Latest news with #JimJustice
Associated Press
5 days ago
- Health
- Associated Press
US appeals court upholds West Virginia restriction on abortion pill sales
CHARLESTON, (AP) — A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a lower court's decision to restrict abortion pill sales in West Virginia. A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, affirmed a ruling by a U.S. district judge in 2023 despite federal regulators' approval of the abortion pill as a safe and effective medication. Most Republican-controlled states have enacted or adopted abortion bans of some kind, including restricting abortion pills by default, since the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that provided nationwide access to abortion. All have been challenged in court. The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Chambers had ruled that the near-total abortion ban signed by then-Republican Gov. Jim Justice in September 2022 took precedence over approvals from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 'For us to once again federalize the issue of abortion without a clear directive from Congress, right on the heels of Dobbs, would leave us one small step short of defiance,' 4th Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote for the court. 'One can of course agree or disagree with the Dobbs decision. But that is not the point,' Wilkinson said. 'At a time when the rule of law is under blunt assault, disregarding the Supreme Court is not an option.' West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey, who took office in January, had defended challenges to the abortion law when he served as attorney general. 'Big win out of the 4th Circuit today,' Morrisey said in a statement. GenBioPro Inc., the country's only manufacturer of a generic version of the abortion pill mifepristone, had argued that the state cannot block access to a FDA-approved drug. Chambers had dismissed the majority of GenBioPro's challenges, finding there is 'no disputing that health, medicine, and medical licensure are traditional areas of state authority.' Appeals judge DeAndrea Gist Benjamin concurred and dissented in part Tuesday, calling it a 'troubling opinion.' 'Put plainly, this law erects barriers to life-saving healthcare for countless West Virginians in ways not envisioned by Congress,' Benjamin wrote. Not at issue in the appeal was a challenge by GenBioPro concerning a separate West Virginia law that stopped providers from prescribing mifepristone by telehealth. Chambers had allowed that challenge to proceed. The U.S. Supreme Court last year unanimously preserved access to mifepristone, which is used in nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the U.S. in 2023.
E&E News
11-07-2025
- Business
- E&E News
How a new coal credit snuck into the GOP megabill
A West Virginia Republican whose family owns a sprawling coal business helped lead the quiet, last-minute effort to add a lucrative tax credit to the GOP megabill that could net the fossil fuel industry tens of millions of dollars. Sen. Jim Justice, a longtime champion of fossil fuels, played a pivotal role in adding a provision to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that delivered a tax win for the coal sector in a law that also claws back incentives for renewable energy projects. By his side was fellow West Virginia Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, who worked behind the scenes to tweak the House version of the package, according to her office. Advertisement 'She partnered with Senator Justice — who led this effort — in getting this [coal] provision added to the bill,' Kelley Moore, Capito's communications director, said in a statement. Capito, she added, was 'very supportive of this initiative.' Now, companies angling to dig up metallurgical coal used for making steel — including those tied to Justice's family — are eligible for the advanced manufacturing production credit, known as 45X, first established in the inflation Reduction Act of 2022 to boost domestic production of energy components and critical minerals. Under the new language, metallurgical coal is deemed a critical mineral and producers are eligible for a 2.5 percent tax credit through 2029, regardless of whether their coal is used to make steel in the U.S. or abroad. Justice, in an interview with POLITICO's E&E News, said he was one of multiple people pushing for the new language. The senator said he wanted the credit to help companies dealing with dropping met coal processes and mine layoffs. Indeed, metallurgical coal export prices have fallen by 33.6 percent in the last year, according to a July 1 report from the Energy Information Administration 'Major coal companies, metallurgical coal companies, are closing,' the senator said. 