State Senate discrimination ordinance bill threatens local control for W.Va. cities
FAIRMONT — A bill passed by the West Virginia Senate may invalidate the ability of Fairmont residents to protect vulnerable groups from discrimination through City ordinance and popular election.
'This bill addressing discrimination ordinances is one example of local control being targeted by legislation, whether that's the intention of the legislation or not,' City Manager Travis Blosser said. 'It's hard to justify passing a one-size-fits-all, statewide bill when municipalities and their residents have already spoken their minds through local processes.'
Senate Bill 579 prohibits municipalities participating in the home rule program from establishing nondiscrimination ordinances that include additional protected class beyond what state law already covers. It also opens the door to LGBTQ+ conversion therapy in municipalities that have banned the practice. State Sen. Brian Helton, R-09, is lead sponsor on the bill, which now sits in the House of Representatives, where it waits for discussion.
Helton argued during floor debate that a patchwork of varying local ordinances creates uncertainty for individuals and businesses. He said centralizing anti-discrimination laws in the state would allow for more efficient and consistent enforcement through dedicated agencies like the Human Rights Commission of West Virginia. He singled out Morgantown's ban on conversion therapy as well, arguing the ordinance threatens the licenses of mental health and medical professionals who offer the practice and framed the issue from the standpoint of parental rights.
'By moving forward and allowing these ordinances to continue, not only are we creating tons of overreach into lots of areas of our state government,' Helton said. 'We're conflicting with our business community. We're not providing a clear framework of legal issues when we deal with anti-discrimination laws.'
Helton also said the bill would remove any local ordinances that contradict President Donald Trump's national agenda.
Under Article 175 of Fairmont City Code, the city includes a declaration of Civil Rights for gender identity. The article also establishes the Human Rights Commission. City code tasks the commission with working to bring about mutual understanding and respect among all people, and safeguard the rights of all people to be free from all forms of discrimination. The Fairmont Human Rights Commission has no ability to pass ordinances of its own, but can only recommend policies to City Council, which not only can choose if it wants to bring them to a vote, but also if it will adopt a recommendation or not.
The city also requires its contractors to execute a non-discrimination in the workplace affidavit, which includes protections for gender identity. The city also has rules protecting its employees from discrimination, gender identity included. A cursory review of city code related to discrimination reveals no ordinances intruding on decisions between parents and doctors, nor any penalties for practicing conversion therapy in Fairmont. The Human Rights Commission has no enforcement power, and City Ordinances regarding discrimination only apply to City Employees, not private business. The state Human Rights Commission has enforcement power, but does not list gender identity as a protected group. In Morgantown, the ordinance in question doesn't mention penalties such as losing a medical license for practicing conversion therapy.
Within the professional mental health field, conversion therapy is discredited. The National Alliance on Mental Illness states no one should be subject to practices that can cause or worsen mental health symptoms and supports banning conversion therapy. The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry finds no evidence to support conversion therapy. Stanford Medicine found conversion practices are linked to depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and suicide.
Both of Marion County's state senators voted against the bill. Sen. Mike Oliverio, R-Morgantown, argued the residents of Fairmont and Morgantown engaged in the public process to pass the ordinances SB 579 targets.
'I think about the actions of those city council members who conducted committee meetings of the whole, public hearings, readings, votes,' Oliverio said. 'Where they solicited the input from their constituents, who are my constituents as well, and reached the conclusion that the right thing to do was adopt these ordinances and resolutions.'
Oliverio added he doesn't always agree with the actions of Morgantown, but that he respects their ability to take those actions.
Sen. Joey Garcia, D-Fairmont, questioned Helton on his premises. Garcia pointed out local ordinances already can't supercede state law. He also said the legislature was trying to cast diversity, equity and inclusion as dirty words forbidden from the public tongue. He also pointed out the legislature has been in the habit of passing laws for situations that simply don't happen.
'When these ordinances are passed, people come and say, we want these protections,' Garcia said. 'That is legitimate.'
