JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Politics and Vengeance—How the Death Penalty Costs Us
Brief #140 – Social Justice
By Abigail Hunt
Twenty-seven states have the death penalty, and twenty-four of those states still execute prisoners. The U.S. military and government both enforce capital punishment. According to the Nevada State Legislature website, a 2008 study by the Urban Institute showed Maryland’s average cost for a death penalty case was $3 million. In Texas, a capital trial costs $2.3 million, more than three times what it would cost to keep the convicted imprisoned in a maximum-security unit for 40 years.
Preview of US Senate Races in Florida and Utah
Brief #34 – Elections & Politics
By Ian Milden
Control of the U.S. Senate will be up for grabs in the 2022 mid-term elections. Competitive races in key states will determine the balance of power. In this brief, I will preview the U.S. Senate races in Florida and Utah.
Ongoing Government Efforts to Keep Homeless Children and Youth in School
Brief #55 – Education
By Steve Piazza
After being approved last March by the House and Senate strictly along party lines, the American Rescue Plan Act (ARP) of 2021 was signed into law by President Biden. The ARP is a program supplement to Title VII-B of the McKinney-Vento Act, and focusesfederal action that addresses homelessness and that has gone through various iterations since 1986.
Situation Update #13: The Ukraine Crisis
Brief #147 – Foreign Policy
By Abran C
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has called for the establishment of a security zone around Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant to protect it from intense fighting. The occupation of Europe’s largest nuclear power plant has sparked fears of a nuclear disaster as both sides trade blame for shelling the site.
Environmental Provisions of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act
Brief #148 – Environment Policy
By Jacob Morton
On August 16, 2022, President Joe Biden signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act, H.R. 5376. The new law is a scaled-back version of the Biden administration’s Build Back Better Act, intended to reduce the national deficit and lower inflation while investing in domestic energy production, creating jobs, and lowering healthcare drug costs. Here is a look at how the new law impacts U.S. environmental and climate policy.
Uber and Lyft Flex Their Lobbying Muscle
Brief #66 – Technology Policy
By Mindy Spatt
Who’s Afraid of a President, or a Presidential Front Runner? Uber and Lyft are lobbying to kill legislation supported by President Biden, and Lyft is pushing a California ballot initiative that likely presidential candidate Governor Gavin Newsom is staunchly opposed to.
A Path to Reducing Reducing Wildfires
Brief #147 – Environmental Policy
By Haley Moore
A new law ensures a future for forests with the environment in mind.
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was passed into law on August 16, 2022. $375B will go to aid the climate crisis over the course of the next decade.
Executive Order 14067: Considerations for Leveling the Digital Assets Playing Field
Brief #65 – Technology Policy
By Steve Piazza
On March 9 of this year, President Biden issued Executive Order 14067 “Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets.” Its impetus is a directive for governmental departments and agencies to examine the government’s role regarding the centralization of digital assets, specifically those pertaining to financial transactions.
The Art of Brainwashing: Russia’s Mass Media’s Successful Project
Brief #146 – Foreign Policy
By Yelena Korshunov
Since the day when Russia started a so-called “special operation in Ukraine”, the iconic phrase of the average Russian has become “But all are afraid of us!”
When a Siberian grandma tells you that she doesn’t have heating, water, and electricity in her old house in February when the outside temperature falls to -13F and the air in her unheated bedroom is freezy, and her family still uses a wobbly wooden toilet in the backyard, she will proudly add “But all are afraid of us!”
Leasing Federal Land to Big Oil is a Slippery Political Tightrope
Leasing Federal Land to Big Oil is a Slippery Political Tightrope
Environment Policy Brief #141 | By: Todd J. Broadman | May 5, 2022
Header photo taken from: The Washington Examiner
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more environmental policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: The Conversation
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
The Interior Department will put up for auction 144,000 acres of federal land to oil and gas companies. The Department says that this lease sale is actually scaled back by 80 percent of the original acreage slated for potential drilling. 90 percent of the land to be leased is located in Wyoming. In tandem with the sale, royalties paid to the federal government on any revenue that result from new drilling will go up from 12.5 percent to 18.75 percent.
Russia accounts for about 10 to 12 percent of global oil production. After Russia invaded Ukraine, a series of increasing economic sanctions were placed upon Russia. Less than 4 percent of U.S. oil comes from Russia, and therefore the Russian oil ban that Biden imposed at the beginning of March is of little consequence. The global price of oil though has spiked and has placed pressure on the administration to take action. The citizens are feeling it at the pump.
The action to open up more federal land to oil exploration is in direct variance to Biden’s 2020 campaign pledge: “no new oil and gas permitting on public lands and waters.” By the end of Biden’s first year in office, the total number of onshore oil and gas leases was 35,871, with 23,803 actively extracting oil. The bulk of them are located in the states of New Mexico, Wyoming, and Colorado. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages these leases and royalties, which in are in excess of $4 billion annually.
Meanwhile, the EU is far more dependent upon Russian oil. Approximately 40 percent of Germany’s demand is met by Russian production. In spite of their pledge to reduce imports by two-thirds by the end of 2022, the EU as a whole nearly doubled the value of their oil imports from Russia during March and April.
Many are questioning the sincerity of Biden’s commitment. “We urge the Biden administration to take advantage of this historic opportunity to make good on campaign promises, fulfill a global commitment to acting on climate, and serve American communities,” says Dan Ritzman, Lands Water Wildlife director at the Sierra Club, “by phasing out oil and gas production on public lands and oceans.” Although a moratorium on new fossil fuel leases is a nod in the right direction, researchers point more towards a sizable reduction on the demand side if CO2 reduction targets are to be met.