'This is just throwing a bone to the metallurgical producers to, some way, somehow, keep them going.' Justice and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito ( are seen with Justice's dog, Babydog, last month. | Francis Chung/POLITICO Personal gain? Justice said the language aligns with President Donald Trump's goal of upping steel production. But the senator's family is also deeply entwined with the coal sector. Justice's family owns a company called Bluestone Coal, which produces metallurgical coal and stands to benefit from the tax credit. According to a financial disclosure form filed last year, Justice owns more than $50 million in stock in Bluestone Resources Inc., more than $25 million in Bluestone Coal Corp. as well as more than $25 million in an inactive processing facility in Alabama. Justice's son now controls Bluestone, according to the West Virginia secretary of state's website. The company could not be reached for comment. William O'Grady, Justice's communications director, said that congressional leadership worked to get the provision into the bill 'because it was a priority of the President,' not because of any personal benefit to Justice. 'This tax credit will keep metallurgical coal miners employed and is right in line with the President's EO designating coal as a critical earth mineral,' O'Grady said. 'The perception that this coal tax credit was pushed to benefit the Senator is an empty condemnation by people who really just don't like the bill all together,' he added. 'Very meaningful' Other metallurgical coal producers say the new credit will be a boon for an industry that continues to see layoffs and bankruptcies fueled by tough market conditions and depressed prices. '2.5 percent is helpful, especially in a down market,' said Randall Atkins, founder of Kentucky-based Ramaco Resources, which mines both coal and minerals. 'I'm not quite sure that we've worked out all of the math yet, but depending on … how much coal you're producing, it could certainly be very meaningful.' But the legislative addition has drawn blistering criticism from conservation groups and former Trump ally Elon Musk, who blasted the megabill for killing renewables while funding fossil fuels. 'Utterly insane and destructive,' Musk wrote on X shortly after the bill's passage. 'It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.' Conservation groups argued that the bulk of metallurgical coal in the U.S. is shipped overseas for making steel, meaning U.S. taxpayers would be funding materials intended for other countries' markets. When asked about the export landscape, Justice said he was 'not at all' concerned about the new credit bolstering Asian steelmaking, given how 'minuscule' in size the new funding is. At 2.5 percent, the credit is significantly less than the 10 percent advanced manufacturing production credit other critical minerals receive in the bill. 'If all we have is enough coal for the domestic market, the mine can't make it,' Justice said. 'As long as the coal is going to make steel, you know, then indirectly, we may benefit, but primarily we benefit from the standpoint that the mine is operational.' GOP departure? Even though Republicans moved to repeal credits for wind and solar, they were more generous to energy sources they prefer, including nuclear and geothermal. Some conservatives would have rather done away with credits altogether. 'I was very surprised to see this happen, and I was very confused about the general policy principle they were using to add this in,' said Shuting Pomerleau, director of energy and environmental policy at the center-right American Action Forum 'The conventional Republican thinking is that if a business needs to rely on tax credits to survive or to be profitable, then this business, it doesn't really have a good business case, it should just go away,' she added. Tom Pyle, president of the conservatively-aligned American Energy Alliance, said tax credits undermine market efficiency and long-term energy affordability and that his group believes all energy sources should compete based on cost, reliability and performance — not political favoritism. 'Tax credits like the 45X provision distort energy markets by allowing the government to pick winners and losers,' said Pyle. 'The direct or indirect subsidization of any form of energy invites further government intervention and erodes the level playing field that drives innovation and consumer choice.' Green groups argue the provision is just one of many handouts the GOP tucked in the bill to bolster the production and use of coal. The legislation also slashes coal royalty rates from 12.5 percent to 7 percent and opens 4 million acres of public land for expanded coal mining. Cameron Walkup, an associate legislative representative at Earthjustice, blasted lawmakers for quietly adding the provision into the bill with no debate or transparency and said the language amounts to a production tax credit for an industry that already exports the vast majority of its product overseas. 'This provision was air dropped in at the last minute,' said Walkup. 'There was no debate or any substantive conversation about what this would actually mean or why it was being added.' He added: 'It simply gives them a tax break on behalf of the American taxpayers.'
Yahoo
06-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Republicans just cut Medicaid. Will it cost them control of Congress?
