Latest news with #HughJackson
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
By thin margin, Assembly passes bill to provide $1.4b in tax credits for Summerlin movie studio
Among the 27 Democrats in the chamber, 15 voted in support and 12 voted against. Among Republicans, seven supported and eight opposed. The Nevada Assembly on Friday night approved what will likely be the state's largest ever public subsidy: $1.4 billion in transferable tax credits over 15 years to support a movie studio in Las Vegas. Assembly Bill 238 passed the Assembly by a razor-thin margin: 22 in support, 20 opposed. The bill now advances to the Senate for consideration in the waning days of the legislative session. The bill would massively expand Nevada's film tax credit program to support the build out and operation of a 31-acre film studio currently referred to as the Summerlin Production Studios Project (after the Las Vegas neighborhood where it would be located). Hollywood giants Sony Pictures Entertainment and Warner Bros. Discovery are attached to the project. Howard Hughes Holdings is developing. How transferable tax credits cost the state money: A $50 million example Transferable tax credits sell for less than face value — a discount of about 10% isn't unusual. Let's say the state issues Sony $50 million of tax credits. MGM Resorts International buys them from Sony for $45 million. Then, instead of paying the state $50 million in gaming taxes that it owes, MGM gives the state the tax credits it bought from Sony. MGM gets a $5 million tax break. Sony gets $45 million. And the state, which otherwise would have received $50 million in tax revenue from MGM, gets nothing. — Hugh Jackson Nevada's film tax credit program is currently capped at $10 million per year. AB 238 would raise that cap to $120 million per year, for 15 years, beginning in 2028. The majority of those tax credits, $95 million per year, would be reserved for productions at the Summerlin studio; $25 million per year would be for productions not attached to the studio. Altogether, that's equivalent to $1.8 billion in public subsidies for the television and film industry. If approved by the Senate and signed into law by Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo, the legislation will be the largest public subsidy approved by the State of Nevada, surpassing the $1.25 billion approved by lawmakers in 2014 for Tesla Motors. Democratic Assemblymembers Sandra Jauregui and Danielle Monroe Moreno, who sponsored the bill, have pushed back on the characterization of their proposal as a public subsidy for massive corporations, instead framing it as an investment in a new industry that will bring thousands of new jobs and new revenue to the state. While tax credits aren't issued to companies until they prove they've met the qualifications for them, the state must treat them as 'negative revenue' when forecasting expected state revenue. That means they do impact the state budgeting process. Opponents have argued that the return on investment is low. An independent analysis commissioned by the Governor's Office of Economic Development, which houses the Nevada Film Office, determined that AB238 would stimulate the state economy but not enough to offset the massive expansion of the film tax credit program. An analysis commissioned by the backers of AB 238 offered a rosier projection, but even that acknowledged that most of the projected economic activity is indirect or induced. An amendment adopted by the Assembly will create a special tax zone around the Summerlin film studio that captures some of the local taxes generated and diverts it to the Clark County School District to fund pre-k programs in East Last Vegas. Additional guardrails were also amended into the bill. Support in the Assembly did not fall across party lines. Among the 27 Democrats in the chamber, 15 voted in support and 12 voted against. Among Republicans, seven supported and eight opposed. The Summerlin studio bill received less support in the Assembly than the bill two years ago that approved $380 million in public assistance for a proposed baseball stadium for the Oakland A's on the Las Vegas Strip. That bill passed the Assembly 25-15. (Two lawmakers were excused from that vote.) The razor-thin film tax credit bill vote was not the only dramatic moment in the Assembly Friday. Earlier in the floor session, Assembly Bill 500 fell short of the required two-thirds approval it needed to pass the chamber. The bill would have allowed for payment banks, a new type of financial institution that focuses solely on payment processing rather than lending. Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager, who sponsored that bill, believes the bill will create competition in the financial services industry and lower costs for businesses by cutting out financial middlemen. The Assembly vote was 25-17, a simple majority but three short of the two-thirds it needed because it would raise state revenue. Six Democrats and 11 Republicans opposed the bill. Four Republicans and 11 Democrats supported the bill. Immediately after the bill failed, a motion was made to reconsider the vote and move the bill to the chief clerk's desk. Yeager said afterward he wasn't surprised by the outcome, adding that he wasn't sure he had the votes it needed but decided 'to put it out there and see.' He dismissed the notion that some Democrats may have withdrawn support after learning that the Nevada Firearms Coalition PAC was privately urging Republicans to support the bill, something Yeager and others in his caucus apparently did not know until it was reported by The Nevada Independent days earlier. Yeager chalked up the vote to lawmakers being hesitant about complex financial banking legislation. He added that he plans on having 'a few more conversations' about the bill on Saturday to see if another vote is possible. Because of procedural rules, AB500 needs to pass the full Assembly on Saturday in order to have a chance at making it to the governor's desk. The 2025 Legislative Session adjourns Monday.
