SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
The Senate Clears the First Hurdle Toward Rejecting the Trump FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality
On Monday, sponsorship for Sen. Ed Markey's resolution of disapproval of last month's Net Neutrality repeal reached 30 senators, with Sen. Claire McCaskill the most recent to sign on. The 30-sponsors mark in the Senate is significant because under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), that's the total number of votes needed to discharge a resolution and take it to a vote on the Senate floor.
WASHINGTON
On Monday, sponsorship for Sen. Ed Markey's resolution of disapproval of last month's Net Neutrality repeal reached 30 senators, with Sen. Claire McCaskill the most recent to sign on. The 30-sponsors mark in the Senate is significant because under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), that's the total number of votes needed to discharge a resolution and take it to a vote on the Senate floor.
This specific resolution, which would overturn the Federal Communications Commission's unpopular Dec. 14 decision to destroy Net Neutrality, will be introduced after the agency delivers the final rules to Congress in the coming weeks.
Under the CRA, Congress has 60 legislative days from the time the rules are submitted to vote to reject the FCC repeal. A resolution requires only a simple majority in both chambers.
Sen. Markey (D-Massachusetts) announced on the day of the FCC vote that he would introduce a resolution of disapproval in the Senate. The sponsor list now includes Markey, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York), and Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), Maria Cantwell (D-Washington), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island), Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin), Martin Heinrich (D-New Mexico), Maggie Hassan (D-New Hampshire), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota), Gary Peters (D-Michigan), Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan), Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island), Tim Kaine (D-Virginia), Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts), Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), Michael Bennet (D-Colorado), Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire), Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland), Ben Cardin (D-Maryland), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tammy Duckworth (D-Illinois), Kamala Harris (D-California) and Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri).
According to many recent polls, strong majorities of both Republican and Democratic voters oppose the FCC decision to repeal the Net Neutrality rules. A University of Maryland poll from December 2017 found that more than 83 percent of voters favor keeping the rules, including 75 percent of Republicans, 89 percent of Democrats and 86 percent of independents.
Free Press Action Fund Policy Director Matt Wood made the following statement:
"Supporting Net Neutrality should be a no-brainer for members of Congress, whose constituents from across the political spectrum are united in their opposition to the Trump FCC's attack on the open internet. More and more lawmakers are recognizing this truth, helped along by the forceful outcry from the people they represent.
"If lawmakers care at all about the open internet, they should support this resolution to restore the Net Neutrality rules and Title II.
"People have logged more than a million calls to Congress to reject FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's decision to kill Net Neutrality on Dec. 14. Regardless of party affiliation, all elected officials should stand with their constituents and restore the 2015 protections that protect free speech, choice and innovation online."
Free Press was created to give people a voice in the crucial decisions that shape our media. We believe that positive social change, racial justice and meaningful engagement in public life require equitable access to technology, diverse and independent ownership of media platforms, and journalism that holds leaders accountable and tells people what's actually happening in their communities.
(202) 265-1490LATEST NEWS
Third Death Tied to Texas Abortion Ban as 'Stigma and Fear' Disrupt Miscarriage Care
"The only reason she is not with us is because of Donald Trump, Greg Abbott, and every single Republican politician who helped put Texas' abortion ban in place," said one advocacy group.
Nov 26, 2024
Friends and family of Porsha Ngumezi, a 35-year-old mother of two in Houston, were stunned last year to learn that she had died in a hospital after suffering a miscarriage when she was 11 weeks pregnant—and medical experts who spoke to the investigative outlet ProPublicaon Monday had the same reaction.
"All she needed was a [dilation and curettage]," one friend told Ngumezi's grieving husband, Hope Ngumezi, referring to a standard procedure which is often given to pregnant patients who have first-trimester miscarriages. Commonly called a D&C, it is also diagnose or treat other health conditions and provide abortion care.
Dr. Daniel Grossman, an obstetrics and gynecology professor at University of California, San Francisco, toldProPublica that "at every point" of Ngumezi's visit to Houston Methodist Sugar Land, a hospital outside Houston, medical providers' response to her case was "kind of shocking."
"She is having significant blood loss and the physician didn't move toward aspiration," Grossman told ProPublica.
Like at least two other Texas women—Nevaeh Crain and Josseli Barnica—Ngumezi's death in June 2023 was the result of the abortion ban that went into effect in Texas in 2022, according to medical experts who reviewed her case.