While consumer groups are complaining about prices at the pump, big oil lobbyists along the beltway have been more active in recent months. Koch Industries was the biggest influence peddler last quarter: spending nearly $3.3 million. They also said that they would be maintaining their operations in Ukraine. Occidental Petroleum and Exxon Mobil are also more active. The intensity of industry pressure led Jeremy Nichols, of WildEarth Guardians, to comment that “While the Biden administration talks a good talk on climate action, the reality is, they’re in bed with the oil and gas industry.”
Policy Analysis
A look at overall oil drilling and production locations in the U.S. reveal that 93 percent of fossil fuels are extracted from private rather than public federal land. This too puts the Biden commitment regarding federal lands in perspective. Even so, after Biden ordered the distribution of millions of barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Randi Spivak, of the Center for Biological Diversity, called the Administration’s actions “a reckless failure of climate leadership.”
This latest move, while viewed as a betrayal to environmentalists who voted for Biden, is also viewed as ineffective and weak by the petroleum industry. There is a gas price tipping point that will effectively stall the economy and increase unemployment.
Photo taken from: The Kansas Reflector
(click or tap to enlargen)
But given that active oil well production on a newly acquired land lease can take up to three years, there are effectively no real economic gains during Biden’s initial term to opening up federal lands. Given this reality, it is disappointing that the administration is not making much effort to decrease demand and alert the public that continued use of fossil fuel is a threat.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
https://wildearthguardians.org/ protects and restores the wildlife, wild places, wild rivers, and health of the American West.
https://www.sierraclub.org/ is the most enduring and influential grassroots environmental organization in the United States.
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/ works to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction.
Biden Administration Promotes New Changes in Student Loan Policies
Biden Administration Promotes New Changes in Student Loan Policies
Education Policy Brief #52 | By: Lynn Waldsmith | April 25, 2022
Header photo taken from: Politico
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more education policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Getty Images
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Being debt-free will soon be a dream come true for tens of thousands of borrowers, now that the Dept. of Education has announced it is taking steps to overhaul the federal student loan system. In addition, millions of borrowers will move one step closer to reaching that same dream.
Too many choices, complicated terms, misinformation from servicers – these are just some of the problems that have plagued federal student loan borrowers for years.
“Student loans were never meant to be a life sentence, but it’s certainly felt that way for borrowers locked out of debt relief they’re eligible for,” U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona said this month. “The Dept. of Education will begin to remedy years of administrative failures that effectively denied the promise of loan forgiveness to certain borrowers enrolled in IDR (Income-Driven Repayment) plans. These actions once again demonstrate the Biden-Harris administration’s commitment to delivering meaningful debt relief and ensuring federal student loan programs are administered fairly and effectively.”
The Education Dept. has previously taken action to cancel the debts of borrowers working in public service jobs, borrowers who become permanently disabled, and those who were defrauded by their college. In total, the Biden administration says it canceled $17 billion of debt for 725,000 borrowers.
Federal Student Aid (FSA) estimates the new administrative changes will result in immediate debt cancellation for at least 40,000 borrowers under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) Program. Several thousand borrowers with older loans will also receive forgiveness through IDR. And more than 3.6 million borrowers will receive at least three years of additional credit toward IDR forgiveness.
Policy Analysis
Forget credit card debt or car loans. Student loan debt is the second largest form of debt in the United States behind home mortgages, with the total exceeding $1.7 trillion. More than 40 million Americans are in debt for their education, and up to a quarter are in delinquency or default. The average balance is more than $30,000.
President Biden recently extended the payment pause on federal student loans again until September. During the pandemic, the pause has been prolonged six times over 24 months and spanned two presidencies. The Biden administration is facing great pressure regarding student loan forgiveness from members of his own party. During the 2020 campaign, Biden backed the forgiveness of $10,000 in student loan debt. Forgiving $10,000 for all borrowers with federally-backed loans would cost roughly $371 billion and erase the loans of about a third of all borrowers.
But several prominent Democrats, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) are urging him to enact broad-based cancellation of up to $50,000 via executive action, as opposed to legislation passed by Congress. In a recent letter sent to Biden and signed by Warren and other Dems, the argument made is that student loan forgiveness would boost the economy.
“Canceling a meaningful amount of student debt will provide long-term benefits to individuals and the economy, helping families buy their first homes, open a small business, or invest in their retirement,” the letter states.
In fact, according to a report released this month by Bankrate.com, 74 percent of Gen Z borrowers and 68 percent of millennials who took on student loan debt for their higher education delayed a major financial decision as a result of their debt. That’s significantly higher than it has been for older generations: About 54 percent of Gen X and 42 percent of baby boomer borrowers said they have delayed a major financial decision due to their student loan debt. Yet despite the financial burden of student loan debt, the new report shows that 59 percent of those say that higher education has improved their career opportunities or earning potential.
Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), another Democrat who signed the letter to Biden, argues that student loan forgiveness is “a matter of racial and economic justice” because of the disproportionate burden on borrowers of color.
But interpreting the data is complicated and controversial. According to the Brookings Institution, for example, nearly one-third of all student debt is owed by the wealthiest 20 percent of households, while the lowest 20 percent of income groups hold only 8 percent. It’s important to not only look at the amount borrowed however, but lifetime earning potential. Borrowers with advanced degrees, for example, stand to earn more wealth over time. Thus, borrowing for the exorbitant costs of medical or law school is more than made up for by the six-figure salaries that one can expect down the road.
Photo taken from: Yahoo
New research from the New York Fed concludes that tying student loan forgiveness to income requirements would help the largest number of debtors. The Fed researchers estimated the cost of two federal loan forgiveness proposals, one for $10,000 and another for $50,000. They found that limited forgiveness and placing income caps on who would be eligible would “distribute a larger share of benefits” to low-income borrowers while also reducing the cost of forgiveness overall.
“In general, we find that smaller student loan forgiveness policies distribute a larger share of benefits to lower credit score borrowers and to those that live in less wealthy and majority minority neighborhoods (relative to the share of balances they hold),” the report says. Increasing the forgiveness amount, “increases the share of total forgiven debt for higher credit score borrowers and those living in richer neighborhoods with a majority of white residents.”