Yahoo
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
When it comes to students' and teachers' rights, are charter schools public or private?
Future U.S. Supreme Court decisions could impact more than issues of religion and state, determining what basic rights students and teachers do or don't have at charter schools. (Photo: Hugh Jackson/Nevada Current) In April 2025, the Supreme Court heard arguments about whether the nation's first religious charter school could open in Oklahoma. The St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School would have been funded by taxpayer money but run by a local archdiocese and diocese. Several justices appeared open to the idea during questioning, leading some analysts to predict a win for the school. They were proved wrong on May 22, 2025, when the court blocked St. Isidore. The one-sentence, unsigned order did not indicate how individual justices had voted, nor why, simply declaring it was a split 4-4 decision that leaves in place the Oklahoma Supreme Court's ruling against the school. Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case. Her former employer, the University of Notre Dame, runs a law clinic representing the school's supporters. Ever since the proposed school started making headlines, attention has focused on religion. Critics warned a decision in the school's favor could allow government dollars to directly fund faith-based charter schools nationwide. In part, the justices had to decide whether the First Amendment's prohibition on government establishing religion applies to charter schools. But the answer to that question is part of an even bigger issue: Are charters really public in the first place? The Supreme Court's order applies only to Oklahoma, so similar cases attempting to open religious charter schools may emerge down the road. As two professors who study education law, we believe future court decisions could impact more than issues of religion and state, determining what basic rights students and teachers do or don't have at charter schools. In June 2023, the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board approved St. Isidore's application to open as an online K-12 school. The following year, however, the Oklahoma high court ruled that the proposal was unconstitutional. The justices concluded that charter schools are public under state law, and that the First Amendment's establishment clause forbids public schools from being religious. The court also found that a religious charter school would violate Oklahoma's constitution, which specifically forbids public money from benefiting religious organizations. On appeal, the charter school claimed that charter schools are private, and so the U.S. Constitution's establishment clause does not apply. Moreover, St. Isidore argued that if charter schools are private, the state's prohibition on religious charters violates the First Amendment's free exercise clause, which bars the government from limiting 'the free exercise' of religion. Previous Supreme Court cases have found that states cannot prevent private religious entities from participating in generally available government programs solely because they are religious. In other words, while St. Isidore's critics argued that opening a religious charter school would violate the First Amendment, its supporters claimed the exact opposite: that forbidding religious charter schools would violate the First Amendment. The question of whether an institution is public or private turns on a legal concept known as the 'state action doctrine.' This principle provides that the government must follow the Constitution, while private entities do not have to. For example, unlike students in public schools, students in private schools do not have the constitutional right to due process for suspensions and expulsions – procedures to ensure fairness before taking disciplinary action. Charter schools have some characteristics of both public and private institutions. Like traditional public schools, they are government-funded, free and open to all students. However, like private schools, they are free from many laws that apply to public schools, and they are independently run. Because of charters' hybrid nature, courts have had a hard time determining whether they should be considered public for legal purposes. Many charter schools are overseen by private corporations with privately appointed boards, and it is unclear whether these private entities are state actors. Two federal circuit courts have reached different conclusions. In Caviness v. Horizon Learning Center, a case from 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that an Arizona charter school corporation was not a state actor for employment purposes. Therefore, the board did not have to provide a teacher due process before firing him. The court reasoned that the corporation was a private actor that contracted with the state to provide educational services. In contrast, the 4th Circuit ruled in 2022 that a North Carolina charter school board was a state actor under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In this case, Peltier v. Charter Day School, students challenged the dress code requirement that female students wear skirts because they were considered 'fragile vessels.' The court first reasoned that the board was a state actor because North Carolina had delegated its constitutional duty to provide education. The court observed that the charter school's dress code was an inappropriate sex-based classification, and that school officials engaged in harmful gender stereotyping, violating the equal protection clause. If the Supreme