Latest news with #SB88
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Hundreds push back against bill prohibiting foreign nationals from buying property in Ohio
Hongmei Li speaking at a press conference in opposition to SB 88. (Photo by Nick Evans, Ohio Capital Journal) An Ohio Senate committee heard from opponents Tuesday of a measure placing restrictions on foreign ownership of land. The sponsors argue keeping foreign governments — particularly China — at least 25 miles from military installations and critical infrastructure is a matter of national security. But opponents contend the bill casts too broad a net, wrapping in ordinary people who have visas or are working their way through the immigration process. They add the bill violates several constitutional and statutory provisions. More to the point, they argue it would codify racism and xenophobia. The proposal finds its roots in a measure proposed during the last general assembly which found its way into the last state operating budget. Gov. Mike DeWine left a prohibition on foreign ownership of farmland to remain in place that budget cycle, but he vetoed the provision restricting ownership within 25 miles of military bases. 'Restricting ownership of Ohio farmland protects Ohio's rich agricultural tradition from adverse interests,' DeWine said in his veto message. 'However, including other non-agricultural real property in this provision could have unintended economic development consequences.' The sponsors of House Bill 1 and Senate Bill 88 are taking another crack at that idea, and they've expanded their scope to include 'critical infrastructure' like power, water, and transportation facilities. The list is broad enough, Sen. Terry Johnson, R-McDermott, acknowledged, to 'effectively blanket the entirety of the state of Ohio.' Under the bills, the Ohio Secretary of State would develop a list of entities barred from owning property in the state and update it at least every six months. For countries identified as 'foreign adversaries,' their government, citizens, and businesses would face ownership restrictions automatically. 'I introduced this bill,' Johnson said, 'because I strongly believe that Ohio's land should not be for sale to those who seek to destroy the American way of life.' He added that while his bill is very similar to the Ohio House version, he takes 'a hardline stance' against existing owners. Senate Bill 88 wouldn't just prohibit purchases in the future, it would require any current owners subject to the restrictions to sell their land within two years. But at the beginning of Tuesday's hearing, the committee adopted an amendment eliminating the forced-sale provisions in the bill. At a press conference Tuesday morning, state lawmakers and grassroots organizers criticized the legislation as 'a symbol for hate' and 'legalized discrimination.' 'These bills represent a step backwards into the darker history of racism in America, rather than progress toward justice and inclusion,' Hongmei Li from the Ohio Chinese American Council argued. She said the proposal hearkens back to legislation like the Chinese Exclusion Act, which restricted immigration and naturalization, and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Li added the measure seems to violate the Fifth Amendment and the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE What's more, she argued, 'there are multiple existing federal laws that already address legitimate threats without resorting to racial profiling and discrimination.' At Tuesday's committee hearing, more than 100 opponents showed up in person, filling the seats, lining the walls two rows deep, and spilling into the hallway. The committee had to organize an overflow room to accommodate the spectators. More than 230 people submitted testimony against the bill. Xu Lu, a college professor from Findlay and a U.S. citizen, acknowledged the bill would not target him directly, but he wanted to testify against it because it is 'simply a wrong bill.' He insisted the measure is unethical. 'Imagine somebody who risked their life, escaped North Korea and ended up in Ohio,' he offered. 'This bill will tell them they do not belong here.' Caixia Jin is also a U.S. citizen and explained she works for an automotive company assisting foreign workers through the visa and green card process. 'They stand shoulder-to-shoulder with American citizens,' Jin said. 'Many of them are immigrants or the descendants of immigrants themselves as well.' ACLU Chief Lobbyist Gary Daniels emphasized that a less restrictive law in Florida has already been placed on hold, and promised lawsuits would be filed quickly if lawmakers pass the bill. But he argued lawmakers shouldn't reject the proposal over litigation, they should abandon it 'because it is fundamentally wrong, it is profoundly unfair, and it is fueled by racial animus.' Daniels described reading hundreds of bills and attending thousands of hours of committee hearings. 'I struggle to come up with a bill that has so much hostility against race and nationality as this particular bill — not even close,' he said. Fourteen-year-old Melody Miao is an Oxford resident, and she'll be a junior in high school this fall. 'Ohio is the only place I've ever called home,' she told the committee. 'I grew up here, went to school here, learned the Pledge of Allegiance by heart, memorized the Bill of Rights, and watched fireworks every July 4,' Miao said. 'Still, I've lived my entire life, fearing that no matter how much I loved my country, I wasn't American enough.' 'I can't help but wonder,' she said, 'how are we so blind to the foundations of our nation crumbling right beneath our feet?' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The Star
