ReportWire

Tag: ron desantis

  • Florida Senate declines to confirm Moms for Liberty co-founder to state ethics panel

    Florida Senate declines to confirm Moms for Liberty co-founder to state ethics panel

    [ad_1]

    click to enlarge

    Photo via Tina Descovich/Twitter

    The Florida Senate declined to confirm Moms for Liberty co-founder Tina Descovich’s appointment to the state Commission on Ethics, with Senate President Kathleen Passidomo saying that the procedural move puts Descovich’s confirmation “on hold.”

    Gov. Ron DeSantis appointed Descovich to the Florida ethics commission last year, a position which requires Senate confirmation.

    The Senate allows two years for the confirmation process to be completed. A Republican-controlled Senate committee last month forwarded Descovich’s potential confirmation to the full chamber.

    But on Thursday, Descovich was not part of a slate of appointees to the ethics panel. Descovich, a former Brevard County School Board member, became a prominent figure as the conservative group Moms for Liberty has targeted what it characterizes as indoctrination in public schools.

    Descovich also is the chair of the political committee Moms for Liberty Florida, according to the state Division of Elections’ website. Senate leaders voiced concerns that Descovich’s political role could pose a conflict with her role on the ethics panel.

    “There is a concern that Ms. Descovich’s employment could constitute lobbying the Legislature. That issue requires additional review prior to Senate confirmation,” a spokeswoman for Passidomo told the News Service of Florida in an email Thursday.

    Speaking to reporters after the Senate confirmed a swath of appointees that did not include Descovich, Passidomo said Thursday the procedural move would give time for a review of the concerns.

    “When we looked at it, we realized it’s a two-year process. The governor can reappoint her. So we didn’t feel pressure to do anything,” Passidomo, R-Naples, said.

    The Senate president also said that Descovich’s failure to make it onto the appointment-approval list was not related to an ethics complaint against her.

    “Some citizen said he was going to file a (ethics) complaint and politicized our process. And that troubles me because that’s not what we do,” Passidomo said. “So, (we) put it on hold, and if the governor reappoints her, then she’ll come back. It will give us an opportunity to go through the whole process.”

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

    [ad_2]

    News Service of Florida

    Source link

  • Florida Legislature passes revised bill banning social media for kids

    Florida Legislature passes revised bill banning social media for kids

    [ad_1]

    With one lawmaker likening social media to a “dark alley,” the Florida House on Wednesday gave final approval to a bill that seeks to keep children off social-media platforms.

    The House voted 109-4 to approve the bill (HB 3), which passed the Senate on Monday. It will go to Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is expected to sign it after vetoing an earlier version.

    House Speaker Paul Renner, R-Palm Coast, made cracking down on social media perhaps the highest-profile issue of this year’s legislative session. He contends that social media use harms children’s mental health and can lead to sexual predators communicating with minors.

    “This is something that I believe will save the current generation and generations to come if we’re successful,” Renner said after the bill passed.

    Rep. Tyler Sirois, a Merritt Island Republican who helped sponsor the bill, said that if social media “is the new town square, then God help us.”

    “For our children, social media is no town square,” Sirois said. “It is a dark alley.”

    The bill, in part, would prevent children under age 16 from opening social-media accounts — though it would allow parents to give consent for 14- and 15-year-olds to have accounts. Children under 14 could not open accounts.

    Tech-industry and free-speech groups have already signaled that the bill is likely to face a First Amendment court challenge.

    “Outright banning minors from social media sites does not address the potential harm they may encounter on social media sites but instead prohibits them from sharing and engaging in constitutionally protected speech,” Katie Blankenship, director of the free-speech group PEN America Florida, said in a statement this week. “We know social media sites can present significant risks to minors, but the state’s response to such risks should be tailored to minimize harm, not passing measures that violate Floridans’ constitutional rights.”

    Opponents have pointed to courts blocking similar laws passed in other states.

    “I don’t think we should spend more public dollars on lawsuits in this state where we know these bills are inherently unconstitutional,” Rep. Anna Eskamani, D-Orlando, said.

    Bill supporters, however, contend the measure targets “addictive” features of social-media platforms, not content, making it better able to withstand constitutional challenges.

    “We’re talking about products that are not only addictive, these products are deliberately designed to be addictive,” said Rep. Mike Beltran, a Riverview Republican who is an attorney. “There’s a huge difference between the two of those.”

    Rep. Michele Rayner, a St. Petersburg Democrat who has helped sponsor the bill, said she believes “we are in crisis” with social media.

    “Maybe, this may not be the bill, and we got to come back next year and the year after, but at least we are acting,” Rayner, an attorney, said. “At least we are moving the needle. At least we are having a conversation.”

    Along with Eskamani, dissenting votes were cast by Rep. Daryl Campbell, D-Fort Lauderdale, Rep. Angie Nixon, D-Jacksonville, and Rep. Felicia Robinson, D-Miami Gardens.

    DeSantis on Friday vetoed the earlier version (HB 1) after raising concerns about constitutional issues and infringement on parental rights. But he negotiated with Renner on the plan that passed Wednesday.

    A significant change is that the revised plan would allow 14- and 15-year-olds to open accounts with parental consent. The earlier version would have prevented 14- and 15-year-olds from creating accounts without a parental-consent option.

    The bill does not name social-media platforms that would be affected. But it includes a definition of such platforms, with criteria related to such things as algorithms, “addictive features” and allowing users to view the content or activities of other users.

    The earlier version would have directed age-verification requirements for platforms. Those requirements also would have affected adults creating accounts.

    But the revamped plan does not include the requirements. As an alternative, supporters hope to ensure compliance by opening social-media platforms to lawsuits for violations of the age restrictions. That would include lawsuits filed by the state attorney general and lawsuits filed on behalf of minors.

    “We’re putting the onus here on the companies,” Sirois said.

    Like the earlier version, the bill would require age verification to try to prevent minors under age 18 from having access to online pornographic sites.

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

    [ad_2]

    Jim Saunders, News Service of Florida

    Source link

  • Florida passes bill to compensate victims of decades-old reform school abuse

    Florida passes bill to compensate victims of decades-old reform school abuse

    [ad_1]

    TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Restitution for decades of abuse at two now-shuttered reform schools where boys were beaten, raped and killed is now in the hands of Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis after the Senate unanimously passed a bill Monday to set aside $20 million for victims.

    The bill creates a process for former inmates at the Dozier School for Boys in Marianna and the Florida School for Boys at Okeechobee to make claims over physical, mental or sexual abuse between 1940 and 1975. It’s estimated that victims will receive about $50,000 each.

    “It’s been too long,” said state Sen. Darryl Rouson, the Democrat who sponsored the bill. “This is but a small token for a vast ocean of hurt, but it’s what we can do now.”

    As he spoke, a group of about 20 victims stood in the Senate public gallery, one wiping tears from his eyes.

    “Thank you for never giving up. Thank you for continuing to fight. Thank you telling the story and the stories of those who are not here and can’t speak. We salute your presence today,” Rouson continued.

    A group known as The White House Boys, named for the white cinderblock building at Dozier where boys were taken and hit with a long leather strap, have spent years trying to get recognition for the abuse. Nearly 100 boys died between 1900 and 1973 at Dozier and the University of South Florida spent four years exhuming remains from 55 unmarked graves in overgrown woods on the school’s property.

    The Legislature formally apologized for the abuse seven years ago, but Rouson kept seeking restitution, filing bills that failed in past years to compensate the men.

    “Money doesn’t heal or pay for a lot or erase the mistakes of the past, but it sure does help,” said state Sen. Tracie Davis, a Democrat who sponsored similar legislation when she was in the House. “It sure does help to be able to get the resources and the help you need at 70 or 80 years old to end your days better than they started.”

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

    [ad_2]

    Brendan Farrington, Associated Press

    Source link

  • Judge strikes down part of Florida elections law

    Judge strikes down part of Florida elections law

    [ad_1]

    A federal judge on Friday struck down part of a 2023 state elections law that placed restrictions on what are known as “third party” voter-registration organizations, saying the law discriminated “against noncitizens regardless of immigration status.”

    Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker issued a summary judgment on part of the law that would prevent non-U.S. citizens from collecting or handling voter-registration applications. In July, he issued a preliminary injunction against that part of the law and another restriction that would make it a felony for voter-registration group workers to keep personal information of voters.

    Lawyers for Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration appealed Walker’s preliminary injunction to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where the issue is pending. They asked Walker to hold off on ruling on motions for summary judgment until the Atlanta-based appellate court decides on the injunction.