In a recent interview, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said that canceling federal student loan debt is “still on the table”. However, some wonder, is it fair to offer student loan forgiveness when many people have paid off their student loans in good faith? Critics of canceling student loan debt make a compelling argument of fairness. And, it can be argued that simply canceling student loan debt does not get at the root of the problem itself — that the cost of higher education continues to go up.
For the most recent school year, the average cost of tuition and fees for a full-time undergraduate student at a four-year public in-state school was $10,740, according to the College Board. For out-of-state students, the cost was more than $27,000 while the average cost of a private nonprofit education was more than $38,000.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
U.S. Dept. of Education announcement to fix failures in student loan programs:
StudentAid.gov:
Letter to President Biden from prominent Dems re payment pause and cancellation of student loan debt:
New York Fed/Equifax Consumer Credit Panel research on student loan forgiveness:
Trends in College Pricing and Student Aid 2021:
https://research.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/trends-college-pricing-student-aid-2021.pdf
Gov. De Santis’ Right Wing War Continues With Signing of “Voter Fraud Office” Bill
Gov. De Santis’ Right Wing War Continues With Signing of “Voter Fraud Office” Bill
Civil Rights Policy Brief #187 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | April 2022
Header photo taken from: Rolling Stone
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more civil rights policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: WUSF
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
On April 25, 2022 Governor Ron De Santis of Florida signed Senate Bill 524 which, among a number of things, creates a new Office of Election Crimes and Security as a new unit in Florida’s Department of State. The new office will be charged with overseeing elections but more specifically will review fraud allegations and conduct preliminary investigations into those allegations. A special subset of law enforcement officers from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement will be specially appointed by the Governor to provide support into investigating alleged election law violations. The Florida Legislature budgeted $1.1 million dollars to fund 15 newly created positions to staff the new office. The bill passed the Republican controlled Florida Legislature by a 24 – 14 vote in the Florida Senate and a 76 – 41 vote in the Florida House, mostly along party lines. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis
Governor Ron De Santis’ right wing war in Florida continues.
Governor De Santis had just recently been in the news for his support of controversial education and anti – LGBQT bills and now the Republican Governor of the third largest state in the Union has done it for all the wrong reasons again. Despite numerous investigations and reports that have determined that voting fraud in the United States is exceedingly rare, Gov. De Santis has decided to ignore that. The Governor, as well as a number of other prominent Republican politicians, have now embraced a favored Republican talking point – that individual states and the United States is under attack due to elections that are not secure and vulnerable to tampering and manipulation.
The reason for this stems directly from former President Donald Trump’s claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him. Since then, Republicans have clung to the President’s self – serving lie and Republican politicians have made it their rallying cry and a point of emphasis when they engage with their supporters. But research suggests that voter fraud is nearly non – existent and that the bill in Florida is simply political grandstanding to put forth a solution to a problem that does not exist.
Earlier this month Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, issued his long awaited report into the 2022 election in Arizona and found no evidence of widespread voter fraud or irregularities. The report also confirmed Joe Biden’s victory over Donald Trump in the state.
The report is significant because Republicans tried to pressure officials in the state to conclude there was widespread voter fraud but Attorney General Brnovich pushed back and instead stated there was no widespread voter fraud in the state although certain systems had vulnerabilities and could be strengthened. And the Associated Press (AP) last year conducted an investigation in six battleground states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) and found approximately 400 allegations of voter fraud out of a total of 25.5 million votes cast. That is less than 1/2 of 1 percent of those votes cast and the AP concluded that the incidents were isolated and “there was no widespread, coordinated deceit.
Photo taken from: Joe Raedle / Getty Images
(click or tap to enlargen)
What does this mean for the new Office of Election Crimes and Security in Florida? What is clear is that this new stunt by Governor De Santis is purely political and only necessary to boost his standing and election chances in future elections. Governor De Santis is looking to appeal to a small subset of Republican voters even if the facts underlying Trump’s lie about voter fraud have been shown to be false. But for voters in Florida the new office is being viewed as a new bullying and intimidation tactic that Republicans might wield against minority voters.
Voters might end up thinking twice about exercising their legitimate right to vote (maybe even register to vote) if the consequences for inadvertent or paperwork mistakes might cause law enforcement officers to pay a visit to their homes. And the use of officers from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement might lead some of those officers to conduct more invasive personal inquiries using databases that law enforcement officers use for more serious crimes. What Gov. De Santis has done is send a message that allegations of voting fraud will be considered a serious crime on par with serious felonies. It sounds like De Santis and his cronies in Florida are instead looking to dissuade uncertain people and people of color from voting instead of trying to remove obstacles and make the voting process as smooth as it can be for Florida’s residents.
This new voting law is an embarrassment and does nothing to promote free and fair elections in the United States’ third largest state. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Brennan Center for Justice – non – profit group’s report on the false narrative of voter fraud.
Brookings Institution – group’s report showing that mail in ballots do not increase voter fraud.
DeSantisLand
DeSantisLand
Elections and Politics Policy Brief #34 | By: Abran C | April 28, 2022
Header photo taken from: Conservative Grounds
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more elections & politics policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Huffpost
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Florida governor Ron DeSantis has been making headlines once again for a series of controversial bills that have been signed into law in the sunshine state. Policies ranging from House Bill 1557 or as opponents call it the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, a ban on abortion after 15 weeks, the “Stop Woke Act”, and a new Florida election police force, demonstrate that DeSantis has sped up his increasingly authoritarian style of governing.
This month the highly controversial, “Don’t Say Gay” bill was signed into law, its aim is to limit LGBTQ discussion in schools. The law bans instruction or classroom discussion on LGBTQ issues for students in kindergarten through third grade. Sex education is already been banned in Florida (as in many states) until the fifth grade. The bill could also take away a school’s ability to serve students who might not feel comfortable talking to their parents about their gender orientation or sexuality.
