Correctional officers union pays for billboards calling out West Virginia politicians
CLARKSBURG, W.Va. (WBOY) — A union council that represents thousands of correctional officers (COs) across the country has started a billboard campaign 'targeting members of Congress for failing to support law enforcement officers,' including a few representatives from West Virginia.
The American Federation of Government Employees' (AFGE) Council of Prison Locals is launching the billboards in opposition to President Donald Trump's Executive Order 14251. According to a press release, the council thinks that some members of congress are turning their back on law enforcement by supporting the order, which removes collective bargaining rights for some federal employees, including in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).
The billboards call out 10 Republican representatives by name, saying 'Stop attacking law enforcement, reject Executive Order 14251.' Among the representatives being named are West Virginia's Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R) and Rep. Riley Moore (R).
Both Capito and Moore have been vocal supporters of President Trump. Capito has also spoken out repeatedly in favor of reform and hiring incentives to fix problems in the federal prison system, especially relating to Federal Corrections Institution (FCI) Hazelton in Preston County, West Virginia.
President Trump gives West Virginia's Sen. Shelley Moore Capito 'complete and total endorsement'
'It's been disappointing how many members of Congress who have worked with us for years have turned their backs on us to move on an agenda that certainly does not align with the previous working relationship we maintained,' Council of Prison Locals President Brandy Moore White said in the release.
The group is asking the named congressional members to reject Executive Order 14251 and to protect law enforcement and BOP benefits in federal budgets.
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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is.
Let's just get this out of the way: The birth rate is a red herring. It's been a common refrain that if the Trump administration and congressional leadership truly wanted to make it easier for families in America to grow and thrive, they would turn to policies like national paid leave, affordable child care, maternal health care and home and community-based services for our aging and disabled loved ones. They would be investing in early education and the caregiving workforce. They would be supporting commonsense accommodations like remote work. They would be growing social safety nets. But they've done none of that. Their response to child care is to send in grandma. They've said next to nothing about paid leave. What they apparently have suggested instead is both hilarious and dystopian. A medal for women with six or more children? Classes on your own menstrual cycle? Coupons for minivans? And instead of investing and building for the future, they're slashing and burning. From fertility and maternal health programs, to food and farm assistance, to Medicaid and Social Security, they're going after all the powerful things our country has built to sustain life. Elon Musk says the birth rate crisis is about the disappearance of civilization. I'd say he's already destroying its foundations. The real crisis is one of care. As baby boomers age, more and more of us are taking care of our parents and children all at the same time, with little help, and drowning financially and emotionally. No federal paid leave, in many counties without access to child care. The answer to the real crisis is not what we can gut and burn and take away from people, but what we can give them, the world we can create. My organization, Paid Leave for All, is asking people to envision their lives if they had the guarantee of paid family and medical leave ‒ if they knew no matter where they worked and the joy or loss they faced, they could maintain their life and their livelihood. Imagine the businesses and ventures that might be started, the families that could be sustained, the moments we wouldn't miss. Imagine the peace of mind, the paychecks kept, the lives saved. Opinion: Trump's $5,000 'baby bonus' isn't what new moms like me need What Musk, President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and beyond are suggesting isn't about any of that ‒ it's not about affording working families the security and dignity of being able to take care of themselves and each other. It's simply code for hatred and bigotry, driven less by concern for families than by a desire to preserve a demographic majority. But the good news? They're still at odds with supermajorities of Americans. They're overplaying their hand, ignoring the desperate real needs of working families and missing a political opportunity. In April, House Speaker Mike Johnson went to great lengths to try to kill a bipartisan measure to simply allow new parents in Congress to vote by proxy ‒ a pro-family protocol that would cost nothing. A lot of people had never heard of it, but message testing found that when you told people even a little bit about it and Johnson's unprecedented moves to kill it, their support for the measure jumped up to 23 points. This was true across every demographic group tested, across gender, race, age and ideology. What's more, their support for broader federal policies like paid family and medical leave shot up as well. Your Turn: Are you planning to have children? Why or why not? Here's what USA TODAY readers told us. | Opinion Forum In polling done in battleground states just before the 2024 election, there was record-high support for paid leave across party lines and walks of life, however you sliced it. That included 90% of independents, 96% of suburban women and 97% of low turnout Democrats. Commentary and post-election analyses have pointed to the family policies like paid leave and affordable care that would have offered tangible improvements in people's daily lives and stress, and could have changed the political landscape and outcomes. 