Public Policy
Public Policy
News releases, reports, statements and associated documents from public policy organizations whose goal it is to influence the debate Washington.
Featured Stories
NLG Issues Letter To Co-Sponsors Of ABA Resolution 514 On Antisemitism
NEW YORK, Jan. 31 (TNSgov)(TNScapv) -- The National Lawyers Guild issued the following news release and letter:On January 18, the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) joined more than 40 organizations in expressing strong opposition to ABA resolution 514 and its call to employ the discredited and malicious International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.
The letter, co-written by the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Peace Now, Center for Constitutional Rights, Foundation for Middle East Peace, and Palestine Legal, notes that "the clear objective behind the ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Jan. 31 (TNSgov)(TNScapv) -- The National Lawyers Guild issued the following news release and letter: On January 18, the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) joined more than 40 organizations in expressing strong opposition to ABA resolution 514 and its call to employ the discredited and malicious International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. The letter, co-written by the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Peace Now, Center for Constitutional Rights, Foundation for Middle East Peace, and Palestine Legal, notes that "the clear objective behind thepromotion of the IHRA definition is the suppression of non-violent protest, activism, and criticism of Israel and/or Zionism - a fact that is so well-documented as to be beyond reasonable dispute."
On January 30, NLG issued a supplemental letter to the Co-Sponsors of resolution 514, elaborating that the resolution "could have drastic consequences on the legal profession, in that it would greatly affect education at law firms, legal organizations and law schools across the country, chilling anti-racist speech."
The letter reiterates the importance of fighting antisemitism, but points out that the proposed resolution "would provide no new protections for Jewish people who are subjected to hatred or discrimination." NLG further urges advocates to consider "the true source of the current resurgence of hateful and often violent antisemitism: white supremacist groups," and to act in solidarity with Palestinian as well as Jewish liberation. ABA resolution 514 achieves neither goal.
Read the full supplemental letter below. NLG urges all members and allies to share this letter with ABA delegates and members to tell them to vote NO on resolution 514.
This letter was written by the NLG Palestine Subcommittee of the International Committee.
More resources on resolution 514 and the IHRA definition of antisemitism:
* Palestine Legal statement and supplemental letter (https://palestinelegal.org/news/2023/1/23/40-civil-and-human-rights-groups-to-aba-controversial-ihra-definition-deployed-to-target-advocacy-for-palestinian-rights-should-have-no-part-in-resolution-on-antisemitism) with the Center for Constitutional Rights
* Palestine Legal webpage on the distorted definition of antisemitism: https://palestinelegal.org/distorted-definition
* Palestine Legal and Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP) "2-pager" on the consequences of the IHRA definition of antisemitism: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/548748b1e4b083fc03ebf70e/t/61de193c58e3a542d9ddab57/1641945404924/Oppose+the+IHRA+Definition+of+Antisemitism.pdf
* * *
To: Dear Co-Sponsors of Proposed ABA Resolution 514,
We write to convey our strong opposition to ABA resolution 514 and its call to employ the discredited and malicious International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. We endorse letters to this effect already submitted by numerous non-governmental organizations with widely varying views on Israel and Palestine. In particular, we note that the U.S. Department of Education recently resisted calls to adopt the IHRA definition for its work and declined to do so./1 We urge the ABA to follow the department's lead and excise all reference to the IHRA definition from any statement it issues on antisemitism.
The IHRA definition posits a series of "examples" that aim to conflate criticism of Israel or Zionism with antisemitism, instead of spotlighting (as the proposed report does) the true source of the current resurgence of hateful and often violent antisemitism: white supremacist groups that attack other groups as well. In one such example, IHRA states that critiques of Israel as a racist entity are indicative of antisemitism. As such, condemnations of Israel as an apartheid regime, acknowledgment of Israel's history as a settler-colonial regime created through the displacement of indigenous Palestinian communities, and frank and overdue discussions and analogies about racism, ethnic nationalism, wartime atrocities and authoritarianism involving Israel are themselves tagged as discriminatory. IHRA perniciously stigmatizes advocacy against racist policies by the Israeli state affecting Palestinian, Black, Arab, and Muslim communities.
While we wish we inhabited a world in which concerns about Israeli racism were meritless, the National Lawyers Guild shares those and similar sincere concerns about the Israeli state and its ongoing history of racial violence with international, Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups like Human Rights Watch,/2 Amnesty International,/3 B'Tselem,/4 Yesh Din,/5 and Al-Haq/6 Indeed, the last Israeli election saw the rise of long-dismissed Israeli violent extremists to key government posts and the associated escalation of attacks against Palestinians, thereby putting the legitimacy of such concerns to rest in mainstream society./7
The IHRA definition of antisemitism, if codified as a resolution, would provide no new protections for Jewish people who are subjected to hatred or discrimination. Existing ABA resolutions 72M32A and 90M100E, condemning discrimination based on religion, already provide such protections for Jews and other groups under attack. The proposed resolution and report provide no reasoning as to why existing resolutions have proven to be inadequate and why this resolution would help to resolve those inadequacies. Rather, the IHRA definition would provide a tool to stigmatize and suppress lawyers, legal advocates and law students from expressing political criticism of Israel or advocacy for Palestinian human rights. We believe a better approach to fighting hate and discrimination is one that addresses all forms of the phenomenon and thereby promotes solidarity among Jews and other victims instead of singling out one category of racism as if it is sui generis. Resolutions 72M32A and 90M100E already provide avenues to effectuate such an approach, and the proposed resolution does nothing more to further to combat such discrimination.
