Pro-democracy champion Texas Paul gives red alert plea that if we don’t stop the GOP they will turn the United States into a fascist theocratic state as they have already begun.
Florida Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis is pushing out a pediatrician from a board in charge of running the state’s Healthy Kids program because of her viewpoints on vaccines for children under five.
The brief email did not go into great detail, but said that Patronis — a Republican running for re-election this year — was removing Gwynn from the Florida Healthy Kids Board because she had made “some very political statements that do not reflect the CFO’s point of view, even going so far as to as to say that the state is ‘obstruct(ing)’ access to vaccines.”
“The CFO does not share your opinion and believes the state has gone to great lengths to protect lives in the face of the Coronavirus,” reads the email sent to Gwynn by Susan Miller, who is Deputy Chief of Staff for Patronis.
In an interview with Florida Politics, Gwynn said the Healthy Kids Board of Directors has only met once since her appointment in March.
But Gwynn has appeared in approximately ten interviews with television, radio and print media since Gov. Ron DeSantis and Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo announced the state won’t make COVID-19 vaccines available for children under five years of age at local county health departments.
The local health departments play a key role, Gwynn said, in childhood vaccination efforts. Some of the state’s poorest children in the state go to the county health departments to get vaccinated.
But health departments also play a key role in helping distribute vaccines to pediatricians who work in rural areas or in small group practices.
Pediatricians who don’t have access to large amounts of cold storage capacity rely on the local county health departments to supply COVID-19 vaccines for their patients. Additionally, pediatricians who don’t meet the minimum number of doses required to order through the state system also rely on the health departments to provide them vaccines for their patients.
“Pediatricians can still do that to this day for kids over five,” Gwynn said of relying on the health departments to provide them with COVID 19 vaccines. “They, the Governor and the state Surgeon General, just chose to not allow the under 5 to be carried (by the health departments). This is about health equity and children that live in poverty. That’s what this is about.”
The Healthy Kids Corporation provides subsidized health insurance to children throughout the state with funding that comes from both the federal government and the state.
Gwynn, a South Florida pediatrician who cares for poor children, told Florida Politics she never identified herself as a member of the Florida Health Kids Board in any of the interviews.
“I don’t like to play this game. That’s not my intent to engage in this political war,” she said.
Sen. Tina Polsky, a Boca Raton Democrat who has been talking to Gwynn about the impact of the DeSantis administration’s decision on vaccines for small children, criticized Patronis’ actions.
“I am appalled at the decision of the CFO to oust Dr. Lisa Gwynn, the President of the Florida Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, an expert in pediatric care and vaccines, from the Florida Healthy Kids Board because she spoke out against the administration in an effort to get her youngest, most vulnerable patients a life-saving vaccine,” Polsky wrote in a text. “The tyranny of this administration continues to smother any dissenting opinions (e.g. Dr. Scott Rivkees). All Floridians should know how an acclaimed doctor has been treated by the DeSantis regime.”
Gwynn says the board has only met once since her appointment in March. Florida’s surgeon general, mentioned below, is associated with the anti-vax extremist group America’s Frontline Doctors.
Things are getting worse in Florida.
The #DeSantis regime is retaliating against pediatricians for speaking out against their unprecedented obstruction of COVID vaccines for kids.https://t.co/VAildh9WG8
Florida's decision not to pre-order COVID vaccines for children six months to five years old will lead to delays since doctors and hospitals in the state will be responsible for ordering them. https://t.co/pBCb2WyN7f
At yesterday's briefing, Dr. Ladapo made clear neither he nor Gov. DeSantis believe Florida parents should have the choice to vaccinate their children against the coronavirus at county health departments, the primary point of care for 33,000 Florida kids.
— Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis (@COVIDOversight) June 29, 2022
At yesterday's briefing, Dr. Ladapo made clear neither he nor Gov. DeSantis believe Florida parents should have the choice to vaccinate their children against the coronavirus at county health departments, the primary point of care for 33,000 Florida kids.
— Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis (@COVIDOversight) June 29, 2022
Sooooo, move heaven and Earth to protect the unborn zygote but if it’s an actual, live, miniature human being it “Die motherfuckers”. Republican “logic”….