Sen. Ryan Weld, R-Brooke County, was one of several Republicans who also spoke out against the bill. He had a singular word for it.
'This is dumb,' he said. He pointed out with all the problems the state has, with foster care, child protective services, educational outcomes and others, this is what the legislature is focusing on.
'Why is it dumb?' Weld said. 'Where is the problem that we're trying to address? I haven't heard of any.'
Blosser said Fairmont has a robust process for petitioning against an ordinance and sending contentious matters to the ballot. The Human Rights Commission had to go through that process to be established.
'In the end, Fairmont voted, and the HRC was established,' Blosser said. 'We have to be wary of that kind of local control taking a back seat.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
GOP's health care plan: We're all going to die, so whatever
If death and taxes are the only certainties, Joni Ernst is here to cut one and fast-track the other. 'We all are going to die," she said. You might think that's a line from a nihilistic French play. Or something a teenage goth said in Hot Topic. Or an epiphany from your stoner college roommate after he watched Interstellar at 3 a.m. But that was actually the Iowa Senator's God-honest response to concerns that slashing Medicaid to achieve President Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' would lead to more preventable deaths. The full exchange at a May 30 town hall included one audience member shouting at the stage, 'People will die!' And Ernst responding, 'People are not — well, we all are going to die, so for heaven's sake.' That's not a health care policy — that's a horoscope for the terminally screwed. As you can imagine, the internet didn't love it, because losing your health should not trigger the equivalent of a shrug emoji from someone elected to serve the public good. But rather than walking it back, Ernst leaned in, filming a mock apology in a graveyard because nothing says, 'I care about your future,' like filming next to people who don't have one. Opinion: Nurses are drowning while Braun ignores Indiana's health care crisis Ernst's comments aren't just philosophical musings. She's justifying policy choices that cause real harm. If passed, this bill would, according to the Congressional Budget Office, remove health coverage for up to 7.6 million Americans. That's not just 'we all die someday' territory. That's 'some people will die soon and needlessly.' What makes this even more galling is that the people pushing these cuts have access to high-quality, taxpayer-subsidized healthcare. Congress gets the AAA, platinum, concierge-level government plan. Meanwhile, millions of Americans are told to try their luck with essential oils or YouTube acupuncture tutorials. Honestly, it felt more like performance art than policy: 'Sorry about your grandma getting kicked out of her assisted living facility. Please enjoy this scenic view of her future! LOL!' We're not asking you to defeat death, senator. Death is both inevitable and bipartisan. But there is a broad chasm between dying peacefully at 85 and dying in your 40's because your Medicaid plan disappeared and your GoFundMe didn't meet its goal. Fundamentally, governing is about priorities. A budget is a moral document. When a lawmaker tells you 'we're all going to die' in response to a policy choice, they're telling you 'I've made peace with your suffering as collateral damage.' And if a U.S. Senator can stand in a cemetery and joke about it, you have to wonder — who do our federal legislators think those graves are for? Opinion: Indiana DCS cut foster care in half — and now claims children are safer This isn't just about one comment or one bill. It's about a mindset that treats healthcare as a luxury rather than a right. If death is inevitable, then access to healthcare you can afford is what helps determine how long you have, how comfortably you live, and whether you get to watch your kids grow up. Healthcare isn't about escaping death. It's about dignity and quality of life while we are here. Ernst got one thing right: death will come for us all. But leadership, real leadership, is about helping people live as long and as well as they can before that day comes. You want to make jokes, Senator? Fine. But if your punchline is 'You're all going to die anyway,' don't be surprised when your constituents realize the joke's on them. Kristin Brey is the "My Take" columnist for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Joni Ernst films graveyard video after telling sick people "we all die" | Opinion
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump and Musk can both hurt each other in their feud. Here's how.
