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
nancy mace
The Very Good Reason 145 Democrats Voted Against a GOP Domestic Violence Bill
"In a perverse move," explained Rep. Pramila Jayapal, "this bill would make it easier to label victims of domestic violence as perpetrators, to make them removable from the country and eliminate existing legal safeguards that protects survivors."
Jan 16, 2025
The eye-catching headlines cropped up across social media platforms and right-wing news outlets on Thursday:
"145 House Dems vote against bill to deport migrants who commit sexual assault," proclaimedFox News.
"145 Dems vote against deporting illegal immigrants convicted of sex crimes," reported the San Joaquin Valley Sun in Central California.
"The Left were defending rapists, murderers, and pedophiles this morning," said U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) in a post on X, adding that Democrats "have a lot of explaining to do" regarding their opposition to the so-called Preventing Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act (H.R. 30).
Progressive lawmakers were happy to explain why they objected to the legislation, which would mandate that undocumented immigrants, or those with contested legal status, be deported if they are convicted of or admit to committing sexual assault or abuse, domestic violence, stalking, child abuse, or violating a protection order.
Opponents of the bill noted that existing law already allows federal authorities to remove from the country any immigrant with uncertain status who is found guilty of "crimes involving moral turpitude," including rape, sexual assault, or domestic abuse.
But aside from being redundant, said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the bill, which was introduced by Mace, "weaponizes" the Violence Against Women Act "against—you've got it—domestic violence victims."
Although Mace and other supporters heralded the legislation as aiming to protect women and girls from "the lifelong scars, the irreversible scars, these heinous crimes leave behind," Jayapal noted that 200 local and national advocacy groups for domestic violence survivors urged lawmakers to oppose the bill.
"There is actually no gap in the law that needs to be fixed," Jayapal said. "Instead, in a perverse move, this bill would make it easier to label survivors of domestic violence as perpetrators, to make them removable from the country and eliminate existing legal safeguards that protect survivors.
The bill, she said, is meant to "widen the highway to [President-elect] Donald Trump's mass deportation plan."
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) added that under Mace's proposal, "no exceptions would exist any longer for domestic violence victims who have committed minor crimes in the context of resisting their violent abuse."
"This bill will only make the immigration laws much harsher on the victims of domestic violence, sexual battery, and rape, which is the opposite of what we should be doing," he said.
The legislation, which passed 274-145 and garnered the support of 61 Democrats, was passed by the House days after Republicans pushed through the Laken Riley Act, using similar tactics to suggest opponents of that bill supported criminal activity by immigrants.
The Laken Riley Act would require the deportation of any undocumented immigrant accused of theft—a response to the killing last year of Georgia nursing student Laken Riley by an undocumented immigrant who had been cited for shoplifting prior to the murder.
Thirty-seven Democrats joined the House Republican Caucus in supporting the Laken Riley Act, and the Senate is set to vote on the bill in the coming days, likely sending it to Trump's desk to become law after he is sworn in next week.
"The Democratic support for this monstrous, inhuman rhetoric will play a big role in the advancement of authoritarian violence," Alec Karakatsanis, founder of the Civil Rights Corps, said of the legislation. "None of it was possible without propaganda pervading mainstream news about immigrants, shoplifting, bail, and the things that truly affect our safety."
Rep. Jesús "Chuy" García (D-Ill.) called the bill passed on Thursday "harmful" and "counterproductive."
"We must prioritize protections," he said, "not fear."
The U.S. National Domestic Violence Hotline can be reached at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233), by texting "START" to 88788, or through chat at thehotline.org. It offers 24/7, free, and confidential support. DomesticShelters.org has a list of global and national resources.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ohio Governor Signs 'Harmful' Anti-Trans Bathroom Bill
"It's really not about the bathrooms. It's about demonizing and frightening people," said one Ohio lawmaker.
Nov 27, 2024
Pro-LGBTQ+ voices panned an Ohio bill signed by Republican Gov. Mike DeWine Wednesday that will bar transgender students in public and private Ohio schools from using "multi-occupancy facility"—bathrooms, as well as locker rooms, changing room, or shower rooms—that match their gender identity.