Republicans just delivered Donald Trump a 'big, beautiful' legislative win. Now they're fretting it will lead to some ugly electoral losses. GOP lawmakers are warning that slashing spending on Medicaid and food assistance will cost the party seats in the midterms — threatening their razor-thin House majority — by kicking millions of Americans off safety-net programs. 'You would be foolish not to worry about it,' Sen. Jim Justice ( said in a brief interview. 'If you don't keep the voters right with you, you're going to awaken to a bad, bad, bad day.' Justice voted for the megabill last week, despite his concerns over some of its Medicaid provisions — and after warning Republicans 'cannot cut into the bone.' Steep cuts, he said, would cost the GOP voters and lead the party to 'awaken to [being in the] minority.' Republicans have already lost one of their most vulnerable senators over the bill: North Carolina's Thom Tillis, who privately told his colleagues he would lose his seat over Medicaid cuts before announcing his retirement and publicly torching the public-health overhaul on the Senate floor. Another vulnerable GOP senator, Susan Collins of Maine, opposed it over the 'harmful impact' Medicaid cuts would have on low-income families and rural health care providers. 'When you don't get health care right, it tends to have probably an outsized impact on politics,' Tillis said in a brief interview ahead of the Senate's vote. He warned his party that slashing Medicaid could become a political albatross, like the Affordable Care Act was for Democrats during Barack Obama's presidency. The final bill, passed by the House Thursday, delivered a $1 trillion-plus cut to health care programs and could lead to an estimated 11.8 million people losing their insurance. House Speaker Mike Johnson privately cautioned that the deeper cuts the Senate passed could cost him his slim majority next year, though he ultimately whipped his members to support the changes. Several Republicans said the cuts would make the bill a tougher sell to their voters. Adding to the GOP angst: Democrats are preparing to weaponize the bill as they did Republicans' failed efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2017. That 2018 midterm election led to a GOP wipeout in the House, with the party losing 40 seats, including some districts in Trump-leaning territory. Democrats are planning to again hitch vulnerable Republicans to the cuts to social safety-net programs. 'I could have defended the House bill every day,' said GOP Rep. Don Bacon, who had raised concerns over cuts to food aid and announced he would retire from his Nebraska swing seat as the Senate prepared to deepen the cuts in the House bill. 'The other side is going to use Medicaid as an issue,' he said, even as he voted for the megabill. 'And I think the Senate [version of the bill] gives them a little more leverage to do so.' Republicans are walking a tightrope as they return to their districts to start selling the sweeping policy package. They're going to lean into the megabill's popular provisions, like eliminating taxes on tips, while trying to escape unpopular reductions to safety-net programs. The final bill slashes spending by $1.7 trillion. Voters broadly dislike the megabill; some recent polling shows a 2-to-1 margin of disapproval, according to surveys conducted by Quinnipiac University, The Washington Post, Pew Research and Fox News. Nearly half of voters want more federal funding for Medicaid, while just 10 percent want less, according to Quinnipiac. 'What we know from past elections is that messing with people's healthcare coverage is very problematic for politicians. And it has, in the past, yielded some very, very negative views about the people who supported it,' said Republican pollster Whit Ayres. Meanwhile Democrats are rushing to capitalize on the controversy and plan to make it a centerpiece of their midterm messaging. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries spoke on the floor for eight hours and 45 minutes, reading letters from constituents of vulnerable GOP lawmakers who could lose access to both programs. Democratic candidates followed up with post-vote statements blasting the Republicans they're looking to unseat for effectively kicking people in their districts off their health care plans. Their campaign arms and allied super PACs have already released several rounds of ads hammering vulnerable Republicans and say they plan to keep up the pace. Republicans are trying to figure out how to fight back. Their early salvos have focused on painting Democrats as supportive of tax hikes since they opposed a bill that would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts and eliminate federal taxes on tips and overtime. Republicans also argue they're protecting the 'most vulnerable' Medicaid recipients by removing undocumented immigrants and others they say shouldn't have access to the program anyway. But in a tacit acknowledgment of the potential electoral fallout, some Republicans have pledged to try to reverse provisions such as the provider tax drawdown before they take effect in 2028. 'To the extent that there's reform, and … you can legitimately argue it's the waste, fraud, abuse, that's a good position to be in,' said Rep. Russ Fulcher (R-Idaho). 'If it's just strictly a situation where you say, 'We're just cutting and spending' and it's not cognizant as to how and where, that's where we get into trouble.' Another potential security blanket for the GOP: Many Americans at risk of steep Medicaid cuts reside in deep-red swaths of the country that are unlikely to turn blue next year. But there are also high percentages of Medicaid enrollees in some GOP-held swing districts Democrats are itching to flip. The Senate's harsher Medicaid language prompted Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) to vote against the megabill, putting him in the company of deficit hawk Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). Fitzpatrick, in a statement, said the Senate's changes 'fell short' of protecting constituents in his suburban Philadelphia district that has more than 100,000 enrollees. Another top Democratic target, Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.), voted in favor of the bill despite expressing 'several concerns' with the stricter limits on provider taxes and state-directed payments that he unsuccessfully lobbied Senate Majority Leader John Thune not to include. Valadao lost his seat in Democrats' health-care-fueled 2018 wave, when liberal groups successfully yoked him to GOP efforts to overturn the Affordable Care Act, and won it back in 2020. Now those groups are running the same playbook in his Central Valley district that enrolls nearly two-thirds of his constituents in Medicaid — the highest percentage in the GOP conference. Valadao, who fought for months to rein in some of the changes to the program, sought to justify his vote in a statement Thursday by arguing 'it does preserve the Medicaid program for its intended recipients' and includes a $50 billion stabilization fund to offset harm to rural hospitals. New York Rep. Mike Lawler, whose lower-Hudson Valley district has more than 200,000 people enrolled in Medicaid, said in a brief interview that he 'fought extensively to make sure that there were not draconian changes to Medicaid' and that lawmakers will have time to address some of the others before they take effect. 'At the end of the day, this is about strengthening the program,' he said. As for electoral consequences: 'You just tell people what's actually in the bill, as opposed to what the Democrats have been trying to fearmonger on.' But Democrats are confident that 'putting shine on a turd' will not work, said Ian Russell, a consultant who served as the political director of Democrats' House campaign arm in 2014 and 2016. 'Republicans are running back their 2018 playbook,' said CJ Warnke, communications director for House Majority PAC, the Democratic leadership-aligned super PAC. 'And it's once again going to cost them the majority.' Samuel Benson, Cassandra Dumay, Melanie Mason, Nicholas Wu and Holly Otterbein contributed to this report.
Yahoo
06-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
NASA IV&V in Fairmont faces drastic funding cut
Jul. 5—dbeard @ MORGANTOWN — NASA's Katherine Johnson Independent Verification & Validation Facility in Fairmont could see a drastic budget cut under President Trump's Fiscal Year 2026 Discretionary Budget Request. But members of West Virginia's Congressional delegation are working to prevent it As part of an overall proposed NASA budget cut, Johnson IV &V would see its funding fall from its current $43.3 million (from FY 2024) to $13.8 million in FY 2026 — just one third of the current budget. NASA is working on answers to questions from The Dominion Post about the ramifications of the cut and will provide those next week. In its 2026 Budget Technical Supplement, the agency says, "In FY 2026, NASA plans to significantly reduce and restructure both the NASA Engineering and Safety Center and Independent Verification and Validation program as part of the effort to consolidate the overall Agency Technical Authority program. In FY 2026, NASA will allocate $9.9 million for IV &V to ensure the program can provide software assurance support to the future Moon to Mars programs." The Dominion Post reached out to Sens. Shelley Moore Capito and Jim Justice, and Rep. Riley Moore for comments on the proposal. Capito spokeswoman Kelley Moore (no relation) said Capito "is aware of the proposed cuts to NASA that would impact the mission and the facility at Katherine Johnson IV &V." She has been in contact with leadership at the facility, Goddard Space Flight Center, which oversees the work at IV &V, and NASA Headquarters. "It has also been conveyed to NASA and to the Senate Appropriations Committee that Sen. Capito will oppose any cuts to this facility that would impact workforce or its mission, " Moore said. Moore noted that since NASA does not have an administrator or a nominee at this time, there has not been a budget hearing where this topic could be raised. "Regardless, Sen. Capito is working hard to protect this facility that she so proudly helped name around this time in 2019." Justice did not respond to several requests for comment. Moore said, "I am closely tracking the proposed cuts to NASA's Fairmont facility. I have been in constant communication with the appropriations subcommittee chairman who oversees its funding, and will use my position on the Appropriations Committee to fight for the important work being done there." Here's a