Time for Fernandes Anderson to do the ‘right thing'
Advertisement
And she remains a source of embarrassment to at least some of her council colleagues, who have attempted to encourage her departure with a
Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
After all, what kind of 'credibility' is there for a councilor who
At the time of Fernandes Anderson's
Advertisement
Under a 2012
Fernandes Anderson's sentencing is set for
Meanwhile, Councilors Erin Murphy and Ed Flynn have tried repeatedly to have council members at least pass a resolution expressing their own ethical concerns about Fernandes Anderson's continued presence on the council. But they can't even get a vote on the matter.
'The resolution I filed with Councilor Flynn isn't about forcing anyone out — it's about taking a stand,'
Why indeed. There is something to be said for public shaming, which is essentially what Murphy and Flynn are proposing.
And if Fernandes Anderson needs a reminder of just how egregious her conduct was and why her presence on the council ought to be a continuing source of embarrassment to all, there was the rather candid assessment offered by
'Councilor Fernandes Anderson abused her position of trust for personal gain and turned a public checkbook into her own private slush fund. Her constituents deserve better than this. They deserve a city representative who respects the role of public service and does not use the power and position to line her own pockets.'
Advertisement
It's time for Fernandes Anderson to do the right thing.
Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Pennsylvania Senator aims to codify abortion rights into law with new bills
PENNSYLVANIA (WTAJ) — A Pennsylvania Senator is aiming to protect abortion and women's health rights in the Commonwealth, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's (SCOTUS) decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health as a driving factor. The case was heard and struck down by SCOTUS in June 2022, when Roe v. Wade was overturned. More specifically, the decision concerning Dobbs declared that the U.S. Constitution confers no right to an abortion. Senator Judith Schwank (D-Berks) argued that this decision has led to total or near-total bans on abortion in many states in her newest legislation. Nearly one in three women aged 15 to 44 live in states where abortion is banned or mostly banned, according to Schwank's bill. Because of this, women are being denied 'urgent, and in some cases livesaving, medical care.' 'While we cannot prevent other states from criminalizing abortion, we can protect individuals seeking and providing reproductive health services in the Commonwealth,' Schwank wrote. 'We can take a stance against the use of our criminal justice system from assisting in those prosecutions.' Previously, former Governor Tom Wolf issued an executive order to protect persons seeking reproductive health care services in Pennsylvania and medical professionals offering those services from discipline in other states. However, the executive order needs paired legislation in order to be codified into law, which is what Schwank argued she is attempting to do. There are seven bills within Schwank's package, and they aim to do the following: Prohibit Pennsylvania courts from cooperating with out-of-state civil and criminal cases involving reproductive healthcare services; prevent officials from other states from arresting individuals in Pennsylvania for an abortion-related crime. Prohibit Pennsylvania courts from enforcing another state's judgment for a case involving the provision of reproductive healthcare services. Instruct our healthcare licensure boards not to take adverse action against providers who offer reproductive healthcare services to out-of-state residents. Instruct insurance companies not to take adverse action against providers who offer reproductive healthcare services to out-of-state residents. Protect Pennsylvania's abortion providers' home addresses from public discovery. Protect reproductive health care records from disclosure in Pennsylvania civil actions or criminal investigations. Shield healthcare providers by allowing doctors to request that only the address of the dispensing health care practice be listed on prescription labels, omitting the name of the individual prescriber or clinic. Schwank noted that the measures outlined in her package of bills would ensure that everybody within Pennsylvania borders is protected in their right to access an abortion and the doctors and nurses who provide it are freely able to do so. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Fox News
6 hours ago
- Fox News
EXCLUSIVE: Legal institute celebrates SCOTUS decision, declares 'religious liberty is alive and well'