Gay rights groups have sued the state of Florida over the law, arguing that it violates the constitutionally protected right to free speech, equal protection, and due process of students. After much outcry, Disney one of Florida’s most powerful companies also spoke out in opposition to the law, DeSantis responded by passing a law stripping the special tax status the company enjoyed in the state for the past 50 years.
Governor DeSantis in mid-April 2022, signed a bill banning abortions in Florida after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The bill makes Florida the latest Republican-led state to advance new bans on access to abortion for women. States have jumped to begin creating their own bans on abortion as a Supreme Court decision on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban nears. In total, 23 states have now passed laws that would clamp down on abortion access should the Supreme Court rewrite abortion law or even overturn Roe v. Wade. Even if the Supreme Court’s ruling doesn’t completely overturn the constitutional right to abortion, but allows Mississippi’s 15-week ban to stand, we can expect another wave of anti-choice legislation next year.
The “Stop Woke Act” bill which is set to go into effect July 1, 2022, is aimed at limiting how schools, colleges, and businesses discuss the issues of race, sexism, and privilege. The bill is a response to the Republican Party’s outrage over critical race theory. The law prohibits workplace training or school instruction that teaches that individuals are “inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously”; that people are privileged or oppressed based on race, gender, or national origin; or that a person “bears personal responsibility for and must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress” over actions committed by members of the same race, gender, or national origin in the past. The law states that such trainings or teachings amount to discrimination.
Most recently, on April 25, 2022, DeSantis signed a sweeping voting rights overhaul bill that establishes a new election police force. The new police force would give his administration a new way to probe election crimes. This move has made Florida one of the first states to enact such a move on election fraud. Election fraud is an increasingly rare occurrence, yet it is something that has become an animating issue for Republicans and former President Donald Trump who claim that the 2020 election was stolen.
Policy Analysis
DeSantis is up for reelection as governor this year and is considering a 2024 presidential run. His actions are clearly an attempt to make headlines, and build his credentials with the far-right voting base that now constitutes the majority of the republican party. The more controversial the bill, the more time he is given in the spotlight. The Florida governor has shown little interest in governing in an effective manner and instead consistently proposes and passes bills which feed into the culture war narratives being pushed by the Republican party at any given time.
Each of the bills are facing challenges in courts, but this has done nothing to slow DeSantis’ push towards an authoritarian style of rule in Florida. A style of rule where he alone has the power to ban anything from discussion of LGBTQ issues, to the Walt Disney company’s special tax status, to possible election outcomes that he feels are not in his favor. The new laws passed will certainly be harmful and effect those already most marginalized in society namely, people of color, those in the LGBTQ community, and women. To DeSantis they may seem more like a small sacrifice in order to win the favor of the republican base and secure political power for himself.
Photo taken from: The New York Times
(click or tap to enlargen)
Animal Thrives on Facebook
Animal Thrives on Facebook
Technology Policy Brief #58 | By: JA Angelo | April 22, 2022
Header photo taken from: World Wildlife (.org)
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more technology policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Christian Science Monitor
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
With the discovery of the internet, the illegal sale of wildlife became even more popular around the world. Some of the more popular animals and animal parts poachers sold included elephant ivory, tiger cubs, rhino horns, and pangolin scales.
It wasn’t until 2018 when Facebook, now known as Meta, partnered with the World Wildlife Fund to create The Coalition to End Wildlife Trafficking Online. The mission of this coalition is to reduce illegal wildlife trafficking by 80% within two years. However, a recent study discovered cheetahs, elephant tusks, tiger cubs, and other endangered species on Facebook rather easily. One Facebook page depicting a pangolin in a cage and various illegal animal trafficking keywords as the page’s title. Some of these pages and groups blatantly show phone numbers and other poachers contact details.
The minimal effort it took for these researchers to locate these pages illustrates that Facebook’s algorithms do not align with its policies or social responsibility to deter wildlife trafficking. “Instead of using the data to help combat wildlife trafficking, their algorithms instead help criminals grow their business,” said Gretchen Peters, executive director of the Alliance to Counter Crime Online. Instead of addressing the issue, Meta went on the defensive against the researchers by questioning the validity of the study and its results.
Policy Analysis
A Meta spokesperson said: “We’ve pioneered technology to help us find and remove this content; launched pop-up alerts to discourage people from participating in this trade.” The spokesperson makes it appear that there is little Meta can do to prevent such events from occurring.
However, looking at the success of tagging “misinformation” during the events leading up to the 2020 presidential election, anyone can safely and accurately come to the conclusion that Meta does not take wildlife trafficking seriously. In fact, we can assume that the company supports wildlife trafficking.
Likewise, hunting-related content on Facebook results in an algorithm flagging the content as “inappropriate” or banning the poster’s account.
This is surprising to some given Mark Zuckerberg is an avid game hunter. He is seen in various photos hunting wild boar with a spear and other game with a crossbow.
Photo taken from: The Times
This, again, is an indication that Meta is capable of doing better at creating algorithms to detect, flag, and ban accounts that attempt to post information on wildlife trafficking and trophy hunting.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
The World Wildlife Fund is an international organization created in 1961 after the destruction of habitats and wildlife in East Africa. It’s first establishments included the United States, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland.
The World Wildlife Fund assisted the United States by leading conservation projects in Alaska, and the northern Great Plains. The international organization has assisted in conservation efforts around the world. Some of the organizations earliest animal conservation projects included the bald eagle, the Hawaiian sea bird, and the red wolf.
Some international projects included those of lions, elephants, primates, and pandas. World Wildlife Fund efforts also have included creating conservation areas and national parks. The organization also has done work to protect the oceans and endangered species of fish. The World Wildlife Fund lobbied on Capital Hill advocating for the North American Free Trade Agreement, which is the first trade convention that addresses the environment.