An explosive breakdown in the relationship between President Donald Trump and his biggest political donor turned part-time employee, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, has been foreshadowed since their alliance first took shape. When Trump brought Musk along for the ride as he moved back into the White House, the looming question was always how long the two could possibly stay in sync. After all, neither the most powerful person in the world nor the richest person on Earth is known for keeping his ego in check. The main thrust of the Trump-Musk feud boils down to who can assert dominance over the other. In the intense back-and-forth that had everyone glued to their screens Thursday, we saw bullies used to getting their way desperately trying to find leverage over each other. But unlike the flame wars of old, where internet trolls would hurl insults at each other across message board forums, Trump and Musk can do serious damage to each other in the real world — and to the rest of us in the process. Musk first gained access to Trump through his vast fortune; he donated almost $300 million during last year's election and hasn't been afraid to throw his money around in races this year. Though he said in May he would be 'spending a lot less' on funding political races, he has also been quick to threaten pumping money into the midterms should lawmakers back the massive budget bill currently working its way through the Senate. And Musk has made clear that he expects a return on his investments, having already snidely claimed on his X platform that Trump would have lost and Democrats would have taken Congress without his backing. Trump is reportedly more focused on the midterms than he was during his first term, worried that a new Democratic majority would lead to more investigations and/or a third impeachment. While he's already sitting on $600 million to help hold on to a GOP majority, Musk's money could throw a spanner in the works, especially if he follows through on his public musing about bankrolling a third party to 'represent the 80% of Americans in the middle.' Though Trump has his own social media platform, Truth Social, X remains a much louder microphone to amplify Musk's messaging to the right, including his supposed 'bombshell' about Trump's presence in the Jeffrey Epstein files. (Musk provided no evidence for the claim and Trump has previously denied any involvement with Epstein's criminal behavior.) Trump, in turn, has threatened Musk's lucrative government contracts, which would include billions of dollars funneled toward his SpaceX company, as well as the subsidies that Tesla receives for its electric car production. Musk responded by warning about cutting off access to SpaceX launches, which would potentially cripple NASA and the Defense Department's ability to deploy satellites. But that would prove a double-edged sword for Musk, given how large a revenue stream those contracts have become. By Thursday evening, Musk had already backed down from his saber-rattling about restricting access to the Dragon space capsule, but he could change his mind again. That he made the threat in the first place has raised major alarm bells among national security officials. The Washington Post reported Saturday that NASA and the Pentagon have begun "urging [Musk's competitors] to more quickly develop alternative rockets and spacecraft" to lessen his chokehold on the industry. Notably, Trump isn't alone in his fight against Musk, though as ever those wading into the brawl have their own motives. Former White House strategist Steve Bannon took the opportunity to launch a broadside against Musk. 'People including myself are recommending to the president that he pull every contract associated with Elon Musk,' Bannon told NBC News on Thursday night. Bannon requested that 'major investigations start immediately' into, among other things, Musk's 'immigration status, his security clearance and his history of drug abuse.' There are already several federal investigations of Musk's companies that have been underway for years, which critics had previously worried might be stonewalled due to his influence with Trump. While the extremely public breakup makes for high drama and more than a little schadenfreude, the pettiness masks a deeper issue. The battle Musk and Trump are waging is predicated on both wielding a horrifying amount of unchecked power. In a healthy system of government, their ability to inflict pain on each other wouldn't exist, or at least such an ability would be severely blunted. Musk being able to funnel nearly unlimited amounts of spending into dark money super PACs is an oligarchical nightmare. Trump using the power of the presidency to overturn contracts and launch investigations at a whim is blatant authoritarianism in action. In theory, there are still checks to rein each of them in before things escalate much further. Musk's shareholders have been unhappy with his rocky time in government, and the war of words with Trump sent Tesla's stock price tumbling once more. Trump needs to get his 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' passed into law and — next year — ensure Congress doesn't fall into Democrats' hands. Trump and Musk have incentives, then, to stay in each other's good graces despite their wounded pride. Trump made clear to