Paid family medical leave bill dies in committee with one week left of legislative session
SANTA FE, N.M. (KRQE) – With a week left in the legislative session, a bill aimed at covering specific time off for medical leave in the state has died in committee. House Bill 11 was in the Senate Finance Committee Saturday morning, with many speaking in support of and against the bill.
'This is employee as well as employers. Employees need the money that they earn right now. They can't afford a tax no matter how low it is,' said a member of the public.
'The council of Los Alamos believes this should be a benefit for all New Mexicans and that workers should not be disposable at the most life-changing points in their lives,' said a council member.
Turquoise Alert System for missing Indigenous people moves through legislature
House Bill 11 would allow workers six weeks of paid time off when having to care for loved ones and other situations like military requirements. New parents would be eligible for 12 weeks as well. Workers would be required to pay into a state fund, with a half-percent coming from their wages. Businesses with five or more employees would pay 4-tenths of the percentage.
Supporters say it's a safety net for our workforce. But critics have been arguing since the beginning that it would raise costs for small businesses, hurting them in the long run as well as posing legal issues.
'It sounds like an absolute employment nightmare. And I can see the lawsuit when employers fill out an employee and their wrong,' said an opposing view.
The bill failed to pass on an 8 to 3 vote. This would have been its last committee before heading to the Senate floor for a vote.
Bill that would lower cap for medical malpractice cases fails in legislature
Senate Republicans sent out a joint statement earlier Saturday saying:
'Every New Mexico small business owner, employer, industry leader, and employee can breathe a sigh of relief following today's vote. Progressive Democrat policies such as House Bill 11 would have destroyed our state's economy and discouraged economic development in New Mexico. Stopping this dangerous bill was of highest priority for Senate Republicans; today, common sense prevailed. We will continue to stand united in opposition to progressive policies such as House Bill 11 while fighting for the real results New Mexicans need.'
Senate Democrats sent out a statement as well saying:
'New Mexicans deserve a program that supports families welcoming a new baby or dealing with health or safety issues that require time away from work. We've been advocating for this for years, and it remains the right thing to do. However, House Bill 11 was not the right solution.
The changes made this year resulted in a bill that no longer upholds many of the provisions we strongly supported in the original version. For example, the medical leave was reduced from twelve weeks to just six, which is insufficient for patients with serious illnesses like certain cancers. Additionally, the newly introduced 'Welcome Child Fund' was structured more like a $3,000 rebate. It just doesn't quite work for what families really need or when they need it.
We're not done yet. We will continue working to find a solution that benefits both New Mexico families and the businesses who support our workforce.'
Senate President Pro Tempore Mimi Stewart
The legislative session ends next Saturday at noon.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
34 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
US governors are divided along party lines about military troops deployed to protests
All 22 other Democratic governors signed a statement sent by the Democratic Governors Association on Sunday backing Newsom, calling the Guard deployment and threats to send in Marines 'an alarming abuse of power' that 'undermines the mission of our service members, erodes public trust, and shows the Trump administration does not trust local law enforcement.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The protests in Los Angeles have mostly been contained to five blocks in a small section of downtown; nearly 200 people were detained on Tuesday and at least seven police officers have been injured. Advertisement In Republican-controlled states, governors have not said when or how they're planning to deploy military troops for protests. Since Trump's return to office, Democratic governors have been calculating about when to criticize him, when to emphasize common ground and when to bite their tongues. The governors' responses are guided partly by a series of political considerations, said Kristoffer Shields, director of the Eagleton Center on the American Governor at Rutgers University: How would criticizing Trump play with Democrats, Republicans and independent voters in their states? And for those with presidential ambitions, how does that message resonate nationally? Advertisement Democratic governors are weighing a number of considerations. 'There probably is some concern about retributions — what the reaction of the administration could be for a governor who takes a strong stance," Shields said. And in this case, polling indicates about half of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling immigration, though that polling was conducted before the recent military deployment. On other issues, Democratic governors have taken a variety of approaches with Trump. At a White House meeting in February, Maine Democratic Gov. Janet Mills told Trump, " we'll see you in court " over his push to cut off funding to the state because it allowed transgender athletes in girls' school sports. Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer, a possible 2028 presidential candidate, publicly sparred with Trump during his first term but this time around, has met with him privately to find common ground. Initially, Hawaii Gov. Josh Green referred to Trump as a 'straight-up dictator,' but the next month he told a local outlet that he was treading carefully, saying: 'I'm not going to criticize him directly much at all.' Democratic governors speaking out — but some cautiously Apart from their joint statement, some of the highest-profile Democratic governors have not talked publicly about the situation in California. When asked, on Wednesday, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul's office pointed to a Sunday social media post about the joint statement. Whitmer didn't respond. The office of Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who is set to testify before Congress on Thursday about his state laws protecting people who are in the country without legal status, reiterated in a statement that he stands with Newsom. The office said 'local authorities should be able to do their jobs without the chaos of this federal interference and intimidation.' Advertisement Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, in an interview Wednesday in The Washington Post, said Trump should not send troops to a weekend protest scheduled in Philadelphia. 'He's injected chaos into the world order, he's injected it into our economy, he is trying to inject chaos into our streets by doing what he did with the Guard in California,' Shapiro said. As state attorney general during Trump's first term, Shapiro routinely boasted that he sued Trump over 40 times and won each time. As governor he has often treaded more carefully, by bashing Trump's tariffs, but not necessarily targeting Trump himself. GOP governors weighing in Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has often clashed with Newsom, a fellow term-limited governor with national ambitions. Newsom's office said DeSantis offered to send Florida State Guard troops to California. 'Given the guard were not needed in the first place, we declined Governor DeSantis attempt to inflame an already chaotic situation made worse by his Party's leader,' Newsom spokesperson Diana Crofts-Pelayo said in an email to The Associated Press. Speaking on Fox News on Tuesday, DeSantis said the gesture was a typical offer of mutual aid during a crisis — and was dismissive of the reasons it was turned down. 'The way to put the fire out is to make sure you have law and order,' he said. States are preparing for more protests this weekend Protests against immigration enforcement raids have sprung up in other cities — and a series of 'No Kings' demonstrations are planned for the weekend — with governors preparing to respond. In Connecticut, Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont said he has spoken with his public safety commissioner to make sure state and local police work together. Advertisement 'I don't want to give the president any pretext to think he can come into Connecticut and militarize the situation. That just makes the situation worse,' said Lamont, who called Trump 'a little eager to send federal troops and militarize the situation in Los Angeles.' It is unclear how many Texas National Guard members will be deployed or how many cities asked for assistance. In Austin, where police used chemical irritants to disperse several hundred protesters on Monday, the mayor's office said the National Guard was not requested. San Antonio officials also said they didn't request the Guard. Florida's DeSantis said law enforcement in his state is preparing 'The minute you cross into attacking law enforcement, any type of rioting, any type of vandalism, looting, just be prepared to have the law come down on you,' DeSantis said Tuesday. 'And we will make an example of you, you can guarantee it.' Associated Press reporters Nadia Lathan and Jim Vertuno in Austin, Texas; Sophie Austin in Sacramento, California; Isabella Volmert in Lansing, Michigan; Andrew DeMillo in Little Rock, Arkansas; Susan Haigh in Hartford, Connecticut; Anthony Izaguirre in Albany, New York; Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Kate Payne in Tallahassee, Florida; and Sophia Tareen in Chicago; contributed.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Major shift': State House passes K-12 school budget
LANSING, Mich. (WLNS) — The Michigan House of Representatives approved the GOP's $21.9 million for K-12 schools in the state Wednesday. The plan proposes $10,025 in foundation funding per student, and an additional estimated $1,975 in separate funds per student if school districts adhere to certain requirements. These requirements include having one school resource officer and one mental health support staff member on staff and submitting an annual report detailing the use of the funds. Lawmakers behind the proposal say this would be an increase of $2,392 per student. 'This budget represents a major shift in how we approach education in Michigan,' said State Rep. Ann Bollin, chair of the House Appropriations Committee (R-Brighton Township). 'We're building a stronger model by putting trust where it belongs — in the hands of local school boards, parents, and educators who know their communities best. Every district is different, and the people closest to the students should be the ones making the decisions.' Lawmakers say the plan would also ban funding for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives and prevent biological males from competing in female sports divisions, as well as stop schools from using 'curriculums that promote race or gender stereotyping.' Representatives behind the appropriations say these funds would be used to help schools reduce class sizes, improve reading scores, and better school infrastructure, and that the plan gives schools flexibility to spend the money as they please. 'We're done with top-down mandates that ignore the real challenges our schools face,' Bollin said. 'This plan meets schools where they are and gives them the flexibility they need to lift kids up and help them succeed.' However, those opposed to the appropriations say the budget cuts important programs for students, such as school breakfast and lunch, which could have negative impacts on families. 'House Republicans' education budget could raise costs for working families by nearly $900 a year, force students to go hungry, and take money away from teachers trying to help students learn — while doing absolutely nothing to improve reading, math, or science scores,' said Curtis Hertel, chair of the Michigan Democratic Party. Michigan State Superintendent Michael F. Rice says the appropriations 'fall short' in supporting the schools, calling it a 'duct-taped budget' and saying the lack of specified appropriations would be detrimental toward certain efforts to improve the state's school system. 'While I support increasing per-pupil funding and reducing to a significant degree the number of categorical grants to give school districts more flexibility in how to spend state dollars, this budget unnecessarily puts at risk statewide education priorities,' said Rice. 'The budget lumps funds into large block grants that would diminish the statewide efforts to support, protect, and help educate children and at the same time address the state's shortage of certified and highly trained teachers.' The plan advanced with support from Republicans and opposition from Democrats. It now heads to the Democrat-controlled Senate, which previously passed its . The two chambers need to agree on a budget by July 1. 6 News will keep you updated with the latest. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Analysis: How to decode the shifting politics of the anti-Trump protests
Protests against Donald Trump's mass deportations, now spreading nationwide, could define his presidency, make or break Democratic careers and shape future elections. The White House, which thinks it has all the cards, keeps escalating the drama in Los Angeles. Trump's aggression underlines two themes of his second presidency – the desires to look strong and to grab even more power. Democrats, still looking to explain their 2024 election defeat and to cope with Trump's round-the-clock shock politics, again risk looking weak and overmatched. But in California Gov. Gavin Newsom, at least, they finally have a champion willing to stand up to Trump – even if he's mostly looking to 2028. As the most significant protest outburst of Trump's second term develops, top leaders in both parties face risky calculations and swift adjustments. Democrats have a political base itching for a fight back against the president, but must worry that radical reactions from the party's left wing will alienate the voters who walked out on them in 2024. The White House might be convinced that the confrontations are a political gift that put Democrats in a political vise for now. But Trump is stoking tensions that could be hard to control. And by putting troops into volatile situations in the proximity of protesters and agitators, he risks clashes that could turn tragic and could validate claims that he's risking lives for a callous personal payoff. The White House's line on the crisis is blunt and ruthless. '(Democrats') opposition to President Trump has forced them to side with illegal alien criminals in their communities and violent rioters and looters over law enforcement officers who are just doing their jobs,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Wednesday. A key goal here is to dehumanize the humans caught up in the deportation effort. The experience of an undocumented migrant often involves broken families and desperate people fleeing persecution or poverty. Even the hardest-hearted voter might feel sympathy. So, Leavitt implied that all those being targeted by ICE officers are 'illegal alien murderers, rapists and pedophiles.' Republicans are also reviving a previously successful narrative that helped Trump win power twice – that Democrats hate the police. 'That's how radical Democrats have become. Their opposition to President Trump has forced them to side with illegal alien criminals in their communities and violent rioters and looters over law enforcement officers who are just doing their jobs,' Leavitt said. Next, an assault on the patriotism of Democrats, suggesting that they are disloyal and side with enemies. Leavitt said, 'These attacks were aimed not just at law enforcement, but at American culture and society itself. Rioters burned American flags, chanted 'death to ICE' and spray-painted anti-American slogans on buildings.' This dystopian picture isn't just for political effect; it's designed to drown out a ballooning constitutional crisis over whether Trump has the authority to use active-duty troops on US soil. And this is the classic argument used by authoritarians everywhere – the fabric of society is so broken that only a strongman can fix it. 'President Trump will never allow mob rule to prevail in America. The most basic duty of government is to preserve law and order, and this administration embraces that sacred responsibility,' Leavitt said. She added, 'That's why President Trump deployed the National Guard and mobilized Marines to end the chaos and restore law and order. The mob violence is being stomped out. The criminals responsible will be swiftly brought to justice, and the Trump administration's operations to arrest illegal aliens are continuing unabated.' Some of the administration's rhetoric seems also designed to inject momentum into the deportation drive, the volume of which has disappointed some officials, and to normalize the use of the military in the effort. If Trump doesn't use maximum aggression, the narrative goes, deportations will stop, Americans will be unsafe and a foreign 'invasion' will succeed. Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton made this point in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece 'Send in the Troops, for Real' that he used to call for 'an overwhelming show of force to end the riots.' He wrote: 'The threat from the radical left is clear: Don't enforce immigration laws. If you do, left-wing street militias will burn down cities, and Democratic politicians will back the rioters. The president is absolutely right to reject this threat, enforce immigration laws, and restore civil order.' Trump never undersells his tough guy act. He's ready to go beyond the deployments of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines he's sent to Los Angeles, who are not yet on the front lines of protests. 'I can be stronger on an attack on Los Angeles,' Trump told the New York Post's 'Pod Force One' podcast, explaining the greater leeway he feels in his second term. And Attorney General Pam Bondi said on the driveway of the White House Wednesday: 'We are not scared to go further … if we need to.' So, will the belligerence work for Trump politically? If he can convince the public that the situation is truly dire, he might gain support for his breaching of a taboo on the use of US troops on domestic soil. There's no doubt that Trump's voters respond to his bullishness. At his campaign rallies, his most violent rhetoric often got the biggest cheers. Hardline tactics against migrants and demonstrators also go down well with his base. White House officials also believe that Trump's tough border policy and plan for deportations won over a broader cohort of voters. 'America voted for mass deportations,' top Trump aide Stephen Miller posted Wednesday on X. Immigration issues have often worked in Trump's favor before. But the risk here is that he's inciting a crisis that could spread, get out of control and cost lives. He might pine to run an autocracy, but it's not clear that most Americans want to live in such conditions. And if protesters or police officers and soldiers were hurt in violence he exacerbated, it's on him. Trump lost after his first term because he made a crisis – the pandemic – worse. History could repeat itself. And once presidents lose the public's confidence, they tend to find it impossible to regain. The breaking point could come if the expulsions widen. Recent polls have shown that while Americans do back deportations and a tougher border policy, they don't necessarily agree when friends, neighbors and otherwise law-abiding members of the community get swept up. In Trump's first term, the zero-tolerance policy of separating migrant kids from their parents caused a public furor encapsulated by the phrase 'kids in cages.' Most political observers believe the country has moved right on immigration because of the Biden administration's hapless performance at the southern border. But a piece of poignant imagery that encapsulates cruelty or incompetence could yet shatter Trump's credibility. Democrats face an extraordinarily complex political situation without a leader recognized by most of the country. Combating Trump's demagoguery and spinning of alternative realities would be nearly impossible if the party were firing on all cylinders – never mind when it's wandering in the wilderness. Newsom's address to Californians on Tuesday night seemed partly calculated to inject some direction and steel to the party and supporters who've watched Trump assault the Constitution, the rule of law and bastions of the liberal establishment for four turbulent months. Everything that Newsom says and does will be refracted through the widespread belief that he plans to run for president. For him and other Democratic governors also contemplating a run, this crisis offers opportunity and peril. Great politicians seize their moments. And a strong pushback to Trump could win goodwill among base voters. Certainly, Newsom can raise his profile by going head-to-the-head with the president every day. Still, few Democrats come out on top of a confrontation with Trump. Perhaps only former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, with her performative contempt, really got the better of Trump. And the president will use the power of his office to hurt his rivals. Before the Los Angeles protests, he was already trying to cut federal aid to California – seeking to punish its people effectively for the way they voted. Several sitting Democratic governors – Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and Wes Moore of Maryland – might also be planning runs in 2028, and could end up facing similar challenges to Newsom. Perhaps one of them will solve the dilemma of how to avoid angering base voters sympathetic to migrants while building support among centrists, independents and moderate Republicans who still want tougher border policies. If they do, they will achieve something almost no center-left politician in the Western world has yet managed. Democratic leaders will also be desperate to make sure the current crisis doesn't unleash reactions inside the party that make it unpalatable to voters more generally. The Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 provide a warning. While many Americans supported the nationwide marches that erupted after the killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer, calls to 'defund the police' from isolated parts of the progressive base morphed into a political disaster that haunted the party in subsequent elections. And while Trump's deployment of troops to Los Angeles risks challenging constitutional limits, another perennial Democratic warning – that he'll destroy democracy – fell on deaf ears in 2024.