25-05-2025
- Business
- The Star
The Ohio legislation that could force Chinese scientists to sell their US homes
Xiang Zhang, a professor of genomics at the University of Cincinnati, drove more than 1,000 miles over two days to oppose a proposed law that would force him to sell his home, even though he is a US permanent resident. 'I never thought that one day, I would have to stand here in front of you to defend myself solely because of my nationality,' he told a packed hearing room in the Ohio Statehouse on Tuesday morning, after cutting short a trip to make it back and give his testimony. 'I never thought that one day, I would lose my house in Ohio solely because of my nationality.' Do you have questions about the biggest topics and trends from around the world? Get the answers with SCMP Knowledge, our new platform of curated content with explainers, FAQs, analyses and infographics brought to you by our award-winning team. Zhang – who arrived in the US in 1998 with just a suitcase and a US$100 bill, and now leads a major research facility that supports hundreds of life scientists across the country – told Public Safety Committee lawmakers that he had been living his American dream. The midwestern state is following in the footsteps of Florida and Texas by proposing legislation to ban non-citizens from 'foreign adversary' countries – such as China, Iran, and Russia – from owning land within 25 miles (40km) of critical infrastructure. House Bill 1, which is supposed to address national security concerns like espionage and cyberattacks, would apply even to green card holders like Zhang. Under SB 88, a related Senate bill, he would be required to sell his house within two years. Ohio Realtors, the state's largest professional trade association, said House Bill 1 would be likely to become 'the most restrictive law of its kind in the entire nation'. Unlike similar laws, Ohio's bill covers nearly all real estate in the state and makes no exceptions for legal residents. In testimony, the association warned that the bill's broad definition of critical infrastructure – which includes electric generation plants, water treatment facilities, and telecommunication systems – would make nearly all property in Ohio off-limits to affected immigrants. The association also noted that the bill could face legal challenges for potentially violating federal laws, including the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. It would also hinder Ohio's universities from 'attracting the best talent from across the globe'. About 100 people attended the hearing, making it one of the most well-attended in recent years, a Statehouse employee said. The crowd was so large that some had to move to an overflow room to watch a live stream of the event. Many in the room were US citizens who would not be directly affected by the bill. They said they came to speak out against what they viewed as a discriminatory law. Among those who testified was Anquan Wang, a senior aerospace engineer at GE Aerospace in Cincinnati. With decades of experience in the aviation industry, Wang said that he had had first-hand encounters with overseas attempts to steal US technologies. 'We need to counter real foreign adversaries. We need to be laser-focused, because the threat is real,' he said. 'But targeting ordinary people who came here legally to study and work is out of focus. Depriving them of constitutional rights to acquire properties is completely wrong and has nothing to do with national security.' Wang said the bill made him feel discriminated against, as it targeted individuals based on national origin – something no one could choose. By casting all citizens from certain countries as potential threats, the law promoted fear and prejudice, he added. 'House Bill 1 is about racial profiling and fear mongering. If this isn't racial profiling, I don't know what racial profiling is. If this isn't fear mongering, I don't know what fear mongering is.' Wang added that his colleague and neighbour Dr Li, a China-born US citizen and senior military aircraft engineer, was already considering leaving Ohio because of the bill. 'Dr Li has worked on military aircraft engine programmes for more than 20 years,' he said. 'When experienced people like him start to leave, it's a great loss to our company. Twenty years of experience in our industry is worth tens of millions of dollars. It also hurts our defence programmes.' I've always believed in passing on my knowledge and skills to the next generation of scientists here in the US, because science, at its heart, is about building something greater than ourselves Wing Keung Chan, a biomedical researcher at The Ohio State University in Columbus, said he had noticed a steady decline in the number of China-born scientists around him over the past couple of years. The bill would only accelerate that trend, he said. Chan, who came to the US in 2008 after completing his PhD at the University of Hong Kong, said he came to pursue his American dream and now worked alongside both Americans and immigrant colleagues on diseases that affected everybody. His efforts included supporting clinical trials, mentoring students, and collaborating across institutions. 