s. 'It's better from a tax standpoint,' Spalding said. 'And there are more investment options. And then there's a higher contribution limit.' (For 2025, a single person can deposit as much as $19,000 a year into a beneficiary's 529, while married couples can contribute as much $38,000.) Jeremiah Barlow, a financial planner in Santa Barbara, California, said the new accounts could benefit a family that has hit the maximum on their child's 529 and wants to save more, or who like the idea of setting up a fund for their child's first home or as an economic safety net. 'It would likely appeal to our families who want more flexibility for more general-purpose savings for their child's future,' Barlow said. 'You shouldn't rush to just use it because it's out there.' Leiserson cautioned that account holders should understand the tax implications, noting that withdrawals will be taxed at typical income rates, not at the capital gains rate of a taxable brokerage account. 'For most people, this is going to be worse than what they could do in a taxable account,' he said. Though parents don't get a tax deduction when they contribute to a new account, employers can claim a tax break for contributions on behalf of their workers' children or their teenage employees. Nonprofits also can contribute to they accounts. The law requires the new investment accounts to track a U.S. stock index, which means account holders have fewer options than they would in a brokerage account or a 529 plan, which generally offer a range of investment options with varying levels of risk, including stocks, bonds and mutual funds. Leiserson noted that all-stock portfolios come with their own risks, because they're tethered to market conditions. 'If you're saying, 'Okay, I'm going to start school in the fall' - if the market falls over the summer, the planning you were doing about how you were going to pay for college is totally messed up, because the money you thought would be there, isn't." The White House said the accounts 'will afford a generation of children the chance to experience the miracle of compounded growth and set them on a course for prosperity from the very beginning.' While some experts appreciate the premise of the accounts, they also see flaws in the design, such as the requirement that parents opt-in to the account on their tax return, which means people who don't know this might miss out. In addition, the law includes a penalty of at least $500 if a parent mistakenly claims an account, which could scare off some parents. During the grinding process of crafting the massive tax and spending legislation, the accounts changed both superficially - they were renamed from MAGA accounts to Trump accounts to a yet-to-be-determined name - and in substance. Legislators dropped plans to give account withdrawals favorable tax treatment similar to a brokerage account. Account withdrawals will be taxed at ordinary income tax rates, not capital gains rates. Congress also discarded rules that would have prescribed how beneficiaries could spend the money - on college at 18, on starting a business at 25, on buying a house at 30. Instead, account holders cannot touch the funds until they turn 18. After that, the rules are the same as those of an individual retirement account - withdrawals are taxed like income, plus an additional 10 percent tax penalty on any withdrawals before age 59½ except for certain qualified uses. Those uses include paying for college, supporting themselves if they become disabled, or recovering from domestic abuse or a natural disaster. Beneficiaries also can withdraw as much as $10,000 to buy their first home, and up to $5,000 when they have a new baby themselves. Even one of the Trump accounts' biggest proponents in Congress, Rep. Blake Moore (R-Utah), said in an interview that for many parents, the new account design offers more benefits for retirement than for college expenses. 'I would argue that the tax implications of a 529 are far more favorable,' he said, but noted that most families don't have the disposable income to invest in a 529, and the new accounts' $1,000 from the government can benefit people at all income levels. If the account saw a 6 percent rate of return for 18 years, it would be worth $2,854; if the stock market does well, it could be worth even more. 'The most beneficial thing in my opinion about these is that … you're investing from birth into an IRA,' Moore said. 'Most people start investing in an IRA at 30 …. We're talking at birth or at 30. The benefits of investing early into that IRA are significant.' Moore has four sons, and while none will qualify for the government's $1,000 seed money contribution for newborns, the law allows him to open a Trump account as a parent. He says he'll be putting money in it: 'I want my kids having a Trump account so they can take it out when they're 50 or 60 years old.' - - - Jacob Bogage contributed to this report. Related Content Arthur Ashe's knack for reinvention led him to history at Wimbledon Newlywed detained by ICE freed after 141 days and two deportation attempts The Met opens a dazzling wing of non-European art Sign in to access your portfolio
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Ketanji Brown Jackson turns independent streak loose on fellow justices
