Latest news with #BonnieCash
UPI
a day ago
- Politics
- UPI
Supreme Court expected to make major rulings before term ends
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to deliver rulings on a handful of major cases on Friday as its current term ends. File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI. | License Photo June 27 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court is slated to hand down its final rulings of its current term Friday, some of which could be landmark decisions. It's expected the Court will decide on whether President Donald Trump may enforce his executive order that would limit birthright citizenship. Trump had put out the order in January that alleged the 14th Amendment, which says every person born in the United States is a U.S. citizen., doesn't actually apply to babies born to one or more parents who aren't legally in the country. The Court will also resolve whether or not the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, an Affordable Care Act feature that recommends preventive care services that insurers must cover at no cost to patients, infringes the Constitution's appointments clause as its members are not nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Another major decision likely to be made Friday would decide if parents in Montgomery County, Md., had their religious rights violated because the Board of Education there hasn't provided an opt-out for their children to avoid reading material that includes gay and transgender characters. A First Amendment lawsuit that concerns a Texas law that requires people to verify their age before viewing online pornography is also on the docket, as is the fate of a Federal Communications Commission program that covers the cost of telecommunications services in rural and low-income areas. A lawsuit that accuses Louisiana of gerrymandering congressional districts, in violation of the Voting Rights Act is also expected to be settled Friday. The Court usually breaks for the summer until the new term starts in October, but they will still have to act on any emergency cases that might arise.
UPI
a day ago
- Politics
- UPI
Supreme Court allows states to cut Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood
In April, a pro-choice demonstrator chants outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., ahead of oral arguments in South Carolina's effort to strip Planned Parenthood of Medicaid funding. File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo June 26 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, the nonprofit's arm that covers South Carolina, can't sue the state over its closing off of the nonprofit's Medicaid funding because it provides abortions. "The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed our right to exclude abortion providers from receiving taxpayer dollars," wrote Gov. Henry McMaster, R-S.C., in an X post Thursday. "Seven years ago, we took a stand to protect the sanctity of life and defend South Carolina's authority and values," he added, "and today, we are finally victorious." The 6-3 decision followed the court's ideological makeup, with the three liberal judges in dissent while the six conservative judges ruled in support. The court's syllabus noted 42 U.S. Code Section 1983, which allows private parties to file suit against state officials who violate their Constitutional rights. However, in the opinion of the Court, which was delivered by Justice Neil Gorsuch, he wrote that "federal statutes do not automatically confer [Section 1983]-enforceable 'rights.'" "This is especially true of spending-power statutes like Medicaid, where 'the typical remedy' for violations is federal funding termination, not private suits," he continued. "No court has addressed whether that Medicare provision creates [Section 1983] rights," he later wrote. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the dissent, and she also referred to Section 1983. "South Carolina asks us to hollow out that provision so that the State can evade liability for violating the rights of its Medicaid recipients to choose their own doctors," Jackson stated. "The Court abides South Carolina's request. I would not." South Carolina had announced in July of 2018 that Planned Parenthood could no longer participate in the state's Medicaid program, under a state law that prohibits the use of its own public funding for abortions. The order further affected patients in that it had the effect of also blocking Planned Parenthood patients from receiving services such as breast exams, sexually transmitted diseases and contraception. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic announced on its social media platform Thursday that, "Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that people using Medicaid in South Carolina no longer have the freedom to choose Planned Parenthood South Atlantic as their sexual and reproductive health care provider." "If you are a patient using Medicaid, keep your appointment," the post continued. "We're still here to provide you with the low or no cost care you deserve." The post concluded with "We're in this with you, and we aren't going anywhere."