Finally, the proposed resolution adopting the IHRA definition would discriminate against Palestinian members of ABA in particular by restricting and chilling their expression of their own history and their defense of their rights to self-determination, to return to the land from which they have been forcibly expelled, and to remedy their experiences of egregious human rights abuses.
The resolution asserts that "nothing in this resolution is intended to diminish or infringe upon any right protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution." But it does not explain how the ABA would ensure such protection, and does not address the concern that adopting such a definition at all shows callous disrespect for marginalized people. In fact, adoption of the IHRA document, which also includes such an ostensible disclaimer, has led to widespread attempts to suppress the speech that it stigmatizes./8
This resolution would mark a sharp turning point for the American Bar Association and could have drastic consequences on the legal profession, in that it would greatly affect education at law firms, legal organizations and law schools across the country, chilling anti-racist speech. We believe ABA - consistent with its commitment to the rule of law, the legal process, holding governments accountable under law, human rights and justice - has an important role to play in conveying concerns about Israel and its policies. With that in mind, we are concerned that adoption of the IHRA definition in the ABA resolution would undermine the ABA's own ability to engage on key issues related to Palestinian rights, including in support of human rights defenders who are increasingly under attack. For all of these reasons, we urge you to oppose proposed ABA Resolution 514.
For all of these reasons, we urge you to oppose proposed ABA Resolution 514.
Sincerely,
National Lawyers Guild
Footnotes:
1/ https://palestinelegal.org/news/2023/1/5/palestine-legal-welcomes-ed-depts-decision-to-combat-antisemitism-without-ihra-definition-in-new-factsheet; https://mondoweiss.net/2023/01/despite-pressure-from-pro-israel-groups-education-department-doesnt-adopt-controversial-antisemitism-definition/?ml_recipient=77643943428228173&ml_link=77643718790743398&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=2023-01-18&utm_campaign=Daily+Headlines
2/ https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution
3/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/
4/ https://www.btselem.org/publications/fulltext/202101_this_is_apartheid
5/ https://www.yesh-din.org/en/the-occupation-of-the-west-bank-and-the-crime-of-apartheid-legal-opinion/
6/ https://www.alhaq.org/advocacy/20931.html
7/ https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/04/opinion/israel-netanyahu.html
* * *
January 18, 2023
To: Juan Thomas, Chair, Mark Schickman, Senior Advisor, Paula Shapiro, Director, ABA Section on Civil Rights and Social Justice
Hon. Benes Z. Aldana (Ret.), Chair, Skip Harsch, Director, Ann Breen-Greco, ABA Commission on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
Twanda Turner-Hawkins, Chair, Selina Thomas, Director, ABA Coalition on Racial and Ethnic Justice
Priya Purandare, Executive Director, Navdeep Singh, Interim Policy Director, Wendy Shiba, Past President, ABA Delegate, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association
James L. Schwartz, Chair, Richard M. Leslie, Chair-Elect, Jack Young, Delegate, ABA Senior Lawyers Division
Marcos Rios, Chair, David Schwartz, Chair-Elect, Michelle Jacobson, Policy Officer, ABA International Law Section
cc: Deborah Enix-Ross, ABA President, Palmer Gene Vance II, Chair ABA House of Delegates
Dear Co-Sponsors of Proposed American Bar Association Resolution 514 on Antisemitism,
We write to convey our strong objection to the reference to the "International Holocaust
Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism" in proposed ABA resolution
514 (Resolution 514). We urge you to remove all mentions of the IHRA definition from ABA
Resolution 514.
With antisemitism surging in the United States and in countries around the globe, we agree with
the co-sponsors of proposed Resolution 514 that the ABA - as a leading organization devoted to, among other things, justice and human rights - can and should be involved in fighting antisemitism. There are many constructive forms such involvement could take; embracing the IHRA definition of antisemitism is emphatically not among them.
Ongoing efforts to codify the IHRA definition into law and policy, including at the ABA, are invariably framed as efforts to fight antisemitism. Yet, the clear objective behind the promotion of the IHRA definition is the suppression of non-violent protest, activism, and criticism of Israel and/or Zionism - a fact that is so well-documented as to be beyond reasonable dispute. The IHRA definition has been instrumentalized, again and again, to delegitimize critics and criticism of Israel and its policies, and to suppress voices and activism in support for Palestinian rights. The most common targets of IHRA-based attacks have been university students, professors, and grassroots organizers over their speech and activism on Israel/Palestine; IHRA has likewise been used to disparage (among others) human rights and civil rights organizations, humanitarian groups, and members of Congress for documenting or criticizing Israeli policies or speaking out about Palestinian rights.
Indeed, regardless of the original intent of its drafters, in practice the IHRA definition has been used consistently (and nearly exclusively) not to fight antisemitism, but rather to defend Israel and harm Palestinians - at the cost of undermining and dangerously chilling fundamental rights of free speech, freedom of assembly and protest, and academic freedom. Any embrace of the IHRA definition by the ABA would legitimize and encourage this undermining of core democratic rights. Equally, extending its own credibility to the IHRA definition would implicate the ABA in ongoing efforts to pressure states and the federal government to adopt and enforce the IHRA definition, and the violations of basic democratic rights that have been at the center of its application, both as a matter of policy and of law.