    Groups including the League of Women Voters of Florida, Hispanic Federation and the NAACP filed a series of lawsuits challenging the 2023 law, arguing in part that it unconstitutionally targeted groups that plaintiffs maintain play an important role in signing up Black and Hispanic voters.

    Walker’s ruling Friday came in a challenge filed by Hispanic Federation, Poder Latinx and individual plaintiffs. The judge’s ruling said that the part of the law regarding noncitizens violates constitutional equal-protection rights.

    The “Florida Legislature chose to discriminate against all noncitizens on the face of the challenged provision” without a compelling state interest, Walker’s order said.

    Walker relied in part on his July injunction order that found the provision in the law “impermissibly discriminates based on alienage.”

    Walker’s Friday decision granted a motion for summary judgment against Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd, prohibiting him from enforcing the part of the law. The judge’s order also denied a motion for summary judgment against state Attorney General Ashley Moody because, he wrote, her role in the enforcement of the law remains a “disputed issue of fact.” The issue about Moody “must be answered with the benefit of a complete record after trial,” Walker’s order said.

    Walker said Byrd’s lawyers offered “no authority” for why the judge should wait until the appeals court resolves the state’s injunction appeal.

    “This court recognizes that it may be easier to simply wait for the Eleventh Circuit to weigh in on some of these issues in the appeal of the preliminary injunction,” Walker wrote. “But this court need not wait to decide the legal questions presented here.”

    The part about noncitizens was unconstitutional because the state could have adopted a narrower approach, Walker’s ruling said.

    “This court finds that, assuming arguendo that the citizenship requirement is supported by a compelling state interest, plaintiffs have demonstrated that it is not narrowly tailored to further that interest, and defendant Byrd has failed to proffer any evidence raising a genuine dispute as to the lack of narrow tailoring,” Walker said.

    Walker on Tuesday refused to step down from the case, rejecting arguments by the state that suggested he had a “closed mind.”

    The request for recusal stemmed from a ruling Walker issued Feb. 8 in a separate court battle about a 2021 elections law. In that ruling, Walker entered a judgment in favor of the state after the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned an earlier decision in which he found the 2021 law improperly discriminated against Black voters.

    Meanwhile, Walker this month rejected a League of Women Voters challenge to another part of the 2023 law that prevents people with certain felony convictions from “collecting or handling” voter-registration applications. Walker ruled the organization did not have legal standing to challenge that part of the law.

    A trial about the 2023 law is slated to start April 1.

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

    [ad_2]

    Dara Kam, News Service of Florida

    Source link

  • ‘I’m not worried about our schools’: Florida Republicans votes to lower minimum age to purchase AR-15s

    ‘I’m not worried about our schools’: Florida Republicans votes to lower minimum age to purchase AR-15s

    [ad_1]

    While the issue has not moved forward in the Senate, the Florida House on Friday passed a controversial bill that would lower the minimum age from 21 to 18 to buy rifles and shotguns.

    The Republican-controlled House voted 76-35 along almost-straight party lines to pass the bill (HB 1223), which would reverse a decision that raised the minimum age after the 2018 mass shooting at Parkland’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that killed 17 people.

    Federal law bars people under 21 from buying handguns. Democrats on Friday repeatedly cited the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting as they opposed the bill.

    Rep. Robin Bartleman, D-Weston, said lawmakers should not “renege” on a promise the Legislature made when it passed the higher minimum age as part of a broader school-safety bill.

    “Shame on us,” Bartleman said. “We told the citizens of Florida that we were going to protect them.”

    But bill sponsor Bobby Payne, R-Palatka, pointed to Second Amendment rights and people needing to defend themselves.

    “I’m not worried about our schools. Our schools are safe in Florida. We’ve heard it was the gold standard,” Payne said. “What I’m worried about is my kids, my grandkids and your kids that can’t defend themselves because we’re restricting their rights.”

    Senate President Kathleen Passidomo, R-Naples, has repeatedly said the Senate doesn’t have a similar bill, meaning the proposed age change will not pass during this year’s legislative session. Rep. Linda Chaney, R-St. Pete Beach, Rep. Chip LaMarca, R-Lighthouse Point, Rep. Vicki Lopez, R-Miami, and Rep. Cyndi Stevenson, R-Saint Johns, joined Democrats in voting against the bill Friday.

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

    [ad_2]

    News Service of Florida

    Source link

  • Moms for Liberty co-founder backed for Florida ethics panel, despite heavy opposition

    Moms for Liberty co-founder backed for Florida ethics panel, despite heavy opposition

    [ad_1]

    click to enlarge

    Photo via Tina Descovich/Twitter

    A co-founder of the conservative group Moms for Liberty moved a step closer Monday to being confirmed as a member of the state Commission on Ethics amid heavy opposition from Democrats.

    The Senate Ethics and Elections Committee backed confirmation of Tina Descovich, with all three of the panel’s Democrats dissenting. Descovich, who was tapped for the ethics commission last year, needs confirmation from the full Senate.

    A former Brevard County School Board member, Descovich has become a prominent figure as Moms for Liberty targets what it characterizes as indoctrination in public schools and inappropriate content in school-library books.

    Democrats peppered Descovich with questions Monday, including about her work with Moms for Liberty and connections to high-ranking government officials.

    Sen. Tina Polsky, D-Boca Raton, asked Descovich about potential conflicts of interest.

    “Since Moms for Liberty actively works to support and endorse candidates for office, and the Commission on Ethics is responsible for overseeing the standards of conduct for officers and employees of Florida, do you feel your role both advocating for and monitoring elected officials is a conflict of interest?” Polsky asked.

    Descovich denied that a conflict would exist.

    “I do not feel like it’s a conflict of interest. We are structured in a way that our chapters individually, they’re the ones that do the endorsing, in their local community, of school board candidates only. My position as executive director and co-founder of Moms for Liberty, does not get involved, does not approve or deny their endorsements,” Descovich said.

    Under questioning from Polsky, Descovich also confirmed that she attended a meeting last year with DeSantis and state Education Commissioner Manny Diaz Jr. that dealt with the governor backing school-board candidates.

    Descovich said officials were “seeking some of our counsel from Moms for Liberty as a whole and what we were looking for in candidates,” but denied that she played a factor in the governor’s choices.

    DeSantis in recent years has endorsed numerous conservative school-board candidates, many of whom have gone on to win elections. Sen. Debbie Mayfield, an Indialantic Republican whose district includes part of Brevard County, defended Descovich.

    “If there’s anyone that can serve in both capacities and do it well, and separate the two out at the same time, it’s Tina,” Mayfield said.

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

    [ad_2]

    News Service of Florida

    Source link

  • How Donald Trump Became Unbeatable

    How Donald Trump Became Unbeatable

    [ad_1]

    Not too long ago, Donald Trump looked finished. After the January 6 attack on the Capitol, the repeal of Roe v. Wade, and a poor Republican showing in the 2022 midterms, the GOP seemed eager to move on from the former president. The postTrump era had supposedly begun.

    Just one week after the midterms, he entered the 2024 race, announcing his candidacy to a room of bored-looking hangers-on. Even his children weren’t there. Security had to pen people in to keep them from leaving during his meandering speech.

    Today, thanks to Trump’s dominant performance in South Carolina, the Republican primary is all but over. Trump’s margin was so comfortable that the Associated Press called the race as soon as polls closed. How did we get here? How did Trump go from historically weak to unassailable?

    I talk with Republican-primary voters in focus groups every week, and through these conversations, I’ve learned that the answer has as much to do with Trump’s party and his would-be competitors as it does with Trump himself. Most Republican leaders have profoundly misread their base in this moment.

    The other candidates hoped to be able to defeat Trump even as they accommodated his behavior and made excuses for his criminality. They even said they would support his reelection. By doing so, they established a permission structure for Republican voters to return to Trump, all but ensuring his rise.

    My focus groups over the past few years can be seen as a travelogue through the GOP’s journey back to Trump. Three key themes emerged that help explain why Trump’s opponents failed to gain traction.

    First, you can’t beat something with nothing. The Republican field didn’t offer voters anything new.

    Nikki Haley and Mike Pence cast themselves as avatars of the pre-Trump GOP. Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy did their best to imitate Trump, presenting themselves as younger and more competent stewards of the same MAGA agenda. None of them offered a viable alternative to Trump; instead, they spent their resources trying not to anger his supporters.

    But Republican voters don’t want Reagan Republicanism. Old-school conservatives may pine for a return to balanced budgets, personal responsibility, and American leadership in the world (guilty). But a greater share of Republican voters prefer an isolationist foreign policy and candidates who promise to punish their domestic enemies.

    “The feds, both parties, the elites … want everything to go back to the way it was before Trump got elected,” said Bret, a two-time Trump voter from Georgia. “And that would be the wrong direction, in my opinion.”