Court had sided with St. Isidore – as many analysts thought was likely – then all private charter corporations might have been considered nonstate actors for the purposes of religion. But the stakes are even greater than that. State action involves more than just religion. Indeed, teachers and students in private schools do not have the constitutional rights related to free speech, search and seizure, due process and equal protection. In other words, if charter schools are not considered 'state actors,' charter students and teachers may eventually shed constitutional rights 'at the schoolhouse gate.' When courts have held that charter schools are not public in state law, some legislatures have made changes to categorize them as public. For example, California passed a law to clarify that charter school students have the same due process rights as traditional public school students after a court ruled otherwise. Likewise, we believe states looking to clear up charter schools' ambiguous state actor status under the Constitution can amend their laws. As we explain in a recent legal article, a 1995 Supreme Court case involving Amtrak illustrates how this can be done. Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation arose when Amtrak rejected a billboard ad for being political. The advertiser sued, arguing that the corporation had violated his First Amendment right to free speech. Since private organizations are not required to protect free speech rights, the case hinged on whether Amtrak qualified as a government agency. The court ruled in the plaintiff's favor, reasoning that Amtrak was a government actor because it was created by special law, served important governmental objectives and its board members were appointed by the government. Courts have applied this ruling in other instances. For example, the 10th Circuit ruled in 2016 that the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children was a governmental agency and therefore was required to abide by the Fourth Amendment's protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Since the Supreme Court did not release any reasoning for its order, we do not know how the justices viewed the 'government actor' question in the case from Oklahoma. That said, we believe charter schools fail the test set out in the Amtrak decision. Charter schools do serve the governmental purpose of providing educational choice for students. However, charter school corporations are not created by special law. They also fall short because most have independent boards instead of members who are appointed and removed by government officials. However, we would argue that states can amend their laws to comply with Lebron's standard, ensuring that charter schools are public or state actors for constitutional purposes. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Lawmakers aim to rethink excessive water use penalties in Southern Nevada
Supporters of the bill said they fear the excess use fees would eventually drive the loss of mature tree canopy in Las Vegas, lower air quality, and increase the urban heat island effect — a phenomenon that creates higher temperatures in cities due to an abundance of superheating man-made surfaces like roads and pavement. (Photo: Hugh Jackson/Nevada Current) The Las Vegas Valley Water District implemented a water rate structure two years ago that imposed hefty levies on the valley's biggest residential water users. Now state lawmakers are seeking to reexamine those fees following years of community pushback. Residential water use accounts for 60 percent of the water consumed in the Las Vegas Valley. The excessive use fee was designed to affect the 10 percent of single-family residential customers who are the largest water users, and slow the flow of the valley's diminishing water resources. But critics of the excessive use fee say the measure does not consider the lot size of properties subject to the fees and disproportionately impacts those living in the City of Las Vegas and unincorporated Clark County. The cities of Henderson, North Las Vegas, and Boulder City do not have excess use fees. The Assembly Committee on Natural Resources heard Senate Bill 143 on Monday, a bill that would authorize the Joint Interim Standing Committee on Natural Resources to evaluate and review the excessive use fees and other water conservation efforts that impact turf and tree canopy. If passed, lawmakers would be tasked with making recommendations for the 2027 legislative session. The bill, sponsored by state Sen. Rochelle Nguyen (D-Las Vegas), passed the Senate in April with unanimous bipartisan approval. Nguyen said the bill's intent is to examine water conservation efforts in Nevada, particularly in older neighborhoods with more mature landscaping and larger lot sizes that may require more water. 'A large part of my district is in older neighborhoods, often historic neighborhoods, and a lot of those older neighborhoods have lots of mature landscaping, including a tree canopy that's often 50 to 75 (years) if not older in age,' Nguyen said. 'These older residential communities are really the closest things that we do have to an urban green space and places that are lacking investment by our municipalities and new parks and green spaces for outdoor recreation.' Nguyen said residents in her district have repeatedly expressed frustration about the disproportionate impact of excess use fees incurred by maintaining their mature landscaping. In Southern Nevada, the excessive use charge applies to residential water customers who exceed certain seasonal thresholds. The charge is $9 per 1,000 gallons of water used beyond the threshold. 'We have plenty of people that cannot afford the landscaping and water costs associated with maintaining their existing landscaping,' Nguyen said. During the hearing, supporters of the bill said they fear the excess use fees would eventually drive the loss of mature tree canopy in Las Vegas, lower air quality, and increase the urban heat island effect — a phenomenon that creates higher temperatures in cities due to an abundance of superheating man-made surfaces like roads and pavement. Robert Hillsman, an anesthesiologist and one of the top 100 water users in Las Vegas in 2023, spoke in support of the bill. Hillsman said he has landscaped much of his one acre property and his water bill has doubled due to the excessive use fees. 'There are hundreds of thousands of dollars in landscaping, and despite the removal of grass, my water bill now exceeds $3,000 per month. This is due to the very unfair, lowered limited gallons and very abusive excess water surcharges,' Hillsman said. Hillsman argued the excess use fee does not help mitigate the 'rapidly escalating urban heat island effect.' Andy Belanger, the director of Public Services at Las Vegas Valley Water District, said the excess use fee is working as intended. 'The excessive use charge was designed to increase water conservation among people who are price insensitive to water conservation, and it has done that,' Belanger said during the hearing. 'It only hits the top 6% of water customers because nearly half of them have changed their behavior. The people who are still paying that, have been resistant to change,' he continued. Belanger emphasized the importance of water conservation in a state that only receives about 2% of Colorado River flows. While the Las Vegas Valley Water District testified as neutral on the bill, Belanger said the agency would support the idea of a study on water conservation and was fully prepared to defend the excess use fee in front of the Joint Interim Standing Committee on Natural Resources if the bill passed. Laura McSwain, Founder and President of the Water Fairness Coalition, said the bill was a good first step in creating oversight for water conservation policies in Southern Nevada. 'For 20 years, [the Southern Nevada Water Authority] and the Las Vegas Valley Water District executive team has focused on the removal of grass from water savings and spends millions of dollars each year in community outreach advertising using Lake Mead levels to convince residents to submit to their policy prescriptions for water savings.' McSwain, who lives on a half-acre lot in Las Vegas she purchased nine years ago, said current residents should not have to bear the brunt of the water savings if that water is only being conserved in order to fuel more growth in Las Vegas. The district, she said, should be aggressive in pursuing new water saving technologies to address needed conservation. 'Why would the agency responsible for water delivery and water safety so aggressively seek the removal of elements that so much protect our quality of life?' McSwain said. Nguyen said if the bill passed, she wants the Joint Interim Standing Committee on Natural Resources to investigate the impact of turf removal on urban heat island effects and the benefits of preserving trees and grass. The committee would also be charged with reviewing advancements in landscape water conservation technologies and considering exceptions for turf grass growing under trees, based on research on the cooling benefits of the combination. No action was taken on the bill. The bill will need to pass in the State Senate by May 23 before being sent to the governor's desk for final approval.
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Legislative proposals would nudge, aid municipalities toward infill development
Infill development advocates argue vacant office buildings, vacant land, and even parking lots are underutilized. (Photo: Hugh Jackson/Nevada Current) Tens of thousands of square feet of vacant lots and commercial properties sit empty in the Las Vegas and Reno metro areas. Proposed legislation attempts to help tackle the state's housing crisis by establishing a process to rezone them as residential. State lawmakers are considering multiple proposals that would empower cities to more aggressively encourage infill development to address Nevada's shortage of affordable and available units. Assembly Bill 241, sponsored by Democratic Assemblymember Sandra Jauregui, is designed to spark development of more multi-family housing, and require counties to speed up the process to rezone land currently designated commercial use into residential or mixed use. 'Many commercial properties, particularly aging strip malls and vacant office buildings, are underutilized,' Jauregui said during the bill's hearing in March. 'Repurposing them for housing makes better use of existing infrastructure. Building homes closer to jobs, schools and public transit reduces commute times, lowers greenhouse gas emissions and decreases urban sprawl.' The bill, which passed the Assembly on a party line vote earlier this month, is directed toward the state's most populous counties, Clark and Washoe, and would give them until Oct. 1, 2026 to adopt an ordinance that allows for a more expedited rezoning process. Under the legislation, if a buyer purchases a commercial property and wants to build multi-family housing on it instead, they could seek swift approval rather than go through a lengthy rezoning process, Jauregui said. A recent analysis by the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern and the regional planning collaborative known as Southern Nevada Strong identified 78,285 acres as 'vacant or underutilized land,' most of it — 85% — vacant. The bill is scheduled to be heard Wednesday in the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee. The legislation's supporters included theNevada Conservation Leaguethe Nevada State Apartment Association. However, the Nevada Association of Counties along with Clark and Washoe County opposed the legislation. 'There are some commercial areas where multi-family or mixed-use (zoning) may not be appropriate,' said Ashley Kennedy, a lobbyist with Clark County, adding the county wants to retain 'the ability at the local level to determine' when to quickly rezone without state legislation mandating it. Kennedy said that the county supports infill development and hasn't denied any application for a multi-family project since 2022. She added that during that timeframe there were 39 applications for multi-family projects approved, and 21 of those applications were in commercially zoned areas.' Cadence Matijevich, a lobbyist with Washoe County, warned the bill would produce 'unintended consequences' and could 'upset the balance of land use in our community' by requiring some commercial projects to be rezoned as residential. 'Nevada cannot afford to let outdated zoning laws and people who oppose density continue to be the reason we are stalling housing production,' Jauregui said. Efforts to promote infill development come as state lawmakers, some members of Nevada's Congressional delegation and Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo have pushed for stepped up sales of federal land development. Assembly Joint Resolution 10, also sponsored by Jauregui, would ask the federal government to pass the Southern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act, commonly referred to as the Clark County Lands Bill. The bill passed the Assembly 36-6 April 17. Six Democrats Assemblymembers, Natha Anderson, Venicia Considine, Tanya Flanagan, Selena La Rue Hatch, Cinthia Moore, and Howard Watts, voted against the resolution. Democratic Rep. Dina Titus recently took issue with state lawmakers voting for the resolution and denounced the federal bill, saying nothing in the legislation mandates that any of the land must be dedicated to affordable housing. The bill would only make land available 'to developers to build more homes that average Nevadans cannot afford,' Titus said. AB 241 isn't the only bill that could lead to more infill development. Senate Bill 28, legislation being brought by the City of Las Vegas, would create 'tax increment areas' in which a portion of future property tax revenue would be used to pay interest on bonds used to finance affordable housing development as well as public transit. Much of the city's development over the next 25 years 'will consist of infill and redevelopment within existing neighborhoods, Seth Floyd, Director of Community Development for the City of Las Vegas, told the Senate Government Affairs Committee during a hearing on the bill in lawmakers during the bill's hearing in March.' SB 28 passed the Senate 17-4 on April 17. Republican Sens. Carrie Ann Buck, Robin Titus, Ira Hansen and John Ellison voted against the bill. Lawmakers are also considering allocating general fund dollars to aid housing development, including $250 million proposed by Lombardo. Any proposal seeking to allocate any funding could face serious setbacks after the Economic Forum meets Thursday, when it will set final budget limits that legislators and the governor must meet when they approve a budget for the upcoming biennium. Uncertainty and anxiety driven by Donald Trump's trade war and the resulting fallout have prompted widespread projections of not only a slowing economy, with many observers projecting the chance of a recession has increased substantially in recent weeks. Assembly Bill 366, sponsored by Democratic Assemblymember Daniele Monroe-Moreno, would appropriate $25 million from the state general fund to supportive housing initiatives throughout the state. The Nevada Housing Division would determine the projects eligible to receive those dollars. Permanent supportive housing projects are subsidized for populations with significantly low or no income, such as folks experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness, and comes with case management and wrap-around support services. Brooke Page, the Nevada director of the Corporation for Supportive Housing, said funding supportive housing for unhoused people is more cost effective than the alternative. The organization conducted an analysis for Northern Nevada last year that found eight days in the emergency room, three months in jail, and one year in supportive housing with rental assistance and warp around services all cost the same. Page said. 'It makes more sense to house people, ensure they have the services they need to improve their mental health, their physical health, and gain access to employment than it does to continue to allow people to cycle in and out of high-cost systems,' she said. Not only do developers struggle to find financing for supportive housing, funding for operational support and tenant services is also limited. State lawmakers in 2023 allocated $30 million from the state's general fund to permanent supportive housing projects. AB 366 seeks to strengthen the program.. During its first hearing in March, Monroe-Moreno said though the state 'doesn't have any money' allocating funds for permanent supportive housing was a priority Lombardo also identified during his budget proposal, she said. The bill has not advanced out of its first house but is exempt from legislative deadlines.
Yahoo
07-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Gilead or bust: Why no place is safe unless we make it safe
The "Hands Off!" protest in Las Vegas Saturday. (Photo: Hugh Jackson/Nevada Current) Truth is getting scarier than fiction these days. While most of us read Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale as a grim dystopian novel, the Project 2025 crowd, and all those they embolden, have seen it as more of a how-to guide for eradicating reproductive rights. For anyone who hasn't read the book, or watched the Hulu show (set to come back for its final season this month), it involves a newly minted fascist country called Gilead that has taken over the bulk of what was the United States following a violent coup. A centerpiece of their society are handmaids, women who are forced to bear the nation's children, conceived through a perverse ritual of rape and slave labor. Still, The Handmaid's Tale is fiction. Or is it? In season two of the show, main character Offred fears being banished to a toxic waste dump in the colonies after she has a miscarriage. This serves as a kind of death sentence. It seems like a harsh punishment for something that occurs naturally—miscarriages happen. Here's where reality jumps into the frame. A Georgia woman was arrested for having a miscarriage in March. Selena Maria Chandler-Scott, 24, was found unconscious on her bathroom floor. She had miscarried at 19 weeks. By all accounts it was naturally occurring. Chandler-Scott was released after weeks in jail on Friday, after public pressure. Meanwhile, legislators in Georgia are considering The Prenatal Equal Protection Act (HB 441), which would call abortion patients murderers and could give them the death penalty. But this is just one case in one state, right? Maybe you live in a state with abortion access codified in state or local laws. Even then you might not be safe. Let's look at Nevada. When Roe v Wade was overturned in 2022, abortion laws reverted back to the states. Fortunately, Nevada has a law allowing abortion. In fact, we are part-way through the process of codifying abortion access into the state constitution, which requires two votes by the people. The first was last year and the second is set for 2026. At the Nevada Legislature, there are bills that would offer provider address privacy protection (AB 235), prescribing doctor name anonymization on medical packaging (AB 411), and repealing an existing law that criminalizes medication abortion (SB 139). So far so good, but even so-called safe states have pitfalls. A 1985 state law requiring parental notification for minors seeking abortion is set to go into effect on April 30. The law had been blocked by a federal court for decades but has sprung back to life like so many of its kind around the country following the end of Roe. Conservatives like to say abortion is a state's rights issue, which is what has essentially happened with the overturning of Roe v Wade. Now it seems that's not enough. The states that have harsher laws want everyone to play by their rules whether you live there or not. Take the case of the New York doctor indicted by a Louisiana grand jury for prescribing mail-order abortion medication. While New York has abortion access as well as laws allowing doctors to prescribe abortion medication by mail, the state of Louisiana is continuing to push for felony charges under their own state laws, which criminalize abortion-inducing medication. It shouldn't be a trick of the map for people to have reproductive rights. A line drawn here or there becomes the difference between personal liberty or not. And the new wave of anti-abortion bills around the country are signaling that even lines on maps won't matter much in the future. Meanwhile the Texas Legislature is considering multiple bills that would impact reproductive rights. As Jessica Valenti reported on her Abortion, Every Day Substack last week, Texas SB 31 seeks to 'prosecute abortion funds, helpers, and maybe even patients' while Texas SB 2880 would deputize ordinary citizens to report anything online that shares abortion information. The latter would mean that websites originating anywhere in America could face charges in Texas. The point of all this seems pretty clear: No state is safe. Not when bounty hunters and attorneys can pursue you across state lines. And no person is safe, even when they are just trying to survive a natural medical event. In Trump's America, anyone with a uterus isn't just damned if you do, they're damned period. The smart thing to do is to pushback with all our might. In Atwood's book, Gilead was allowed to take shape because citizens were too shocked by the brute force of the new regime. We must take this as a warning for our very real times. In our case, we have some tools to resist. States with existing reproductive rights and protections can beef them up by closing loopholes and addressing the modern era. If abortion medication is legal in your state, make sure other jurisdictions can't prosecute on technicalities like mail-orders or use of the internet. If abortion rights are in your laws, codify them in your state constitutions. Don't just focus on your own backyard either, because it's clear that anti-abortion networks are looking at ways to creep into national bans and regulations by way of shady state bills. Keep the pressure on elected officials. Write op-eds. Most of all, be vigilant. I'm not moving to Gilead and I'm not letting the whims of others move Gilead over me.