To be clear: while its champions present the IHRA definition as a "consensus" and "non-
controversial" definition, nothing could be further from the truth. The IHRA definition has
been challenged, vigorously, by hundreds of antisemitism experts, rabbis, and scholars of Jewish studies, Jewish history, and the Holocaust, by Palestinians who have borne the brunt of its application, as well as by experts on fighting racism and free speech. These experts - who include Kenneth Stern, the original lead drafter of the definition - have published hundreds of reports and articles articulating their concerns and objections. They have given speeches at countless think tanks, universities, synagogues, and international forums. They have presented testimony before Congress, and even before the ABA in connection with this resolution. Concern about either the misuse of, and/or the plain text of, the IHRA definition among Jewish scholars is so acute that it has given rise (so far) to two mainstream, independent projects aimed at developing alternative definitions.
Just as we believe the ABA should be involved in fighting antisemitism, we believe the ABA -
consistent with its commitment to the rule of law, the legal process, holding governments
accountable under law, human rights, and justice - has an important role to play in conveying
concerns about Israel and its policies. With that in mind, we are concerned that the reference to the IHRA definition in the ABA resolution would undermine the ABA's own ability to
engage on key issues related to Palestinian rights, including in support of human rights
defenders who are increasingly under attack.
For all of these reasons, we urge you to remove all mentions of the IHRA definition from
proposed ABA Resolution 514.
Sincerely,
American Civil Liberties Union
Americans for Peace Now
Center for Constitutional Rights
Foundation for Middle East Peace
Palestine Legal
Joined by:
Adalah Justice Project
American Humanist Association
American Muslim Bar Association
American Muslims for Palestine (AMP)
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC)
Americans for Justice in Palestine Action (AJP Action)
Anethum Global
Arab American Institute
Asian Law Caucus
Boston University International Human Rights Clinic
Center for Security, Race and Rights
Coalition for an Ethical Psychology
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
Defending Rights & Dissent
Diaspora Alliance
Human Rights Clinic, Inter-American University of Puerto Rico School of Law
Human Rights First
ICNA Council for Social Justice
Indiana Center for Middle East Peace, Inc.
International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
Jewish Voice for Peace
Minnesotans Against Islamophobia
MN BDS Community
Muslim Advocates
NAACP Rutland VT
National Arab American Women's Association (NAAWA)
National Lawyers Guild
Northfielders for Justice in Palestine/Israel
Project South
Promise Institute for Human Rights at UCLA Law
The Civil Liberties Defense Center
The Legal Resources Centre (South Africa)
Twin Cities Assange Defense
University Network for Human Rights
US Campaign for Palestinian Rights
Women Against Military Madness
Women's All Points Bulletin (WAPB)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.nlg.org/nlg-issues-letter-to-co-sponsors-of-aba-resolution-514-on-antisemitism/
[Category: Law/Legal]
In WLF Success, Third Circuit Rejects Agency Rewrite Of Federal Drug-Discount Program
WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 (TNSgov) -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release on Jan. 30, 2023:The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit today rejected the Health Resources Services Administration's (HRSA) claim under the 340B Program to broad regulatory authority that Congress never gave it. The decision was a litigation success for Washington Legal Foundation (WLF), which filed an amicus brief in the case supporting AstraZeneca.
The appeal arose from a suit by prescription-drug manufacturer AstraZeneca against HRSA, challenging the agency's recent enforcement action ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 (TNSgov) -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release on Jan. 30, 2023: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit today rejected the Health Resources Services Administration's (HRSA) claim under the 340B Program to broad regulatory authority that Congress never gave it. The decision was a litigation success for Washington Legal Foundation (WLF), which filed an amicus brief in the case supporting AstraZeneca. The appeal arose from a suit by prescription-drug manufacturer AstraZeneca against HRSA, challenging the agency's recent enforcement actionunder the 340B Program. The 340B Program requires manufacturers who participate in the Medicare and Medicaid markets to offer deep discounts on prescription drugs to nonprofit safety-net healthcare providers for uninsured and low-income patients. Although the statute leaves the messy details of 340B transactions, including the terms of delivery, to the parties' free-market negotiations, HRSA has recently taken the position that manufacturers like AstraZeneca are barred from imposing delivery terms on uncovered third parties--including for-profit contract pharmacies.
As the Third Circuit rightly concluded today, HRSA's recent regulatory overreach has no statutory support. "Congress never said that drug makers must deliver discounted Section 340B drugs to an unlimited number of contract pharmacies," the court announced. "So by trying to enforce that supposed requirement, the government overstepped the statute's bounds." The court's opinion largely tracks statutory arguments found in WLF's amicus brief, which accused HRSA of trying to unilaterally transform the 340B Program from "a sensible cost-saving measure" into "a constitutionally dubious wealth-transfer scheme."
* * *
View court filing here: https://www.wlf.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/WLF-brief-AstraZeneca-v.-HHS-3d-Cir..pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://www.wlf.org/2023/01/30/communicating/in-wlf-success-third-circuit-rejects-agency-rewrite-of-federal-drug-discount-program/
[Category: Law/Legal]
Human Rights First Fact Sheet: Recommendations for the Biden Administration to Uphold Refugee Law
WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 (TNSres) -- Human Rights First issued the following fact sheet:* * *
Leading By Example, Honoring Commitments - Recommendations for the Biden Administration to Uphold Refugee Law
While it has taken some important steps toward ending several Trump administration policies that trampled on asylum, including Remain in Mexico, the Biden administration has not yet ended some of the most inhumane and dysfunctional Trump administration policies due to lawsuits filed by Trump-aligned state politicians aligned with the prior administration, slow-paced U.S. agency regulatory action, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 (TNSres) -- Human Rights First issued the following fact sheet: * * * Leading By Example, Honoring Commitments - Recommendations for the Biden Administration to Uphold Refugee Law While it has taken some important steps toward ending several Trump administration policies that trampled on asylum, including Remain in Mexico, the Biden administration has not yet ended some of the most inhumane and dysfunctional Trump administration policies due to lawsuits filed by Trump-aligned state politicians aligned with the prior administration, slow-paced U.S. agency regulatory action,and highly damaging steps backward. The Biden administration recently expanded use of the much-criticized Title 42 policy to additional nationalities and announced plans to propose an asylum ban - an approach repeatedly initiated by the Trump administration and repeatedly found unlawful by the courts. These announcements sparked public criticism from the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, UNHCR, IOM and UNICEF, given the violations of human rights and refugee law.