'I've always believed in passing on my knowledge and skills to the next generation of scientists here in the US, because science, at its heart, is about building something greater than ourselves,' he said. Citing data from Science and other leading journals, Chan noted that China-born researchers made up a significant portion of the US medical and STEM workforce, contributing heavily to research, healthcare, and higher education. But growing suspicion towards scientists of Chinese descent had already taken a toll, he said. Nearly 20,000 left the US between 2010 and 2021, including more than 1,000 life scientists who departed in 2021 alone. 'Legislation like House Bill 1 and Senate Bill 88 does not protect our future – it jeopardises it,' Chan said. 'It risks turning away the very people who help make Ohio a leader in research, innovation, and healthcare.' Following the hearing, committee chairwoman Cindy Abrams reportedly announced the bill would be amended before advancing further. One possible change would exempt green card holders, but many attendees said that would not go far enough. Xin Yuan, a green card holder and vice-president at JPMorgan Chase & Co in Columbus, warned that if the bill passed, it would send a message to the rest of the country and encourage other states to adopt similar legislation. Yuan testified that her greatest concern was for her young son, who was born in Ohio and considered it home. 'My biggest fear when I had him was how to protect him,' she said. 'If we don't even have the basic right to have a home, what am I supposed to tell him – and how can I protect him?' More from South China Morning Post: For the latest news from the South China Morning Post download our mobile app. Copyright 2025.
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Senate OKs $2 billion trust fund to fight any federal Medicaid cuts
It's the most basic financial advice you can get: Always save for a rainy day. So amid concerns about cuts in Medicaid programs coming down from Washington in the coming years, the New Mexico Senate unanimously approved a measure to set aside billions of dollars in rainy-day money for the state Medicaid program. Senate Bill 88, which has earned bipartisan support from top Senate Democrats and Republicans, would over several years build up a $2 billion pot of money known as the Medicaid Trust Fund to then match federal dollars, especially if the state sees cuts. "This is a very prudent use of our resources here," said Sen. Bill Sharer, R-Farmington, one of the bill's sponsors. The money would be funded with certain earnings the state treasury receives through investments from other accounts and funds. In the coming fiscal year, nearly $280 million is expected to go into the fund. Money will flow into the Medicaid Trust Fund until it reaches $2 billion. In fiscal year 2029, the fund would begin making distributions into the State-Supported Medicaid Fund, which would also be created under SB 88. Those dollars would support the state Medicaid program and/or match federal Medicaid funding. Medicaid, which provides health coverage to low-income people, is administered at the state level and is partially funded by the state but relies heavily on federal dollars — the federal government pays for 70% to 90% of Medicaid costs in New Mexico, depending on the population, according to an analysis published last year by the Legislative Finance Committee. Under a budget resolution passed in the U.S. House of Representatives last week, Republicans called for the House Energy and Commerce committee, which handles health care spending, to find about $880 billion in savings over 10 years, including from programs like Medicaid. It's not clear yet how the state would be impacted by cuts to Medicaid on the federal level — the New Mexico Health Care Authority did not answer a question Wednesday about potential cuts. "Protecting New Mexicans' access to health care continues to be our top priority," Health Secretary Kari Armijo said in a statement. "We share the Legislature's concerns about potential federal funding cuts and appreciate their work to develop financing strategies that will continue to support the more than 873,000 New Mexicans covered by Medicaid." In the New Mexico Senate on Wednesday, SB 88 faced little opposition but saw lawmakers support the bill based on their concerns over potential federal Medicaid cuts. Sen. Pete Campos, D-Las Vegas, said the trust fund was a way for the state to continue caring for those who are most underserved. "If there are cuts in Medicaid, if there are cuts in other forms of funding, we need to have … the resources to help to take care of that," he said. The bill's passage in the Senate also comes after Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham last week all but guaranteed she would call a special session of the Legislature to address federal funding cuts, noting possible Medicaid trimming was of particular concern. Sharer said he does not necessarily share the same concerns about cuts to federal Medicaid funding. Still, he pointed to a trigger mechanism in the bill that would allow the state to begin drawing money from the Medicaid Trust Fund sooner than 2029 should cuts in federal Medicaid dollars lead to losses in coverage or benefits in New Mexico. "I believe that federally, they're looking for fraud, waste and abuse, not to harm us," he said. "But this does have a trigger, just in case, and so I think that that's great."