UPI
2 days ago
- Politics
- UPI
HHS investigates trans athlete on Minn. high school softball team
The Department of Health and Human Services has opened an investigation into Minnesota after a transgender teenager played on a girls' high school softball team. File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo June 27 (UPI) -- The Department of Health and Human Services has opened a civil rights investigation into the Minnesota Department of Education over a transgender teenager competing on a girls' softball team. The investigation, announced Thursday, is the latest from the Trump administration connected to the teenager from Champlin Park High School competing in the girls' Minnesota State High School League. The team earlier this month won the 2025 State Tournament. HHS said in a statement Thursday that it is investigating the Minnesota Department of Education and the MSHSL under Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in education programs and activities of HHS funding recipients. It is seeking see if the state's policies violated federal civil rights laws. "The investigation will examine whether Minnesota engaged in discrimination on the basis of sex by allowing male athletes to compete on sports teams reserved for females," the statement said. The federal Department of Justice and the Department of Education have already opened investigations related to the transgender teenager's participation in the sports league. The effort to ban transgender girls from girls' sports teams has been a Republican effort for years and part of a larger movement targeting the LGBT community, which gained a federal partner under the Trump administration. In early February, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports to ensure transgender women and girls do not play on women or women's or girls' sports sports teams. Proponents of the ban argue that allowing transgender females in girls' and women's sports gives them an unfair advantage while being discriminatory to athletes who were born female. Critics, meanwhile, contend that the science does not support claims that transgender girls have an unfair advantage, that this is a non-issue given how few transgender athletes there are and that transgender athletes have the right to compete alongside their peers. The American Academy of Pediatrics has also voiced support for transgender athletes participating in sports competitions that align with their gender identity, stating it "helps youth develop self-esteem, correlates positively with overall mental health, and appears to have a protective effect against suicide.
UPI
2 days ago
- Politics
- UPI
Supreme Court: Planned Parenthood in South Carolina can't sue over Medicaid exclusion
In April, a pro-choice demonstrator chants outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., ahead of oral arguments in South Carolina's effort to strip Planned Parenthood of Medicaid funding. File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo June 26 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, the nonprofit's arm that covers South Carolina, can't sue the state over its closing off of the nonprofit's Medicaid funding because it provides abortions. "The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed our right to exclude abortion providers from receiving taxpayer dollars," wrote Gov. Henry McMaster, R-S.C., in an X post Thursday. "Seven years ago, we took a stand to protect the sanctity of life and defend South Carolina's authority and values," he added, "and today, we are finally victorious." The 6-3 decision followed the court's ideological makeup, with the three liberal judges in dissent while the six conservative judges ruled in support. The court's syllabus noted 42 U.S. Code Section 1983, which allows private parties to file suit against state officials who violate their Constitutional rights. However, in the opinion of the Court, which was delivered by Justice Neil Gorsuch, he wrote that "federal statutes do not automatically confer [Section 1983]-enforceable 'rights.'" "This is especially true of spending-power statutes like Medicaid, where 'the typical remedy' for violations is federal funding termination, not private suits," he continued. "No court has addressed whether that Medicare provision creates [Section 1983] rights," he later wrote. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the dissent, and she also referred to Section 1983. "South Carolina asks us to hollow out that provision so that the State can evade liability for violating the rights of its Medicaid recipients to choose their own doctors," Jackson stated. "The Court abides South Carolina's request. I would not." South Carolina had announced in July of 2018 that Planned Parenthood could no longer participate in the state's Medicaid program, under a state law that prohibits the use of its own public funding for abortions. The order further affected patients in that it had the effect of also blocking Planned Parenthood patients from receiving services such as breast exams, sexually transmitted diseases and contraception. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic announced on its social media platform Thursday that, "Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that people using Medicaid in South Carolina no longer have the freedom to choose Planned Parenthood South Atlantic as their sexual and reproductive health care provider." "If you are a patient using Medicaid, keep your appointment," the post continued. "We're still here to provide you with the low or no cost care you deserve." The post concluded with "We're in this with you, and we aren't going anywhere."
