Latest news with #HouseBill809
Yahoo
14-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
'Tired of it': Fuller comment draws ire, accusations of sexism in Senate
Sen. John Fuller, R-Kalispell, testifies during a bill hearing in 2023. (Photo by Blair Miller / Daily Montanan) Debate over legislation prohibiting towns from enacting red flag gun laws, House Bill 809, led to accusations of sexism in the Senate chamber over the weekend. The hot button issue drew strong testimony from numerous senators, including Sen. Ellie Boldman, a Missoula Democrat. The bill, brought by Rep. Braxton Mitchell, R-Columbia Falls and carried in the Senate by Sen. Theresa Manzella, R-Hamilton, states, 'extreme risk protection orders violate a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.' According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 'Research has shown that states can save lives by authorizing courts to issue extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) that temporarily prevent a person in crisis from accessing firearms.' Arguing against the bill, Boldman spoke about a man who killed a woman with a gun, explaining numerous red flags that should have prevented him from having a weapon. Sen. John Fuller, R-Kalispell, then accused Boldman of being melodramatic. 'I enjoyed the histrionics of the opponent to this bill,' Fuller said. Boldman later called his criticism 'blatant sexism' in a social media post. Fuller's statement elicited an immediate, though quiet, reaction in Senate chambers with several members looking on in shock. Sen. Cora Neumann, D-Bozeman, asked Fuller to clarify what he had said after the Kalispell legislator finished explaining why he thought local governments shouldn't be allowed to enact gun laws. 'Histrionic is defined as undue emotion in presentation of what they believe to be true,' Fuller said. 'I believe that's the definition.' The Senate approvedHouse Bill 809 in a 29-21 vote shortly after. However, at the end of the meeting, when senators may make comments unrelated to agenda items, several referenced the debate over HB 809. Sen. Jacinda Morigeau, D-Arlee, expressed frustration with how women in Senate chambers are treated. 'We live in a society where words have additional connotations beyond their dictionary definitions,' Morigeau said. 'So I must say that the use of histrionics has always been derogatory towards women.' Morigeau said she's witnessed disrespect toward women time and time again during the Legislature. She said the body frequently consults its decorum rules for other matters, but not when it comes to the way women are treated. 'I have seen in my 73 days in here, over and over, many times, the women in this body being put down, overtly, subtly,' Morigeau said. 'And I just, I am tired of it.' Fuller also spoke, again defining histrionics, and said, 'if someone takes offense to that, I'm sorry, I apologize, but there is nothing wrong with them being dramatic, lively and excitable in this chamber.' Sen. Daniel Zolnikov, R-Billings commented how men's speech can be perceived as 'passionate' while when women speak, it's sometimes referred to as 'emotional.' He apologized for his caucus and said the chamber needs to do better. 'We all have the right to have our arguments,' Zolnikov said, adding they also had the right to argue, 'how we want to.' Manzella spoke in defense of her male colleagues. 'I would like to specifically thank the men in this chamber, and specifically on my side of the aisle,' Manzella said. 'Thank you, guys.'
Yahoo
03-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Protect Tennesseans' rights not corporate profits on crop pesticides regulation
For over 20 years, I've cared for families across Tennessee – children, parents, farmers, and retirees alike. And one thing I've learned is this: people want to be trusted to make informed decisions about their own health, and people deserve to be able to sue a company if that company's product causes cancer. That's why I'm concerned about House Bill 809 / Senate Bill 527, which would quietly change the rules in favor of chemical companies – not Tennesseans. The bill would make it nearly impossible for someone in our state to hold a pesticide company accountable in court – even if their product caused real harm. As long as the chemical's label was approved by the EPA, the company would be immune from civil liability under Tennessee law. As most of us know, the EPA does not have a perfect record. On the surface, it sounds technical. But in practice, it means this: if a family is harmed by glyphosate, they would have no right to a fair hearing in a Tennessee glyphosate lobbyist will say that if you don't support this bill then you don't support our farmers. On the contrary, this bill doesn't protect farmers at all, but it does protect Bayer, and other companies, from being sued by that same farmer after he develops cancer. It's not hard to imagine the scenarios. A farmer uses a product exactly as directed and suffers health consequences. A child is exposed to long-term spraying near a backyard and develops cancer. A water supply is tainted – but the label didn't give a full warning. If the EPA approved that label, this bill says: 'Tough luck.' Glyphosate, one of the most common chemicals in question, has been used in Tennessee for almost 50 years. Since the 1990s, its use has skyrocketed with the introduction of Roundup Ready crops. But with that growth have come new questions – about health risks, environmental effects, and whether people are getting the full truth. Counterpoint: Protect Tennessee farmers from activist-driven lawsuits related to pesticides Courts have started to recognize those risks. Families across the country have won lawsuits after proving long-term exposure caused cancer or other illnesses. This bill would close the courtroom door before those Tennesseans could even make their case. Here in Tennessee, we value local control, private property rights, and personal responsibility. This bill undercuts all three. This bill, if passed, would eliminate the ability of Tennesseans to seek justice through our own state's legal system. Even if new evidence emerges (new research is ongoing), or if a product causes harm despite being used correctly, this bill would prevent Tennessee courts from hearing civil claims – especially those about misleading or inadequate labeling. That shifts power away from local families and juries and gives an extra layer of protection to multi-national chemical companies. You may have seen billboards claiming food inflation will skyrocket in Tennessee without glyphosate. That's classic fear-based messaging. They're not defending the product's safety. They're warning us not to question it. But ask yourself: if a product is truly safe, why do the companies behind it need immunity from lawsuits? This isn't about banning anything. It's not about regulation. It's about preserving the right to seek justice when someone is harmed. That's a principal Tennesseans understand. And we should expect our legislature to defend that right—not quietly take it away. HB 809 and SB 527 don't serve or protect the people of Tennessee. They serve companies who don't live here, don't answer to us, and don't suffer the consequences when things go wrong. We don't need more corporate immunity. We need more faith in Tennesseans' right to choose—and the freedom to hold powerful interests legally accountable when necessary. Ken Berry is a board certified family physician in practice for over 22 years in Benton County, Tennessee. This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Tennessee legislation would indemnify pesticide companies | Opinion