EXCLUSIVE: A legal organization whose mission it is to defend the religious liberty of Americans has called the Supreme Court's 9-0 ruling in favor of the Catholic Charities Bureau (CCB) "a huge moment for religious liberty in America," and a clear rejection of government overreach into religious life. "This was not a hard call," Tiffany Dunkin, a legal fellow and attorney with the First Liberty Institute, emphasized in an interview with Fox News Digital, citing Thursday's unanimous SCOTUS decision to strike down Wisconsin's attempt to withhold a religious tax exemption because the CCB does not proselytize or serve only Catholics. "What Wisconsin was doing… they were saying that the Catholic Charities was not a religious institution because they did not proselytize or serve people of their own faith," Dunkin explained. "What they were doing was deciding what it means to be religious," she added. "And the First Amendment prohibits the government from doing that." The case, Catholic Charities Bureau Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, questioned whether faith-based nonprofits that provide public services are "religious enough" to receive the same benefits as churches or houses of worship. Catholic Charities, affiliated with the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, provides critical care services for people with disabilities and mental health needs. Wisconsin argued those acts were not "primarily religious." The Supreme Court disagreed. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing the opinion for the court, stated clearly that the government has no authority to assess or rank the religious nature of charitable work. Dunkin said the consequences of the ruling go far beyond Wisconsin. "This is actually a pretty ongoing problem across the country," she noted. "It's not just Wisconsin. First Liberty Institute represents Dad's Place in Bryan, Ohio… they're saying that because you're running a 24-7 homeless shelter, you're not [religious]." Other clients of Plano, Texas-based First Liberty in Colorado and Arizona have faced similar arguments from local governments, which question whether providing food, clothing or shelter to those in need is inherently religious. "Even though there are churches doing this kind of work, the governments are saying, 'Well, you're not religious enough,'" Dunkin said. The court's language in the ruling, Dunkin pointed out, "affirms what the Supreme Court has said for nearly a century," that the government cannot choose which expressions of faith are valid. "This sends a great message to people of all religions and all charitable organizations," she said. "The government… cannot intrude into telling you exactly what you can and can't do, whether you're religious or not religious, in order to receive a government benefit or participate in society." Had SCOTUS ruled the other way, Dunkin warned, it would have "grave implications" for religious charities and ministries nationwide. "It would allow the government to step into the religious doctrine of all faiths more than our Founding Fathers ever intended," she said. "The government cannot step in and get involved in deciding and picking and choosing between one type of religious activity and another." When asked what this means for churches and ministries on the ground, Dunkin's answer was clear: "They should feel emboldened to continue to do what they feel called to do by their religious faith… especially in a charitable sense." And for those who may see this as a one-off legal win? Not so fast. "I see this really as two different things," she said. "One, an affirmance of what the First Amendment has always stood for… but of course, going forward, we do hope and we're encouraged that religious liberty in America is alive and well. And of course, First Liberty Institute is here to continue to fight for that."
The Hill
11 hours ago
- The Hill
Rising: June 6, 2025
Musk accuses Trump of being in Epstein files; Trump threatens to pull Elon's contracts | RISING Niall Stanage and Amber Duke discuss the latest from President Trump and Elon Musk feud. SCOTUS hands straight woman a win in discrimination case | RISING Niall Stanage and Amber Duke discuss the Supreme Court siding with a straight woman in Ohio who filed a 'reverse discrimination' lawsuit against her employer. AOC takes risky bet, backs Andrew Cuomo rival Zohran Mamdani for NYC mayor | RISING Niall Stanage and Amber Duke react to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) endorsing Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani as her first choice for New York City mayor. Chuck Grassley: FBI 'targeting' of traditional Catholics went further than 'Richmond memo' | RISING Niall Stanage and Amber Duke discuss Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) saying that FBI's targeting of Catholics went beyond the Richmond memo. Newsom blasted over not funding anti-crime measure voters wanted | RISING Niall Stanage and Amber Duke discuss California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) getting blasted for leaving out funding for Proposition 36, an anti-crime ballot measure that was overwhelmingly passed by voters last year. CNN host 'afraid' to travel to America, compares it to North Korea | RISING Niall Stanage and Amber Duke discuss CNN journalist Christiane Amanpour revealing on her podcast 'The Ex Files' that he she was afraid to travel to the United Stated as a foreigner. Tucker Carlson, Mark Levin get into heated debate over war with Iran | RISING Niall Stanage and Amber Duke discuss Tucker Carlson posting on X that Mark Levin is lobbying for war with Iran. 'Centrist' Dems mocked by the left over WelcomeFest conference | RISING Niall Stanage and Amber Duke discuss the Washington, D.C., gathering of the centrist wing of the Democratic Party who argued that the party needs to take control of Congress in 2026 and beyond, leaving out the party's far left-wing faction.