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Kentucky's outdated restrictions on physician assistants are hurting patient care
As a physician assistant (PA-C) with 14 years of experience, an educator and a leader in Kentucky's PA community, I am deeply frustrated by the persistent resistance to modernizing PA practice laws in our state. Recent discussions surrounding Senate Bill 88 (SB 88) in the Senate Licensing and Occupations Committee have once again highlighted the influence of a small but powerful group of physician leaders who, despite lacking firsthand experience working with PAs, continue to misrepresent our profession. Their opposition is largely driven by the Kentucky Medical Association (KMA), backed by the American Medical Association (AMA), and their so-called "scope creep" campaign. This misleading effort implies that PAs are attempting to practice beyond our training, when in reality, we are simply asking to practice at our full scope — exactly as we were educated and trained to do. We are not seeking independent practice; we are seeking a collaborative, team-based approach that mirrors how health care actually functions in hospitals and clinics across the country. Many physicians and health care organizations in Kentucky do understand the value of PAs. Institutions like Kroger Health, Norton Healthcare, CHI, CCA and AARP support expanding PA practice laws, recognizing the essential role we play in patient care. I have worked alongside numerous physicians who have directly expressed their appreciation for PA training and expertise. In fact, 90% of physicians nationwide agree that PAs enhance health care delivery, and 86% say PAs expand access to care. Opinion: I refuse to stand by while KY lawmakers try to gut protections for workers Yet, KMA continues to push a narrative that is out of touch with reality. Only 15%-18% of U.S. physicians are even AMA members, and that number has plummeted from 75% in the 1950s. I would be curious to know what percentage of that small group has actual experience working with PAs or truly understands our training. Yet, we are expected to accept that this minority of physicians speaks with authority on PA capabilities and scope — and that their stance represents the majority opinion of physicians nationwide. Kentucky has consistently ranked worst in the nation for PA practice laws. We are the only state where PAs cannot even prescribe or order Schedule II medications — despite many of us being trained and experienced in emergency and critical care settings. This restriction is not only outdated but harmful to patients in need. At a time when Kentucky is facing a severe health care shortage, the only solution KMA and AMA offer is 'more physicians.' But where are these physicians? Medical school pipelines take years to produce new doctors, and many leave the state after training. Meanwhile, we have a ready, capable and highly trained PA workforce eager to step in and help — but we're being blocked by unnecessary regulations. During a recent SB 88 committee hearing, KMA representatives made numerous false and uneducated claims about PAs. One argument is that PAs are seeking independent practice. This is false. Senate bill 88 seeks to change 'supervision' language to 'collaborating' to better reflect true health care practices with a collaborative approach. Opinion: We're on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but we agree on these KY bills Another key argument from KMA is that moving to a collaborative agreement would increase liability for physicians. A study in the Journal of Medical Regulation found the opposite: Moving to collaborative practice laws actually decreased medical malpractice claims against physicians and had no impact on PA claims. Furthermore, more than 90% of Kentuckians support updating PA laws to allow health care systems to fully utilize their workforce. The public wants better access to care — and PAs are a crucial part of the solution. SB 88 is not a final solution, but it is a step in the right direction. If passed, it would help keep PA graduates in Kentucky instead of pushing them to states with better practice environments. More importantly, it would improve patient access to timely, high quality care — something we should all agree on. The real "scope creep" is not coming from PAs — it's coming from organizations that prioritize physician exclusivity over patient needs. Kentucky lawmakers have an opportunity to break free from outdated, self-serving narratives and move toward a modern, team-based approach to health care. It's time to put patients first. Agree or disagree? Submit a letter to the editor. Abbey Hardy, DMSc, MHS-PAS, PA-C is a PA currently practicing in Emergency Medicine in Louisville and also serves as program director of Sullivan University PA Program. This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: KY physician assistants are blocked by unnecessary rules | Opinion