To hear Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson tell it, it's a 'perilous moment for our Constitution.' The Supreme Court's most junior justice had pointed exchanges with her colleagues on the bench this term, increasingly accusing them of unevenly applying the law — even if it meant standing on her own from the court's other liberal justices. Jackson has had an independent streak since President Biden nominated her to the bench in 2022. But the dynamic has intensified this term, especially as litigation over President Trump's sweeping agenda reached the court. It climaxed with her final dissent of decision season, when Jackson accused her fellow justices of helping Trump threaten the rule of law at a moment they should be 'hunkering down.' 'It is not difficult to predict how this all ends,' Jackson wrote. 'Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.' Her stark warning came as Trump's birthright citizenship order split the court on its 6-3 ideological lines, with all three Democratic appointed justices dissenting from the decision to limit nationwide injunctions. Jackson bounded farther than her two liberal colleagues, writing in a blistering solo critique that said the court was embracing Trump's apparent request for permission to 'engage in unlawful behavior.' The decision amounts to an 'existential threat to the rule of law,' she said. It wasn't the first time Jackson's fellow liberal justices left her out in the cold. She has been writing solo dissents since her first full term on the bench. Jackson did so again in another case last month when the court revived the energy industry's effort to axe California's stricter car emission standard. Jackson accused her peers of ruling inequitably. 'This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens,' Jackson wrote. 'Because the Court had ample opportunity to avoid that result, I respectfully dissent.' Rather than join Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent that forewent such fiery language, Jackson chose to pen her own. The duo frequently agrees. They were on the same side in 94 percent of cases this term, according to data from SCOTUSblog, more than any other pair except for Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, the court's two leading conservatives. Sometimes Sotomayor signs on to Jackson's piercing dissents, including when she last month condemned the court's emergency order allowing the Department of Government Efficiency to access Americans' Social Security data. 'The Court is thereby, unfortunately, suggesting that what would be an extraordinary request for everyone else is nothing more than an ordinary day on the docket for this Administration, I would proceed without fear or favor,' Jackson wrote. But it appears there are rhetorical lines the most senior liberal justice won't cross. In another case, regarding disability claims, Sotomayor signed onto portions of Jackson's dissent but rejected a footnote in which Jackson slammed the majority's textualism as 'somehow always flexible enough to secure the majority's desired outcome.' 'Pure textualism's refusal to try to understand the text of a statute in the larger context of what Congress sought to achieve turns the interpretive task into a potent weapon for advancing judicial policy preferences,' the most junior justice wrote, refusing to remove the footnote from her dissent. Jackson's colleagues don't see it that way. 'It's your job to do the legal analysis to the best you can,' Chief Justice John Roberts told a crowd of lawyers at a judicial conference last weekend, rejecting the notion that his decisions are driven by the real-world consequences. 'If it leads to some extraordinarily improbable result, then you want to go back and take another look at it,' Roberts continued. 'But I don't start from what the result looks like and go backwards.' Though Roberts wasn't referencing Jackson's recent dissents, her willingness to call out her peers hasn't gone unaddressed. Jackson's dissent in the birthright citizenship case earned a rare, merciless smackdown from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, cosigned by the court's conservative majority. Replying to Jackson's remark that 'everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law,' Barrett turned that script into her own punchline. 'That goes for judges too,' the most junior conservative justice clapped back. Deriding Jackson's argument as 'extreme,' Barrett said her dissenting opinion ran afoul of centuries of precedent and the Constitution itself. 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' Barrett wrote. The piercing rebuke was a staunch departure from the usually restrained writing of the self-described 'one jalapeño gal.' That's compared to the five-jalapeño rhetoric of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Barrett said, the late conservative icon for whom she clerked. On today's court, it is often Thomas who brings some of the most scathing critiques of Jackson, perhaps most notably when the two took diametrically opposite views of affirmative action two years ago. Page after page, Thomas ripped into Jackson's defense of race-conscious college admissions, accusing her of labeling 'all blacks as victims.' 'Her desire to do so is unfathomable to me. I cannot deny the great accomplishments of black Americans, including those who succeeded despite long odds,' Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion. It isn't Thomas's practice to announce his separate opinions from the bench, but that day, he said he felt compelled to do so. As he read it aloud from the bench for 11 minutes, Jackson stared blankly ahead into the courtroom. Jackson's boldness comes across not only in the court's decision-making. At oral arguments this term, she spoke 50 percent more than any other justice. She embraces her openness. She told a crowd in May while accepting an award named after former President Truman that she liked to think it was because they both share the same trait: bravery. 'I am also told that some people think I am courageous for the ways in which I engage with litigants and my colleagues in the courtroom, or the manner in which I address thorny issues in my legal writings,' Jackson said. 'Some have even called me fearless.'