'We didn't deliver what people wanted ‒ help with child care, help with elder care, more security in their lives,' said Ron Klain, a former chief of staff for Joe Biden. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. And that's the task ahead ‒ not just to respond to dangerous and very real threats to our families and communities, but to also counter with a vision of how much better our lives could be, and a plan to achieve it. To outline the damage they're doing to people's wallets and freedoms, and opportunities, and then to contrast with the policies that enable us to hold onto jobs and care for our own families. The desire to succeed in life, to be able to afford one, to be able to support your loved ones, is universal. It's not a liberal fantasy, it's an idea of strength and dignity. Making more babies by threat, faux incentives or even force is not a goal or a solution. But the idea of supporting families and allowing all of us to live healthier and richer lives is one we should be restoring front and center, and a conversation we should be having. This is the project facing all of us who actually care about the survival of civilization. Dawn Huckelbridge is the founding director of Paid Leave for All. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Musk is wrong: Birth rate isn't the crisis. Child care is | Opinion
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.
Despite declarations that something needs to be done about the declining birth rate in the United States, neither President Donald Trump nor the Republican Party has the desire to protect pregnant people. If they did, the Trump administration wouldn't have made its latest move to restrict abortion nationwide. On Tuesday, June 3, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded a Biden-era policy that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions if it was needed to stabilize a pregnant patient. The guidance and communications on it apparently 'do not reflect the policy of this Administration.' I, like many people who support abortion rights, know what this will lead to. It means more pregnant people will die. Does that reflect the policy of the administration? The Biden policy was implemented in 2022, following the fall of Roe v. Wade, and argued that hospitals receiving Medicare funding had to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The former administration argued that this included providing emergency abortions when they were needed to stabilize a patient, even in states that had severe abortion restrictions. Opinion: A brain dead pregnant Georgia woman is a horror story. It's Republicans' fault. This wasn't entirely a surprise. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could ban virtually all abortions in the state, including abortions that would have occurred under the old EMTALA guidelines. Still, it's terrifying to see this crucial policy eliminated. It's already dangerous to be pregnant in the United States. Our maternal mortality rate is much higher than in other wealthy countries. Same with our infant mortality rate. This will only exacerbate these tragedies. In states with abortion bans, the risks are even greater. A study from the Gender Equity Policy Institute found that people living in states with abortion bans were twice as likely to die during or shortly after childbirth. This is also backed by anecdotal evidence, including the 2022 deaths of two women in Georgia after the state passed a six-week ban. A different study found that infant mortality rates increased in states with severe restrictions on abortion, including an increase in deaths due to congenital anomalies. The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They don't care about whether the children supposedly saved by rescinding this policy will grow up without their mother. They care about their perceived moral superiority. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that Republican way of thinking? Opinion: We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is. I want to say I'm surprised that the Trump administration would allow women in need of emergency care to die. Yet this is clearly aligned with the Republican stance on abortion, just like it's aligned with the actions that the party has taken to make it harder for women to access necessary care. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Whether you like it or not, abortion is a necessary part of health care. It saves lives. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, laid it out plainly. 'Women have died because they couldn't get the lifesaving abortion care they needed,' she said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is willing to let pregnant people die, and that is exactly what we can expect." Again, this is the administration that wants young women like me to have children and improve the country's birth rate. This is an administration that claims to care about women and children. I know I wouldn't want to have a child while Trump continues to make it unsafe to be pregnant and give birth. I hate that this is the reality. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump just made healthcare more dangerous for pregnant women | Opinion