The last thing the Biden administration should be doing is advancing the Trump administration's agenda, or attempting to replace one failed, illegal, and inhumane Trump policy with another. There is a better way. The Biden administration should, working with Congress, redouble support to strengthen refugee hosting capacities in other countries, ramp up refugee resettlement, build and improve upon steps to provide parole and other pathways that help reduce irregular migration - but without imposing deeply damaging, counterproductive policies, like Title 42 and asylum bans, that are the opposite of "success" as they inflict grave human rights abuses, systemic dysfunction at the border, and lasting damage to human rights and refugee law globally. Upholding President Biden's February 2021 Executive Order, his administration should, as detailed in our full January 2023 recommendations:
* Enhance support for human rights, and refugee hosting capacity, in other countries in the Americas. While perpetrators of anti-immigrant rhetoric paint border arrivals as the result of U.S. immigration policy, the reality is that persecution and human rights abuses have escalated in many countries in the Americas, pushing people to flee Cuba, Guatemala, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela and other places. The vast majority of the world's refugees are hosted by front-line and other countries with less capacity than the United States. About 6 million of the 7.1 million people who have fled Venezuela are hosted in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and other countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. In addition to prioritizing sustained strategies to protect people's rights in their home countries, the Biden administration should redouble efforts to support development of strong asylum systems, reception capacities, access to employment, and protection of rights and safety of refugees and migrants in Mexico and other countries in the Americas.
* Ramp up, speed up, strengthen regional refugee resettlement, parole and other safe migration pathways in the Americas, never using them to deny access to asylum. The administration should build on its use of parole, jettisoning the improper effort to misuse these initiatives to deny refugees access to asylum, while improving scale and access for people without resources, family ties, passports, and for Black, Indigenous or other people disparately denied access. Such pathways provide critical alternatives to irregular migration. The Biden administration should strive to come close to meeting its FY 2023 goal of resettling 20,000 refugees from the Americas, sharply increase regional resettlement in FY 2024 (as an addition to overall resettlement goals, not a reduction for other regions), and redouble efforts to improve the pace and speed of resettlement so it can be a meaningful route to protection for the small portion of refugees who are afforded access.
* Uphold refugee law at U.S. borders without discrimination, including to restart and maximize (rather than restrict or "meter") asylum at ports of entry, take all steps possible to end the Title 42 policy (which, as Human Rights First has tracked, has led to over 13,480 reports of torture, kidnappings and brutal attacks), ensure people seeking asylum have prompt access to ports of entry - not limited to CBP One, but assured to people approaching ports of entry to seek asylum. Restoring asylum at ports of entry after years of blockage is essential not only to uphold refugee law, but also to end the counterproductive consequences of Trump policies that, by restricting and blocking access to asylum at ports of entry, have long pushed populations that previously sought asylum at ports of entry to instead attempt to cross the border.
* Implement effective, humane refugee reception structures, coordination, funding mechanisms, and case support to address the lack of dedicated humanitarian and refugee protection structures that has long hampered the U.S. response to people seeking refuge at its own borders, including to:
- Enhance communication, planning, coordination with, and resourcing for the network of faith-based groups, shelters, legal, refugee aid, non-profit humanitarian organizations along the border and across the country that are essential to effective reception and case support;
- Create a White House Task Force to improve coordination internally, and externally with humanitarian organizations and destination communities, while ultimately ensuring creation of a focused humanitarian and refugee reception agency, rather than just "emergency" responses;
- Develop Shelter and Services grant program to remedy some FEMA ESFP-H funding limitations;
- Launch and support public-private asylum reception and orientation initiatives by non-profit humanitarian organizations; and
- Ensure prompt work authorization for asylum seekers, as both asylum seekers and local communities urge.
* Upgrade asylum adjudication processes so they are accurate, fair, properly staffed, and prompt, including: improve the new asylum rule process so it leads to efficiency rather than rushed and counterproductive inaccurate adjudications, and work with Congress to fund sufficient asylum adjudication capacities to address asylum backlogs, as well as ensuring timely adjudication of new cases, and support and champion funding for legal representation.
* Rescind - do not resurrect - Trump policies, including the asylum entry and transit bans, and other fatally flawed policies of the last administration that punish or block refugees from protection, abandoning the harmful asylum ban plan. While the Trump administration transit ban was in effect, it resulted in the denial of asylum to refugees with well-founded fears of persecution, separation of families, and deprivation of a path to citizenship for refugees left only with withholding of removal. Moving ahead with this misguided approach would breach President Biden's campaign promise to end restrictions on asylum seekers traveling through other countries, and endanger many Black, Brown, Indigenous, LGBTQ+ and other asylum seekers.
* Stand firm against anti-immigrant rhetoric and efforts, and firmly reject anti-asylum Congressional proposals including efforts to force continuation or enactment into law of the Trump administration's cruel, racist, and counterproductive policies. Draconian policies will not appease perpetrators of xenophobic, racist rhetoric, but will inflict massive human suffering, create more dysfunction, and subvert refugee law globally.