NBC News in an interview Saturday that he has no real interest in patching things up with Musk, warning that there will be "very serious consequences" if his one-time ally funds Democratic campaigns. Even if the two eventually reach a détente, it's unlikely to be a lasting peace, not so long as one feels his authority is challenged by the other. The zero-sum view of the world that Trump and Musk share, one where social Darwinism and superior genetics shape humanity, doesn't allow for long-term cooperative relationships. Instead, at best they will return to a purely transactional situationship, but one where the knives will gleefully come back out the second a new opening is given. Most importantly, there is no protagonist when it comes to the inciting incident in this duel, as a total victory won't benefit the American people writ large. Trump wants Congress to pass his bill to grant him more funding for deportations and to preserve his chances of staying in power. Musk wants a more painful bill that will slash the social safety net for millions. No matter what the outcome is as they battle for supremacy over each other, we're the ones who risk being trampled. This article was originally published on
CNBC
2 hours ago
- CNBC
What a ‘revenge tax' in Trump's spending bill could mean for investors
As the Senate weighs President Donald Trump's multi-trillion-dollar spending package, a lesser-known provision tucked into the House-approved bill has pushback from Wall Street. The House measure, known as Section 899, would allow the U.S. to add a new tax of up to 20% on foreigners with U.S. investments, including multinational companies operating in the U.S. Some analysts call the provision a "revenge tax" due to its wording. It would apply to foreign entities if their home country imposes "unfair foreign taxes" against U.S. companies, according to the bill. "Wall Street investors are shocked by [Section] 899 and apparently did not see it coming," James Lucier, Capital Alpha Partners managing director, wrote in a June 5 analysis. More from Personal Finance:The average 401(k) savings rate hit a record high. See if you're on trackOn-time debt payments aren't a magic fix for your credit score. Here's whyWith 'above normal' hurricane forecasts, check your home insurance policy If enacted as written, the provision could have "significant implications for the asset management industry," including cross-border income earned by hedge funds, private equity funds and other entities, Ernst & Young wrote on June 2. Passive investment income could be subject to a higher U.S. withholding tax, as high as 50% in some cases, the company noted. Some analysts worry that could impact future investment. The Investment Company Institute, which represents the asset management industry serving individual investors, warned in a May 30 statement that the provision is "written in a manner that could limit foreign investment to the U.S." But with details pending as the Senate assesses the bill, many experts are still weighing the potential impact — including who could be affected. Here's what investors need to know about Section 899. As drafted, Section 899 would allow the U.S. to hike existing levies for countries with "unfair foreign taxes" by 5% per year, capped at 20%. Several kinds of tax fall under "unfair foreign taxes," according to the provision. Those include the undertaxed profits rule, which is associated with part of the global minimum tax negotiated by the Biden administration. The term would also apply to digital services taxes and diverted profits taxes, along with new levies that could arise, according to the bill. The second part of the measure would expand the so-called base erosion and anti-abuse tax, or BEAT, which aims to prevent corporations from shifting profits abroad to avoid taxes. "Basically, all businesses that are operating in the U.S. from a foreign headquarters will face that," said Daniel Bunn, president and CEO of the Tax Foundation. "It's pretty expansive." The retaliatory measures would apply to most wealthy countries from which the U.S. receives direct foreign investment, which could threaten or harm the U.S. economy, according to Bunn's analysis. Notably, the proposed taxes don't apply to U.S. Treasuries or portfolio interest, according to the bill. Section 899 still needs Senate approval, and it's unclear how the provision could change amid alarm from Wall Street. But the measure has "strong support" from others in the business community, and it's a "strong priority" for Republican House Ways and Means Committee members, Capital Alpha Partners' Lucier wrote. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., first floated the idea in a May 2023 bill, and has been outspoken, along with other Republicans, against the global minimum tax. If enacted as drafted, Section 899 could raise an estimated $116 billion over 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. That could help fund other priorities in Trump's mega-bill, and if removed, lawmakers may need to find the revenue elsewhere, Bunn said. However, House Ways and Means Republicans may ultimately want foreign countries to adjust their tax policies before the new tax is imposed. "If these countries withdraw these taxes and decide to behave, we will have achieved our goal," Smith said in a June 4 statement.