The Effects of The War in Ukraine on Russian Athletes
The Effects of The War in Ukraine on Russian Athletes
Foreign Policy Brief #154 | By: Reilly Fitzgerald | April 24, 2022
Header photo taken from: football-españa (.net)
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more foreign policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: bharatjournal (.com)
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
The war in Ukraine has affected many people throughout Europe either directly as participants or indirectly as citizens impacted by loss or violence, or by being impacted by sanctions. In a previous Brief, I wrote about how the sports world rallied against Russian and Belarussian athletes and banned them from major sporting events and leagues, such as the FIFA World Cup. This year’s Boston Marathon can be added to the list of events banning these athletes, as well.
The latest controversy regarding Russian athletes is the Wimbledon tennis tournament, in England, banning Russian athletes in accordance with UK guidelines. The ban on these athletes includes many of the world’s top male and female players such as Daniil Medvedev and Aryna Sabalenka. According to Al Jazeera, the last time Wimbledon banned players based on their countries was during World War II when they banned German and Japanese athletes.
Policy Analysis
The UK government is in full support of excluding athletes from Russia as part of a larger effort to alienate the Russian government and the citizens of Russia as punishment for their unjust and inhumane war in Ukraine. However, some of the athlete associations are asking if there is a better way to tackle this issue rather than having a blanket ban on all Russians and Belarussians.
The larger question regarding the banning of Russian and Belarussian athletes is, should it apply to athletes who openly oppose the war and/or Vladimir Putin? An interesting example is Andrey Rublev. He wrote “No War Please” on a TV camera lens after advancing to the final match of the Dubai Championship. Is this sort of outward expression of anti-war sentiment something to be considered when banning athletes from sports based on the actions of their governmental leaders?
Currently, the ban is staying in place. Even with criticism of it coming from high-profile players like Novak Djokovic, who earlier in the season got into trouble in Australia for fighting against their vaccination mandate, he feels as though the ban on Russian and Belarussian players is ‘crazy’, according to CNN.
Top Russian player Daniil Medvedev has warned that if he speaks out against Russian President Vladimir Putin, he is concerned that his family will be at-risk in Russia.
Photo taken from: Getty Images
(click or tap to enlargen)
Putin and his cronies have a history of coming after citizens who speak out against him and his regime, and not all of these are political opposition leaders like Alexander Navalny. Putin has had everyday citizens arrested for attending anti-war protests at the start of his war in Ukraine, he has arrested people throughout his time in charge for disobeying his rule and criticizing his laws, such as the band Pussy Riot which has been arrested multiple times for protesting his anti-LGBTQ laws.
The ideas around having athletes renounce their leader in exchange for being able to participate in global sports tournaments is not a terrible one. Putin perhaps values nothing more than his self-image and the national image of Russia; allowing athletes to participate in exchange for their voice being added against him could be a short-term solution.
Though, the athletes and their sporting federations would need to figure out how to protect family members in Russia while this occurred. One would also have to ensure that their statements of renunciation were not disingenuous as well. Another idea to consider also is what happens after this war ends? If Ukraine and the West are successful, do they allow these Russian players to represent a country that has caused the worst humanitarian crisis since World War II to compete or do we continue with these boycotts?
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
BBC Ukraine Crisis
(https://www.bbc.com/sport/60568139)
Statement Regarding Russian and Belarusian Individuals at The Championships 2022, Wimbledon (https://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/news/articles/2022-04-20/statement_regarding_russian_and_belarusian_individuals_at_the_championships_2022.html)
The New Composition of the Supreme Court
The New Composition of the Supreme Court
Elections and Politics Policy Brief #33 | By: Inijah Quadri | April 19, 2022
Header photo taken from: Twitter
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more elections and politics policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: The Lily
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
The Supreme Court is composed of nine justices. The newest justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, was appointed by President Biden on February 25, 2022. This brief discusses how the composition of the Supreme Court has changed over time, and what the implications of its new makeup are for the future of our democracy.
Policy Analysis
The United States Supreme Court is in the midst of a historic transformation. Justices Anthony Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy, have either retired or passed away in the past few years, opening up seats on the high court for the first time in a while. This has led to significant changes in the composition of the court and has dramatically shifted its ideological landscape. These changes are having significant impact on the way the court handles cases.
There are now more conservative justices than liberal. Anthony Scalia’s death left the court with a four to four split between conservatives and liberals. The addition of Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and
Ketanji Brown Jackson will leave the court with at least a 5 to 4 conservative/liberal split and a possible 6-3 split depending on what Justice Roberts does; he usually votes conservative.
Additionally, this ideological shift has been fueled by a focus on partisan politics as a driving force in the nominating process. The politicization of the nomination process started in 2016 when Republican Senator Mitch McConnell withheld having the Senate vote on President Obama’s pick of Merrick Garland to be a Supreme Court judge.
The Supreme Court often is no longer seen as an impartial arbiter of the law, but instead as another tool for advancing a political agenda. This change in how the court is perceived has had a negative impact on its legitimacy and authority.
The Current Justices
Two current justices of the Supreme Court – Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan – were appointed by former President Barack Obama and are considered liberal-leaning justices. They have often been in disagreement with the conservative justices – John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito – appointed by former President George W. Bush, and in agreement with Stephen Breyer (who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton).
With the recent appointments of Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett by President Donald Trump, the ideological balance on the court has shifted to the right, which is likely to result in more conservative decisions.
Photo taken from: Reddit
(click or tap to enlargen)
The New Justices
As we just mentioned, there were the recent appointments of Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett by President Donald Trump in 2017, 2018, and 2020 respectively.
Another new justice is Ketanji Brown Jackson. Jackson’s appointment will take the position of Stephen Breyer, when he retires in June. Jackson, who is African-American, and the first black woman to be appointed to the supreme court, brings much-needed court room experience to the bench. Jackson is a graduate of Harvard Law School. During her time on the bench, Jackson gained a reputation for being tough on crime but also fair and compassionate. She has also been active in promoting diversity and opportunity in her community.
The Political Landscape
The political landscape of the Supreme Court refers to the ideological make-up of the court and how it affects the decisions that are made. Since the court is made up of justices who are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, the political landscape can be affected by which party is in power. For example, if a Democrat is president and nominates a liberal justice, then the court will become more liberal.
As we can see from our analysis above, we currently have more justices on seats that have been put there by Republican presidents (Bush and Trump) than by Democrat presidents (Clinton, Obama and Biden).
The Future of the Court
The future of the Supreme Court is difficult to predict. Having more liberal or more conservative justices could lead to a number of 5-4 right word leading decisions. However, there is always the possibility that a justice could retire or die, which could lead to a more liberal or conservative court, depending on which president is currently in power.
Final Thoughts
In conclusion, if Democrats continue to hold the presidency and a majority in the Senate, we may see an addition of liberal justices. This could have a major impact on rulings made in the future, particularly with regard to hot-button topics such as abortion and gun control. The court could very easily, if it keeps its conservative majority, uphold state level abortion law bans, voting right restrictions, and the dismissal of LGBTQ rights . Such court rulings could very easily help subvert democracy.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Supreme Court of the United States (https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx)
Russia’s Celebrities Leave the Country Because of the War in Ukraine
Russia’s Celebrities Leave the Country Because of the War in Ukraine
Foreign Policy Brief #153 | By: Yelena Korshunov | April 19, 2022
Header photo taken from: Twitter
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more foreign policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: kp.ru
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
“I see yapping about those who left – Alla, Maxim, Chulpan, Zemfira … It’s Russia that left you. Because Russia is them, not you,” Andrey Makarevich, the legendary Russian singer, said on his personal blog. After February 24th, 2022, when Putin’s army invaded Ukraine with a bloody violent war, a number of top Russia’s celebrities left the country. Their destination is the USA, Israel, Latvia, Germany, and the other places where they feel safe to speak about their disagreement with the war and call for peace.
Andrey Makarevich, whose dad fought for freedom during World War II, was a Russian dissident in the 70s. He was dismissed from the Moscow Architecture Institute for playing rock music. However, he continued to play it underground, which was dangerous in the USSR at that time. Makarevich and his Israeli wife live now in Israel where Andrey recently became a happy father. After his new statements, I doubt that he will return to Russia while Putin’s regime rules the country.
Popular Russian comedian and TV host Maxim Galkin left Russia for Israel with his wife, legendary pop star Alla Pugacheva, and their two kids. Although Maxim and Alla didn’t talk about their long-term plans, on the first days of the war Galkin said on his Instagram blog “From early morning in touch with relatives and friends from Ukraine! Can’t put into words how I feel! How is this possible?! There can be no justification for war! No war!” Later, he posted a video for his Instagram followers where he said “I am asked by my dear subscribers to continue to lead Instagram, as I did before. With funny videos with children, with humorous content. I don’t see any spiritual and moral opportunity to do this, so for now, neither Instagram nor the new Telegram channel that I started will be the same as it was before February 24th.” His life, like many others’, was divided into “before” and “after” when the war in Ukraine began.
Russian actress and founder of the “Podari Zhizn” (Gift a Life) Foundation, Chulpan Khamatova, left Russia for Latvia with her two daughters due to the Russian military invasion of Ukraine. Chulpan spoke about it in an interview with a journalist Ekaterina Gordeeva, adding that she was afraid to return to Russia so as not to “lose her conscience” and “not go to jail” under a new criminal code article about “discrediting” the army. According to Khamatova, in order to return to Russia and not go to jail, she had two options.
“The first is to stop talking about what is this war and what is this tragedy, not to pay attention to what I see with my own eyes, and to the information that I receive from my Ukrainian friends,” she says. “Lie to yourself, lie to the whole world, live not by the truth. This is at best if they don’t force black to be called white,” Khamatova believes. The second way out, according to Chulpan, is to apologize for the fact that she did not support the start of the military operation:
“Well, further down the list, how to play by the rules of the game that will be dictated to me.” On February 25th, Chulpan Khamatova publicly spoke out against the war in Ukraine and called for an end to hostilities. Her signature also appears under the appeal of Russia’s cultural figures against the war.
Policy Analysis
Russian celebrities who have left the country often have been criticized. However, they feel brave to speak out loud protesting against the war. They consciously left the country where they had public acknowledgement and great profit. As opposed to them, there are Russian celebrities who stayed in the country passionately supporting the “special operation” in Ukraine as the war is officially called in Russia. There are also others, such as a famous opera soprano Anna Netrebko who tried to sit on two chairs. She kept silent about her attitude toward the war until she lost work in the US and Europe over her ties to the Russian president and her vague position, but then spoke out and has been called a traitor.
“I have taken some time to reflect because I think the situation is too serious to comment on without really giving it thought,” she said. “First of all, I am opposed to this war. I am Russian and I love my country but I have many friends in Ukraine and the pain and suffering right now breaks my heart. I want this war to end and for people to be able to live in peace. This is what I hope and pray for. I want to add, however, that forcing artists, or any public figure to voice their political opinions in public and to denounce their homeland is not right. This should be a free choice. I am not a political person. I am not an expert in politics. I am an artist and my purpose is to unite across political divides.”
Photos taken from:
gazlive.kz and kino.24tv.ua
Today, when Russia drops down the rusty iron curtain and freedom of speech doesn’t exist anymore, public people who made their sparkling career in this country face a choice of staying in the kingdom that goes back to the dark ages of a neo-stalinism, lie, aggression, and threats, or leaving their homeland for the free world where they will have a luxury to say “No war.”
SEC Proposes Climate Change-related Corporate Disclosure Requirements
SEC Proposes Climate Change-related Corporate Disclosure Requirements
Environmental Policy Brief #140 | By: Stephen Thomas | April 19, 2022
Header photo taken from: Time
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more environmental policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Andrew Kelly / Reuters
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
The administration of President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Vice President Kamala D. Harris is attempting to hold public corporations accountable for their impacts on global warming, ensuring in the process that investors know whether the firms in which they have a financial stake are taking climate change seriously.
In support of this overarching goal, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission will accept public comments via the Federal Register through May 20, 2022, on its notice of proposed rulemaking. If the proposed rule becomes a part of the Code of Federal Regulations, it “would require registrants to provide certain climate-related information in their registration statements and annual reports,” according to an April 11 notice. Specifically, according to the notice, registrants would be required to provide “information about [their] climate-related risks that are reasonably likely to have a material impact on its business, results of operations, or financial condition,” such as “a registrant’s greenhouse gas emissions, which have become a commonly used metric to assess a registrant’s exposure to such risks.”
Policy Analysis
The proposed rule passed the four-member commission March 21 by a 3-1 vote, with Commissioner Hester M. Peirce the dissenter.
“I am pleased to support today’s proposal because, if adopted, it would provide investors with consistent, comparable, and decision-useful information for making their investment decisions, and it would provide consistent and clear reporting obligations for issuers,” SEC Chairman Gary Gensler said in a March 21 statement that announced the forthcoming rulemaking. “Our core bargain from the 1930s is that investors get to decide which risks to take, as long as public companies provide full and fair disclosure and are truthful in those disclosures.”
“Today,” Gensler continued, “investors representing literally tens of trillions of dollars support climate-related disclosures because they recognize that climate risks can pose significant financial risks to companies, and investors need reliable information about climate risks to make informed investment decisions … Today’s proposal thus is driven by the needs of investors and issuers.”
The regulated community should have expected the proposed rule since Oct. 15, 2021, when the administration released what it called “a comprehensive, government-wide strategy to measure, disclose, manage and mitigate the systemic risks climate change poses to American families, businesses, and the economy…”
The administration further announced in its Oct. 15 statement that the SEC staff “is developing recommendations to the Commission for a mandatory disclosure rule for public issuers that is intended to bring greater clarity to investors about the material risks and opportunities that climate change poses to their investments.” Today, the staff’s work is reflected in the proposed climate-risk rule.
Photo taken from:
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
(click or tap to enlargen)
Registrants will raise any number of issues in their public comments. Commissioner Peirce, an appointee of President Donald Trump, in her own statement opposing the proposed rule, raised the universal compliance question: What will compliance cost? Indeed, Peirce points out what she believes are salient missing links in the proposal, among them a “reasonable estimate of costs to companies.” Peirce also asserts that the commission lacks the “authority to propose this rule” and that existing regulations already require “disclosure of the material effects that compliance with environmental regulations may have on capital expenditures…”
The disclosure regimen proposed in the Federal Register now is based on the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures, (TCFD) according to the notice, in which the SEC also states that “we believe that proposing rules based on the TCFD framework may facilitate achieving this balance between eliciting better disclosure and limiting compliance costs.” The TCFD is a product of the Financial Stability Board, a self-described “international body that monitors and makes recommendations about the global financial system.”
The rule is not in effect yet, of course; nevertheless, there are public corporations—as justifiably cost-conscious as they may be—that are already aboard with what the SEC in particular and the Biden-Harris administration more broadly are trying to do. IBM is one example.
In its Environmental, Social, and Governance Report for 2021, released April 12, IBM stated that the corporation was “inspired” by the TCFD. The corporation’s report reads, in part, “IBM does not expect climate change or compliance with environmental laws and regulations focused on climate change to have a disproportionate effect on the company or its financial position, results of operations, and competitive position. Conversely, we believe that there is opportunity to use IBM’s AI, hybrid cloud, and other technologies to assist clients with managing their climate-related risks…”
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Federal Register Climate Change Disclosure Notice
Federal Register: The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors
SEC release quoting Chair Gensler
SEC.gov | SEC Proposes Rules to Enhance and Standardize Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors
Peirce dissent
SEC.gov | We are Not the Securities and Environment Commission – At Least Not Yet
Administration’s October face sheet
IBM’s Environmental, social, and governance report for 2021
IBM’s news release on its report
What is the TCFD?
About | Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) (fsb-tcfd.org)
Trans Rights Are Human Rights, But State Legislatures Say Otherwise
Trans Rights Are Human Rights, But State Legislatures Say Otherwise
Social Justice Policy Brief #37 | By: Alexandra Ellis | April 19, 2022
Header photo taken from: NBC
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more social justice policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: WCAX
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
2022 is the year of unprecedented anti-trans-legislation. The question becomes, why? It seems every day conservative media is reporting a new anti-trans bill being introduced in State legislatures. No one is saved from this debate: including parents of LQBTQIA+ youth and multinational corporations like Disney.
Policy Analysis
In 2016, North Carolina passed the controversial HB2 legislation (also called the “Bathroom Bill”) in a special legislative secession. HB2 restricted transgender individuals’ ability to use public restrooms that corresponded with their gender identity. Rather, HB2 required individuals to utilize the bathroom that matched the sex that they were assigned at birth on their birth-certificate. In other words, HB2 limited the movement of trans-individuals and made it against the law to use a bathroom that they were not assigned at birth – making it impossible to live out their gender identity.
The passage of HB2 generated public outrage, and many corporations and celebrities protested the bill. Though still codified, the bill is without teeth due to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
In the ACLU’s lawsuit, Carcaño v. Cooper (2018) (formerly Carcaño v. McCrory), the ACLU won a preliminary injunction to HB2 as the ACLU argued that HB2 violated the 14th amendment (which protects individuals from discrimination on the basis of sex and gender). In September of 2018, NC District Court also agreed with the ACLU’s plaintiffs that the law likely violated a Charlotte City Council’s ordinance, “making it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of “marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, [and] gender expression.” See Carcano v. Cooper at 3; (Doc. 127 at 12–13 (alteration in original); see also Doc. 210 ¶ 200.).