* * *
Original text here: https://humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Biden_admin_asylum_summaryrecommendations_Jan2023.pdf
[Category: Sociological]
Human Rights Campaign Condemns Utah Governor Spencer Cox For Signing Dangerous Ban On Gender Affirming Care For Transgender Youth Into Law; First Anti-LGBTQ+ Law Of 2023 Now On The Books
SALT LAKE CITY, Utah, Jan. 31 (TNStalk) -- The Human Rights Campaign issued the following statement on Jan. 30, 2023:* * *
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ+) civil rights organization, rebukes Utah Governor Spencer Cox for signing SB 16, a law that will effectively ban the provision of gender affirming care to transgender patients under the age of 18.
Gov. Cox signed the bill on Saturday, January 28. Last year, Governor Cox vetoed anti-transgender legislation knowing his veto would be overridden, explaining,"Rarely has ... Show Full Article SALT LAKE CITY, Utah, Jan. 31 (TNStalk) -- The Human Rights Campaign issued the following statement on Jan. 30, 2023: * * * The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ+) civil rights organization, rebukes Utah Governor Spencer Cox for signing SB 16, a law that will effectively ban the provision of gender affirming care to transgender patients under the age of 18. Gov. Cox signed the bill on Saturday, January 28. Last year, Governor Cox vetoed anti-transgender legislation knowing his veto would be overridden, explaining,"Rarely hasso much fear and anger been directed at so few. I don't understand what they are going through or why they feel the way they do. But I want them to live." By signing this anti-transgender piece of legislation into law, the Governor has now caved to anti-equality extremists. Utah SB 16 is the first anti-LGBTQ+ bill signed into law in 2023. Last year alone, 344 anti-LGBTQ+ bills were introduced across 23 states. More than 25 were enacted across 13 states -- 17 of which have a disproportionate or targeted impact on transgender people.
This law is one of many dangerous efforts far right political extremists and national anti-LGBTQ+ organizations are launching in Utah and across the country against transgender youth and their families. Bolstered by disinformation spread by social media and designed to take aim at age appropriate, life-saving, medically necessary care for transgender youth, these bans directly place the health, safety and wellbeing of transgender youth in Utah at risk.
* * *
In response, Cathryn Oakley, HRC's State Legislative Director and Senior Counsel released the following statement:
"In signing this bill into law, Governor Cox has directly placed the LGBTQ+ youth he previously claimed to want to protect in harm's way. Denying transgender and non-binary youth - an extremely vulnerable group already - access to medically necessary, age-appropriate and scientifically supported medical care is dangerous, spiteful, and flies in the face of the recommendations of every major medical group in this country. Parents, doctors, and transgender youth together discuss possible care and make the deeply individualized decision about what kind of care is most appropriate for each young person. Politicians with no medical training and no real understanding of the harmful impact these bans have on transgender people should have no say in how best practice, age appropriate care is delivered. The facts matter, and so do these young folks. We will continue to fight so that they're not denied medically necessary, age-appropriate care simply because they are transgender."
Get the facts about gender-affirming care:
* Every credible medical organization - representing over 1.3 million doctors in the United States - calls for age-appropriate gender-affirming care for transgender and non-binary people.
- "Transition-related" or "gender-affirming" care looks different for every transgender and non-binary person.
- Parents, their kids, and doctors make decisions together, and no medical interventions with permanent consequences happen until a transgender person is old enough to give truly informed consent.
* Gender transition is a personal process that can include changing clothes, names, and hairstyles to fit a person's gender identity.
- Some people take medication, and some do not; some adults have surgeries, and others do not. How someone transitions is their choice, to be made with their family and their doctor.
- Therapists, parents and health care providers work together to determine which changes to make at a given time that are in the best interest of the child.
- In most young children, this care can be entirely social. This means:
- New name
- New hairstyle
- New clothing
- None of this care is irreversible.
* Being transgender is not new.
- Some say it can feel like being transgender is very new - but that's because the media has been covering it more in recent months and years.
- But transgender people have always existed and will continue to exist regardless of the bills we pass.
- And very few transgender people change their mind.
* ALL gender-affirming care is:
- Age-appropriate
- Medically necessary
- Supported by all major medical organizations
- Made in consultation with medical and mental health professionals AND parents
* And in many cases, this care is lifesaving!
- A recent study from the Trevor Project provides data supporting this -- transgender youth with access to gender-affirming hormone therapy have lower rates of depression and are at a lower risk for suicide.
* * *
Report link: https://www.thetrevorproject.org/blog/new-study-finds-gender-affirming-hormone-therapy-linked-to-lower-rates-of-depression-suicide-risk-among-transgender-youth/
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/human-rights-campaign-condemns-utah-governor-spencer-cox-for-signing-dangerous-ban-on-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-youth-into-law-first-anti-lgbtq-law-of-2023-now-on-the-books
Category: Political]
Food & Water Watch: 24 Groups To Sec. Vilsack - Strengthen Packers & Stockyards Act
WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 (TNSgov) -- The Food and Water Watch issued the following news release and letter on Jan. 30, 2023:Twenty four groups signed a letter to USDA Secretary Vilsack today urging that the USDA seize upon an open rulemaking process to strengthen protections for farmers and ranchers under the Packers & Stockyards Act. The agency is revisiting inadequate farmer and rancher protections from industry monopolies in a series of long-overdue rulemakings. The letter was written and circulated by national advocacy organization Food & Water Watch.
Ineffective and outdated Packers & Stockyards ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 (TNSgov) -- The Food and Water Watch issued the following news release and letter on Jan. 30, 2023: Twenty four groups signed a letter to USDA Secretary Vilsack today urging that the USDA seize upon an open rulemaking process to strengthen protections for farmers and ranchers under the Packers & Stockyards Act. The agency is revisiting inadequate farmer and rancher protections from industry monopolies in a series of long-overdue rulemakings. The letter was written and circulated by national advocacy organization Food & Water Watch. Ineffective and outdated Packers & StockyardsAct rules have created an unfair market that preferences corporate power over fairness and competition. Passed over 100 years ago to limit monopolistic practices in the meatpacking sector, the act's legacy has been tarnished by decades of corporate abuse. Lax antitrust oversight, vertical integration that concentrates corporate power, and tournament systems that pit contract poultry growers against one another have contributed to a highly consolidated food and farm system that crushes the competition the act was designed to protect.
"Today's meat and poultry industries are more consolidated than ever. Years of ineffective, opaque rules and lax enforcement have gutted federal authority to maintain fair, competitive market practices, and farmers and ranchers are paying the price," said Krissy Kasserman, Food & Water Watch factory farm organizing director. "Secretary Vilsack and the Biden administration must seize this opportunity to restore competitive, just and equitable market practices that level the playing field for hardworking family farmers and ranchers."
A Food & Water Watch report found that just four corporations slaughter 83% of the nation's cattle. The top four corporations in hog and poultry processing also dominate the market with 66 and 51 percent market share respectively. Meanwhile, a staggering 99.5% of all domestic broiler chickens are grown by contract growers. Letter signatories outlined three demands to rebuild competitive markets:
* Require transparency and structural reforms to the poultry tournament system.
* Strengthen prohibitions on unfair and deceptive practices, undue preferences, and unjust prejudices.
* Clarify that parties do not need to demonstrate market-wide harm to competition in order to bring an action under section 202(a) and 202(b) of the Packers & Stockyards Act.
* * *
January 30, 2023
To: Secretary Tom Vilsack, United States Department of Agriculture, 1301 Independence Avenue SW, Washington DC 20250
Dear Secretary Vilsack,
As organizations that advocate for fair and competitive markets, we are writing to urge you to issue strong rules in the proposed series of rulemakings to strengthen and clarify aspects of the Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S Act) and address the treatment of livestock and poultry farmers and ranchers by meatpackers and poultry companies. The corporate abuses allowed under USDA's current P&S Act regulations have contributed to a highly consolidated food and farm system driving record numbers of farmers and ranchers out of business - undermining local and diverse land ownership, polluting our air and water, and threatening public health in frontline communities. Farmers and ranchers have been going out of business in record numbers, and the ones able to continue often have to work second jobs to make ends meet.
Ineffective P&S Act rules have created an unfair market that results in too much corporate power.
In the poultry sector, and increasingly in the hog sector, the most common business model is a vertically integrated one in which companies own the animals, set the terms of the contracts, and dictate all aspects of raising the animals, from the design of the buildings that they are confined in to the feed that they eat. Just four corporations control 70% of the hog market, and the two biggest corporations, Smithfield and JBS, are foreign-owned. The chicken sector is even more vertically integrated, with a staggering 96% of all broiler chickens grown by contract growers in the United States. These growers lose their economic independence when they enter into contracts; they must invest in whatever infrastructure the integrators require - taking on incredible amounts of debt and putting taxpayers on the hook for federally backed loans - and are responsible for disposing of the enormous amount of waste generated. Where once growers were independent small business owners, upon signing a contract with an integrator they are beholden to a large corporation. The growers bear all of the risks and debt associated with raising livestock while the agribusinesses capture all the profits.
And contract farming is a risky endeavor. Contracts between growers and integrators are often short -- sometimes just a single flock, meaning that integrators are under no obligation to continue the contract after the current flock is gone -- and companies might refuse to renew contracts if livestock prices lag or the grower has fallen out of favor. Terminated contracts threaten to leave growers with crushing debts that they cannot repay, and fear of retaliation often prevents growers from speaking out against the unfairness built into the system. Because these loans are oftentimes federally backed, taxpayers unwittingly carry the risk as well.
Reform is also essential in the beef industry, where four giant meatpackers control 85% of the market. Without viable options to access an open market where prices are set in a public forum, cattle ranchers are forced to sell their beef to feedlots that service these multinational corporations. Oftentimes, the corporations themselves own the feedlots in a system called vertical integration. This means there is little competition; meatpackers know that and take advantage of it to line their own pockets. As we see beef prices soar in our grocery stores, ranchers are making pennies on the dollar for their product and many are going out of business.
Strong rules are essential to address these long-standing injustices. They are also necessary to fully realize the benefits of USDA's historic investment in supply chain resilience - especially its massive investment in small-scale meat and poultry processing plants - and give them a chance for success. Rebuilding that lost infrastructure is a step in the right direction, and producers strongly support these investments, but enticing smaller plants into a marketplace designed to enable unfair practices by a few dominant firms is a recipe for failure. Restoring a fair and competitive market is not only the right thing to do, it is necessary to support USDA's priorities and keep this new infrastructure economically viable.
Farmer testimonials and public input provided throughout the past two decades show us what reforms are needed to reintroduce fairness and competition into our agricultural sector and build a more resilient food system that benefits farmers, workers, consumers, animals, our environment, and rural communities and economies.