"We made it clear to Gov. DeWine and Ohio legislators that S.B. 104 does nothing to make trans students safer in schools, and in fact makes life more dangerous for trans kids in Ohio," said Equality Ohio executive director Dwayne Steward in a statement.
"We are deeply disappointed that Gov.DeWine has allowed this dangerous bill to become law that puts vulnerable trans youth at risk for abuse and harassment. Equality Ohio will continue to stand in solidarity with our transgender communities and their families, and we will always fight for fairness in Ohio," Steward added.
The ACLU of Ohio said on social media that "transgender people are part of the fabric of Ohio; our families, our workplaces, and our neighborhoods. We remain steadfast in our commitment to the LGBTQ+ community and are closely considering next steps."
In a statement published after the legislation passed in the Ohio Senate, Jocelyn Rosnick, policy director for the ACLU of Ohio, said that "this bill ignores the material reality that transgender people endure higher rates of sexual violence and assaults, particularly while using public restrooms, than people who are not transgender."
According to Mother Jones, Ohio Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio (D-23), the first openly LGBTQ+ person elected to the Ohio Legislature, said during a floor debate on the bill: "It's really not about the bathrooms. It's about demonizing and frightening people."
The law applies to K-12 and higher education institutions and schools are not allowed to offer gender-neutral multi-stall facilities; however, the bill doesn't prevent schools from establishing "a policy providing accommodation such as single-occupancy facilities or controlled use of faculty facilities at the request of a student due to special circumstances."
But Mallory Golski, civic engagement and advocacy manager at the queer youth support organization Kaleidoscope Youth Center, expressed skepticism that providing access through single-occupancy facilities would really help gender expansive students in an interview with Mother Jones. "I just don't foresee a scenario in which schools that are already historically underfunded are going to be able to drop everything and build new bathrooms," she said. "It's just not possible."
The signing of the anti-trans legislation Wednesday runs counter to a move by DeWine last year. The governor chose to veto a bill that blocked gender-affirming care for trans youth and prevented transgender athletes from playing women's sports (lawmakers later overrode his veto).
Ohio is one of 14 states that have implemented some sort of restriction on transgender people's use of bathroom or facilities consistent with their gender identity, according to the think tank the Movement Advancement Project. Some of those states also have restrictions in place on some government buildings.
The recently signed bill in Ohio comes days after Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace of South Carolina introduced a resolution seeking to prevent trans women employees and members of the House of Representatives from using the women's bathrooms at the U.S. Capitol. Though Mace did not initially name any member of Congress specifically, she later admitted the measure was "absolutely" aimed at incoming Democratic Rep. Sarah McBride of Delaware, the first openly trans person elected to Congress.
Keep ReadingShow Less
With South Carolina Ruling, Alito May as Well Fly a Confederate Flag
Forget what's been flown over his homes, look at the decision he wrote before the U.S. Supreme Court this week.
May 25, 2024
Only a few days after Samuel Alito was revealed to have flown pro-coup flags over his two homes, he authored an opinion for the U.S. Supreme Court which makes it all but impossible to challenge racial gerrymandering. According to Alito, state legislatures are presumed to be “acting in good faith” when they move thousands of black voters out of a voting district to ensure more Republican representation.
In the old Jim Crow days, Southern states used violent intimidation and techniques like poll taxes, literacy tests, and even lynching to deny black people the vote. Today, following Alito’s opinion, they can simply gerrymander black voters so their votes just don’t matter. Alito goes a long way towards rendering the post-civil war 13th, 14th, and 15th Reconstruction Amendments, as well as the Civil Rights laws of the 1960’s, null and void.