Following the ACLU victory against HB2 came the Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton Cnty. (2020), where the Supreme Court found that sex is an included term protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 140 S. Ct. 1731. This meant that the Court recognized that sex discrimination is outlawed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, the case centered on employers who fired or let go of long-standing employees once they came out as either homosexual or transgender. The Court said the termination an individual because of “sex or gender” alone violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act because Title VII prohibits all forms of discrimination pertaining to sex and sex’s various manifestation (such as sexual orientation or gender identity in this case).
Now in 2022, the year of historic anti-trans legislations, conversative led state governments continue to try to limit transgender rights. As of March 20, 2022, 238 anti-trans legislation bills have been brought forward in state legislatures. Themes of anti-tans bills vary from limitation on trans-individuals to play in high school and collegiate sports, limiting gender affirming care, bathroom use, a child’s ability to be “out” in a classroom, to a K-12 teacher’s ability to refuse to use a child’s chosen pronouns.
However, the most prominent, and copied bill across state legislatures is called “Save Women’s Sports Act,” which limits trans athletes ability to play in high school or collegiate level sports. In fact, since the start of 2022, fourteen states have brought forward a copy-cat or similar “Save Women’s Sports Act”. These states include Kansas, Arizona, Alaska, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, Utah, Oklahoma, Minnesota, and Delaware. These bill aims to amend state codes relating to the correctness of biological sex from official birth certificates of students before students are designated and allowed to play on female teams.
These bills state that students who are assigned male at birth may not play on female sport teams but that individuals assigned female at birth may play on male sport teams. The purpose of this legislation is to discriminate on the basis of sex.
Photo taken from:Ringo Chiu / Reuters
These Bills may have come as backlash from Lia Thomas’s 2022 win at the NCAA Women’s Division I of the 500- yard freestyle swimming event. In an exclusive interview before the event, Sports Illustrated wrote that Lia Thomas has “become a right-wing obsession, a regular topic of discussion on Fox News. Conservative opinion sites have called her a man and deadnamed her, purposely using the name she went by before transitioning.” Right-wing obsession of Lea Thomas’s story and “Save Women’s Sports Bills” has been reported on by MSNCB as connected to dark money, and a strategy to wedge the American vote.
Furthermore, Sport Illustrated reported that hateful comments and threats of violence to Lia Thomas’s life have been so persistent and awful that “During a training trip early this year in Florida, the [Penn] school’s swimmers were asked by coaches not to wear their school gear lest they make themselves targets. The university’s social media handlers have turned off comments on some posts that mention” Lia Thomas as well. Hateful comments on BBC’s reporting of Lia Thomas’ win also sparked conversation about using biology as reasoning to discriminate – similarly in eugenics. One commentor wrote, “Women have uterus’s, produce eggs, have periods, PMS, can reproduce, lactate…compared to a biological man.” This comment and comments of similar nature to this ignore that some individuals assigned female at birth are born without uteruses, are not able to reproduce, will never have periods, or experience PMS. The anti-trans arguments based on biological sex, sex characteristics, and scientific defense of gender attributes is very much an arbitrary defense to advocating for discrimination based on sex. It is a fear-based response very similar to the “scientific” defense of Jim Crow laws in the south, which promoted legal de jure segregation based on race and such Jim Crow laws have been discounted and these scientific thoughts have been abandoned.
Additionally, national anti-trans violence is at an all-time high. Even citizens in the sleepiest corners of America, like liberal Morriston, VT, are not immune to the messaging of calls for anti-trans legislation. The Vermont Digger reported on April 13, 2022, of Fern Feather’s tragic death by homicide. Fern Feather, a resident of Heinsberg, Vermont, was found killed in Morriston, Vermont on Wednesday morning by Vermont police. In response to the Fern’s death, Vermont Governor Phil Scott condemned the hostility towards the transgender community.
In a speech, Governor Scott said, “[e]xploiting fear and targeting divisive rhetoric at people who are just trying to be who they are is hateful and can lead to violence.” The decisive rhetoric of the anti-trans movement that has taken foothold is leading to real violence against the LBTQIA+ community. Yet, there does not seem to be as much celebrity or corporate commendation of the anti-trans movement as there was back in 2016 – with individuals speaking out against NC’s HB2.
For example, it took a multinational walk out of Walt Disney’s LBTQIA+ employees for the CEO of Disney, Bob Chapek, to speak out against Florida’s HB 1157, “Parental Rights in Education” bill (dubbed colloquially the “Don’t Say Gay Bill”). In an open letter, employees of the Walt Disney Corporation said that the company’s stance against the bill has “utterly failed to match the magnitude of the threat to LGBTQIA+ safety.” The Walt Disney Corporation has considerable influence in the Florida legislature. In fact, the Disney corporation is cited as contributing 4.8 million to the Florida 2020 election cycle. As a result, journalists, employees, and fans of the Disney Corporation have criticized the company’s lack of advocacy against the bill, describing the behavior of the company as “disheartening”.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
To watch for Anti- Trans legislation, go to https://freedomforallamericans.org/legislative-tracker/anti-transgender-legislation/.
To learn more about Walt Disney’s employee walk-out because of the Don’t Say Gay bill listen to NPR podcast: https://www.npr.org/2022/03/22/1088048998/disney-walkout-dont-say-gay-bill.
To learn about how to have tough conversations about trans-rights, watch ACLU’s https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/your-guide-to-talking-about-attacks-on-trans-youth.
To get involved with dismantling Anti – Trans legislation follow ACLU’s efforts to challenge laws and consider taking a pledge to support trans youth or donate to the cause at: https://action.aclu.org/petition/take-pledge-support-trans-youth-now.