    And voters aren’t interested in Trump-lite when they can have the real thing. Trump’s supporters see in him a leader who’s willing to fight for them. No other candidate proved they could do that better than Trump.

    “We need a man that is strong as hell, a brick house,” said Fred, a two-time Trump voter from South Carolina, in May 2023. “He is that man.”

    Larry, an Iowa Republican, called Trump “a disruptor. In the business world, you bring in a disruptor when everybody’s stuck in groupthink. That’s what I hired him to do: blow stuff up.”

    Contrast that with how Republican voters saw his opponents. “If you want to be president, you’ve got to be hated by half the country,” said Dakota, a two-time Trump voter from Iowa, adding, about Nikki Haley: “I don’t think she can do it.”

    “Does it kind of feel in a sense that he just kind of gave up?” Ashley, another Iowa Republican, asked about DeSantis before he dropped out of the race.

    Pence, Chris Christie, and the other also-rans came in for much worse criticism. “I don’t know if anyone would vote for him, just his family at this point,” Justin, a two-time Trump voter from Texas, said of Pence. “I think he’s alienated everyone.”

    The second theme: Trump’s competitors declined to hit him on his 91 felony counts, despite the fact that voters say they have serious concerns about them. Instead, most of them (with the honorable exception of Christie and Asa Hutchinson) actively defended Trump.

    DeSantis called the charges the “criminalization of politics.” Haley said the charges were “more about revenge than … about justice.” And Ramaswamy promised to pardon Trump “on day one.”

    By the time Haley started attacking Trump in recent weeks, it was already too late. She can call him “diminished,” “unhinged,” “weak in the knees,” and “incredibly reckless,” but voters saw her raise her hand six months ago when asked whether she would support him if he became the nominee.

    If Trump’s primary opponents weren’t going to hold his indictments against him, why should GOP voters? “It’s all a witch hunt,” Dennis, a two-time Trump voter from Michigan, said of the charges. The Department of Justice and state prosecutors bringing the cases “are terrified of Trump for whatever reason … because they’re afraid he will run and they’re afraid he will win.”

    Lastly, Trump started to be seen as electable. This represented a big shift from a year ago, when voters had concerns about Trump’s ability to beat President Joe Biden in a rematch.

    In February 2023, Isaac, a Pennsylvania Republican, said of Trump: “I just feel he is unelectable. I think you could put him up there against fricking Donald Duck and Donald Duck will end up coming out ahead. He just ticks too many people off.”

    But as they got a better look at the alternatives—and as they came to believe that Biden was too frail, weak, and senile to be competitive in the general election—GOP voters came around.

    “I’m convinced that he is in the final stages of dementia,” Clifton, an Iowa Republican, said of Biden. “I mean, yeah, Trump’s an asshole and he doesn’t have a filter and he says stupid things, but it doesn’t matter.”

    These voters have come to believe that the election is a choice between senility and recklessness. And they’ve decided they prefer the latter.

    DeSantis’s rise and fall is the clearest demonstration of how we got here. For a time, he looked like the greatest threat to Trump, leveraging culture-war issues to gin up the base while projecting an image of being, as one voter put it to me, “Trump not on steroids.”

    He sent refugees to Martha’s Vineyard, went after Disney, banned books—and the base loved him for it. “For the most part, from what I hear, he’s doing a good job in Florida,” said Chris, a Republican voter from Illinois, in March 2023. “He stands for a lot of the same values that I think I do.”

    But over time, DeSantis’s star began to fade. The more retail campaigning he did, and the more voters were exposed to him, the less they liked what they saw.

    “I think he was a strong candidate before he was actually a candidate,” said Fred, a two-time Trump voter from New Hampshire in December 2023. He cited “things he’s done in Florida and how big he won his last governor’s election.” But now, he said, “I think he got a little too into the social issues.”

    By the time DeSantis dropped out, skepticism had turned to contempt among the Republican voters I spoke with. Sean, a two-time Trump voter from New Hampshire, put it succinctly last month: “He has a punchable face, and I just don’t like him.”

    This time last year, DeSantis had a real shot at consolidating the move-on-from-Trump faction of the GOP while making inroads with the maybe-Trumpers—each of which constitutes about a third of the party. Instead, he tried to wrestle the former president for his always-Trump base, a doomed effort. He couldn’t get traction with the always-Trumpers and he alienated the move-on-from-Trumpers. It was a hopeless strategy for a flawed candidate.

    Haley may hold out for a few more weeks, even though she has virtually no chance of beating Trump outright. Her only real incentive for remaining in the race is to be the last person standing in the event that he is imprisoned or suffers a major health event. Barring either of these scenarios, Trump’s path to the nomination is clear.

    This outcome wasn’t inevitable; Trump was beatable. His opponents had real opportunities to cleave off his support, but they squandered them.

    The reason is simple: Republican elites don’t understand their voters. They spent eight years making excuses for Trump and supporting him at every turn, sending the clear signal that this is his party. They spent nearly a decade saying that he was a persecuted martyr—and the greatest president in history. It’s frightening, but not surprising, that their voters think he’s the only man for the job.

    [ad_2]

    Sarah Longwell

    Source link

  • Ron DeSantis’s Surgeon General Tells Parents It’s Okay to Send Their Unvaccinated Kids to School Amid Measles Outbreak

    Ron DeSantis’s Surgeon General Tells Parents It’s Okay to Send Their Unvaccinated Kids to School Amid Measles Outbreak

    [ad_1]

    In 2021, Ron DeSantis appointed Joseph Ladapo the surgeon general of Florida, after Ladapo’s op-eds questioning mask-wearing, COVID-19 vaccines, and other public health measures caught the governor’s eye. In the ensuing years, Ladapo has recommended children should not receive the COVID vaccine, has “weaponize[d] bad science to spread anti-vaccine disinformation as official policy,” and has personally “altered key findings in [a] study on Covid-19 vaccine safety.” Now, Ladapo is bringing his medical point of view to a measles outbreak that he appears happy to let explode on his watch.

    In a letter sent to parents this week, Ladapo alerted them to a cluster of measles cases that had been identified in Manatee Bay Elementary School and wrote that “it is normally recommended that individuals without history of prior infection or vaccination stay home for up to 21 days,” as “up to 90% of individuals without immunity will contract measles if exposed.” Having said that? He’s cool with people sending their unvaccinated children to school, despite that whole thing about 90% of unvaccinated people likely contracting the disease. The Florida Department of Health, Ladapo said, “is deferring to parents or guardians to make decisions about school attendance.”

    Not surprisingly, health experts who actually believe in science have said such guidance is wildly irresponsible, with at least one blaming Ladapo for the outbreak. “The reason why there is a measles outbreak in Florida schools is because too many parents have not had their children protected by the safe and effective measles vaccine,” John P. Moore, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Weill Cornell Medical College, told The Washington Post. “And why is that? It’s because anti-vaccine sentiment in Florida comes from the top of the public health food-chain: Joseph Ladapo.” Dr. Ben Hoffman, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the outlet the guidance from Florida “runs counter to everything I have ever heard and everything that I have read. It runs counter to our policy. It runs counter to what the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] would recommend.” (As the Post notes, measles can cause severe health complications, including death.)

    Patsy Stinchfield, president of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, told the Post the outbreak will become a major threat to the community if unvaccinated people who’ve been exposed to the disease don’t follow health recommendations like staying at home during the time they may be contagious. In other words, things could get a lot worse if people listen to the Florida surgeon general.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the modern Republican Party

    X content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    Nothing to see here, just the front-runner for the GOP nomination appearing to suggest he’s got blackmail material on his opponent

    X content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    Elsewhere!

    Biden announces more than 500 sanctions on Russia after Navalny’s death

    NBC News • Read More

    Ohio GOP Senate candidates pitch federal abortion bans even after voters protected reproductive rights

    NBC News • Read More

    An ectopic pregnancy put her life at risk. A Texas hospital refused to treat her.

    The Washington Post • Read More

    Major Embryo Shipping Company Halts Business in Alabama

    NYT • Read More

    Michael Cohen’s Moment of Truth Has Arrived

    New York • Read More

    How Did Haley’s South Carolina Become Trump Country? Ask the Tea Party.

    NYT • Read More

    Republicans struggle to escape their Biden impeachment quagmire

    The Washington Post • Read More

    Guinness World Records revokes title for oldest dog ever

    UPI • Read More

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Gov. DeSantis casts doubts on new Florida bill making it illegal to hog the left lane

    Gov. DeSantis casts doubts on new Florida bill making it illegal to hog the left lane

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Ron DeSantis said Friday he will talk with law-enforcement officials before deciding whether to sign a bill that would bar motorists from cruising in the left lanes of highways.

    The Senate voted 37-0 on Thursday to approve the measure (HB 317), which had earlier passed the House.

    During an appearance Friday in Pensacola, DeSantis said he wants to hear the practical implications to law officers of enforcing the measure, which would apply to drivers on highways with at least two lanes in the same direction and speed limits of 65 mph or higher.

    “Are we going to be pulling people over for that? How would that work?” DeSantis said.

    He added, “So, I’m going to actually talk to people that do this for a living, whether they think it would be a benefit, both in terms of safety but also we want convenience. We want people to be able to get where they can go as quickly and as safely as possible. But then also enforcement, is that going to radically change how they (officers) do their job, in terms of enforcement?”

    The bill would prevent drivers from using left lanes unless they are passing other motorists, preparing to exit on ramps, turning from left lanes or are directed to left lanes by officers or traffic-control devices.

    High occupancy vehicle lanes would be excluded from the term “furthermost left-hand lane.” The bill would set fines up to $158.

    The House voted 113-3 last week to pass the bill.

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

    [ad_2]

    News Service of Florida

    Source link

  • DeSantis calls for more parental control, as Florida Legislature passes blanket social media ban for kids under 16

    DeSantis calls for more parental control, as Florida Legislature passes blanket social media ban for kids under 16

    [ad_1]

    click to enlarge

    Photo via Ron DeSantis/Twitter

    Florida’s Republican-led Legislature passed a sweeping bill Thursday in Tallahassee that would ban all kids under 16 from using social media – even with a parent’s permission – and would require everyone else in the Sunshine State to prove they are adults to continue using their online accounts.

    Within hours of the Senate’s vote, Gov. Ron DeSantis resurfaced his own objections over banning high school students who are 14 or 15 and whose parents might want to give their children access. “Parents need to have a role in this,” he said at a news conference. He added, “We can’t say 100% of the uses are bad.”

    “It’s still under negotiation,” DeSantis said. “We’re working.”

    The Senate voted 23-14 to pass the bill, a priority of House Speaker Paul Renner and one of the most consequential and far-reaching pieces of legislation considered this year by lawmakers. The House voted later in the day 108-7 to pass the Senate’s version of the measure and send it to DeSantis for signature.

    “We know that there are pedophiles and sexual predators on these platforms and children can be groomed in less than 45 minutes,” said Sen. Erin Grall, R-Fort Pierce, who championed the measure in the Senate. “The sale of human beings is happening with our most vulnerable children in these platforms.”

    Grall said Thursday that she hasn’t discussed concerns with the governor or his representatives.

    “I haven’t communicated with the governor’s office on the bill, at all,” Grall said.

    Under the bill – and an amendment by Grall that passed late Wednesday – adults in Florida would be required to submit proof-of-age documents or evidence to third-party, U.S.-based companies to prove to social media companies they are old enough to use their accounts on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X, Snapchat, Reddit and others.

    The bill would require that these companies immediately delete copies of any age-verification information at the end of the process and assure the anonymity of anyone who submitted it. It did not specify what documents or evidence would be acceptable to prove age, but legislative researchers said options include government-issued records such as drivers’ licenses, credit or banking records or even biometric tools that use facial recognition to estimate a person’s age.

    It would go into effect July 1.

    The Senate vote was largely along party lines, except that five Republicans voted against the bill and two Democrats supported it. Debate on the Senate floor was rancorous. In the House, the only lawmakers who opposed it were Reps. LaVon Bracy Davis of Orlando, Daryl Campbell of Fort Lauderdale, Anna Eskamani of Orlando, Ashley Viola Gantt of Miami, Angela Nixon of Jacksonville and Felicia Simone Robinson of Miami Gardens – all Democrats.

    Sen. Tina Polsky, D-Boca Raton, said the bill – if enacted – would almost certainly be blocked by legal challenges. Critics said it interferes with the First Amendment rights of social media users. A similar law in Arkansas was blocked after a judge ruled that it placed too high a burden on adults and children attempting to access protected content.

    “We are walking ourselves into a judicial defeat, and I’d like to know who’s paying for that,” Polsky said. “We’re cutting our budget, we’re cutting our programs. We’re going to spend another million dollars on defending a case that we all know is unconstitutional.”

    NetChoice LLC, a trade organization for major social media platforms, said the age-verification requirement for adults in Florida raised serious privacy concerns.

    “The terrifying component of this bill is a requirement that private businesses send and export sensitive personal information of users to another company,” said Carl Szabo, the group’s top lawyer. “That’s really scary that my most sensitive personal information would be required by Florida law to be sent to a third party to verify I am who I say I am.”

    The bill identifies social media services as having “addictive features,” which Grall compared to drug addiction. The bill wouldn’t apply to email providers, streaming services, photo-editing applications, news sites or other popular digital services.

    “This has been equated to digital fentanyl,” Grall said. “This is a different version of drug use than most of us have ever seen, but it is just as bad and it affects their brain development and it affects their ability to participate in society.”

    Polsky unsuccessfully offered an amendment late Wednesday that would exempt teens under 16 in Florida who could show a reasonable need to use social media, such as young entrepreneurs, dance or recording artists or prospective athletes who showcase their talent to college coaches online.

    On the Senate floor, Polsky read from a news story published earlier Wednesday by Fresh Take Florida, a news service operated by the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications, that included interviews with teens who ran businesses or advocacy groups before they turned 16.

    Sen. Jason Pizzo, D-Hollywood, said parents, not the government, should control what their children can do online.

    “If you need 40 people hanging out in Tallahassee for 60 days to be able to teach your kids, or restrict them from something, you need to seek help,” Pizzo said.

    Sen. Blaise Ingoglia, R-Spring Hill, who voted against the bill said it could prevent children from watching popular cartoons on YouTube Kids.

    Szabo, the lawyer for NetChoice, said his group or others would seek a preliminary injunction in court to block the bill from taking effect if signed by the governor.

    “We can do that on First Amendment grounds because when it comes to free speech, the chilling of free speech, the limiting of free speech, even the threat of losing the opportunity of free speech is a harm unto itself,” Szabo said.

    Grall said she believed Florida’s new law would hold up to court challenges because it targeted social media platforms with addictive features, not specific online companies. Such features include “autoplay,” when a website plays videos automatically in succession, or “infinite scroll,” when a website serves up content endlessly.

    “This language is very different from some of the other states,” she said. “Some of the other states have specific exclusions for specific platforms. Those make it look like we’re targeting one platform over another versus focusing on the addictive harms that our children are facing.”
    ___

    This story was produced by Fresh Take Florida, a news service of the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications. The reporter can be reached at [email protected]. You can donate to support our students here.

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

    [ad_2]

    Erina Anwar, Fresh Take Florida

    Source link

  • ‘Chicken Fingers And Pudding Cups’: Trump Campaign Hammers Ron DeSantis Over Private Call Saying He Won’t Be VP

    ‘Chicken Fingers And Pudding Cups’: Trump Campaign Hammers Ron DeSantis Over Private Call Saying He Won’t Be VP

    [ad_1]

    Opinion

    Screenshot: WYFF News 4

    The Donald Trump campaign put Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on blast after comments he made on a private call surfaced indicating that he had no interest in serving as Vice President.

    NBC News reported on the phone conversation with supporters in which DeSantis urged Trump to avoid “identity politics” in choosing a running mate while dismissing calls for him personally to join the ticket.

    “I would want somebody that, if something happened, the people that voted us in would have been pleased to know that they’re going to continue the mission,” DeSantis said.

    “I have heard that they’re looking more in identity politics. I think that’s a mistake,” he added. “I think you should just focus on who the best person for the job would be, and then do that accordingly.”

    That’s actually a reasonable concept and something Republicans have complained drives Democrats in their every decision – race and gender.

    RELATED: Trump Releases Wild New Campaign Ad Attacking ‘Pudding Fingers’ DeSantis

    DeSantis On Being Trump’s Veep: ‘I Am Not Doing That’

    According to the NBC report, DeSantis also squashed the idea of joining Trump’s campaign as his Vice President.

    “People were mentioning me. I am not doing that,” he said.

    DeSantis has long insisted that he would not join the Trump ticket even after leaving the presidential race. He also predicted that Trump would staff his White House with “yes men” who would do his bidding.

    “I think that how he staffs the White House, how he staffs the administration, will be really, really significant,” DeSantis said. “I think he likely is going to find people that are going to be more kind of yes men, rather than folks that are going to be pushing back.”

    RELATED: Donald Trump Teases Tim Scott As Running Mate

    Trump Campaign Fires Back

    To say the Trump campaign didn’t appreciate DeSantis’ comments would be a massive understatement.

    Campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt responded, “Ron DeSantis failed miserably in his presidential campaign and does not have a voice in selecting the next vice president of the United States.”

    “Rather than throw cheap shots from afar, Ron should focus on what he can do to fire [President] Joe Biden and Make America Great Again,” she added.

    Leavitt’s response was far more measured than that of one of Trump’s other aides, senior advisor Chris LaCivita.

    “Chicken fingers and pudding cups is what you will be remembered for you sad little man,” LaCivita wrote on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.

    Daily Beast report from last year claimed that DeSantis had a peculiar eating habit regarding pudding.

    Two unnamed sources for the leftist tabloid claimed that once, four years ago, “DeSantis enjoyed a chocolate pudding dessert—by eating it with three of his fingers.”

    Trump’s campaign turned it into a bizarre political ad against the Florida governor.

    Trump has offered up a few names to his list of vice presidential candidates, including Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, Florida GOP Rep. Byron Donalds, and South Carolina Gov. Kristi Noem.

    He did, actually also include DeSantis on that list during a Fox News town hall event earlier this week.

    During the private call, DeSantis refused to rule out another run for the White House in 2028.

    “Oh, I haven’t ruled anything out,” he said. “I mean … we’re still in this election cycle. So it’s presumptuous to say, you know, this or that. I think a lot happens in politics.”

    Let’s hope that he learns from the mistakes that he and his inept campaign strategists made throughout this past year.

    Follow Rusty on X

    ‘There’s Hope For Democrats’: Ted Cruz Shares Study About Scientists Growing A Pair Of Testicles In A Lab

    Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
    The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

    Rusty Weiss has been covering politics for over 15 years. His writings have appeared in the Daily Caller, Fox… More about Rusty Weiss

    [ad_2]

    Rusty Weiss

    Source link

  • ‘If you really want to stop abortions, get a vasectomy’: Critics oppose Florida’s ‘unborn child’ bill

    ‘If you really want to stop abortions, get a vasectomy’: Critics oppose Florida’s ‘unborn child’ bill

    [ad_1]

    A House committee on Wednesday approved a controversial measure that would allow parents to file civil lawsuits seeking damages for the wrongful death of an “unborn child,” with critics of the bill saying it is too broad and could shrink the number of doctors who deliver babies in Florida.

    The proposal, now ready to go to the full House, would add “unborn child” to a law that allows family members to seek damages when a person’s death is caused by such things as wrongful acts or negligence.

    The bill (HB 651) has drawn intense pushback from abortion-rights advocates, who argue the proposed changes could put abortion providers and people who help women obtain abortions at risk of being sued.

    The House and Senate bill sponsors also led efforts last year to pass a law that seeks to ban abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. But the sponsors maintain that this year’s bill is not abortion-related.

    “We are talking about human beings. We are talking about the human experience, the experience of the parents who have suffered a real loss. We are saying they have the right to seek recovery in our court system,” House sponsor Jenna Persons-Mulicka, R-Fort Myers, said before the House Judiciary Committee approved the bill Wednesday.

    But Rep. Yvonne Hinson, D-Gainesville, said the proposal would have a chilling effect on doctors and women who might want abortions.

    “The most dangerous 60 days in the state of Florida is the legislative session. We are creating fear in the hearts and minds of the people in Florida. I am so tired of it. If you really want to stop abortions, get a vasectomy,” she said.

    Mark Delegal, a lobbyist who represents The Doctors Company, said his client is the largest insurer of physicians in the state and the nation. Florida already has the highest medical-malpractice insurance rates for obstetricians and gynecologists in the country, according to Delegal. Obstetricians in Miami pay about $226,000 a year in premiums, compared to $49,000 in Los Angeles, he said.

    Also, Delegal argued that the proposed changes would worsen a shortage of OB/GYNs in the state.

    “We have concerns and oppose this bill because it expands liability for health care providers, and that’s why we object to it,” he said.

    The proposal has come as the Florida Supreme Court weighs whether a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at protecting abortion rights meets legal requirements to go before voters in November. The court has until April 1 to decide on the issue.

    Supporters launched the ballot initiative after the Republican-controlled Legislature and Gov. Ron DeSantis approved the six-week abortion bill. The six-week ban would go into effect if the Florida Supreme Court upholds a 2022 law that restricts abortions after 15 weeks.

    The Judiciary Committee voted 15-4 along party lines Wednesday to approve the bill about wrongful-death lawsuits. Under the bill, mothers could not be sued. But opponents contended the measure would open the door for rapists or men who have one-night-stands with women to seek damages against health care providers.

    “The latest Republican bill attacking abortion in Florida is extremely dangerous and would have major legal consequences,” Florida Democratic Party Chairwoman Nikki Fried said in a statement. “The potential misuses are staggering — purposefully broad language could help abusers weaponize the judicial system to harass and punish their pregnant partners with costly civil lawsuits.”

    Florida is one of a handful of states that do not allow civil damages for the loss of an unborn child, Persons-Mulicka argued. Under a change adopted by the committee Wednesday, the bill would define an unborn child as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”

    The majority of other states with wrongful-death laws that cover pregnancy loss, however, only allow recovery after the fetus has reached viability, according to a legislative analysis of the bill.

    The change was added to the House bill after the Alabama Supreme Court on Friday ruled that frozen embryos created through in vitro fertilization are considered children.

    Rep. Dotie Joseph, a North Miami Democrat who is a lawyer, said the Florida bill could have a “chilling effect” for people seeking in vitro fertilization. Joseph also pointed to a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion decision and left abortion rights up to states.

    “What is the impact on actual human beings? We are seeing so many negative impacts on real-life women and the consequences of these foolhardy, partisan-driven policies,” Joseph said. “There is a disconnect between the intention and the impact, and the impact is overall negative.”

    Some Republicans also expressed concerns about the bill.

    Rep. Paula Stark, R-St. Cloud, called the measure “way too broad.” While Stark supported the bill Wednesday, she said she would vote against it on the House floor unless it was more restrictive.

    But Persons-Mulicka pushed back.

    “You know that I’m not afraid to shy away from a discussion about abortion or the value of life or the overarching theme of personhood,” she said. “But none of that is what this bill is about. It’s very narrow in nature. It’s about the mother. It’s about the father. It’s about the value of the life of an unborn child to them, and it’s about a real loss … that was caused by the wrongdoing of another person.”

    Florida criminal law includes penalties for illegal killing of an unborn child, but the law includes exceptions for abortion. Democrats have urged Persons-Mulicka to amend her bill to mirror the criminal law.

    Committee Chairman Tommy Gregory, R-Lakewood Ranch, said people who commit abortion-related wrongdoing should be held responsible.

    “If you commit a negligent act or you commit a wrongful act, you should be liable. We are protecting the very most vulnerable and those that should be able to recover, under those situations,” he said.

    But Kara Gross, legislative director and senior policy counsel for the ACLU of Florida, argued that the bill “is not about helping grieving families” for pregnancy loss.

    “This deceptive bill is about making it even harder for Floridians to access the abortion care that they need,” she said.

    Persons-Mulicka, however, accused opponents of “misplaced fear.”

    “I agree there’s been a lot of talk of fear, but that’s fear-mongering,” she said. “What liability are they trying to escape? … We’re talking about wrongdoing and harm and we’re talking about human beings.”

    A similar Senate bill, sponsored by Sen. Erin Grall, R-Vero Beach, needs to clear one more committee before it could go to the full Senate.

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

    [ad_2]

    Dara Kam, News Service of Florida

    Source link

  • Few students apply to Florida universities after DeSantis order to help Jewish students, others

    Few students apply to Florida universities after DeSantis order to help Jewish students, others

    [ad_1]

    click to enlarge

    Photo via Fresh Take Florida

    At least five people in the United States have applied to Florida universities through Gov. Ron DeSantis’ emergency order to encourage transfer students across the country who feel they experienced religious persecution on campus after the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks.

    The governor’s order announced last month waives application fees and, in some instances, grants in-state tuition to transfer applicants.

    Of the 12 public universities in the state, at least two students applied to the University of Florida, two applied to Florida Atlantic University and one applied to Florida State, the schools confirmed. Representatives of the University of South Florida, Florida A&M University and New College of Florida did not respond to repeated emails and phone calls over the past two weeks.

    DeSantis announced the order during his State of the State address, when he compared Florida’s response to the Israel-Hamas war to reports of antisemitism on other college campuses. He promised Jewish students around the country that Florida will “welcome them with open arms.”

    “Over the coming months, they will have a tough decision to make – pack up and leave or stay and endure continued hatred,” he said in the address.

    DeSantis mentioned only Jewish students in his speech and the emergency order cites only statistics about antisemitism, but any student can apply if they have experienced religious discrimination or harassment at their current university. Florida universities may require statements, photographs or official records from students to confirm they have a “well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of religion,” according to the order.

    The day after issuing the order, DeSantis clarified during a Republican presidential primary debate with Nikki Haley – just before he dropped out of the race – that non-Jews could also apply, saying the order was “…not just for Jewish students — [but for] anyone who’s being persecuted or being marginalized because of their faith in any college around the country.”

    It is unclear whether the students who applied through the order are Jewish. The privacy of university applicants is protected under federal law and schools must have written consent from students before releasing an applicant’s name and other personal information.

    “I think what Gov. DeSantis is doing is more political than actually intentional,” Rep. Anna Eskamani, D-Orlando, said. “In a state where we have Nazis parading around I-4 and policies that demonize LGBTQ+ students, a lot of students are looking for new places to go because they don’t feel like they can be themselves in Florida.”

    The order was DeSantis’ latest attempt at influencing how Florida schools respond to the war. In October, his administration through the State University System unsuccessfully ordered pro-Palestinian groups at the University of Florida and the University of South Florida to be shut down.

    Several public universities in Florida are among the schools with the largest Jewish student populations in the nation. The University of Florida, with 6,500 Jewish students, has the most.

    Amanda Press, a 21-year-old business management senior at Florida State University, said Florida universities are safer for Jewish students but, even at FSU, she has experienced antisemitism.

    “As much as the state can say that people making antisemitic statements are not welcome at our university,” she said, “if there’s a kid walking down the sidewalk and they yell an antisemitic slur, which has happened to me, there’s really nothing that you can do about that.”

    At UF, a pro-Israel flag and the Jewish student center have been vandalized.

    Shabbos “Alexander” Kestenbaum, a 25-year-old graduate student at Harvard, who is one of six students suing the university there over antisemitism, said most Jewish students he has heard from are looking to transfer to schools in Israel.

    “I can’t point to a specific university or college [in Florida] where students have said, ‘That’s where I want to go,’ but I appreciate the governor’s focus on the issue and standing up for a clear case of injustice,” he said.

    Across the country, student protests on college campuses have induced debates on university leaders’ responses to the war. Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania and MIT, in particular, received backlash after a congressional hearing on campus antisemitism with the schools’ presidents in December became heated.

    “For whatever reason, this has all turned into a political thing,” Press said. “Some communities are not as quick to say, ‘I don’t care what your political views are — being antisemitic is not okay.’ A lot of schools just aren’t saying that.”

    Though Press said she appreciates DeSantis’ order, she believes the reason few students have submitted an application may be a lack of awareness.

    “I had vaguely heard about it,” she said, “but I go to school here and I’m in student government. If I didn’t hear about it, I could assume not that many people know.”

    ___

    This story was produced by Fresh Take Florida, a news service of the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications. The reporter can be reached at [email protected]. You can donate to support our students here.

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

    [ad_2]

    Lauren Brensel, Fresh Take Florida

    Source link

  • Controversial Florida bills to ban Pride flags and protect Confederate monuments could be dead

    Controversial Florida bills to ban Pride flags and protect Confederate monuments could be dead

    [ad_1]

    Controversial bills aimed at preventing local governments from removing historical monuments and restricting the types of flags flown at schools and other public buildings appear to be dead in the Florida Senate.

    Senate President Kathleen Passidomo, R-Naples, said she doesn’t expect the Senate to move forward on the monuments bill and that the flags bill is stuck in a committee that will not meet again.

    The monuments bill (SB 1122) seeks to prevent removal or destruction of historical monuments from public property and has been controversial because of debate about whether it is designed to prevent removal of memorials to the Confederacy.

    Passidomo last week raised questions about the future of the bill after several lawmakers voiced outrage about comments by speakers who supported the bill at a Feb. 6 committee meeting. Sen. Jennifer Bradley, R-Fleming Island, described some of the comments as “vile” and “bigoted.”

    Passidomo appeared to rule out the bill Wednesday when asked by a reporter if it was dead.

    “The bill itself is benign, if you read it. It’s benign,” she said. “But it has been weaponized by both sides, and that troubles me. That’s not how we run our chamber, that’s not how we pass our legislation, at least for me. And so, at this point, I don’t see that bill coming back.”

    During the Feb. 6 Community Affairs Committee meeting, bill sponsor Jonathan Martin, R-Fort Myers, argued that his proposal and intentions have been mischaracterized as racist when his goal is to protect “American monuments” he saw torn down in recent years.

    “The goal is to not remove monuments,” Martin said. “It has no effect on placing new monuments anywhere in the state.”

    Gov. Ron DeSantis has supported efforts to prevent removal of monuments. The bill does not mention the Confederacy, but it came amid disputes in places such as Jacksonville about removing monuments to the Confederacy. A House version (HB 395) cleared its initial committee last month.

    The flags bill, meanwhile, has drawn controversy as opponents contend it is designed, at least in part, to prevent display of LGBTQ pride flags. Under the bill, government agencies, public schools, colleges and universities would be prohibited from flying any flag that “represents a political viewpoint” including any “politically partisan, racial, sexual orientation and gender, or political ideology viewpoint.”

    The bill (SB 1120), also sponsored by Martin, stalled Feb. 6 in the Senate Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee. Passidomo said the committee “ran out of time” and the meeting ended as Martin worked on the monuments bill in the Community Affairs Committee.

    Passidomo said Wednesday the Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee will not meet again before the scheduled March 8 end of the legislative session.

    “Everybody knew that that was the last committee meeting,” she said. “So I’m not going to have another committee meeting for a bill, for any bill for that matter.”

    DeSantis also has supported the flags bill. A House version (HB 901) was approved by a subcommittee last month.

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

    [ad_2]

    Jim Saunders, News Service of Florida

    Source link

  • Federal appeals court orders another look at pro-DeSantis immigration ruling

    Federal appeals court orders another look at pro-DeSantis immigration ruling

    [ad_1]

    click to enlarge

    Photo via Gov. Ron DeSantis/Twitter

    A federal appeals court Tuesday ordered a district judge to reconsider rulings that backed Florida challenges to Biden administration immigration policies, citing a U.S. Supreme Court opinion last year against Texas and Louisiana in a separate case.

    The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Pensacola-based U.S. District Judge T. Kent Wetherell to determine whether he had “jurisdiction” in the Florida case “in light of” the U.S. Supreme Court opinion.

    The jurisdiction issue involves whether Florida had legal standing to challenge the immigration policies. Plaintiffs must show standing before judges have jurisdiction to decide cases.

    While Tuesday’s one-paragraph order remanding the case to Wetherell did not provide a detailed explanation, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in June that Texas and Louisiana did not have standing to challenge Biden administration immigration-enforcement policies. That opinion came after the federal government appealed Wetherell’s rulings in the Florida case.

    The Supreme Court opinion said the Texas and Louisiana case “implicates the executive branch’s enforcement discretion and raises the distinct question of whether the federal judiciary may in effect order the executive branch to take enforcement actions.”

    “In short, this (Supreme) Court’s precedents and longstanding historical practice establish that the states’ suit here is not the kind redressable by a federal court,” the Supreme Court decision said.

    Gov. Ron DeSantis and state Attorney General Ashley Moody have made a high-profile issue of challenging federal immigration policies as migrants have streamed across the country’s southwestern border.

    The state filed a lawsuit in September 2021 alleging that the Biden administration violated laws through “catch-and-release” policies that led to people being released from detention after crossing the border. The state has contended that undocumented immigrants move to Florida and create costs for such things as the education, health-care and prison systems.

    Wetherell, a former state appellate judge who was appointed to the federal bench by former President Donald Trump, issued rulings in March 2023 and May 2023 that said immigration policies known as “Parole Plus Alternatives to Detention” and “Parole with Conditions” violated federal law.

    The Biden administration went to the Atlanta-based appeals court in May. After the Supreme Court ruling in the Texas and Louisiana case, U.S. Department of Justice attorneys filed a brief in July arguing the appeals court should reject the Florida case for similar reasons.

    “In United States v. Texas, the Supreme Court held that two states lacked standing to challenge DHS’s (the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s) immigration enforcement policies because they lacked ‘a legally and judicially cognizable’ injury where their alleged injury were costs associated with having more noncitizens in their states. Florida similarly fails to satisfy the ‘bedrock constitutional requirement’ of standing,” the Justice Department brief said.