UPI
2 days ago
- Politics
- UPI
Why fewer Americans speak up on political issues
Studies show that both Republican and Democratic supporters are now far more likely than in the past to view the opposing party with deep distrust. File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo June 26 (UPI) -- For decades, Americans' trust in one another has been on the decline, according to the most recent General Social Survey. A major factor in that downshift has been the concurrent rise in the polarization between the two major political parties. Supporters of Republicans and Democrats are far more likely than in the past to view the opposite side with distrust. That political polarization is so stark that many Americans are now unlikely to have friendly social interactions, live nearby or congregate with people from opposing camps, according to one recent study. Social scientists often refer to this sort of animosity as "affective polarization," meaning that people not only hold conflicting views on many or most political issues but also disdain fellow citizens who hold different opinions. Over the past few decades, such affective polarization in the U.S. has become commonplace. Polarization undermines democracy by making the essential processes of democratic deliberation -- discussion, negotiation, compromise and bargaining over public policies -- difficult, if not impossible. Because polarization extends so broadly and deeply, some people have become unwilling to express their views until they've confirmed they're speaking with someone who's like-minded. I'm a political scientist, and I found that Americans were far less likely to publicly voice their opinions than even during the height of the McCarthy-era Red Scare. The muting of the American voice According to a 2022 book written by political scientists Taylor Carlson and Jaime E. Settle, fears about speaking out are grounded in concerns about social sanctions for expressing unwelcome views. And this withholding of views extends across a broad range of social circumstances. In 2022, for instance, I conducted a survey of a representative sample of about 1,500 residents of the U.S. I found that while 45% of the respondents were worried about expressing their views to members of their immediate family, this percentage ballooned to 62% when it came to speaking out publicly in one's community. Nearly half of those surveyed said they felt less free to speak their minds than they used to. About three to four times more Americans said they did not feel free to express themselves, compared with the number of those who said so during the McCarthy era. Censorship in the U.S. and globally Since that survey, attacks on free speech have increased markedly, especially under the Trump administration. Issues such as the Israeli war in Gaza, activist campaigns against "wokeism," and the ever-increasing attempts to penalize people for expressing certain ideas have made it more difficult for people to speak out. The breadth of self-censorship in the U.S. in recent times is not unprecedented or unique to the U.S. Indeed, research in Germany, Sweden and elsewhere have reported similar increases in self-censorship in the past several years. How the 'spiral of a silence' explains self-censorship In the 1970s, Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, a distinguished German political scientist, coined the term the "spiral of silence" to describe how self-censorship arises and what its consequences can be. Informed by research she conducted on the 1965 West German federal election, Noelle-Neumann observed that an individual's willingness to publicly give their opinion was tied to their perceptions of public opinion on an issue. The so-called spiral happens when someone expresses a view on a controversial issue and then encounters vigorous criticism from an aggressive minority -- perhaps even sharp attacks. A listener can impose costs on the speaker for expressing the view in a number of ways, including criticism, direct personal attacks and even attempts to "cancel" the speaker through ending friendships or refusing to attend social events such as Thanksgiving or holiday dinners. This kind of sanction isn't limited to just social interactions but also when someone is threatened by far bigger institutions, from corporations to the government. The speaker learns from this encounter and decides to keep their mouth shut in the future because the costs of expressing the view are simply too high. This self-censorship has knock-on effects, as views become less commonly expressed and people are less likely to encounter support from those who hold similar views. People come to believe that they are in the minority, even if they are, in fact, in the majority. This belief then also contributes to the unwillingness to express one's views. The opinions of the aggressive minority then become dominant. True public opinion and expressed public opinion diverge. Most importantly, the free-ranging debate so necessary to democratic politics is stifled. Not all issues are like this, of course -- only issues for which a committed and determined minority exists that can impose costs on a particular viewpoint are subject to this spiral. The consequences for democratic deliberation The tendency toward self-censorship means listeners are deprived of hearing the withheld views. The marketplace of ideas becomes skewed; the choices of buyers in that marketplace are circumscribed. The robust debate so necessary to deliberations in a democracy is squelched as the views of a minority come to be seen as the only "acceptable" political views. No better example of this can be found than in the absence of debate in the contemporary U.S. about the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis, whatever outcome such vigorous discussion might produce. Fearful of consequences, many people are withholding their views on Israel -- whether Israel has committed war crimes, for instance, or whether Israeli members of government should be sanctioned -- because they fear being branded as antisemitic. Many Americans are also biting their tongues when it comes to DEI, affirmative action and even whether political tolerance is essential for democracy. But the dominant views are also penalized by this spiral. By not having to face their competitors, they lose the opportunity to check their beliefs and, if confirmed, bolster and strengthen their arguments. Good ideas lose the chance to become better, while bad ideas -- such as something as extreme as Holocaust denial -- are given space to flourish. The spiral of silence therefore becomes inimical to pluralistic debate, discussion and, ultimately, to democracy itself. James L. Gibson is the Sidney W. Souers professor of government at the Washington University in St. Louis. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely those of the author.