Ngumezi arrived at the hospital on June 11, 2023 after experiencing heavy bleeding 11 weeks into her pregnancy with her third child. Doctors noted that Ngumezi had a blood-clotting disorder and that she was experiencing "significant bleeding" with large clots.
"Doctors assume that a D&C is not standard in Texas anymore, even in cases where it should be recommended. People are afraid: They see D&C as abortion and abortion as illegal."
An ultrasound showed a "sac-like structure," but no fetus or cardiac activity were detected, indicating that she was having a miscarriage.
But instead of providing a D&C, in which a small tube is inserted into the uterus to gently remove any remaining fetal tissue, doctors took a "wait-and-see approach [that] has become more common under abortion bans," according to the medical experts who spoke to ProPublica.
Dr. Gabrielle Taper, who has worked as an OB-GYN in Austin, told ProPublica that since Texas' abortion ban went into effect in 2022—two months after the right-wing majority on the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade—there has been "much more hesitation [among doctors] about: When can we intervene, do we have enough evidence to say this is a miscarriage, how long are we going to wait, what will we use to feel definitive?"
For Ngumezi, that hesitation meant that Dr. Andrew Ryan Davis, the obstetrician on duty, prescribed misoprostol to help Ngumezi pass the fetal tissue without a D&C.
Dr. Alison Goulding, another OB-GYN in Houston, told ProPublica that because misoprostol can also be used for women in labor or to treat postpartum bleeding, under Texas' abortion ban, "stigma and fear are there for D&Cs in a way that they are not for misoprostol."
"Doctors assume that a D&C is not standard in Texas anymore, even in cases where it should be recommended," Goulding said. "People are afraid: They see D&C as abortion and abortion as illegal."
But more than a dozen doctors told ProPublica that considering Ngumezi's blood-clotting disorder, doctors should have provided a D&C.
"Misoprostol," reported ProPublica, "is an effective method to complete low-risk miscarriages but is not recommended when a patient is unstable."
Some critics who support abortion bans have dismissed Ngumezi's case—and that of other women who have died because of the laws—as the result of medical malpractice that had nothing to do with recently passed state laws. They claim Texas' law protects women who have miscarriages.
But ProPublica noted that Ngumezi had a similar case to one described on social media by podcast host Ryan Hamilton earlier this year. Hamilton's wife experienced bleeding while miscarrying at 13 weeks, and was prescribed misoprostol and sent home after an ultrasound at Surepoint Emergency Center Stephenville showed no fetal cardiac activity. The bleeding got worse, but an emergency doctor told the couple they couldn't provide a D&C because of "the current stance" in Texas.
Greer Donley, a law professor at University of Pittsburgh, said that "the antiabortion movement wants us to blame the doctors and sometimes that is warranted. But abortion bans are the ultimate cause of this harm."
"When life in prison is the penalty for violating a ban, doctors will understandably be risk averse. And that chill in care will cause death," said Donley.
ProPublica reported that "performing a D&C attracts more attention from colleagues, creating a higher barrier in a state where abortion is illegal."
Doctors, added Goulding, "have to convince everyone that it is legal and won't put them at risk [of prosecution]."
In Ngumezi's case, the bleeding continued after she took misoprostol, and her heart stopped three hours later—a "preventable" death, according to the experts.
"The only reason" Ngumezi died, said Reproductive Justice for All, is that Republican politicians including President-elect Donald Trump helped put Texas' abortion ban in place.
"We are heartbroken and enraged by the tragic, preventable death of Porsha Ngumezi," said Planned Parenthood Texas Votes. "This nightmare reality, where political agendas outweigh patients' lives, has left another family shattered."
Keep ReadingShow Less
IDF Pummels Beirut as Israeli Cabinet Weighs Cease-Fire Proposal
The Israeli military said one round of strikes hit 20 targets in Beirut's southern suburbs within two minutes.
Nov 26, 2024
Israeli strikes rained down on Beirut Tuesday, despite the possibility that the Israeli government and Hezbollah may achieve a diplomatic breakthrough imminently. The wave of strikes came just before the Israeli security cabinet began a meeting to debate a cease-fire deal that would temporarily end fighting.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has indicated openness to a cease-fire deal with Hezbollah, according to New York Timesreporting from Monday.
Multiple media reports detail that the latest Israeli barrage in Lebanon included strikes on Beirut's southern suburbs, a Hezbollah stronghold. Reuters and The Times of Israel report that the Israeli military said one round of strikes hit 20 targets in the densely populated city within two minutes.
Israel issued multiple evacuation orders for different parts of Lebanon Tuesday, perThe New York Times' live updates.
"Residents of Lebanon, in the coming hours, we will inform the residents of buildings used by Hezbollah of the need to evacuate them for your safety according to the maps that will be published," Israeli army spokesperson Avichay Adraee said on X roughly an hour ago, according to Al Jazeera.
Heavy airstrikes have also been reported in southern Lebanon, including in the town of Naqoura where the U.N. peacekeeping mission UNIFIL, is based.
Citing an unnamed senior U.S. official, Axiosreported Monday that "Israel and Lebanon have agreed to the terms of a cease-fire agreement to end the Israel-Hezbollah conflict."
Yesterday, the Financial Timesreported that the deal on the table would call for an initial two-month cease-fire—citing two Lebanese officials—"during which the Israeli military would withdraw from Lebanon and Hezbollah would move its weapons north of the Litani river, which runs 30km from the U.N.-drawn border."
Israel's large-scale bombardment of Lebanon—which began some two months ago and was soon followed by a ground invasion—has killed more than 3,000 people. Hezbollah rocket fire has killed more than 40 civilians in Israel, according toThe Associated Press yesterday, and dozens of Israeli soldiers have been killed on the ground in Lebanon.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'By and For the Ultra-Wealthy': Here Are the Billionaires Set to Run Trump's Administration
"Trump paid plenty of lip service to working-class Americans, but as president-elect, he's moved quickly to stack his administration with billionaires that share his vision of a rigged economy that only works for people like them."
Nov 26, 2024
Since winning the presidential election earlier this month, Donald Trump has wasted no time working to fill his incoming administration with billionaires and other ultra-rich individuals who are poised to benefit from the GOP agenda of tax cuts for the wealthy and large-scale deregulation.
In separate analyses published this week, Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) and Accountable.US offered overviews of the president-elect's key nominations and their potential conflicts of interest as Trump prepares to retake power in January.
So far, Trump has announced plans to nominate billionaire hedge fund manager Scott Bessent to head the Treasury Department, WWE billionaire Linda McMahon to head the Education Department, billionaire crypto banker Howard Lutnick to head the Commerce Department, and billionaire entrepreneurs Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to head the Department of Government Efficiency—an outside advisory commission tasked with slashing federal spending and regulations.
"These appointments clearly show the incoming administration will be run by and for the ultra-wealthy," said David Kass, ATF's executive director. "They've already announced plans to spend trillions of dollars to renew the Trump tax bill, to further enrich large corporations and wealthy elites like themselves while advocating for cuts to vital programs that working and middle-class Americans depend on."
ATF's analysis, released Monday, shows that the combined wealth of Trump's richest nominees and transition team members—including the president-elect and Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), the vice president-elect—is over $313 billion. By comparison, the combined net worth of President Joe Biden's Cabinet is an estimated $118 million.
"Even excluding Elon Musk—the world's richest man and Trump's co-director of the Department of Government Efficiency—the average net worth of Trump, his vice president, and top appointees is $616 million," ATF observed. "This figure is over 616 times higher than the mean average wealth of the typical American household, which is a little more than $1 million."
ATF and Accountable.US also highlighted other ultra-rich individuals nominated for key roles in the incoming administration, including drilling enthusiast Doug Burgum, worth an estimated $100 million; Mehmet Oz, worth up to $315 million; and Chris Wright, who as of earlier this month held nearly $47 million worth of stock in his fracking company, Liberty Energy.
Tony Carrk, executive director of Accountable.US, said in a statement Tuesday that "Donald Trump paid plenty of lip service to working-class Americans" during the 2024 campaign, "but as president-elect, he's moved quickly to stack his administration with billionaires that share his vision of a rigged economy that only works for people like them."
"Should the Senate rubber stamp these nominations," Carrk added, "Trump's department heads will be among the biggest beneficiaries of another promised tax giveaway for big corporations and the top 1%, paid for with deep cuts for seniors, veterans, and everyday workers."
Billionaires have already gotten significantly richer since Trump's election victory, according to research published last week by ATF. In roughly the week after Trump's win, the combined net worth of the nation's 815 billionaires jumped by around $280 billion—with Musk's wealth surge accounting for 20% of that gain.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular