ReportWire

Tag: Legislation

  • Senate approves bill to expand early education

    Senate approves bill to expand early education

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — The state Senate has approved a plan aimed at expanding access to child care and early education for parents while attracting and retaining new workers to ease persistent labor shortages in the industry.

    The measure, which was unanimously approved Thursday, calls for boosting financial assistance for families seeking child care, establishing new funding for child care providers, and higher pay and benefits for early educators.

    Backers of the plan said the changes are needed to help lower the cost of child care and early education programs with parents paying as much as 20% to 40% of their household incomes on child care, often making it their second-highest expense after housing costs.

    “Besides the high costs, families also face other barriers, including a lack of available slots at their preferred providers, the hours of available care, transportation challenges and more,” Jason Lewis, D-Winchester, a primary sponsor of the bill, said in remarks Thursday. “All this hurts families’ economic well-being.”

    It’s not clear how much the changes, if implemented, would cost and the bill does not include additional funding.

    Senate leaders note that $1.5 billion is already earmarked for early education and care in the current state budget, but that new funding will be dependent on future budgets.

    Lewis said the “substantial” price tag for the plan is “justified” given the money that many families, businesses and the state are losing as a result of the spiraling early education costs.

    “The status quo is already costing us a lot of money,” he said. “We have already demonstrated that we can indeed prioritize investments in early education and child care and follow through on those commitments.”

    Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, a Gloucester Republican, said it’s critical that the state take steps to improve the affordability of early education and child care in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. He said the rising cost of early education has major implications for the state’s post-pandemic economy.

    “It is an essential part of the fabric of our state,” Tarr said in remarks. “If we do not act, it will continue to be in serious jeopardy. We cannot allow that to happen.”

    A key plank of the proposal calls for expanding eligibility for subsidized child care by raising the income level to qualify for state-backed programs.

    The current threshold is 50% of state median income for a family of four – which is about $73,000. The plan calls for “gradually” increasing that level to 85% of state median income, or $124,000 for a four-member family.

    “That means we will be opening up access to assistance to not just low-income families, but middle-income families,” Lewis said in remarks.

    It would also make state funding for the Commonwealth Cares for Children program, which has provided grants to nearly 7,500 child care providers since 2021, a permanent line item in the annual state budget. Other policy changes include setting new patient-staff ratios.

    During the debate Thursday, Tarr sought to add safeguards on spending to the bill after raising concerns about the costs and how the state would pay for it going forward.

    “Lest we make a promise that can’t be fulfilled,” Tarr said. “My concern is that making sure that … we can say with confidence that the initiatives that are proposed here are things we can afford and sustain.”

    Many child care centers are financially strained and advocates say low compensation and the rising costs of caring for children are putting some providers out of business.

    Meanwhile, care providers are struggling to retain workers in an industry where the pay is traditionally low and the risk of getting sick is now elevated as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, advocates say.

    The average cost of child care is more than $20,000 a year in Massachusetts, the most expensive state in the nation, only behind Washington, D.C., and well above the national average of $15,888, according to a recent report from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.

    Working families are losing an estimated $1.7 billion a year in wages from not being able to show up for work because they cannot find or afford child care services, the report noted.

    Meanwhile, employers are losing an estimated $812 million a year in productivity and worker turnover because of the shortage of child care options, according to the report, while the state government is missing out on $188 million a year in tax revenue.

    Compounding the lack of options are changes in the workforce and other factors that have seen fewer people looking to work in the child care industry.

    Gov. Maura Healey has made expanding child care options for parents a key plank of her agenda in her first term, tying the issue to a broader effort to make the state more affordable.

    Earlier this year, the state Board of Early Education and Care recently approved a plan to tap into $65 million from this year’s budget to reimburse child care providers that serve families receiving financial assistance, including a 5.5% cost-of-living adjustment for providers to help offset increased operating costs.

    The Senate bill must be approved by the House of Representative before heading to Healey’s desk for consideration.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Healey wipes away prior marijuana convictions

    Healey wipes away prior marijuana convictions

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — With the stroke of a pen, Gov. Maura Healey is moving to wipe away the prior pot convictions of hundreds of thousands of Massachusetts residents.

    On Wednesday, Healey signed a “first-in-the-nation” executive order that, if approved by the Governor’s Council, would grant a blanket pardon to those with previous misdemeanor convictions for possession of marijuana, which has been legal for more than seven years.

    Healey, who estimates the pardon will impact “hundreds of thousands” of people, says those with misdemeanor pot charges on their records from prelegalization days face restricted access to jobs, housing and education.

    “The reason we’re doing this is simple, justice requires it,” the first-term Democrat told reporters at a briefing. “Massachusetts decriminalized possession for personal use back in 2008, legalized it in 2016, yet thousands of people are still living with convictions on their records.”

    If Healey’s order is approved by the council, those with previous convictions wouldn’t need to apply for pardons — which would be done automatically — but would be able to request a “certificate” from the state verifying the pardon.

    The pardons won’t apply to convictions after March 13, and would exclude charges such as possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, distribution, trafficking, or operating a motor vehicle under the influence or convictions outside the state, including federal court, the Healey administration said.

    Attorney General Andrea Campbell, the state’s top law enforcement officer, was among those who praised the move. She said it will improve racial justice, with data showing that blacks and other minorities have been “disproportionately” charged with marijuana possession in the state prior to legalization.

    “These pardons will transform the lives of thousands, remove barriers allowing them to live with economic dignity, and right past wrongs and stigma that these individuals have faced,” she said in remarks.

    Voters legalized marijuana more than seven years ago, but people previously arrested with the drug are still being haunted by past convictions.

    A 2008 ballot question made possessing an ounce or less of marijuana a civil offense, punishable by a $100 fine. Four years later, voters approved its medical use.

    Then, in 2016, nearly 54% of voters at the ballot box approved legalized recreational marijuana.

    Marijuana advocates say voters have made clear over the years that possession of small amounts should not be illegal, and people with old convictions should get a second chance.

    Other states where recreational marijuana is legal have taken similar steps to seal or expunge criminal records en masse.

    California wiped away past marijuana convictions under a bill signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in 2018. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed an expungement bill in 2019 that allowed an estimated 150,000 people to have previous convictions sealed.

    In 2022, President Biden issued a presidential proclamation pardoning many federal offenses for simple marijuana possession offenses. Biden has expanded that pardon to include more offenses and has called for a review of the classification of marijuana, which remains illegal under federal law.

    But clearing records of past convictions, even in places where pot is legal, remains controversial. Washington state, which legalized pot in 2012, wrangled for several years to pass a pot expungement bill amid opposition from prosecutors.

    In Massachusetts, law enforcement officials and even some lawmakers have pushed back on efforts to retroactively wipe away previous convictions.

    Proposals to grant blanket pardons for pot convictions have been filed in the past several sessions only to languish due to lack of support.

    A 2018 law allowed Massachusetts residents with previous convictions for offenses that are no longer illegal — including marijuana possession — to have those records expunged from their records. But advocates say since then few people have benefited from the changes.

    In some cases, judges refuse to sign off on expungement of previous marijuana possession convictions, even if the individual’s records have been sealed.

    Under state law, expungement requests must be deemed to be “in the interest of justice” but the interpretation of what that might be is generally left up to judges.

    Pauline Quirion, a lawyer and director of the criminal records sealing project at Greater Boston Legal Services, said anyone who undergoes state Criminal Offender Record Information checks for housing or work can be turned down if they have marijuana charges in their past.

    “In practice, any criminal record, no matter how old or how minor, creates barriers to jobs and other opportunities,” she said. “Pardons especially matter where record sealing simply is not enough because an employer or occupational licensor is granted access to the record by state law.”

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • State lawmakers holding fewer recorded votes

    State lawmakers holding fewer recorded votes

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — The number of roll call votes by the state House of Representatives has plummeted in recent years, prompting concerns from open government groups about a lack of transparency in Beacon Hill’s often secretive legislative process.

    In the current legislative session, which got underway in January 2023, the House has held 81 roll calls that recorded how each lawmaker voted on specific bills, according to voting records from the House clerk’s office.

    But the number of recorded votes has been declining for years, with 105 roll calls held during the preceding two-year session in 2021 and 2022, according to the data. In the 2017-18 session, the House held 313 roll call votes.

    There has also been a decline of recorded votes in the state Senate, where 135 recorded votes were held during the 2021-22 session, according to the Senate clerk’s office. That’s compared to 186 roll call votes in the 2020-21 session.

    Open government groups say the declining number of recorded votes raises serious issues about transparency and accountability in state government.

    “While these numbers are outrageous, they are not entirely surprising; the sharp drop in roll call votes is part and parcel of a larger trend of concentrating power on Beacon Hill,” said Erin Leahy, executive director of the group Act on Mass., a Boston-based nonprofit that advocates for government transparency. 

    “Legislating is increasingly done with few, near-unanimous votes on mega-bills with dozens of policy items, and to request a roll call on an amendment not preordained by leadership is considered a transgression,” she said.

    Jonathan Cohn, policy director of the group Progressive Massachusetts, said the lack of recorded votes deprives people of “opportunities to make progress on the many critical challenges” facing the state.

    “So much of the legislative process occurs behind closed doors, and recorded votes are a critical opportunity for legislators to show the public where they stand,” he said in a statement.

    The issue of scuttling roll call votes came up during the state Senate’s debate on a sports betting bill in April 2022 when the Democratic-controlled chamber passed the legislation on a “voice vote” that didn’t record how individual senators voted.

    The move sparked an outcry over transparency in the Legislature and prompted criticism of Senate President Karen Spilka, who previously opposed authorizing sports wagering, for allowing the anonymous vote.

    Spilka defended the vote, saying senators were free to say how they voted. The Senate later held a roll call vote on the final version of the bill.

    Over the past two years, lawmakers pushed through several major pieces of legislation dealing with tax reforms, climate change, election reforms, transportation, sports betting, mental health and veterans affairs.

    But they also failed to pass countless stand-alone bills that remain stuck in legislative committees as lawmakers lobby behind the scenes to win support for their proposals.

    Leahy said the trend of declining legislative roll call votes is part of a much larger problem of “secrecy” by elected officials on Beacon Hill, where the governor’s office, Legislature and courts all claim to be largely exempt from the state’s public records laws.

    She said that means constituents cannot find out how their representatives and senators are voting on their behalf, which ultimately affects democracy.

    “How can a legislator represent the will of their constituents when they rarely take votes?” she said. “And how can a legislator represent their constituents when they are convinced that the votes they do take can’t change the outcome?”

    “The floor is now more a stage for political theater than it is for genuine debate and decision-making,” Leahy said.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Ted Cruz says there’s a 50-50 chance of Congress passing college sports legislation this year

    Ted Cruz says there’s a 50-50 chance of Congress passing college sports legislation this year

    [ad_1]

    FILE – Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, speaks to the media during a press conference on the border, Sept. 27, 2023, on Capitol Hill in Washington. Democrats in search of flipping a U.S. Senate seat are watching Texas closely on Super Tuesday to see who voters nominate against Sen. Cruz. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib, File)

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Opinion: Inflation isn’t the real problem for the U.S. economy. The housing shortage is

    Opinion: Inflation isn’t the real problem for the U.S. economy. The housing shortage is

    [ad_1]

    Recently released government data hammered home what we have known for at least a year: A national housing shortage, not broad-based price increases, is driving inflation.

    Inflation over the past year was 3.1% — far less than in 2021 but still high enough for the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates elevated. However, unlike the inflation we saw soon after the onset of the pandemic, the more recent bout was overwhelmingly driven by the rising cost of what the Consumer Price Index classifies as “shelter” — including rent actually paid and the estimated rent that could be charged for owner-occupied homes.

    Since the start of last year, most prices have risen very slowly or not at all. The price of goods — the tangible things we buy — remained essentially the same, rising just 0.1%. Food inflation, a source of post-pandemic pain for many households, was less than 3%. And other categories of prices actually fell: Household energy prices are down 2.4%, and the price of cars has fallen just over 1%. All told, for everything other than housing, inflation was just 1.5% — low enough that if housing prices had grown at historical rates, the Fed could have declared victory.

    But housing costs have not grown at historical rates: The two-year price increase came in hotter than at any point in the past four decades. This lopsided picture tells us a lot about who is most affected by inflation and how it should be addressed.

    The outsize role of shelter inflation means that homeowners and renters whose leases haven’t changed are experiencing inflation very differently from those who were more exposed to rising housing costs. Indeed, rising housing costs are a double-edged sword, increasing the wealth of homeowners even as they punish many renters. Since the beginning of 2022, housing wealth has added over $2 trillion to homeowners’ balance sheets.

    This trend has important implications across generations. People under 35, with a homeownership rate roughly half that of those of retirement age, are much more likely to suffer from rising housing costs while also missing out on the resulting wealth boom. Retirees, with rising housing wealth and protection from inflation through Social Security and Medicare, are more likely to fare better.

    The remedy for housing-fueled inflation is also different from standard responses to broad-based price growth. One might have expected the Fed’s interest rate hikes — which caused mortgage rates to rise with unprecedented speed — to slow down housing prices. But while prospective homebuyers did pull back from the market, residential listings were in free fall during the pandemic and have yet to recover. That means would-be buyers face tight inventories and higher prices.

    The only effective long-term answer is of course to build and rehabilitate more housing — a lot more. America’s housing crisis is a big problem that requires an equally big solution, with various estimates putting the nationwide shortfall between 1.5 million and 5.5 million units.

    Legislation passed by the House in 2022 would have made meaningful progress by allocating around $40 billion to supply-boosting programs such as the Housing Trust Fund, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and HOME Investment Partnerships Program block grants. Unfortunately, the bill fell short in the Senate and is effectively dead until at least the next Congress.

    In the absence of major legislation in Washington, state and federal policymakers have been increasingly focused on incremental responses to the shortfall. The Biden administration recently announced a series of reforms — including grants for low-income seniors and funds to help rehabilitate manufactured homes — that will add tens of thousands of new homes to the market. An array of bills passed in Sacramento in recent years will help expedite new housing in California, where the shortfall of about 1 million units is nearly three times the next-largest state housing deficit. But the data show we still need to do much more to ease and encourage building to tame shelter costs.

    Fed Chair Jerome Powell and the Federal Open Market Committee have made it clear that they will do whatever it takes to fight inflation. That’s an admirable and responsible position. But Congress has yet to help by addressing our national housing shortfall. If it had, pandemic-era inflation might already be behind us.

    Ben Harris is the vice president and director of the Economic Studies Program at the Brookings Institution and was a longtime economic advisor to President Biden.

    [ad_2]

    Ben Harris

    Source link

  • Bill that could make TikTok unavailable in the US advances quickly in the House

    Bill that could make TikTok unavailable in the US advances quickly in the House

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — A bill that could lead to the popular video-sharing app TikTok being unavailable in the United States is quickly gaining traction in the House as lawmakers voice concerns about the potential for the platform to surveil and manipulate Americans.

    The measure gained the support of House Speaker Mike Johnson and could soon come up for a full vote in the House. The bill advanced out of committee Thursday in a unanimous bipartisan vote — 50-0.

    The White House has provided technical support in the drafting of the bill, though White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the TikTok legislation “still needs some work” to get to a place where President Joe Biden would endorse it.

    The bill takes a two-pronged approach. First, it requires ByteDance Ltd., which is based in Beijing, to divest TikTok and other applications it controls within 180 days of enactment of the bill or those applications will be prohibited in the United States. Second, it creates a narrow process to let the executive branch prohibit access to an app owned by a foreign adversary if it poses a threat to national security.

    “It’s an important, bipartisan measure to take on China, our largest geopolitical foe, which is actively undermining our economy and security,” Johnson said Thursday.

    Some lawmakers and critics of TikTok have argued the Chinese government could force the company to share data on American users. TikTok says it has never done that and wouldn’t do so if asked. The U.S. government also hasn’t provided evidence of that happening.

    Critics also claim the app could be used to spread misinformation beneficial to Beijing.

    Former President Donald Trump attempted to ban TikTok through executive order, but the courts blocked the action after TikTok sued, arguing such actions would violate free speech and due process rights.

    TikTok raised similar concerns about the legislation gaining momentum in the House.

    “This bill is an outright ban of TikTok, no matter how much the authors try to disguise it. This legislation will trample the First Amendment rights of 170 million Americans and deprive 5 million small businesses of a platform they rely on to grow and create jobs,” the company said in a prepared statement.

    The bill’s author, Rep. Mike Gallagher, the Republican chairman of a special House committee focused on China, rejected TikTok’s assertion of a ban. Rather, he said it’s an effort to force a change in TikTok’s ownership. He also took issue with TikTok urging some users to call their representatives and urge them to vote no on the bill.

    The notification urged TikTok users to “speak up now — before your government strips 170 million Americans of their Constitutional right to free expression.” The notification also warned that the “ban” of TikTok would damage millions of businesses and destroy the lives of countless creators around the country.

    TikTok users responded by flooding the offices of lawmakers with telephone calls. Some offices even shut off their phones because of the onslaught. A congressional aide not authorized to speak on the matter publicly said that lawmakers on the committee voting on the bill Thursday as well as others were inundated with calls.

    “Today, it’s about our bill and it’s about intimidating members considering that bill, but tomorrow it could be misinformation or lies about an election, about a war, about any number of things,” Gallagher said. “This is why we can’t take a chance on having a dominant news platform in America controlled or owned by a company that is behold to the Chinese Communist Party, our foremost adversary.”

    The bill comes about one year after TikTok’s CEO was grilled for hours by skeptical lawmakers on the House Energy and Commerce Committee concerned about data security and the distribution of harmful content. That same committee met Thursday to debate and vote on the bill.

    Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the committee’s Republican chair, said TikTok’s access to so many Americans makes it a valuable propaganda tool for the Chinese government to exploit. She also noted that its parent company ByteDance is currently under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for surveilling American journalists.

    “Through this access, the app is able to collect nearly every data point imaginable, from people’s location, to what they search on their devices, who they are connecting with, and other forms of sensitive information,” Rodgers said.

    To assuage concerns from lawmakers, TikTok has promised to wall off U.S. user data from its parent company through a separate entity run independently from ByteDance and monitored by outside observers. TikTok says new user data is currently being stored on servers maintained by the software company Oracle.

    The American Civil Liberties Union and other free speech advocacy groups urged lawmakers to reject the TikTok bill, saying in a letter to the Energy and Commerce Committee’s leadership that “passing this legislation would trample on the constitutional right to freedom of speech of millions of people in the United States.”

    Biden’s reelection campaign has opened a TikTok account as a way to boost its appeal with young voters, even as his administration continued to raise security concerns about whether the popular social media app might be sharing user data with China’s communist government.

    Jean-Pierre said the White House welcomes lawmakers’ efforts on the TikTok legislation, but lawmakers need to continue work on it.

    “Once it gets to a place where we think .. it’s on legal standing and it’s in a place where it can get out of Congress, then the president would sign it,” she told reporters on Wednesday during the daily White House briefing.

    She also defended the White House’s efforts to limit the dangers of TikTok, even as the president engages with influencers on the social-media platform and his campaign hosts a TikTok account.

    “We are going to try to meet the America people where they are,” Jean-Pierre said. “We are trying to reach everyone. The president is the president for all Americans .. it doesn’t mean that we’re not going to try to figure out how to protect our national security.”

    ___

    Associated Press staff writer Seung Min Kim contributed to this report and staff writer Mae Anderson contributed from Brooklyn, New York. Hadero reported from Jersey City, New Jersey.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House Democrats seek another $245M for migrants

    House Democrats seek another $245M for migrants

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — House Democrats filed a proposal to pump another $245 million into the state’s emergency shelter system amid an ongoing surge of migrants.

    The supplemental budget, which is to be taken up on Wednesday, would provide more funding to workforce training programs, migrant “welcome” centers, and additional funds for resettlement agencies to connect families with housing and other services.

    The spending plan also calls for reforms to the shelter system, such as limiting the maximum length of stay in shelter to nine consecutive months, with another three months for migrants who are employed or enrolled in a job training program.

    This comes just three months after Democratic Gov. Maura Healey signed a supplemental spending bill that included $250 million for migrant costs.

    “Given the challenging revenue conditions facing Massachusetts, the lack of federal support, and the severity and ongoing uncertainty surrounding the migrant crisis, the temporary reforms that we are proposing are essential for the shelter program’s long-term survival,” House Speaker Ron Mariano said in a prepared statement.

    Under the proposed reforms, pregnant women and people with a disability, among others, would also be eligible for 12 consecutive months in the program, regardless of employment status or participation in a job training program.

    The plan would also require Healey to seek federal approvals for a waiver from the Department of Homeland Security to allow expedited work authorizations, temporary work authorizations, and provisional work authorizations for newly arrived migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers.

    Mariano, a Quincy Democrat, said the measure would require migrants to exit the shelter system in a “timely manner,” which he said would “help to ease the strain being placed on our shelter system over time, and on the communities that are on the frontline of this crisis.

    But critics say the proposed reforms won’t go far enough to stem the tide of silent seekers who have pushed the state’s emergency shelter system to the brink of collapse.

    Paul Craney, spokesman for the conservative Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, said Mariano’s proposal just throws more money at the problem without dealing with the root cause of increased migration to the state: the “right to shelter” law.

    “It’s not going to deter people from coming here,” he said. “Right now, Massachusetts is one of the top destinations for migrants because they know in addition to all the other taxpayer benefits they get, there is a right to shelter.”

    He added, “So if the objective of this is to stop the flow of migrants, this won’t do it.”

    Massachusetts has seen an unprecedented influx of thousands of asylum seekers over the past year amid a historic surge of immigration along the U.S.-Mexico border.

    Healey declared a state of emergency in August and deployed the National Guard to help deal with the influx. Her administration also set a 7,500-family cap on the number of people eligible for emergency housing last October.

    Under the “right-to-shelter” law, Massachusetts is required to provide emergency housing to homeless families, but critics say the law was never designed to provide for a large migrant population.

    Nearly 780 families were on a wait list for emergency housing as of Tuesday, according to the state Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities.

    Healey administration officials said the state has spent $360 million as of Feb. 8 from a special escrow fund set up by the state Legislature to cover migrant costs, but warned in a recent report that money would dry up soon.

    Healey has estimated the state will spend up to $2 billion to support emergency shelter for homeless families and migrants through the end of the next fiscal year. The report estimated costs through the end of the 2025 fiscal year at $915 million.

    Despite requests from Healey and members of the state’s congressional delegation for federal funding, the Biden administration has only provided about $2 million to the state for emergency shelter and other migrant needs.