Alito and his Republican colleagues are effectively overturning not only the Reconstruction Amendments but the purpose of the Civil War, as articulated by President Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address
I’m reluctant to use bombastic rhetoric to comment on the Supreme Court, but it’s not a stretch to say that Alito’s opinion (joined by the five other Republican members of the Court) constitutes White Supremacy. AsThe Wall Street Journal headline about the case proclaims, “High Court Restores White Majority Distrcit.” As columnist Elie Mystal points out in The Nation, it’s appropriate that Alito hang pro-'Stop the Steal' flags since he considers only white votes legitimate and Trump won a majority of white voters.
In the instant case, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, the Republican-controlled legislature moved about 30,000 black voters (who voted 90% Democratic in 2020) out of Charleston’s First District, to insure the election of conservative white Republican Nancy Mace to Congress. The Federal District Court had made the factual and legal determination that this was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Alito’s opinion restored the Republicans’ gerrymander, overturning the lower court’s factual finding and declaring that that the plaintiffs had not proven that this was a racial gerrymander (still theoretically illegal) and not a partisan political gerrymander, which the decision declared to be perfectly constitutional.
Alito’s opinion was pernicious for two reasons: First, it expanded the right of state legislatures to intentionally gerrymander their voting districts to ensure that the majority party in the state legislature could pick their own voters. Under SCOTUS’s wrongly decided 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Clause, the Court's then five-Justice Republican majority held that while partisan gerrymandering may be unconstitutional, there are no standards by which Federal Courts may determine whether or not a gerrymander is partisan and therefore Federal Courts lack jurisdiction to rule on partisan gerrymandering. SCOTUS still left open the possibility of Federal Courts finding that unconstitutional racial gerrymandering had occurred, which the lower found to have happened.
Alito’s Alexander opinion greatly expanded Rucho. Rather than just saying that partisan gerrymandering cases are non-judiciable in Federal Courts, it affirmatively finds partisan gerrymandering to be fully constitutional, writing at the very beginning of his opinion that “as far as the Federal Constitution is concerned, a legislature may pursue partisan ends when it engages in redistricting.”
Now, per Alito and his five other Republican colleagues, a state legislature may openly proclaim that the purpose of its gerrymandering is to ensure that its majority party (usually Republicans) maintains control. Partisan gerrymandering is now overtly blessed by Alito and his Republican colleagues.
Second, while Alito’s opinion still acknowledges racial gerrymandering may be illegal, he sets such a high new legal bar to proving it that, in real life, challenges to racial gerrymandering will almost always fail.
Alito makes the absurd claim that when redistricting to pick their own voters, state legislatures must be presumed to be acting “in good faith.” According to Alito and his fellow Republican justices, “When a federal court finds that race drove a legislature’s districting decisions, it is declaring that the legislature engaged in ‘offensive and demeaning conduct,’’’ adding “we should not be quick to hurl such accusations at the political branches.” God forbid.
Making claims of racial gerrymandering virtually impossible to prove wasn’t good enough for Clarence Thomas. He wrote a concurring opinion that racial gerrymandering is perfectly legal and even questioned the Supreme Court’s historic Brown vs. Board of Education decision which legally banned school segregation.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan called Alito’s opinion “upside-down.” It eviscerates the post-civil war 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, handling “Equal Protection,” for example, as though it were effectively designed to protect white people against discrimination by blacks and other minorities. No wonder that an upside down American flag hung over Alito’s home.
Even if one accepts the conservative majority’s embrace of “originalism” as the sole method of interpreting the Constitution, they look only to the original intent of the founders who wrote slavery into the original Constitution and not to the original intent of the Reconstruction Amendments, which are also part of the Constitution, which were clearly intended to protect the rights of black former slaves from discrimination. Now, it seems, Alito and his colleagues view original intent as protecting whites from discrimination by blacks.
As The Atlantic’s Adam Server tweeted, “I hope people understand that what we are seeing is the systematic destruction of the civil war amendments by the Supreme Court, which are what made America an actual democracy and upon which all minority rights in the United States rely.”
Alito and his Republican colleagues are effectively overturning not only the Reconstruction Amendments but the purpose of the Civil War, as articulated by President Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address: “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.”
If the Republican majority Supreme Court continues down this path, such a nation, “conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” shall not long endure.Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular