Featured Stories
Protect Borrowers: Families Are Drowning in Medical Debt
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 -- Protect Borrowers (formerly Student Borrower Protection Center) issued the following news release:
* * *
Families Are Drowning in Medical Debt
As Midterm Elections Put Medical Debt Relief on the Ballot, State Lawmakers Aren't Waiting for Washington to Act
By Elena Botella | October 1, 2026
Earlier this month, we shared the bombshell New York Times story that Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS), an obstetrician-gynecologist, sued more than 700 of his patients for allegedly unpaid medical bills. Senator Marshall sought and won garnished paychecks, warrants, and jail time for
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 -- Protect Borrowers (formerly Student Borrower Protection Center) issued the following news release:
* * *
Families Are Drowning in Medical Debt
As Midterm Elections Put Medical Debt Relief on the Ballot, State Lawmakers Aren't Waiting for Washington to Act
By Elena Botella | October 1, 2026
Earlier this month, we shared the bombshell New York Times story that Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS), an obstetrician-gynecologist, sued more than 700 of his patients for allegedly unpaid medical bills. Senator Marshall sought and won garnished paychecks, warrants, and jail time forwomen recovering from childbirth, miscarriages, and emergency hysterectomies.
Economist Neale Mahoney, speaking to the Times (and again with more detail on Twitter), said that Senator Marshall's litigation strategy was more aggressive than the norm.
But Marshall's patients are far from alone. People all over the country are crushed by medical debt, facing collection lawsuits, garnished paychecks, ruined credit, and mounting bills for care they needed to survive.
The Marshall story shows this isn't a private issue: for-profit healthcare providers depend on our court system's public infrastructure to seize money from patients. In many states, laws let private hospitals send bills to collections while insurance decisions are still pending, garnish wages, and even foreclose on patients' houses.
Credit reporting is the quieter version of the same threat. Hospitals and debt collectors don't need a lawsuit or a court order to hurt you -- they report your unpaid bill to Equifax, Experian, or TransUnion, and let your credit score do the damage for them. A survey by the Commonwealth Fund found that 42% of people with unpaid medical bills from a hospital visit had that debt appear on their credit reports. Medical debt on a credit report means sick people pay the cost of their illness twice: once for the original medical bill, and again every time a landlord, insurer, or phone company checks their credit and charges them more because of their credit history.
The burden of medical debt is especially crushing for people who are seriously ill. In moments when people are struggling to survive, their debt becomes a second disease. The American Cancer Society found that high proportions of cancer patients were harassed by creditors and collection agencies and reported that debt worsened their physical and mental health.
It doesn't have to be this way.
There's a growing movement to reform the state laws that push patients into financial crisis.
Since 2021, New Mexico, Colorado, New York, Delaware, Maryland, Maine, Virginia, and the District of Columbia have curtailed wage garnishment for medical bills, mandated that healthcare providers offer reasonable payment plans, and made it easier for ordinary people to get unaffordable bills cancelled before they ever see a courtroom. Three of these bills, in Maine, Virginia, and D.C., either passed or went into effect this year. And since 2023, 15 states and D.C. have passed legislation to keep medical debt off credit reports. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was set to do the same nationwide, finalizing a rule in January 2025 that the Trump Administration helped to kill just a few months later.
Medical debt will never be fair -- but state and local governments are responding to public pressure by passing laws that shut down the most abusive collection tools and create more humane alternatives.
Take D.C.'s Medical Debt Mitigation Amendment Act, which became law on August 20, 2026. It bundles together:
* Limiting the ability of medical debt collectors to garnish wages and place home liens. Anyone earning under 500% of the federal poverty level -- about $78,000 for a single person or $165,000 for a family of four -- can't have their paycheck garnished or a lien placed on their home over unpaid medical bills.
* Slowing down collections. Providers must wait at least 180 days after the first bill before they can start collections. That gives patients more time to challenge billing errors and insurance denials.
* Banning medical debt from credit reports. Hospitals and debt collectors can no longer report medical bills to Equifax, Experian, or TransUnion -- so a hospital stay won't tank your ability to rent an apartment or buy a car.
* Capping interest at 3%. Senator Marshall's patients' debts grew at an 18% interest rate. Under the D.C. law, medical debt won't snowball as quickly.
* Requiring discounted care on a sliding scale, with financial assistance policies that make sense. While non-profit hospitals across the country are theoretically required to offer financial assistance to their lowest-income patients, the application processes are often hidden, the eligibility confusing, and the policies incredibly stingy. Hospital chains are raking in tax breaks, while expecting families making just $40,000 or $50,000 a year to cough up thousands of dollars they simply do not have. D.C.'s law establishes simple and (relatively) clear eligibility standards: it requires free care to patients with an income below 200% of the poverty line, and discounted care to patients with an income below 500% of the poverty line.
* Requiring discounted care to be coupled with reasonable payment plans. Hospitals will be required to offer low- and middle-income patients payment plans with payment amounts capped at 3% of monthly income. Any amount remaining on the payment plan at 36 months is forgiven.
* Cracking down on medical credit cards. Hospitals can't push patients into medical credit cards or loans before checking whether they qualify for financial assistance first.
But change is patchy, even in the states that have passed major legislation. Exactly which patients are protected from wage garnishment and foreclosure varies wildly from bill to bill. Only five states -- Delaware, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Texas -- have banned wage garnishment for medical debt altogether. And in D.C. and most of the other states with new protections, only the government can sue a medical provider for breaking the law - patients themselves can't sue to enforce their rights, making noncompliance more likely.
Perhaps not surprisingly, opponents are doing whatever they can to roll these protections back. In 2025, Trump's hijacked CFPB published an interpretive rule saying the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act preempts states from banning credit reporting of medical debt. In other words, the CFPB is arguing that these state laws are illegal -- that they conflict with federal law and therefore can't be enforced, no matter what a state legislature or governor says. Their interpretive rule isn't legally binding - it's just the agency's opinion - but debt collectors can use it as ammunition when they challenge state laws. Debt collectors in Colorado have filed a lawsuit challenging the state's medical debt credit reporting ban, not only on preemption grounds, but also claiming they have a First Amendment right to tell the world that your neighbor hasn't finished paying for her hysterectomy. Let freedom ring, I guess.
The public overwhelmingly supports reining in predatory medical debt practices and keeping medical debt off credit reports.
Despite the industry pushback, nearly everyone agrees that getting sick shouldn't lead to financial ruin. Recent polling shows 81% of voters support banning medical debt from credit reports. Ninety-four percent of voters believe states should limit the interest rate allowed for medical debt, and 90% want to see limits on collection agencies' ability to take a person's house, belongings, or cars due to medical debt. This goes way beyond bipartisan support ... it's basically everyone, and an opportunity for lawmakers to protect our physical, mental, and financial health from the ruinous burden of medical debt.
* * *
Elena Botella is a fellow at Protect Borrowers. She is a former Senior Manager at Capital One, and the author of Delinquent: Inside America's Debt Machine (University of California Press: 2022). Elena holds a bachelor's degree from Duke University and is earning a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center. This blog was also published on In Debt, a Protect Borrowers Substack.
* * *
Original text here: https://protectborrowers.org/families-are-drowning-in-medical-debt/
[Category: Financial Services]
FFRF Action Fund Condemns IRS Voucher Rules That Send Tax Dollars to Religious Schools
MADISON, Wisconsin, Oct. 2 -- FFRF Action Fund, an organization that says it develops and advocates for legislation, regulations and government programs to preserve the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, posted the following news:
* * *
FFRF Action Fund condemns IRS voucher rules that send tax dollars to religious schools
October 1, 2026
The FFRF Action Fund strongly opposes the regulations the Treasury Department and IRS released today to implement the first nationwide private school voucher program.
Beginning Jan. 1, 2027, individual taxpayers under the Federal
... Show Full Article
MADISON, Wisconsin, Oct. 2 -- FFRF Action Fund, an organization that says it develops and advocates for legislation, regulations and government programs to preserve the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, posted the following news:
* * *
FFRF Action Fund condemns IRS voucher rules that send tax dollars to religious schools
October 1, 2026
The FFRF Action Fund strongly opposes the regulations the Treasury Department and IRS released today to implement the first nationwide private school voucher program.
Beginning Jan. 1, 2027, individual taxpayers under the FederalScholarship Tax Credit can receive a dollar-for-dollar federal tax credit of up to $1,700 for cash donations to approved scholarship-granting organizations, which then distribute scholarships for qualifying education expenses. The rules now make clear that once a state participates, it will have little power to prevent federal tax-credit dollars from flowing to religious schools. States may not impose additional restrictions on scholarship-granting organizations, including limits on the types of schools scholarship recipients may attend.
Congress created the program in section 70411 of the 2025 "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," and the new rules strip participating states of any power to keep the money from going to private religious schools. Unlike a traditional charitable deduction, the credit directly reduces a donor's federal tax bill. For example, a taxpayer who donates $1,700 and qualifies for the full credit can reduce their federal income tax liability by $1,700.
Participation is voluntary for states. But once a state opts in, the new regulations sharply restrict its discretion over participating scholarship organizations. States may establish procedures to verify that organizations meet federal and generally applicable state requirements, but they may not impose more restrictive requirements, such as limiting which types of schools scholarship recipients can attend. An organization counts as "located in" a state if it is merely authorized to do business there. This could allow national scholarship organizations to operate across participating states.
The Treasury Department issued the rules in two forms, both scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on Oct. 2. The first is a set of temporary regulations covering how states join the program and how scholarship organizations register and report donations. These are binding rules that apply retroactively to Sept. 1, 2026, and remain in force until the department replaces them with final rules or they expire on Oct. 1, 2029. The Treasury Department adopted them without first taking public comment, claiming the January launch left no time for the normal process.
The second is a 181-page proposed rule that repeats those provisions, adds the rest of the program, and is open for public comment, with a public hearing to follow. The Treasury Department says it will consider comments before issuing final rules. Still, it has already told states, scholarship organizations and donors they can rely on the proposed rule for contributions made on or after Jan. 1, 2027, so the program will launch on these terms.
Cash gifts cost the donor nothing -- and the U.S. Treasury absorbs the full cost. The organizations pass the money to families, mostly to pay private school tuition. Any student eligible to enroll in a public school whose household earns up to 300 percent of the area's median income qualifies. Scholarships flow only in states that opt in, but donors who live in states that stay out can still claim the credit by giving to organizations in participating states.
Governors, or officials designated under state law, decide whether to join, one year at a time. States joining for 2027 must have filed an advance election by Jan. 1, 2027, and must submit their list of approved organizations by Feb. 15, 2027.
The cost will be enormous. Treasury's own paperwork estimates 600 to 700 scholarship organizations and 11 million individual donors. If each of those donors claimed the full $1,700, the federal government would forgo $18.7 billion in revenue annually. Every dollar claimed under this credit is a dollar the federal government never collects, revenue that pays for programs public schools depend on. Public schools educate 91 percent of American children.
The FFRF Action Fund is particularly concerned about the program's impact on the separation of state and church. About two-thirds of U.S. private schools are religiously affiliated, and roughly 77 percent of private school students attend religious schools. The federal program therefore creates a mechanism through which substantial amounts of forgone federal revenue could support religious education.
Taxpayers of every faith and none will pay for religious instruction they had no voice in choosing. Private schools taking this money are not subject to the anti-discrimination laws that protect public school students, and they answer to no elected school board. They can turn away a child for her religion, her disability or her family. The students who cost the most to educate are the easiest for a private school to exclude.
"This program creates a nationwide pipeline of public money to religious schools," says FFRF Action Fund President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "It lets individual donors redirect federal revenue to religious education while denying states meaningful power to protect taxpayers or public schools. Governors should refuse to participate."
The Freedom From Religion Foundation and the FFRF Action Fund have opposed tax credit voucher schemes for years, in court and in government. FFRF joined a Supreme Court amicus brief in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn challenging an Arizona tax credit program in which religious organizations awarded more than 80 percent of scholarship dollars.
FFRF filed its own brief in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue against a dollar-for-dollar tax credit funding private school scholarships. FFRF pressed the IRS to close a loophole that let donors profit from state voucher tax credits. FFRF Action Fund vehemently opposed the GOP reconciliation bill that authorized the voucher tax credit.
After the voucher credit became law, FFRF wrote to every governor in March urging them to opt out, and the FFRF Action Fund mobilized tens of thousands of advocates to press their governors to do the same. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers became the first governor to firmly reject the program, vetoing a bill that would have forced the state in, while roughly 29 states have joined.
If voters elect a House majority that supports the separation of state and church in 2026, the FFRF Action Fund will work with the Congressional Freethought Caucus, its congressional allies and partner organizations to repeal the voucher program.
* * *
FFRF Action Fund is a 501(c)(4) organization that develops and advocates for legislation, regulations and government programs to preserve the constitutional principle of separation between state and church. It also advocates for the rights and views of nonbelievers, endorses candidates for political office, and publicizes the views of elected officials concerning religious liberty issues.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrfaction.org/ffrf-action-fund-condemns-irs-voucher-rules-that-send-tax-dollars-to-religious-schools/
[Category: Sociological]
Democracy Forward: Court Grants Emergency Relief, Protecting Hospitals, Schools, and Employers From $100,000 Fee Per H-1B Visa
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 -- Democracy Forward, an organization that says it advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education and regulatory engagement, issued the following news release:
* * *
Second Federal Court Blocks Trump-Vance Administration's Unlawful Innovation Ban
Court Grants Emergency Relief, Protecting Hospitals, Schools, and Employers from $100,000 Fee Per H-1B Visa
October 1, 2026
A second federal court granted preliminary relief blocking enforcement of the Trump-Vance administration's unlawful $100,000 H-1B visa fee -- a de facto innovation ban
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 -- Democracy Forward, an organization that says it advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education and regulatory engagement, issued the following news release:
* * *
Second Federal Court Blocks Trump-Vance Administration's Unlawful Innovation Ban
Court Grants Emergency Relief, Protecting Hospitals, Schools, and Employers from $100,000 Fee Per H-1B Visa
October 1, 2026
A second federal court granted preliminary relief blocking enforcement of the Trump-Vance administration's unlawful $100,000 H-1B visa fee -- a de facto innovation ban-- delivering relief to employers, workers, and communities across the country.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's ruling blocks enforcement of the $100,000 H-1B fee until federal immigration agencies comply with the Administrative Procedure Act. The ruling finds that plaintiffs demonstrated the fee is likely unlawful and would cause irreparable harm. The decision helps remove a major obstacle to the H-1B program, which Congress established to allow U.S. employers to hire highly skilled foreign professionals, including doctors, nurses, teachers, engineers, researchers, and clergy -- many of whom would fill critical labor shortages.
The $100,000 fee was initially imposed through a September 19, 2025 presidential proclamation and took effect just 36 hours later, bypassing Congress and ignoring long-standing immigration law. In a related case, in January 2026, twenty states challenged those fees, and in June, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled the fees were unlawful.
The fee was recently renewed through a September 18, 2026 presidential proclamation. The Northern District of California ruling blocks implementation of both proclamations.
Plaintiffs in this case include medical practices serving rural communities, a Tribal K-12 school, manufacturing companies, educational institutions, labor organizations, and individual workers whose careers and ability to serve their communities were halted overnight.
The coalition filed suit in this case on October 3, 2025, and shortly after, the administration quietly issued new guidance walking back one of the policy's most extreme provisions--signaling that the fee may not apply to certain individuals already in the U.S. who are in the process of changing their immigration status. However, the unlawful $100,000 fee remained in effect in many circumstances, harming students, workers, and employers in the United States.
The plaintiffs who sought a preliminary injunction are: BAE Industries, Nephrology Associates of the Carolinas, Lower Brule Day School, Global Village Academy Collaborative, and Global Nurse Force. They are represented by Democracy Forward, Justice Action Center, South Asian American Justice Collaborative (SAAJCO), Kuck Baxter LLC, Joseph & Hall, P.C., IMMpact Litigation, and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll LLP.
The coalition issued the following joint statement:
"This decision protects patients, students, workers, and communities across the country from an unlawful and arbitrary fee that Congress never authorized. This administration's Innovation Ban threatened to shut out doctors from rural hospitals, teachers from classrooms, engineers from job sites, and clergy from congregations. The court's ruling reaffirms a basic principle: agencies cannot demand payment of arbitrary fees just because the president says so."
"Communities across this country depend on skilled professionals who care for patients, teach students, build infrastructure, conduct research, and serve congregations," said Steve Bressler, Senior Legal Advisor at Democracy Forward. "The administration tried to financially punish companies with an arbitrary, unauthorized, and deeply harmful $100,000 fee imposed without Congress. This decision adds to those protecting workers and communities, and protects a system that was thrown into chaos overnight. It also reaffirms a fundamental principle of our democracy: no administration is above the law, and the president cannot rewrite immigration policy with the stroke of a pen."
"All of us benefit from a functional and accessible H-1B program, but especially patients at rural hospitals, students at schools that rely on international educators, and companies working to keep this country competitive in the global market," said Karen Tumlin, Founder and Director at Justice Action Center. "This decision is a victory for our plaintiffs and employers like them, their prospective employees, and the communities they are eager to serve. We remain committed to using every legal tool available to protect this program for the long-haul."
"Indian nationals bore a disproportionate share of the harm from this $100,000 fee, which put employment opportunities and families' futures at risk and left employers unable to afford the workers they needed," said Kalpana V. Peddibhotla, Executive Director of the South Asian American Justice Collaborative. "For SAAJCO, challenging this policy is a matter of protecting our community from government action that upends lives without regard for the consequences. This ruling provides meaningful relief and requires federal agencies to answer to the law."
"Judge Gilliam's order is a significant victory for the rule of law. The government tried to impose a $100,000 fee on H-1B petitions through memos and FAQs, without public input and without considering the harm to small businesses, rural hospitals, and schools. The court held that the agencies cannot do that, and it made clear that the order reaches the September 2026 extension as well. Two federal courts have now vacated these policies. Employers should know that, as of today, no agency policy lawfully requires the payment," said Jesse M. Bless, on behalf of IMMpact Litigation
Plaintiffs argued that the fee violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Immigration and Nationality Act and exceeds presidential authority by overriding Congress's control over immigration fees.
The case is Global Nurse Force et al. v. Trump et al., pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Read the decision here.
* * *
Original text here: https://democracyforward.org/news/press-releases/second-federal-court-blocks-trump-vance-administrations-unlawful-innovation-ban/
[Category: Political]
Catholic League Issues Commentary: Anniversary of Mao's Murderous Regime
NEW YORK, Oct. 2 -- The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, an organization that defends the right of Catholics to participate in American public life without defamation or discrimination, issued the following commentary by President Bill Donohue:
* * *
Anniversary of Mao's Murderous Regime
It was on October 1, 1949 that Mao Zedong began his murderous regime in China. Given the profound ignorance that most young people have about communism, it is worth taking a crash course on what he did.
There is no bigger monster in world history than Mao. He makes Hitler look like a little leaguer.
R.J.
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, Oct. 2 -- The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, an organization that defends the right of Catholics to participate in American public life without defamation or discrimination, issued the following commentary by President Bill Donohue:
* * *
Anniversary of Mao's Murderous Regime
It was on October 1, 1949 that Mao Zedong began his murderous regime in China. Given the profound ignorance that most young people have about communism, it is worth taking a crash course on what he did.
There is no bigger monster in world history than Mao. He makes Hitler look like a little leaguer.
R.J.Rummel, who was a professor of political science at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, made it his professional business to track "megamurder," or what is also known as genocide. He calculated that under Hitler, 21 million people met their deaths, including most astoundingly 6 million Jews. Under Mao, he put the number at 77 million.
The Black Book of Communism, widely regarded as supremely authoritative, found that Mao was responsible for 65 million deaths. This source mentions something else Americans need to know about, i.e., the extent to which Chinese men and women were forced to make "confessions," owning up to "crimes" they never committed, such as not swallowing Communist propaganda.
Mao perfected brainwashing, using it as a tool to induce submissiveness. The ultimate goal was to create the "new man," meaning the radical transformation of human nature. He failed--human nature cannot be changed--but his attempts to do so yielded horrendous consequences.
The plight of Catholics in Chinese history has been particularly harsh. Our policy staff, led by Mike McDonald, put together an overview of their travails. Click here to read it.
There is a forthcoming book by Sophia Institute Press on this subject that I am happy to recommend, The Underground Catholic Church: Stories of Faith Under Chinese Persecution, by Steven Mosher; he serves on our board of advisors. We will feature it in Catalyst, our monthly journal, when it is published.
October 1st, 2026
* * *
Original text here: https://www.catholicleague.org/anniversary-of-maos-murderous-regime/
[Category: Sociological]
CAIR-CA Disappointed by Newsom's Veto of Bill Barring Law Enforcement From Taking Side Jobs With ICE
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations posted the following news release:
* * *
CAIR-CA Disappointed by Newsom's Veto of Bill Barring Law Enforcement from Taking Side Jobs with ICE
October 1, 2026
The California chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CA), the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today expressed disappointment with Governor Gavin Newsom's veto of Assembly Bill (AB) 1537, which would have barred California law enforcement officers covered by the bill from taking side jobs involving federal or out-of-state
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations posted the following news release:
* * *
CAIR-CA Disappointed by Newsom's Veto of Bill Barring Law Enforcement from Taking Side Jobs with ICE
October 1, 2026
The California chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CA), the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today expressed disappointment with Governor Gavin Newsom's veto of Assembly Bill (AB) 1537, which would have barred California law enforcement officers covered by the bill from taking side jobs involving federal or out-of-stateimmigration enforcement.
Authored by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan and co-sponsored by CAIR-CA as a priority of the ICE Out of California Coalition, AB 1537 would have prohibited local and state law enforcement from taking secondary employment that directly involves the arrest, detention, transportation, or deportation of individuals under federal or out-of-state immigration laws. The bill also included reporting and public-records requirements related to secondary employment.
California, home to more than 10 million immigrants, has enacted a series of laws limiting state and local participation in federal immigration enforcement. AB 1537 would have added another safeguard by restricting outside employment that could allow officers serving California communities to also participate in immigration enforcement.
In a statement, CAIR-CA CEO Hussam Ayloush said:
"Governor Newsom's veto leaves open a troubling loophole that allows California law enforcement officers to participate in federal immigration enforcement outside their regular jobs. California has repeatedly recognized the importance of keeping local policing separate from federal immigration enforcement. Allowing an officer to serve a local community in one role while taking part in immigration enforcement in another risks undermining the trust that separation is intended to protect."
CAIR-CA has warned that allowing local law enforcement officers to participate in immigration enforcement through outside employment can discourage immigrant community members from reporting crimes, seeking assistance, or cooperating with local authorities.
* * *
CAIR-CA is a chapter of CAIR, America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, protect civil rights, promote justice, and empower American Muslims.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cair.com/press_releases/cair-ca-disappointed-by-newsoms-veto-of-bill-barring-law-enforcement-from-taking-side-jobs-with-ice/
[Category: Sociological]
Brady Condemns DOJ Decision to Allow Deregulation of Uniquely Dangerous Firearms and Accessories
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 -- The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence issued the following news release:
* * *
Brady Condemns DOJ Decision to Allow Deregulation of Uniquely Dangerous Firearms and Accessories
DOJ announced it will not appeal the ruling in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, overturning century-old common-sense regulations on silencers, short-barreled rifles, and "sawed-off" shotguns
-
Washington, D.C., October 1, 2026 -- The nation's oldest gun violence prevention organization, Brady: United Against Gun Violence, expresses grave alarm at the Department of Justice's (DOJ) public filing
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 -- The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence issued the following news release:
* * *
Brady Condemns DOJ Decision to Allow Deregulation of Uniquely Dangerous Firearms and Accessories
DOJ announced it will not appeal the ruling in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, overturning century-old common-sense regulations on silencers, short-barreled rifles, and "sawed-off" shotguns
-
Washington, D.C., October 1, 2026 -- The nation's oldest gun violence prevention organization, Brady: United Against Gun Violence, expresses grave alarm at the Department of Justice's (DOJ) public filingthat it will not appeal the ruling in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, in which the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas struck down the National Firearms Act's (NFA) nearly 100-year-old requirements for owning and transferring silencers, short-barreled rifles, and "sawed-off" shotguns. Brady filed an amicus brief in the case and previously denounced the ruling.
Brady President Kris Brown said:
"It is unconscionable that our government is turning its back on what has been, for nearly a century, a noncontroversial and incredibly effective means of preventing criminal access to the deadliest firearms and accessories. The vast majority of Americans are not asking for this. They simply do not want it. Instead, the administration is openly choosing to put lives at risk by expanding the availability of uniquely lethal firearms and devices that can eviscerate public safety in our communities, presumably so the gun industry can clear greater profits. An extreme, outspoken few across various levels of government are working on behalf of the gun lobby when they should be protecting their constituents. It's abhorrent, unprecedented, and immoral."
* * *
Brady: United Against Gun Violence is the nation's oldest gun organization working to free America from gun violence. We believe that changing laws alone won't end our nation's gun violence crisis; we must also change hearts and minds. That's why we take a comprehensive approach to end this epidemic: change the laws, change the gun industry, and change the conversation about guns in America.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.bradyunited.org/press/condemn-doj-decision-allow-deregulation-dangerous-weapons
[Category: Political]
$10,000 PETA Reward Seeks Tips on Repackaged, Mislabeled Meat
NORFOLK, Virginia, Oct. 2 -- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals issued the following news release:
* * *
$10,000 PETA Reward Seeks Tips on Repackaged, Mislabeled Meat
October 1, 2026
Norfolk, Va. - PETA is putting up $10,000 for meat-industry insiders who expose companies repackaging, relabeling, or otherwise misrepresenting meat, in a new nationwide push for information that leads to enforcement action by federal or state authorities. After allegations surfaced that a company that built its brand on "humane" claims repackaged factory-farmed meat as its own, PETA is seeking insiders
... Show Full Article
NORFOLK, Virginia, Oct. 2 -- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals issued the following news release:
* * *
$10,000 PETA Reward Seeks Tips on Repackaged, Mislabeled Meat
October 1, 2026
Norfolk, Va. - PETA is putting up $10,000 for meat-industry insiders who expose companies repackaging, relabeling, or otherwise misrepresenting meat, in a new nationwide push for information that leads to enforcement action by federal or state authorities. After allegations surfaced that a company that built its brand on "humane" claims repackaged factory-farmed meat as its own, PETA is seeking insiderswith firsthand knowledge of similar practices that could leave consumers paying a premium for meat from the very facilities they sought to avoid.
To reach workers with firsthand knowledge, PETA will take eye-catching messages straight to meat-industry areas across the country--including Harrisonburg, Virginia; Sioux Center and Sioux City, Iowa; Decatur, Alabama; Sanger, California; and the Modesto, California, region--urging industry insiders to report "meat fraud." The areas are all home to operations associated with leading brands that market meat using "humane" or similar animal-welfare claims.
The nationwide offer follows documentation PETA obtained earlier this year showing that Virginia-based chicken company Shenandoah Valley Organic, which does business as Farmer Focus--and markets its products as "animal welfare certified" and "traceable"--purchased more than 50,000 pounds of chicken from a massive non-organic producer, George's Inc., and, according to a whistleblower, repackaged and resold it as its own. PETA has filed a formal complaint with the Federal Trade Commission over the whistleblower's allegations.
Public records obtained by PETA also revealed that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has repeatedly warned George's for incidents including workers violently abusing live birds, birds drowning in hot water, thousands dying of heat stroke on trucks, and a bird "buried up to the neck" in feces.
"Animals endure terror and pain in the meat industry regardless of what reassuring words appear on a label, and deceptive meat marketing can leave consumers paying a premium for promises that simply aren't true," says PETA Vice President Daniel Paden. "PETA is offering $10,000 for credible evidence that helps authorities hold companies accountable for misleading consumers about where meat comes from and the suffering behind it."
PETA notes that even if meat comes from a facility that meets the requirements of "Certified Humane" or a similar program, those labels don't prevent animals from suffering. An insider told PETA that at Farmer Focus's own Virginia slaughterhouse, chickens suffered broken and bruised wings, drowned in an overfilled stunning bath, or were fully conscious when struck in the face, neck, and wings by an automatic kill blade. Some birds reportedly remained conscious after these failed throat cuts and were still alert when a machine tore their heads from their bodies.
Anyone with information about meat being repackaged, relabeled, or otherwise misrepresented can email PETA at whistleblower@peta.org.
* * *
PETA--whose motto reads, in part, that "animals are not ours to eat"--points out that Every Animal Is Someone and offers free vegan starter kits for those looking to make the switch. For more information, please visit PETA.org or follow PETA on X, Facebook, or Instagram.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.peta.org/media/news-releases/10000-peta-reward-seeks-tips-on-repackaged-mislabeled-meat/
[Category: Animals]