    School districts have spent more than $11.4 million over the past year from a state fund to help them cover additional costs from educating newly arrived migrant children, according to a recent report.

    Rep. Alice Peisch, the House’s assistant majority leader, said proposed reforms “strike the right balance between providing emergency assistance to families who find themselves in desperate need of shelter, while ensuring that we do not significantly jeopardize the funding of other long-standing programs that serve vulnerable residents.”

    “It is unfortunate that the federal government has abdicated its responsibility to provide sufficient resources to assist states in addressing this unprecedented influx of migrants,” the Wellesley Democrat said.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Alabama lawmakers advance legislation to protect IVF providers, with final approval still ahead

    Alabama lawmakers advance legislation to protect IVF providers, with final approval still ahead

    [ad_1]

    MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Alabama lawmakers facing public pressure to restart in vitro fertilization services in the state advanced legislation Tuesday to shield providers from the fallout of a court ruling that equated frozen embryos to children.

    Committees in the state Senate and House approved identical bills that would protect providers from lawsuits and criminal prosecution for the “damage or death of an embryo” during IVF services. The state’s three major IVF providers paused services after the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling last month because of the sweeping liability concerns it raised.

    “The problem we are trying to solve right now is to get those families back on track to be moving forward as they try to have children,” said Rep. Terri Collins, sponsor of one of the bills. Lawmakers are aiming to give final approval Wednesday and send the legislation to Gov. Kay Ivey to be signed into law.

    Lawmakers have fast-tracked the immunity legislation as a proposed solution to get clinics back open as they weigh whether additional action is needed.

    The court ruled that three couples who had frozen embryos destroyed in an accident at a storage facility could pursue wrongful death lawsuits for their “extrauterine children.” The ruling, treating an embryo the same as a child or gestating fetus under the wrongful death statute, raised concerns about civil liabilities for clinics.

    The court decision caused an immediate backlash as groups across the country raised concerns about a ruling recognizing embryos as children. Patients in Alabama shared stories of upcoming embryo transfers being abruptly canceled and their paths to parenthood put in doubt.

    Beth and Joshua Davis-Dillard watched as the Senate committee voted. The couple transferred frozen embryos left over from when they had their twins to Alabama after moving from New York.

    “We’ve been working up to getting ready to trying again. We still have embryos from our prior cycle, which we did in New York. We transferred them here. We can’t use them. We’re on hold,” Beth Davis-Dillard said. “I’m 44, so time is limited. We don’t have unlimited time to wait. We really want to give it a try and see if we can have another baby.”

    Beth David-Dillard said she feels “very helpless and very frustrated” and in a “little bit of disbelief.” She said that before they transferred the embryos to Alabama, the couple briefly discussed whether the state’s strict abortion ban or political climate could be a problem but presumed it would ultimately be fine.

    “It just feels like our rights are being restricted,” she said.

    The legislative proposals state that “no action, suit, or criminal prosecution for the damage to or death of an embryo shall be brought or maintained against any individual or entity when providing or receiving services related to in vitro fertilization.”

    Civil lawsuits could be pursued against manufacturers of IVF-related goods, such as the nutrient-rich solutions used to grow embryos, but damages would be capped and criminal prosecution would be forbidden. Doctors have expressed concern that without some protections for manufacturers they will not be able to get the products they need to provide IVF.

    Dr. Michael C. Allemand with Alabama Fertility said the legislative proposal would allow the clinic to resume IVF services by returning “us to a normal state of affairs in terms of what the liability issues are.”

    He said the past weeks have been difficult on patients and staff as procedures have been postponed.

    “There’s been some truly heart-wrenching conversations that have taken place,” Allemand said.

    The American Society for Reproductive Medicine, a group representing IVF providers across the country, said the legislation does not go far enough. Sean Tipton, a spokesman for the organization, said Monday that the legislation does not correct the fundamental problem, which he said is the court ruling “conflating fertilized eggs with children.”

    House Democrats proposed legislation that would put in state law or the state Constitution that a human embryo outside a uterus can not be considered an unborn child or human being under state law. Democrats argued that was the most direct way to deal with the issue. Republicans have not brought the proposals up for a vote.

    State Republicans are reckoning with an IVF crisis they partly helped create with anti-abortion language added to the Alabama Constitution in 2018. The amendment, which was approved by 59% of voters, says it is state policy to recognize the “rights of unborn children.”

    The phrase became the basis of the court’s ruling. At the time, supporters said it would allow the state to ban abortion if Roe v Wade were overturned, but opponents argued it could establish “personhood” for fertilized eggs.

    Collins said she doesn’t think lawmakers got it wrong with the amendment but the wording was broad enough that it had ramifications they didn’t anticipate.

    Collins, who sponsored the state’s stringent abortion ban, said she thought any law exempting embryos from legal protections might be found unconstitutional under the 2018 amendment. Changing the constitution, she said, is a longer conversation.

    “It’s very divisive. Everybody has very strong opinions on when life begins,” she said.

    Republicans are also trying to navigate tricky political waters — torn between widespread popularity and support for IVF — and conflicts within their own party. Some Republicans have unsuccessfully sought to add Louisiana-style language to ban clinics from destroying unused or unwanted embryos.

    Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

    [ad_2]

    By Kim Chandler | Associated Press

    Source link

  • Healey’s pick for SJC confirmed by panel

    Healey’s pick for SJC confirmed by panel

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — The Governor’s Council has approved Gov. Maura Healey’s controversial pick of an ex-girlfriend to fill a vacancy on the state’s highest court.

    The council voted 6-1 to approve the confirmation of Appeals Court Judge Gabrielle Wolohojian to fill a seat on the Supreme Judicial Court left by Justice David Lowy, who retired Feb. 3 after seven years on the high court.

    Councilor Terry Kennedy, who voted in favor of her nomination, said he was bombarded with calls from lawyers, judges and others who lauded Wolohojian’s experience and temperament as a judge. He said the fact that she was previously in a relationship with the governor wasn’t a factor in his decision to support her confirmation.

    “There’s no question to me that this nominee is qualified for that job, period,” Kennedy said in remarks. “I have never asked a nominee about their personal life and I never will.”

    But Councilor Tara Jacobs cast the lone vote against Wolohojian, saying she couldn’t get over the “appearance of impropriety” about her nomination to the bench.

    “I don’t want to invalidate the enormous qualifications of this candidate. I think she has a fantastic resume and experience,” she said. “I’m really more coming from a place of concern about the process, the implications and the appearance that got us here today.”

    Healey’s nomination has faced scrutiny because she and Wolohojian were romantically involved and previously lived together in Charlestown when she was attorney general.

    Healey, the first woman and first lesbian to be elected governor of Massachusetts, now lives with her current partner, Joanna Lydgate, in Arlington.

    Councilor Paul DePalo, who voted to confirm Wolohojian, said he was dismayed how the public discourse over her nomination focused on her romantic relationship with Healey.

    “In some corners, the public discourse jumped right over this nominee’s impeccable, unquestioned experience, qualifications, her pedigree, her temperament, her reputation over a decade on the appeals court writing hundreds of opinions,” he said in remarks. “The narrative jumped right to a salacious story line designed to raise alarms.”

    Last week, supporters of Wolohojian, who included lawyers, judges, court staff and former colleagues, packed into the Gardner Auditorium at the Statehouse and lauded her experience and temperament as an attorney and appellate judge.

    Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll, who co-chaired Wednesday’s Governor’s Council meeting, praised Wolohojian as “one of our state’s most experienced appellate judges,” noting her 16-year tenure on the Appeals Court.

    Wolohojian was appointed to the Appeals Court in 2008 and has overseen 2,700 appeals and authored more than 900 decisions, she told the panel. She also serves as the chair of the SJC’s Advisory Committee on the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

    Previously, she served as a law clerk to Judge Rya Zobel of the U.S. District Court in Boston and later to Judge Bailey Aldrich of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

    Wolohojian worked in private practice in the 1990s at the Boston law firm of Hale and Dorr, which is now known as WilmerHale. She became a partner in the firm’s litigation department working on state and federal court cases, according to the Healey administration.

    Wolohojian is Healey’s second pick for the Supreme Judicial Court, with two retirements helping the first-term governor leave her mark on the court.

    She previously nominated former State Solicitor Elizabeth “Bessie” Dewar to the SJC, who was unanimously approved last month by the Governor’s Council.

    The state’s Republican party blasted what they called Wolohojian’s “rubber stamp” approval after vetting process by a judicial search committee that “consisted of a tight-knit inner circle” mostly Healey appointees.

    The party’s chairwoman also reiterated concerns about whether Wolohojian will recuse herself from any cases involving the executive branch.

    “The entire process appears to have been a rubber stamp rather than a serious examination of important ethical considerations,” MassGOP Chairwoman Amy Carnevale said in a statement. “Many legal scholars continue to believe that it is wholly inappropriate for a Governor to nominate a former romantic partner to a court that will rule on matters pertaining to their office.”

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • The ‘Simple People’ Are Legislating in CT – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

    The ‘Simple People’ Are Legislating in CT – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

    [ad_1]





    The ‘Simple People’ Are Legislating in CT – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news






























    [ad_2]

    Tom Hymes

    Source link

  • Pride flags would be largely banned in Tennessee classrooms in bill advanced by GOP lawmakers

    Pride flags would be largely banned in Tennessee classrooms in bill advanced by GOP lawmakers

    [ad_1]

    NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A bill that would largely ban displaying pride flags in public school classrooms was passed by the GOP-led Tennessee House on Monday after Republicans cut a heated debate short.

    The 70-24 vote sends the legislation to the Senate, where a final vote could happen as early as this week. The motion to cut off debate prompted Democratic Rep. Justin Jones, of Nashville, to yell that House Speaker Cameron Sexton was out of order and ignoring people’s requests to speak. Republicans in turn scolded Jones by voting him out of order, halting his immediate comments.

    Before that, at least two people against the bill were kicked out of the gallery due to talking over the proceedings as Democrats and other opponents blasted the legislation as unfairly limiting a major symbol of the LGBTQ+ community in schools.

    “I am proud when I walk into the public schools in my city, to see the LGBTQ flag in the classrooms, proudly put up by teachers who understand the suffering that many of their students go through,” said Rep. Jason Powell, a Nashville Democrat. “We should be welcoming and celebrating our students, not hating on them.”

    The legislation says “displaying” a flag by a school or employee means to “exhibit or place anywhere students may see the object.”

    The proposal would allow certain flags to be displayed, with exceptions for some scenarios. Among those approved would be the flags of the United States; Tennessee; those deemed protected historical items under state law; Native American tribes; local governments’ armed forces and prisoners of war or those missing in action; other countries and their local governments; colleges or universities; or the schools themselves.

    Other flags could be temporarily displayed as part of a “bona fide” course curriculum, and certain groups allowed to use school buildings can show their flags while using the grounds under the bill.

    The legislation sets up an enforcement system that relies on lawsuits by parents or guardians of students who attend, or are eligible to attend, public school in a district in question. The lawsuits could challenge the display of flags by a school, employee or its agents that wouldn’t fall under proposed criteria for what would be allowed in classrooms.

    Republican Rep. Gino Bulso, the bill sponsor from Williamson County south of Nashville, said parents reached out to him with complaints about “political flags” in classrooms. When pressed about whether the bill would allow the Confederate flag to be on display in classrooms, Bulso said the bill would not change the current law about when such a symbol could be shown. He said the bill’s exceptions could be applied on Confederate flags for approved curriculum and certain historical items that already cannot be removed without extensive state approval.

    “What we’re doing is making sure parents are the ones who are allowed to instill in their children the values they want to instill,” Bulso said.

    The proposal marks another development in the ongoing political battle over LGBTQ+ rights in Tennessee, where the state’s conservative leaders have already moved to restrict classroom conversations about gender and sexuality, ban gender-affirming care and limit events where certain drag performers may appear.

    The Senate’s version of the bill would be more restrictive about who could sue over a flag, limiting it to that specific school’s students, parents or guardians of those students or employees there.

    Earlier this month, the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to town, school, and school district officials who have implemented or are considering flag bans or other pride displays. The group warned that under First Amendment court precedent, “public schools may prohibit private on-campus speech only insofar as it substantially interferes with or disrupts the educational environment, or interferes with the rights of other students.”

    Bulso contended that displaying the pride flag does not constitute protected free speech for school employees.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • State senators respond to fentanyl and retail theft crises with new legislation

    State senators respond to fentanyl and retail theft crises with new legislation

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO — 

    A bipartisan group of lawmakers in the California senate on Monday announced a package of legislation to address the growing fentanyl crisis and untamed outbreak of organized retail thefts.

    Sen. Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg), who was sworn in as president pro tempore last month, recited sobering statistics to reporters as he introduced proposals he said will remedy the issues through a more rehabilitative approach.

    “There are more than 12,000 drug overdose deaths a year in California. More than half of those deaths are fentanyl-related,” McGuire said. “Black and Latino communities have seen a 200% increase in overdose deaths since 2017. Native Americans had a 150% increase in overdose deaths in the same period. The Hoopa Valley tribe faces a fentanyl death rate eight times greater than the state average.”

    The senate’s action comes after Assembly leaders this month presented their plans to remedy the issues, an indication that the drug and theft crises will be priorities this legislative session — and in California’s 2024 election.

    The set of 14 bills announced by McGuire and other Democrat and Republican Senate leaders takes a sweeping approach. The legislation, if passed and signed by the governor, would increase access to treatment, enhance addiction services for those in the criminal justice system and penalize criminal trafficking of xylazine, or “tranq,” a horse tranquilizer laced in fentanyl.

    Among those bills is SB 1144, authored by Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), which will tighten regulations to help prevent stolen goods from being sold online.

    Tinisch Hollins, executive director of the nonprofit Californians for Safety and Justice, called the package a “thoughtful approach to nuanced challenges.”

    Hollins said the package is needed “in an environment where special interests are gaslighting Californians with destructive and ineffective rollbacks.”

    She was referring to law enforcement agencies that have lobbied for changes to Proposition 47, a contentious ballot measure that reduced certain retail theft and drug offense charges to misdemeanors.

    Contra Costa County Dist. Atty. Diana Becton called for a strategic approach that strays from a one-size-fits-all approach to public safety.

    “I have seen firsthand the need to reimagine our approach to criminal justice,” she said. “To reexamine and reproach it through a lens of racial and socioeconomic disparity, with an eye to restorative justice programs and rehabilitation programs for nonviolent offenses.”

    [ad_2]

    Anabel Sosa

    Source link

  • Russia divestment promises largely unfulfilled

    Russia divestment promises largely unfulfilled

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — Nearly two years after Massachusetts moved to strip the state’s retirement fund of Russian-tied stocks and other holdings in response to its war in Ukraine, that pledge remains largely unfulfilled.

    Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, state lawmakers approved a $1.6 billion bipartisan supplemental spending bill that called for divesting the state’s pension fund of an estimated $140 million in investments tied to the country. Then-Gov. Charlie Baker signed the bill, as well as an executive order directing executive branch agencies to conduct a review of state contracts to determine if there are any ties to Russian businesses that could be severed.

    Baker’s directive also called on independent agencies, public colleges and universities, and other constitutional offices to adopt similar policies.

    At the time, state leaders touted the move to pull out those investments was a small, but meaningful, way of expressing outrage over the unprovoked war, and showing solidarity with the Ukrainian people’s fight against Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    But nearly two years after the much publicized move, little has changed. The state’s pension fund still has an estimated $140 million in investments tied to Russia, according to Treasurer Deb Goldberg, whose office oversees the retirement system.

    In a recent report to House and Senate clerks, the Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Management said the pension fund still has millions of shares tied to Russian entities in its investment portfolio.

    “With markets at PRIM’s investment managers’ disposal being suspended from trading in the Russian securities and markets, our investment managers have been unable to liquidate out of the majority of positions,” PRIM’s executive director and chief investment officer Michael G. Trotsky wrote in the report. “They continue to monitor the situation.”

    The data shows retirement fund managers have been able to divest more than 1 million shares in Russian investments since July 2022, including shares in Sberbank PJSC, Russia’s largest bank, and retail giant Magnit.

    State pension officials said the remaining shares tied to restricted Russian assets are essentially worthless as of Dec. 31, with a market value of zero.

    The PRIM reports also said investment managers with indirect holdings of restricted securities “have not removed restricted companies from their funds nor have these managers created similar actively managed funds which exclude these restricted securities.”

    But Massachusetts isn’t alone. Other states that took steps in 2022 to have their public employee pension funds divest their holdings from Russian stocks or cease any new investments into those entities have also made little progress to fulfill those pledges, according to pension fund groups.

    Pension fund experts say the global reaction to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine two years ago cut off much of its economy from the rest of the world.

    But that has made it nearly impossible to move ahead with pledges of divestment by state retirement systems, university endowments and other public-sector holdings — as well as private investments like those in 401(k) accounts.

    Alex Brown, research manager at the National Association of State Retirement Administrators, said while many pension funds want to get out of Russian investments, it’s just not realistic to sell in the current environment.

    “The point wasn’t to engage in a fire sale of these assets, but rather to systematically identify opportunities to sell their Russian holdings in the most prudent manner,” he said. “It has to be a practical time to sell, but you also want to do it prudently.”

    Brown noted that collectively Russian investments account for only a “tiny fraction” of the more than $5 trillion value of state and local retirement funds. Much of the money was invested in Russian government bonds, oil and coal companies as part of emerging-markets index funds, experts say.

    Political observers also note that many investments in Russia purchased before the war are now almost worthless or substantially depreciated in value. That’s raised questions about whether divesting those funds is even necessary.

    Meanwhile, the Kremlin has also rewritten rules governing foreign ownership of Russian company shares in response to U.S. sanctions, which analysts say has triggered confusion among investors and increased their risks of heavy losses from holdings now stranded in the country.

    The Biden administration imposed a fresh slate of sanctions on more than 500 targets on Friday — the largest to date — in response to the death of opposition figure Alexey Navalny and on the eve of Russia’s two-year war in Ukraine.

    The United States and its allies have imposed sanctions on thousands of Russian targets in the past two years.

    “Two years ago, he tried to wipe Ukraine off the map,” Biden said in a statement. “If Putin does not pay the price for his death and destruction, he will keep going.”

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • State Senate plans another sex education reform vote

    State Senate plans another sex education reform vote

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — Senators next week will vote again on a bill to update the state’s sex education guidelines, something the chamber has already approved four times without getting buy-in from the House.

    The Senate Committee on Ways and Means polled the so-called Healthy Youth Act (S 268) this past Thursday, getting it ready for action this Thursday in the Senate’s first formal session in four weeks.

    The bill would update Massachusetts’ sexual health laws and create guidelines for districts that opt into teaching sex education to go over human anatomy; how to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, HIV, AIDS and unwanted pregnancy; effective use of contraceptives; how to safely discuss sexual activity in a relationship; skills to identify and prevent sexual violence and relationship violence; and age-appropriate and affirming education on gender identity and sexual orientation.

    “As I said on the floor the last four times, we know our students are talking about these issues in the classroom or not,” Sen. Sal DiDomenico, the lead sponsor of the Senate bill, said. “If they’re not learning medically-accurate information taught in our classrooms, they’re getting bad information that could have long-term consequences.”

    Though the Senate has voted to remodel the education frameworks four times in the last decade, House Democrats have never taken it up. On the House side, Rep. Jim O’Day has sponsored the bill for the last 10 years.

    “When I started on this bill, the last time a framework for healthy youth, for sexual education, was addressed was in 1999,” O’Day said last month as a guest on former Senate President Harriette Chandler’s local cable show. “So here we are now in 2024, where we at least now have a good, solid, well-rounded, medically-accurate, age-appropriate, evidence-based (bill) … and this is not a mandate for this bill.”

    “That’s a disgrace,” Chandler, a supporter of the bill, said when O’Day initially raised the subject.

    The Board of Elementary and Secondary Education updated its sexual health education standards on its own accord last year to mirror some of what the so-called Healthy Youth Act calls for, after Gov. Maura Healey threw her support behind the controversial measure.

    Under the board’s new physical and sex education guidelines, students will receive sex and health education that is intended to be more inclusive of the LGBTQ+ community and teach about bodily autonomy, mental and emotional health, dating safety, nutrition, sexually transmitted infections and consent.

    Neither the guidelines nor DiDomenico and O’Day’s bill would change the Massachusetts law that allows districts to opt-in to teaching sex education. The bill before senators would also require that parents get a letter at the beginning of the school year with details about the sex ed curriculum and the opportunity to opt their child out.

    Asked by the News Service how the bill differs from the updated frameworks the board of education adopted, DiDomenico said passing the Healthy Youth Acts would codify the new guidelines.

    The bill would require data collection on what’s being taught in schools, reported to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education every two years. It would also require that the state revisit the framework every 10 years, as it took 24 years this time around to update the guidelines.

    “Lastly, the framework is more of a suggestion for schools. Healthy Youth is an actual curriculum. and so there’s a lot more flexibility with the framework. Theoretically ‘abstinence only’ can still be taught with the framework,” DiDomenico said. “Under this bill, sex ed would talk about consent, LGBTQ language and healthy relationships as well. It’s a lot more detailed, unlike a suggestion.”

    The senator added that 17 states require sex education to be medically accurate and 26 require it to be age appropriate. Massachusetts is not on either of those lists.

    “I think that’s a pretty compelling argument. Many states across the country have seen the value of this education,” DiDomeinco said. “This bill will give students information they need to protect their health, have respectful relationships, and have a better future for themselves. In my mind, it’s just as important as math and science and English.”

    [ad_2]

    By Sam Drysdale | State House News Service

    Source link

  • Mass. Senate plans another sex education reform vote next week

    Mass. Senate plans another sex education reform vote next week

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — Senators next week will vote again on a bill to update the state’s sex education guidelines, something the chamber has already approved four times without getting buy-in from the House.

    The Senate Committee on Ways and Means polled the so-called Healthy Youth Act (S 268) on Thursday morning, getting it ready for action next Thursday in the Senate’s first formal session in four weeks.

    The bill would update Massachusetts’ sexual health laws and create guidelines for districts that opt into teaching sex education to go over human anatomy; how to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, HIV, AIDS and unwanted pregnancy; effective use of contraceptives; how to safely discuss sexual activity in a relationship; skills to identify and prevent sexual violence and relationship violence; and age-appropriate and affirming education on gender identity and sexual orientation.

    “As I said on the floor the last four times, we know our students are talking about these issues in the classroom or not,” Sen. Sal DiDomenico, the lead sponsor of the Senate bill, said. “If they’re not learning medically-accurate information taught in our classrooms, they’re getting bad information that could have long-term consequences.”

    Though the Senate has voted to remodel the education frameworks four times in the last decade, House Democrats have never taken it up. On the House side, Rep. Jim O’Day has sponsored the bill for the last 10 years, joined by Lowell Rep. Vanna Howard this session and last.

    “When I started on this bill, the last time a framework for healthy youth, for sexual education, was addressed was in 1999,” O’Day said last month as a guest on former Senate President Harriette Chandler’s local cable show. “So here we are now in 2024, where we at least now have a good, solid, well-rounded, medically-accurate, age-appropriate, evidence-based [bill] … and this is not a mandate for this bill. We do now have a framework that if you are going to teach — if you are going to teach — health ed, sexual education, it needs to be consistent with what’s being taught in Framingham or Provincetown or Pittsfield or Worcester.”

    “That’s a disgrace,” Chandler, a supporter of the bill, said when O’Day initially raised the subject.

    The Board of Elementary and Secondary Education updated its sexual health education standards on its own accord last year to mirror some of what the so-called Healthy Youth Act calls for, after Gov. Maura Healey threw her support behind the controversial measure.

    Under the board’s new physical and sex education guidelines, students will receive sex and health education that is intended to be more inclusive of the LGBTQ+ community and teach about bodily autonomy, mental and emotional health, dating safety, nutrition, sexually transmitted infections and consent.

    Neither the guidelines nor DiDomenico and O’Day’s bill would change the Massachusetts law that allows districts to opt-in to teaching sex education. The bill before senators would also require that parents get a letter at the beginning of the school year with details about the sex ed curriculum and the opportunity to opt their child out.

    Asked by the News Service how the bill differs from the updated frameworks the board of education adopted, DiDomenico said passing the Healthy Youth Acts would codify the new guidelines.

    The bill would require data collection on what’s being taught in schools, reported to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education every two years. It would also require that the state revisit the framework every 10 years, as it took 24 years this time around to update the guidelines.

    “Lastly, the framework is more of a suggestion for schools. Healthy Youth is an actual curriculum. And so there’s a lot more flexibility with the framework. Theoretically ‘abstinence only’ can still be taught with the framework,” DiDomenico said. “Under this bill, sex ed would talk about consent, LGBTQ language and healthy relationships as well. It’s a lot more detailed, unlike a suggestion.”

    The senator added that 17 states require sex education to be medically accurate and 26 require it to be age appropriate. Massachusetts is not on either of those lists.

    “I think that’s a pretty compelling argument. Many states across the country have seen the value of this education,” DiDomenico said. “This bill will give students information they need to protect their health, have respectful relationships, and have a better future for themselves. In my mind, it’s just as important as math and science and English.”

    [ad_2]

    Sam Drysdale

    Source link

  • Bill to legalize marijuana passes in NH House

    Bill to legalize marijuana passes in NH House

    [ad_1]

    CONCORD — Legalized marijuana in New Hampshire is one step closer to becoming a reality.

    The House of Representatives heard a bill on Thursday sponsored by Rep. Erica Layon, a Republican from Derry, on the avenues for legalizing recreational marijuana, as well as regulating and taxing the substance.

    “Every single person in a seat here can find a reason to vote against the amendment and to vote against the bill,” Layon said. “But the question is, do we have a net benefit to the state by passing this? and I truly do.”

    The bill passed 239 to 141 and will move onto the House Finance Committee from here, working its way to the Senate.

    While in favor of the bill, Rep. Jonah Wheeler, a Democrat from Hillsborough, said this bill was unfair largely in part because it does not allow provisions for people to grow their own marijuana plants. He said of one of the major amendments to the bill that it restricts the true ability for people to access cannabis.

    “[The amendment] takes the bill which would legalize recreational use and private sale of cannabis and makes it an agency store model, restricting recreational use and private sale,” Wheeler said. “That is not the free market, nor is it a good way to legalize.”

    The bill restricts the sale of marijuana to 15 stores and retailers approved by the state. To Wheeler, this limits people’s access unjustly. He also expressed concern that national and international companies would buy the locations which would restrict the free market even more.

    Layon pushed back on these claims, saying there are provisions in the bill to adjust the number of stores in the state based on demand.

    “After this has been launched and after we know what it looks like [to sell cannabis] here in New Hampshire in a lawful way, I believe that this is a path where we can move forward and then we can figure out what needs to be done and what needs to be tweaked in the future to make this the best model,” she said.

    A provision of the bill would also allow for police officers and law enforcement officials to be trained to recognize when people are driving while under the influence. Layon said this alone should be a reason for people to vote in favor.

    If this seems familiar, that’s because in April 2023, the House passed legislation to legalize cannabis use in New Hampshire, only for it to fail in the Senate.

    Gov. Chris Sununu said in a 2023 press release that he would support the legalization of cannabis throughout New Hampshire under certain conditions, but such a bill had yet to cross his desk. In 2017, Sununu historically was the first governor in New Hampshire’s history to decriminalize carrying small amounts of marijuana.

    At the hearing on Thursday, Layon said she understood people’s hesitance to legalize the drug, but nothing good could come from waiting longer.

    “Cannabis is here,” Layon said. “The question is whether or not we provide an outlet for people who are currently turning to the streets a way to buy it in the state.”

    [ad_2]

    By Katelyn Sahagian | ksahagian@northofboston.com

    Source link

  • Support shown for new police station at Salem deliberative session

    Support shown for new police station at Salem deliberative session

    [ad_1]

    SALEM, N.H. — A proposed $40 million police station that residents will vote on in March received nothing but positive recommendations at Saturday’s deliberative session.

    Salem’s Town Council presented warrant articles for the March 12 election, including the station, on Saturday at Salem High School to an audience of about 100 people.

    Many residents who spoke agreed that the new station was long overdue and should have been approved when this project was brought forward in past years.

    “I wrote a letter 20 years ago to the paper supporting it,” said Betty Gay, a former state representative from Rockingham 8, which encompassed the Salem area until 2022 but which now includes Danville due to redistricting. “This building, I’ve been told, is to cover us for the next 50 years.”

    Police Chief Joel Dolan gave a detailed presentation about the current station, which was originally built in 1966 for 14 staff members.

    Dolan said reports from the engineer and construction team at the time of the construction said the original building, at approximately 3,700 square feet, was too small for the number of staff members at that time.

    Over the years, the size of the structure — and the number of employees — has grown, and is now comprised of approximately 12,000 square feet, for a little more than 100 civilian and sworn-in officers.

    “This is their office space,” Dolan said, referring to the triple-wide trailer that’s used for evidence storage and investigation space. “It’s just too cramped to conduct proper, safe, law enforcement at this time.”

    Dolan also said there are serious issues with mold, poor ventilation for heating and air conditioning throughout the station, and a sally bay that can only accommodate one cruiser at a time, which makes transporting detainees dangerous.

    Another issue with the lack of space is not having anywhere to put victims of crimes who might need a quiet area. Dolan said victims have to be in the same area where officers are doing their work, so that lack of privacy is also a problem.

    The new station is projected to be a two-story, 40,537-square-foot building with ample space to meet the needs of a growing staff. The square footage includes a training area in the back and six bays for storage and a kennel.

    As for payment, Joe Sweeney, the vice chair of the Town Council said the town would take out three, 20-year bonds. The bonds will be approximately $9 million, $15 million and $14 million each.

    Over the 20-year life of the bonds, the estimated property tax increase for a house valued at $500,000 would range from $62.50 to $250 a year.

    The payment does not include the $3 million that has been donated by Tuscan Village owner Joe Faro, who gave the money due to its size and the impact the village has had on the town’s police force.

    The warrant article was moved to the ballot as written. It will ask voters for permission to raise and appropriate $38.6 million for a new station, as well as to authorize the Town Council to apply and accept federal, state and other aid and revenue sources for the project.

    This article requires at least 60% of voters to approve it.

    [ad_2]

    By Katelyn Sahagian | ksahagian@northofboston.com

    Source link

  • ROCKPORT RAMBLINGS: ‘Shed your meds’ topic for luncheon

    ROCKPORT RAMBLINGS: ‘Shed your meds’ topic for luncheon

    [ad_1]

    Worried your taking too many medicines? A presentation on Wednesday may help you advocate for yourself and keep medications in check throughout the aging process.

    The Rockport Council on Aging will host Donna Bartlett, author of “MedStrong,” at a special luncheon presentation Wednesday, Feb. 21, at noon.

    The lunch and presentation topic “Shed Your Meds” is free thanks to sponsorship from Addison Gilbert Hospital and the Friends of the Rockport Council on Aging. The event will take place at the Rockport Community House, 58 Broadway, where seats are limited and advance reservations are required.

    A board-certified geriatric pharmacist based in Worcester, Bartlett is engaged in community outreach programming specializing in older adult medication needs, affordability and prescription coverage. Bartlett has seen first-hand the effects of staying on medication longer than necessary and the impact of “over medication.”

    Those in attendance can expect to come away with a better understanding of “de-prescribing” from an expert who has been practicing, teaching and speaking on the subject for more than 15 years. Copies of Bartlett’s book “MedStrong” will be available for purchase at the event.

    Seats may be reserved by contacting the Rockport Council on Aging at 978-546-2573.

    Career Day

    The DECA chapter at Rockport High School is sponsoring Career Day on Wednesday, April 3, at the school, 24 Jerden’s Lane, from 8 to 10:30 a.m., and the chapter is seeking for volunteers for presentations. Rockport High alumni are encouraged to present. Anyone interested in participating should email DECA advisor Scott Larsen at slarsen@rpk12.org.

    [ad_2]

    Rockport Ramblings | All Hands

    Source link

  • Plan to expand child care subsidies advances

    Plan to expand child care subsidies advances

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — State lawmakers are making another push to approve a plan expanding access to child care options for parents while attracting and retaining new workers to ease chronic staffing shortages in the industry.

    The proposal, approved by the Legislature’s Education Committee last week, would expand financial assistance for families seeking child care, establish new funding for child care providers, and boost pay and benefits for early educators.

    Senate President Karen Spilka, who has made early education and care a top priority for her two-year term as the chamber’s leader, said passage of the bill would expand access to affordable child care for parents across the state “by supporting families, providers and educators.”

    “Our state’s families face child care bills that are higher than the cost of in-state college tuition, and that are often so high that they force one parent to drop out of the workforce,” the Ashland Democrat said in a statement. “If we are serious about solving our labor shortage, supporting families, and getting new parents back into the workforce, we must act to lower the cost of child care.”

    A key plank of the proposal calls for expanding eligibility for subsidized child care by raising the income level to qualify for state-backed programs.

    The current threshold is 50% of state median income for a family of four – which is about $55,000 annually for a family of four. The plan calls for “gradually” increasing that level to 85% of state median income, or $93,662 for a four-member family.

    The Common Start coalition, which includes labor unions, business and advocacy groups, praised the bill’s progress and said its final passage would make the state “significantly more affordable, greatly improve our economic competitiveness, and dramatically increase racial and gender equity.”

    “This comprehensive early education and child care legislation would provide the specific structure that is needed to deliver affordable care options for families; significantly better pay and benefits for early educators; a permanent, stable source of funding for providers; high-quality programs and services for children; and substantial relief for businesses and our economy,” the group said in a statement.

    Many child care centers are financially strained and advocates say low compensation and the rising costs of caring for children are putting some providers out of business.

    Meanwhile, care providers are struggling to retain workers in an industry where the pay is traditionally low and the risk of becoming sick is now elevated as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, advocates say.

    The lack of child care options in Massachusetts is costing families, some of whom are spending 20% to 40% of their annual income on programs.

    The average cost of child care is more than $20,000 a year in Massachusetts, the most expensive state in the nation, only behind Washington, D.C., and well above the national average of $15,888, according to a recent report from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.

    Working families are losing an estimated $1.7 million a year in lost wages from not being able to show up for work because they cannot find or afford child care services, the report noted.

    Meanwhile, employers are losing an estimated $812 million a year in productivity and worker turnover because of the shortage of child care options, according to the report, while the state government is missing out on $188 million a year in tax revenue.

    Compounding the lack of options are changes in the workforce and other factors that have seen fewer people looking to work in the child care industry.

    Gov. Maura Healey has made expanding child care options for parents a key plank of her agenda in her first term, tying the issue to a broader effort to make the state more affordable.

    Healey’s preliminary budget for the next fiscal year calls for $93 million in new child care spending, as well as an additional $475 million in state grants to continue supporting early education providers

    The state Board of Early Education and Care recently approved a plan to tap into $65 million from this year’s budget to reimburse child care providers that serve families receiving financial assistance, including a 5.5% cost-of-living adjustment for providers to help offset increased operating costs.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Special Town Meeting to cost taxpayers $50K

    Special Town Meeting to cost taxpayers $50K

    [ad_1]

    ANDOVER — Taxpayers will be footing an estimated $50,000 bill so that a Special Town Meeting can be held on March 11, just seven weeks before the town holds its annual Town Meeting April 29.

    At a Wednesday night meeting, town officials asked the petitioners of the meeting why they had elected to call a Special Town Meeting instead of working with officials to position the articles for a vote during the annual Town Meeting.

    The Special Town Meeting was called to make changes to zoning and bylaw that would block the creation of a paved path at Haggetts Pond. However town officials have criticized the articles included in the warrant for having widespread unintended consequences.

    Petitioner Don Schroeder said they had been worried the project would go ahead if they had not made the call.

    “At the end of April we don’t know if the project is going to be completed,” said Schroeder. “Or it’s to the point where it can’t be reversed.”

    Select Board chair Melissa Danisch said that a few hours before the petition was filed, officials had offered to “freeze” the project until after Town Meeting.

    Schroeder said paving opponents determined that it was important to go ahead with the Special Town Meeting anyway. He said there had been a potential that the town would go forward at “their own pace.”

    “It wasn’t taken lightly,” said Schroeder. “I agree 100% about the time and effort but it was a serious concern of myself and others.”

    Meeting costs include paying town workers and printing, and then mailing the Finance Committee’s report, said Phil Geoffroy, the head of communications for the town. The town also has to rent out the machines used for electronic per event, he added.

    Special Town Meetings can be called with a petition bearing 200 signatures or signatures equivalent to 20% of the population, whichever is less, according to a memo sent by Town Counsel Doug Heim prior to the meeting.

    “Accordingly, our Select Board has no discretion to refuse, cancel or delay a Special Town Meeting called by resident petition,” he wrote.

    Due to state law, the town must hold the meeting within 45 days of it being called by a petitioner.

    At a Select Board meeting earlier in the week, resident Bob Pokress took aim at Andover’s current form of local government, which allows for Special Town meetings to be called so often.

    Pokress said that a town legal counsel had affirmed that — if he gathered enough signatures — he could hold a Special Town Meeting to declare an official town sandwich.

    “Reflects the insanity of the process,” said Pokress.

    [ad_2]

    By Teddy Tauscher | ttauscher@eagletribune.com

    Source link