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's 2026 Budget Proposal: 4 Things Retirees Need To Know
President Donald Trump's 2026 budget proposal, known as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' introduces significant changes to federal spending and tax policies. Read Next: Try This: While aiming to reduce non-defense discretionary spending and extend tax cuts, the proposal has raised concerns about its potential impact on retirees who rely on federal programs for income, healthcare and essential services. 'These potential shifts could slow benefit growth, raise Medicare premiums or target higher earners with stricter eligibility or tax rules,' said Aaron Cirksena, founder and CEO of MDRN Capital. 'The biggest concern is uncertainty right now, and retirees rely on predictability, so even these small changes can have a big impact on them.' Here are four things retirees need to know about Trump's 2026 budget proposal. According to Congressional Budget Office analysis, if Trump's budget proposal, currently being debated in Congress, raises the federal deficit by $2.3 trillion over the next decade, it would automatically trigger spending cuts, including a projected $500 billion cut to Medicare. Such cuts may lead to reduced payments to providers, potentially affecting seniors' access to healthcare services. An analysis by the Medicare Rights Center, an advocacy organization, found that the 'bill would undermine access to long-term care by shifting costs to states, likely resulting in cuts to HCBS (Home-and Community-Based Services). It would also make it harder for people to qualify for Medicaid coverage and avoid gaps in care.' Find Out: Key programs under the Older Americans Act, such as nutrition services and caregiver support, are at risk of significant funding reductions or elimination. For example, the National Council on Aging found that the Trump administration proposes to move the Aging Network Support program to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and reduce the program's funding by over 40%. The program allows seniors to live independently in their homes. This matters for individuals saving for retirement, because adult children often incur significant costs for caring for their parents. According to an AARP study, 'On average, caregivers spend 26% of their personal income on caregiving expenses. One in three dips into their personal savings, like bank accounts, to cover costs, and 12% take out a loan or borrow from family or friends.' The budget proposes substantial cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which could disproportionately affect low-income seniors who depend on these programs for healthcare and food security. According to NPR, 'If approved, starting in fiscal year 2028, states would be required to pay between 5% and 25% of food benefit costs for the first time. … In addition, states would receive less federal support to administer SNAP. The proposed changes would decrease the federal reimbursement rate for administrative costs to run SNAP from 50% to 25%.' An analysis of the Medicaid and SNAP cuts by The Commonwealth Fund found that these changes create ripple effects that affect the economies of entire communities, not just low-income households. 'For example, some of the food purchased in Georgia may have been grown in Kansas or processed in Tennessee, so lower grocery purchases in one state may cause losses in other states,' the Commonwealth report stated. 'A nurse who loses her job at a Louisiana clinic might reside in Texas; thus, a job lost in one state could create economic losses in another.' While the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' proposes extending tax cuts from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, it does not include provisions to eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits, contrary to some expectations. The bill does introduce a new $4,000 standard deduction for seniors aged 65 and older, providing tax relief for individuals with adjusted gross incomes of $75,000 and couples with incomes of $150,000 annually. However, the substantial tax cuts and increased spending outlined in the proposal are projected to add approximately $3.8 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. This significant increase in the deficit raises concerns among financial experts about potential future tax hikes to address the fiscal imbalance. 'If the proposal is passed, it could increase taxes on retirement income, making Roth conversions and smart withdrawal strategies more important than ever,' Cirksena said. 'The best move right now is do not wait. Review incomes, run scenarios and add some flexibility into your plan. Better to adjust early than react late.' Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Warns of 'Red Rural Recession' -- 4 States That Could Get Hit Hard 4 Housing Markets That Have Plummeted in Value Over the Past 5 Years 10 Genius Things Warren Buffett Says To Do With Your Money This article originally appeared on Trump's 2026 Budget Proposal: 4 Things Retirees Need To Know Sign in to access your portfolio