We believe that if written strongly, reflecting the experiences and needs of farmers and ranchers, these rules can breathe new life into the P&S Act and finally give effect to Congress' original intent to protect competition and fairness in our food and agriculture system.
1. Require transparency and structural reforms to the poultry tournament system
The tournament system, widely used in the poultry industry to compensate growers, forces growers into a ranking system that determines their compensation and pits them against each other. The tournament system was designed to penalize or reward particular growers and to facilitate the unfair, deceptive, and discriminatory treatment of growers, which clearly violates the original intent of the P&S Act.
USDA's proposed rule to address transparency in this system is an important first step. Requiring integrators to increase the information provided to potential and current contract growers is critical to ensuring that growers have the information they need to make informed decisions before entering contracts, including what their obligations will be and how the integrator will determine their pay.
But transparency is only the first step. USDA should quickly finalize the proposed rule on transparency and then implement additional structural reforms that prevent integrators from manipulating prices and engaging in discriminatory treatment. These rules should make clear that any tournament system or formula payment arrangement that bases grower compensation on factors outside their control is an unfair practice that is prohibited under the P&S Act.
2. Strengthen prohibitions on unfair and deceptive practices, undue preferences, and unjust prejudices.
USDA also intends to strengthen farmer protections by revising its definitions of the practices prohibited by the P&S Act, making it clearer when meat companies have violated the law. The new rules should adopt definitions that address and prohibit a wide range of anti-competitive practices that are advantageous to large industrial-scale producers, including but not limited to long-term marketing contracts, shorter-term forward contracts, cash sales, production contracts to raise packer-owned livestock, secretive purchase arrangements, production contracts, preferential distribution of the best quality chicks and feed, inequitable condemnation of birds during processing, selectively requiring certain growers to invest in equipment upgrades, and preferential treatment regarding layout periods between flocks and numbers of flocks delivered per year . Together with eliminating the need to demonstrate competitive harm to the whole industry, these reforms will put teeth back into the P&S Act and give producers an avenue for ensuring they have a remedy for unfair and deceptive practices, undue preferences, or unjust prejudices.
3. Clarify that parties do not need to demonstrate market-wide harm to competition in order to bring an action under section 202(a) and 202(b) of the P&S Act.
The P&S Act was meant to enable producers to enforce the law when meatpackers subject them to illegal, unfair practices and undue preferences. However, while USDA asserts that it is not the agency's practice to require a demonstration of harm to market-wide competition in order to bring an action under 202(a) or (b), some federal courts have required it anyway. As a result, producers are unable to enforce the P&S Act as Congress intended. This needs to be reconciled in USDA's rulemaking by clarifying that producers need not meet this incredibly burdensome threshold.
We appreciate the Biden Administration's concern and dedication to providing a fair market for our farmers and ranchers. Corporate consolidation and concentration in the food system has enabled deeply unjust and inequitable practices to thrive in anti-competitive markets. But this is not inevitable - the status quo is the result of policy failures that have benefited large corporate interests at the expense of family farmers and ranchers. With a renewed and strengthened P&S Act, we can stop the abusive practices of corporate meat processors and make real progress to revitalize rural economies and create a more resilient food and agriculture system.
We look forward to working with you in support of finalizing strong and meaningful reforms to the P&S Act regulations as quickly as possible to ensure that all of our nation's livestock and poultry farmers have the opportunity to thrive in fair and competitive markets.
Sincerely,
View vo-signers here: https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/psa-letter-final/
* * *
Report link: https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/2021/04/19/well-fed-a-roadmap/
* * *
Original text here: https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/2023/01/30/24-groups-to-sec-vilsack-strengthen-packers-stockyards-act/
[Category: Science]
Fight for the Future: If Senate Democrats Wants To Help Kids, They Should Stop Pushing Legislation That Hurts Kids
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Jan. 31 (TNStalk) -- Fight for the Future, an advocacy group for digital rights, issued the following statement on Jan. 30, 2023:* * *
Bloomberg is reporting that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer wants to fast-track tech legislation that focuses on children, including the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), an extremely controversial bill that has been opposed by human rights experts and nearly every major LGBTQ organization in the US. Digital rights group Fight for the Future issued the following statement, which can be attributed to the group's director, Evan Greer (she/her).
"This ... Show Full Article BOSTON, Massachusetts, Jan. 31 (TNStalk) -- Fight for the Future, an advocacy group for digital rights, issued the following statement on Jan. 30, 2023: * * * Bloomberg is reporting that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer wants to fast-track tech legislation that focuses on children, including the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), an extremely controversial bill that has been opposed by human rights experts and nearly every major LGBTQ organization in the US. Digital rights group Fight for the Future issued the following statement, which can be attributed to the group's director, Evan Greer (she/her). "Thisis outrageous. Leader Schumer was more or less single-handedly responsible for derailing the most serious efforts at tech reform last Congress, and now he wants to revive deeply controversial legislation that would put vulnerable kids in danger and pour gasoline on the growing attacks that LGBTQ+ young people are facing across the US.
"KOSA is fatally flawed and a flurry of last-minute changes during the last Congress failed to address the concerns of LGBTQ groups and experts. There is no safe way to create a vague duty of care that encompasses content moderation and user speech at a time when right wing politicians are actively conflating queerness with criminality and predation, and state attorneys general are investigating supportive families of transgender youth for "child abuse" simply for seeking medically recommended care for their kids. Nearly 250 anti-LGBTQ state laws have already been introduced this year. Legislation like KOSA would give the law enforcement agencies of those same states new tools to target and oppress LGBTQ+ youth and adults.