    But on June 26, just three days after the Supreme Court opinion, state attorneys filed a brief that tried to differentiate the cases. As an example, they said the Texas and Louisiana case involved policies related to arresting and starting removal proceedings against migrants who crossed the U.S. border, while the Florida case involves “parole” policies that involve releasing people.

    “Because the parole policies are not enforcement policies — because they both concern only detention and grant affirmative legal benefits — Florida has a judicially cognizable interest in remedying the sovereign and financial injuries they cause,” the state’s lawyers wrote.

    A panel of the appeals court heard arguments in the case Jan. 26. In Tuesday’s order, the appeals court directed Wetherell to make a determination on the jurisdiction issue and then return the court to the higher court for “further proceedings.”

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

    [ad_2]

    Jim Saunders, News Service of Florida

    Source link

  • Florida School Requires Permission Slip for Kids to Participate in Black History Month Events, Citing Ron DeSantis’s “Parents’ Bill of Rights”

    Florida School Requires Permission Slip for Kids to Participate in Black History Month Events, Citing Ron DeSantis’s “Parents’ Bill of Rights”

    [ad_1]

    When he wasn’t trying (and spectacularly failing) to win the GOP nomination for president, Ron DeSantis spent much of his time over the last several years terrorizing the public-education community under the guise of giving parents a say in what their kids learn in school. That’s meant, among other things: banning the mention of gender identity and sexual orientation in grades kindergarten through 12th; banning AP African American studies; and banning instruction that could make white people feel bad. Such legislation has led to schools going to ridiculous lengths to not run afoul of the state’s new rules, as was apparently the case at a Miami school that felt the need to get parental permission for students to celebrate Black History Month.

    WPLG reports that iPrep Academy—a public school in Miami—has asked parents to “sign off on whether they want their children to participate in some of the educational events” connected to Black History Month. The form requires permission for kids to participate in “…class and school-wide presentations showcasing the achievements and recognizing the rich and diverse traditions, histories, and innumerable contributions of the Black communities.” Jill Peeling, a parent at the school, told WPLG she was “shocked” and “concerned as a citizen,” adding that she initially thought she must have misunderstood what the school was asking, i.e., there’s no way they could be asking for parental consent for participation in Black History Month.

    Making it clear that this all stems from DeSantis’s dystopian laws, Miami-Dade Public Schools board member Steve Gallon told WPLG, “This is a policy that’s an extension of a new state board rule…. We have to follow the law,” he said, referring to Florida’s “Parents’ Bill of Rights,” which has been expanded since DeSantis signed it in 2022. “We have to implement the rules that are adopted by the State Board of Education, but we cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater, and we have to square some obligations we have to academic freedom.” Noting how deeply creepy and messed up all of this is, Peeling said, “Something feels very off here, and the fact that the school needs to cover themselves against the state feels even worse.”

    In a statement to Business Insider, Florida’s Department of Education claimed, “Any insinuation that students need permission to study African American history is absolutely false,” and said the story is a “media-driven lie.”

    Marvin Dunn, a professor at Florida International University, told WPLG all of this will lead to a worrisome situation where some people will not be adequately educated about Black history. “When parents become involved in making that decision, keeping some kids out, some kids in, you have unequal learning,” he said. He also noted that all of this is by design: “The intent of the DeSantis attack on education is to make schools more cautious, to make teachers more cautious about what they teach, and it’s working,” he said. “It’s not about banning books necessarily, it’s about banning ideas.”

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Ron DeSantis supports legislation banning lab-grown meat

    Ron DeSantis supports legislation banning lab-grown meat

    [ad_1]

    Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has made a name for himself backing culture-war-focused legislative proposals that have taken aim at everything from Disney to college professors’ academic freedom. However, DeSantis has a new target in his sights: lab-grown meat.

    Last Friday, DeSantis came out in support of Florida legislation that would ban the sale of lab-grown meat in the state. 

    “I know the Legislature’s doing a bill to try to protect our meat. You need meat, OK? We’re going to have meat in Florida,” DeSantis said during a Friday press conference. “We’re going to have fake meat? That doesn’t work. We’re going to make sure to do it right. But there’s a whole ideological agenda that’s coming after, I think, a lot of important parts of our society.”

    DeSantis was likely referencing House Bill 435 and Senate Bills 586 and 1084. All three bills, which are in the early stages of the legislative process, would ban the manufacture or sale of lab-grown meat—also known as “cultivated meat”—in the state of Florida.

    While the bills’ supporters say they’re necessary to protect Florida’s cattle industry, lab-grown meat isn’t going to be taking over traditional animal products any time soon. While the Food and Drug Administration gave two companies’ cultivated meat the green light in 2022 and 2023, both products only had small restaurant-based launches. As of February 2024, neither is available for sale anywhere in the U.S. (though I managed to snag a bite of GOOD Meat’s cultivated chicken at China Chilcano in D.C. before it was discontinued).

    That doesn’t necessarily mean that lab-grown meat startups are—ahem—dead meat. Rather, as plant-based meat investor Steve Molino told WIRED, the purpose of the early restaurant-based launches was likely primarily to raise awareness of the product before ramping up large-scale production. “It accomplished what it needed to accomplish and now it’s time to refocus,” Molino said.

    Even though cultivated meat isn’t even available in the United States, let alone Florida, that hasn’t kept it from becoming a magnet for culture war hawks.

    Lab-grown meat is an “affront to nature and creation,” Rep. Tyler Sirois (R–Merritt Island), who introduced H.B. 435, told Politico last November. “I think you could see a very slippery slope here leading to things like cloning, which are very troubling to me.”

    However, like many attempts to curb vegan alternatives to meat and dairy, DeSantis’ support for these bills is also aimed at protecting animal farmers from competition—even if such competition is basically hypothetical.

    In March 2023, congressional lawmakers revived the DAIRY PRIDE Act, which aims to restrict sales of plant-based milk alternatives by banning manufacturers from using phrases like “milk,” “yogurt,” and “cheese” to market their products. 

    “Pennsylvania’s dairy farmers are at the heart of our community and critical to our economy,” Sen. John Fetterman (D–Penn.) wrote in November, adding that the DAIRY PRIDE Act, would “protect our dairy farmers by prohibiting non-dairy products from using dairy names.”



    [ad_2]

    Emma Camp

    Source link

  • Ron DeSantis Wasted Over $160 Million Failing to Stop Trump

    Ron DeSantis Wasted Over $160 Million Failing to Stop Trump

    [ad_1]

    Barnstorming through 99 Iowa counties isn’t cheap.
    Photo: BloombergaKathryn Gamble/Bloomberg via Getty Images

    Inevitably, after Ron DeSantis dropped out of the 2024 presidential race three weeks into the election year and endorsed his bitter chief rival, his failed campaign was already as legendary as Jeb Bush’s expensive and disastrous 2016 effort. Like Bush, DeSantis started fast, had a lot of elite GOP support and almost limitless money, and proceeded to steadily lose altitude like a damaged aircraft until the final crash. Like Bush, DeSantis could not figure out how to beat Donald Trump despite outspending him significantly. How much did DeSantis spend? Well, the New York Times has added it all up, and it’s breathtaking given the very poor return on investment:

    It cost more than $160 million for Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida to come in second place in a single nominating contest. That astounding sum makes Mr. DeSantis’s failed presidential bid among the most expensive in modern Republican primary elections. But the details of where the money went, laid out in filings to the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday, show just how free-spending Mr. DeSantis and his allied super PACs were. They directed at least $53 million through firms controlled or owned by Jeff Roe, the powerful Republican strategist who served as the top adviser to Never Back Down, Mr. DeSantis’s main super PAC. They spent $31.3 million on television advertising time. They spent at least $3.3 million on private airfare, between the campaign and Never Back Down.

    About $130 million of the overall $160 million was spent by Never Back Down, and a lot of the criticism of Team DeSantis stemmed from its heavy reliance on a super-PAC with which it could not smoothly coordinate. But even more criticism was aimed at how NBD spent all that jack — particularly its renowned door-knocking operation in early caucus and primary states. Even former Jeb Bush operative Tim Miller thought it was hilarious:

    What is all this “canvassing” getting them aside from embarrassing stories about “stoned” supporters acting stupid in people’s doorbell cameras? It’s sure not slowing the Trump juggernaut. … If the Never Back Down PAC had spent every dime that has thus far gone to TV ads and canvassers on sculpting a giant golden idol alongside I-80 in central Iowa that depicts DeSantis kicking an immigrant child in the ass, there is no available evidence that their candidate would be worse off than he is today.