breakdown of the numbers that factor into IV &V's budget — with several layers of authority above IV &V. IV &V overall falls under NASA's Safety, Security and Mission Services. That budget was cut from $3.131 billion in FY 2024 to $3.092 billion in FY 2025 and will fall to $2.118 billion in FY 2026 the federal fiscal year begins Oct. 1). Under SS &MS, is Engineering Safety & Operations. Its budget will fall from $1.088 billion in FY 2024 to $620.3million in FY 2026 and $446.5 million in FY 2027. And under ES &O, the Agency Technical Authority funding will fall from $196.1 million in FY 2024 to $69.6 million in FY 2026. "The Agency Technical Authority program protects the health and safety of NASA's workforce by evaluating programs, projects, and operations to ensure safe and successful completion. ATA capabilities provide expert technical excellence, mission assurance, and technical authority agency wide." IV &V falls directly under the Agency Technical Authority, with funding from several accounts. Funding from the Safety, Security and Mission Services account will be cut from $39.2 million to $9.9 million — for software assurance support for Moon and Mars programs, as mentioned above. Funding from the Exploration account will go from $3.3 million to $2 million. Funding from the Space Operations account will go from $800, 000 to $700, 000. One account source will see an increase: Science account funding will go from $0 in FY 2024 to $1.2 million for FY 2026. A footnote hints at some flexibility: "The IV &V program will work with Mission Directorate to adjust FY 2026 allocations as the FY 2026 operating plan is developed." Some information provided to The Dominion Post noted that cuts to IV &V have been proposed in the past, but not to this extent.
Yahoo
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
SCOTUS to take up West Virginia's transgender athlete ban
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear West Virginia vs. B.P.J. during its fall term, a challenge to West Virginia's ban on transgender athletes. The ban was challenged by Becky Pepper-Jackson (pictured) a teenage transgender student athlete from West Virginia. (Billy Wolfe | ACLU photo) The Supreme Court of the United States will take up a challenge of a West Virginia law prohibiting transgender athletes from participating in school sports in a case that could decide the legality of other such bans around the country. The high court is expected to hear West Virginia vs. B.P.J. during its fall term. The lawsuit was brought by the mother of Bridgeport student athlete Becky Pepper-Jackson against the West Virginia Board of Education. At the time the federal lawsuit was filed in 2021 Pepper-Jackson was an 11-year-old student athlete who wanted to run for her middle school's cross country team but was prohibited from doing so. The lawsuit alleges the state's 2021 Save Women's Sports Act, signed by former Gov. Jim Justice, is unconstitutional. In a ruling last year, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the state from enforcing the ban, finding the law violated Pepper-Jackson's rights. Pepper-Jackson, a freshman during the last school year, qualified to participate in two events during the West Virginia High School State Track & Field Championships in May, according to reporting by West Virginia MetroNews. Since 2020, 27 states have banned transgender youth from playing school sports, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. The Supreme Court will also take up a lawsuit challenging Idaho's transgender athlete ban. State attorney general J.B. McCuskey celebrated the news that the high court would take up the case, saying that 'female athletes in West Virginia will have their voices heard.' 'The people of West Virginia know that it's unfair to let male athletes compete against women; that's why we passed this commonsense law preserving women's sports for women,' McCuskey said. 'We are confident the Supreme Court will uphold the Save Women's Sports Act because it complies with the U.S. Constitution and complies with Title IX. And most importantly: it protects women and girls by ensuring the playing field is safe and fair.' Pepper-Jackson is represented by the ACLU, Lambda Legal and Cooley LLP. In a statement, Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project, said that school athletic programs should be accessible to everyone regardless of sex and transgender status. 'Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork and to simply have fun with their friends,' he said. 'Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.' In a statement Thursday, Gov. Patrick Morrisey, who represented the state in the case in his prior role as attorney general, said he is pleased to hear the high court will take up the case. 'I am optimistic that after hearing the case, the Supreme Court will restore sanity to athletics and allow West Virginia to enforce its commonsense law that prevents boys from competing in girl's sports,' Morrisey said. This story was originally published by West Virginia Watch. Like Maine Morning Star, West Virginia Watch is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. West Virginia Watch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Leann Ray for questions: info@ SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