"It's disgusting that Senate Democrats would even consider reviving legislation that would hurt the LGBTQ community while they claim to be defending us. They should immediately drop this bill and instead advance thoughtful and comprehensive measures that strike at the root of Big Tech giants harm.
"We need policies that lead to the type of world we want our kids to grow up in. That means ending surveillance capitalism and cracking down on harmful business practices by advancing thoughtful regulation, rather than taking the easy path of advancing bills that claim to "think of the children" while throwing them under the bus."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2023-01-30-if-senate-democrats-wants-to-help-kids-they-should-stop-pushing-legislation-that-hurts-kids
[Category: Sociological]
Economic & Social Research Institute: 'Water Quality Protection Functions With Local Authorities'
DUBLIN, Ireland, Jan. 31 (TNSrep) -- The Economic and Social Research Institute issued the following research bulletin (No. 202303) on Jan. 31, 2023, entitled "Water Quality Protection Functions with Local Authorities."The research bulletin was written by Gianluca Grilli and John Curtis.
* * *
ESRI Research Bulletins provide short summaries of work published by ESRI researchers and overviews of thematic areas covered by ESRI programmes of research. Bulletins are designed to be easily accessible to a wide readership.
* * *
OVERVIEW
Based on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assessments, ... Show Full Article DUBLIN, Ireland, Jan. 31 (TNSrep) -- The Economic and Social Research Institute issued the following research bulletin (No. 202303) on Jan. 31, 2023, entitled "Water Quality Protection Functions with Local Authorities." The research bulletin was written by Gianluca Grilli and John Curtis. * * * ESRI Research Bulletins provide short summaries of work published by ESRI researchers and overviews of thematic areas covered by ESRI programmes of research. Bulletins are designed to be easily accessible to a wide readership. * * * OVERVIEW Based on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assessments,surface waters and groundwaters continue to be under pressure from human activities; particularly from nitrogen and phosphorus from agriculture and urban waste water discharges. Under the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) Ireland is required to manage waters on a river basin scale via River Basin Management Planning (RBMP), to protect rivers, lakes, estuaries and coastal waters. RBMP requires cooperation across public bodies, including local authorities that historically worked solely within their geographical administrative areas. The success of RBMP depends to a great extent on the capacity of public bodies to develop effective plans, coordinate activities and share data, especially among staff engaged in day-to-day operational decision making. While responsibility for water quality encompasses a wide hierarchy of both private and public sector entities, this research focuses on local authorities, examining the dissemination of knowledge of key water quality metrics among local authority staff and the effectiveness in transferring the high level strategic vision of the RBMP into practical daily actions across the functions of local government.
METHODS
The data for this study was collected by survey, administered to 1209 staff across 31 local authorities employed within the four operational divisions with greatest relevance to water quality (i.e., Environment, Planning, Roads and Communities). The survey elicited information on knowledge of local water quality indicators, as well as RBMP issues within their local authority area. Multivariate statistical methods were used to analyse staff responses controlling for factors such as staff experience, seniority, division, and region.
FINDINGS
General knowledge of WFD and RBMP issues, particularly at national level, is relatively high. Detailed knowledge of RBMP-related issues within staff's own local authority area is substantially lower. Knowledge levels are highest among Environment division staff. Knowledge levels also differ by length of service, and by whether in managerial roles or not. Senior managers are 3-4 times more likely to have knowledge of WFD and RBMP compared to junior staff, for example. Nonetheless, there is scope for improved knowledge and awareness among local authority staff. For example, more than half of those interviewed were unaware of critical RBMP priority areas (e.g., Blue Dot catchments and Priority Areas for Action) within their local authority area.
A conspicuous finding on water quality knowledge relates to staff in upper management roles within Environment divisions, where responsibilities are not solely related to water quality. For example, just 1 in 3 senior managers are aware of the share of rivers with good or high ecological status. A lack of awareness of the broader context for water quality may negatively influence priorities towards water quality issues when managers are facing competing demands across their functional areas.
The dissemination of RBMP priorities and actions through local authority hierarchies is evident. For example, knowledge among senior managers, who are higher up the hierarchy, is greater than more junior staff, which is consistent with the fact that the same level knowledge and expertise related to water quality and RBMP is not required across all functions and roles.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Local authority staff have responsibility for day-to-day decisions on many issues that ultimately impact on water quality (e.g., environmental protection, roads drainage, planning and development). The research demonstrates that there is considerable scope for improvement in knowledge of water quality and specific issues relevant to the RBMP among local authority staff. Recommendations to help improve the dissemination of pertinent information and competencies of staff to help people perform better in their roles include:
* Greater staff training, covering new staff inductions, role-based training, including specific training for senior management roles should focus on priorities and responsibilities for LAs in implementing the RBMP.
* Local authorities should assess their internal communications processes to ensure staff at all levels are being adequately briefed on water quality issues, whereas the Environmental Protection Agency should consider how it can more actively engage with LA staff, especially in Environment and Planning divisions, across all job levels to improve awareness of the status of water quality and increase understanding of how local authority work contributes to water quality protection.
* Across all local authorities there is extensive institutional knowledge and practical experience dealing with issues related to water quality protection but within individual local authorities, staff numbers in specific functional areas can be relatively small and depth of experience more limited. Developing national forums on water quality protection issues to support local authority staff and share practical experiences would enhance environmental protection work nationally.
* * *
The research bulletin is posted at: https://www.esri.ie/system/files/publications/RB202303.pdf
[Category: ThinkTankReport]