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
To tame Washington, we need a DOGE 2.0 — but done right this time
Elon Musk has repeatedly achieved the impossible, but not even he and his Department of Government Efficiency could tame Washington, DC, and its massive federal bureaucracy. Yet there's still hope — and the need has never been more urgent. The Senate parliamentarian gutted major cost savings at the heart of the Republican reconciliation bill that President Donald Trump signed Friday, so he must resume DOGE efforts immediately. Advertisement In Silicon Valley terms, DOGE had product-market fit; it just didn't have the right tech stack. This time, the White House must get the architecture right. Step 1 is understanding what went wrong. DOGE's failures stemmed from three fundamental flaws that doomed the effort from the start. The first was structural. Don Devine, who ran the Office of Personnel Management for President Ronald Reagan, warned that creating a new agency to shrink government never works — it only causes confusion, diffusion of responsibility and more bureaucracy. Advertisement It also ignores that in Washington, the coin of the realm is power. DOGE was a new agency made up out of thin air with zero inherent legal authority — and Cabinet secretaries naturally bristled at an outside third party meddling in their agencies. They wanted to control the change, and they possessed the legal authority to do so. Indeed, as secretaries were confirmed, they moved quickly to throw off DOGE's yoke. Advertisement By late February, Musk faced a revolt as top officials countermanded DOGE's 'five weekly accomplishments' order. An 'explosive' Cabinet meeting in early March ended with Trump telling Musk to make changes with a scalpel, not a hatchet. Musk's second problem was a legal one. Private-sector experience can't prepare anyone for the labyrinth of administrative law that liberal activists use to stymie progress. DOGE lacked a dedicated legal team within the Justice Department focused solely on its policy reforms and preventing unforced errors. For example, DOGE lowered NIH's cap on allowable research overhead from 69% to 15%, explaining that private foundations allow for zero such funding — but it made the cap retroactive, jeopardizing the reform in court. Advertisement The third sin was flash. Even as DOGE's publicity invited legal challenges, it increased the pressure to meet publicly proclaimed, wildly optimistic targets. DOGE's $1 trillion in promised cuts will strain to hit $150 billion. We had a saying in the White House during Trump's first term, and it proved true here: Whales that surface get harpooned. Musk acknowledged as much on X last week, admitting that his attention-getting antics 'lacked empathy.' Fortunately, the source code exists to reengineer the DOGE mission with bold, swift, high-impact moves. The White House must implement three critical components to make DOGE 2.0 work. First, empower Cabinet control: The White House should give Cabinet secretaries direction, then let them make reforms themselves. Trump must give each Cabinet member mandatory workforce reduction goals, the same way tech sales teams have strict quotas. Faced with a requirement, for example, to trim 25% within six months, agency heads will snap into action — and will feel personal responsibility for performance. The federal government works best when it functions as designed, with the president — not a third party — telling his Cabinet what to do. Advertisement Second, the White House must assemble a dedicated legal defense team within the Justice Department focused solely on reform policies, and get each agency's general counsel on board with the effort. These lawyers will catch pitfalls early — and will go the extra mile to defend policies they helped write. For example, these lawyers must aggressively demand injunction bonds to rein in activists' district-court lawfare. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! Advertisement When the Supreme Court ended universal injunctions last week, it left activist judges a 'significant loophole' in the class-action realm. DOJ lawyers should head this off by demanding that plaintiffs pay injunction bonds — upfront money to cover costs should they lose. Finally, DOGE 2.0 must execute in Stealth Mode. Follow the example of the Obama administration, which initially pursued amnesty for undocumented aliens by relaxing enforcement via phone calls, without making a public announcement. This made it much harder for Congress to learn what was happening — or to attack it in court. Advertisement The same quiet execution model applies here: Trump must pursue smart, quiet rollouts, not splashy launches. This was the model my former boss John McEntee used to reform personnel in Trump's first term. He used the authorities inherent in the White House to hold the Cabinet accountable, placed dedicated lawyers in key positions of authority and operated off-the-record. It was a successful model and should be deployed again. Advertisement Watching Musk leave Washington in frustration brings to mind the Roman historian Livy. As the Republic collapsed, he lamented: 'We can endure neither our vices nor the remedies needed to cure them.' America need not repeat Rome's fate — but only if we abandon failed approaches and embrace methods that actually work. The clock is ticking. Daniel Huff is a former White House lawyer in the Office of Presidential Personnel, and was a senior advisor to Project 2025.