    Republican political strategists Curt Anderson and Alex Castellanos were even more brutal in a Politico op-ed:

    The myth: An army of paid doorknockers would fan out across the country, even in states beyond the early primaries, and deliver the nomination to DeSantis. It’s hilarious. If you ever believed that it was possible to affect the trajectory of a presidential campaign with underemployed losers going door to door in between puffs of strawberry-flavored vapes, you are vaping an intoxicant yourself. …

    Anyone near a campaign recently knows how this works: In 2023, no one in America wants a stranger coming to their door for any reason. And if they were given the choice between door knockers who were selling politicians or membership in a cult, it would be a close call.

    Other critics of the DeSantis campaign have zeroed in on the candidate’s own shortcomings in the retail politics that are so necessary in Iowa. But on the other hand, there was nothing inherently wrong with the campaign’s grand strategy of portraying DeSantis as a more reliable MAGA standard-bearer and general-election winner than Trump, or with its ground-heavy approach to Iowa, which in many respects was a better-funded version of what worked for Mike Huckabee in 2008, Rick Santorum in 2012, and Ted Cruz in 2016. So perhaps some of the wastage was attributable to DeSantis’s target rather than his clumsy choice of weapons or inadequate ammunition.

    DeSantis was not, after all, the only Trump rival to blow through a lot of money with little to show for it. As the Times noted in its piece on RDS, backers of Tim Scott spent over $50 million before he dropped out well before Iowa, and Vivek Ramaswamy (who was mostly spending his own money) spent over $30 million to win three delegates. Another self-funder, Doug Burgum, blew through over $40 million between his campaign and his super-PAC before he quit in early December. And while we don’t have anything like a final tally for surviving Trump challenger Nikki Haley, her campaign and super-PAC had spent just south of $80 million prior to the voting in New Hampshire, where she was heavily outspending Trump.

    There’s an old joke about a struggling dog-food company holding a board meeting in which, after hearing about how the company uses the finest ingredients and the best packaging and the most sophisticated marketing campaign, one listener sums up the problem: “Dogs don’t like it.” As in 2016 and 2020, Republican voters don’t like what Trump’s rivals are selling this year. It’s likely there wasn’t a campaign treasury deep enough or candidate attractive enough to deny them the leader they wanted.


    See All



    [ad_2]

    Ed Kilgore

    Source link

  • Disney can’t prove DeSantis retaliated against it, federal judge rules

    Disney can’t prove DeSantis retaliated against it, federal judge rules

    [ad_1]

    A federal judge dismissed Disney’s lawsuit against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on the grounds that the entertainment giant did not have sufficient standing to bring the First Amendment challenge.

    In the lawsuit, Disney argued that DeSantis had unconstitutionally retaliated against the company by organizing a state takeover of the special taxing district that had been created in 1967 and covered the 25,000-plus acres now occupied by the Walt Disney World resort’s theme parks, hotels, and various other facilities. Disney claimed that DeSantis had engaged in a “relentless campaign to weaponize government power against Disney” in response to Disney’s then-CEO Bob Chapek publicly criticizing DeSantis’ approval of a law that restricted discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in schools.

    In Wednesday’s ruling, federal Judge Allen Winsor wrote that Disney fell short of proving the retaliation claim. Disney, he wrote, “has not alleged any specific actions the new board took (or will take) because of the governor’s alleged control.”

    In a statement, DeSantis’ spokesman Jeff Redfern said Wednesday’s ruling vindicated the governor’s view that “Disney is still just one of many corporations in the state, and they do not have a right to their own special government.”

    Meanwhile, Disney has vowed to appeal the ruling. “This is an important case with serious implications for the rule of law, and it will not end here,” the company said in a statement. “If left unchallenged, this would set a dangerous precedent and give license to states to weaponize their official powers to punish the expression of political viewpoints they disagree with.”

    Indeed, DeSantis may have prevailed within the letter of the law, but there is little doubt that his actions toward Disney were a direct response to Chapek’s criticism. We know this because DeSantis has said and written as much.

    “When Disney first came out against the bill…people in the legislature started floating this idea of going after Reedy Creek,” DeSantis told The American Conservative in an interview published in May. Meanwhile, DeSantis wrote extensively about his fight with Disney in his recent book, The Courage To Be Free, and leaves little doubt about how he approached the issue. In one passage, DeSantis writes that “things got worse for Disney” after the company criticized his policies. Finally, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed last February, DeSantis explained that his administration’s actions toward Disney were an attempt to “fight back” against the corporation’s so-called “woke ideology” as expressed in Disney’s criticism.

    Winsor says those actions don’t meet the legal standard for being unconstitutional. Fine. It’s still deeply distasteful for a governor to target a private company because its leaders dared to criticize his policy choices—and DeSantis’ handling of this situation should not become a model for other chief executives, no matter what the courts have to say about it.

    [ad_2]

    Eric Boehm

    Source link

  • DeSantis: No One Would Have Ratified the Constitution If Protection for States Was Excluded

    DeSantis: No One Would Have Ratified the Constitution If Protection for States Was Excluded

    [ad_1]

    Politics

    Office of Governor Ron DeSantis, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    By Bethany Blankley (The Center Square)

    Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is among the 25 governors who has expressed support for Texas defending its border. He was one of the first governors to send reinforcements to support Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s Operation Lone Star border security effort roughly two years ago.

    Trump’s Border Battle Cry: Calls On All Willing States to Deploy National Guard To Help Texas In Border Fight Against The Feds

    DeSantis responded to an ultimatum given Thursday by the Biden administration to Abbott to take down concertina wire barriers it constructed and relinquish control of a park in Eagle Pass, Texas. The president is also demanding that Texas allow access to a 2.5 mile stretch of state land along the Rio Grande River so that Border Patrol agents can allow illegal foreign nationals to enter between ports of entry.

    Doing so is a direct violation of laws established by Congress and the U.S. Constitution, Abbott argues, and he refuses to comply with any demands.

    The conflict escalated after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Border Patrol agents could destroy Texas concertina wire barriers in Eagle Pass. It does not instruct Texas to remove the barriers or to stop enforcing state law.

    The Biden administration argues Texas’ actions are unconstitutional and disrupt Border Patrol operations. Abbott argues the president is facilitating criminal activity, has violated his oath of office, and broken the federal government’s compact with the states.

    RFK Jr. Backs Texas In State’s Battle With Biden Over Border

    The escalation continues as calls for President Joe Biden to federalize Texas National Guard troops raise additional constitutional issues. If Texas troops were to be federalized when they were called up under constitutional authority to secure the Texas border, such a move could constitute an impeachable offense, a constitutional law expert argues.

    On Thursday, DeSantis posted a video asking, “Can the federal government defy the law and force a state to allow a foreign invasion?,” answering the founding fathers would say no.

    The president demanding Texas “remove fortifications along its border to let people come in illegally is just crazy,” DeSantis said. “If the constitution was originally understood to mean that a state could not protect itself against an invasion, that the federal government could force a state to allow an invasion, the constitution would have never been ratified in the first place. Texas would have never joined the union when it did.”

    He also pointed to Federalist 46 in which founding father James Madison described “situations where federal encroachment can be mitigated by state action.” He said Texas is “holding its ground and has every right to fortify the border visa via an invasion,” referring to Article 1, Section 10 of the constitution.

    25 Governors Issue Joint Statement In Solidarity With Texas In Their Fight To Secure The Border

    The clause has been cited in invasion resolutions passed by officials in 51 Texas counties, with more expected to follow. Kinney, Goliad and Terrell counties were the first to declare an invasion in Texas and U.S. history, on July 5, 2022. The constitutional issues playing out today are what they warned about in 2021 when they were also the first to issue disaster declarations, citing the border crisis.

    DeSantis also pointed to situations “where liberal jurisdictions over many years have been sanctuary jurisdictions against enforcing federal immigration law. They will deliberately act to frustrate the laws on the books and somehow that’s viewed as OK” but it’s not OK when Texas is “acting to enforce the laws on the books to ensure that they have a secure state and that we have a secure country,” he said.

    “So all of this is just nonsense what Biden’s doing,” DeSantis continued. “Texas has every right to stand its ground. We in Florida have been sending people to help for many years now because we understand it’s not just the Texas issue it’s ultimately an American issue. If we don’t have sovereignty in this country, then we’re not going to be a country anymore. Texas has every right to hold their ground to stay the course and Florida will continue to be there helping out every step of the way.”

    Reprinted with permission from The Center Square.

    FREE NEWS ALERTS

    Subscribe to receive the most important stories delivered straight to your inbox. Your subscription helps protect independent media.



    By subscribing, you agree to receive emails from ThePoliticalInsider.com and that you’ve read and agree to our Privacy policy and to our terms and conditions.

    FREE NEWS ALERTS

    [ad_2]

    The Center Square

    Source link