Two employees with a North Carolina company say they were fired after refusing to participate in the firm’s daily Christian prayer meetings, which they said went against their respective religious beliefs, according to a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The lawsuit, which seeks a jury trial, was filed in U.S. District Court in Greensboro on Monday on behalf of John McGaha, a construction manager at Aurora Pro Services, and Mackenzie Saunders, a customer service representatives at the Greensboro residential services company. The EEOC announced the lawsuit Tuesday in a news release.
Mary Kate Littlejohn, a Greenville, South Carolina, attorney representing McGaha and Saunders, declined comment Tuesday. No one from Aurora Pro Services was immediately available for comment Tuesday and questions on the lawsuit were referred to an email address from which there was no immediate answer.
In the complaint, the EEOC says daily prayer meetings are part of Aurora’s business model, though there is no reference to it on its web page. Attendance at the prayer meetings was mandatory for employees and was a condition of employment regardless of a worker’s religious beliefs or affiliation, the complaint said.
On occasion, prayers were requested and offered “for poor performing employees who were identified by name,” according to the complaint. Also, the complaint noted, the company owner took attendance and would reprimand employees who did not attend.
McGaha, who identifies himself as an atheist, was hired by the company on June 8, 2020. He said the prayer meetings, which initially lasted around 15 minutes, stretched in length to around 45 minutes and even longer. Saunders, who worked at Aurora from November 2020 until Jan. 21, 2021, describes herself as an agnostic. She also acknowledged that the prayer meetings became longer over time.
According to the complaint, McGaha said the longer the prayer meetings went, the less tolerable they became. He said he was asked on one occasion to lead the Christian prayer, which he refused. In late August 2020, he asked the owner of the company to be excused from those parts of the meeting that pertained to religion because of his conflict with it, but the owner refused and told him “it would be in his best interest to do so.”
McGaha asked again in September to be excused. The complaint said the owner told him that he did not have to believe in God nor did he have to like the meetings but he had to participate. McGaha refused and he was fired, the complaint said. Before he was fired, the owner reduced his base pay from $800 to $400 and his commissions were withheld after his dismissal, the EEOC said.
In January 2021, Saunders stopped going to the prayer meetings because they conflicted with her religion. She was fired, the complaint said, adding that the owner told her she “was not a good fit” for the company.
The complaint also seeks a permanent injunction to prevent the company from engaging in employment practices that discriminate on the basis of religion and subject workers to a hostile work environment “by coercing participating in daily prayer.”
The plaintiffs, one an atheist and the other an agnostic, say the daily prayer meetings went against their respective religious beliefs. https://t.co/ar11LbtrLf
After I told the Supervisor who was in charge of my sexual harassment complaint on how his brother in law called me a faggot, knocked me down, pinned me to the floor and spit in my face he said I needed to forgive everyone (especially his brother in law) and “turn it over to Jesus”.
These “moral” people and their enablers are freaking evil.
I worked for a state agency here in Oklahoma. It was a industrial setting (a fossil fueled power plant) where I worked in the Operations Department. This was before I transitioned so I guess I stuck out with the good old boys for not wanting to degrade and generally trash women. They assumed I was a gay male so I caught abuse from both the wife beaters and the religious nuts. On top of that I had no help from management.
Well, after my mental break I was able to go on SSDI. Even after years of therapy there are problems. Still uneasy around tall buildings. Had two coworkers throw rocks at me off a six story building.
SCOTUS ruling: Atheists and agnostics have no religious beliefs, are spiritually defective, have no rights, and we hereby proclaim they are not human. Prison for both plaintiffs, until they see the error of their ways.
I am confused, can Scotland just vote to leave the UK and then just do it? Would there be a war or something if they tried? Here in the US we have a lot of rabid right wingers talk about leaving the Union but it is well known it can not be done unless all states and the federal government agree. Some say it can not be legally done at all. Hugs
Scottish first minister on collision course with Boris Johnson over plans for second referendum next year.
Britain is headed for a fresh constitutional crisis as Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon prepares to outline plans for a second vote on Scottish independence — with or without Boris Johnson’s agreement.
In a 20-minute speech to lawmakers in the Scottish parliament (Holyrood) on Tuesday, Sturgeon will set out her long-awaited route to some form of a second referendum, vowing to press ahead even if — as expected — Johnson’s U.K. government continues to withhold consent.
The first poll in 2014, in which the pro-Union side triumphed by 55 percent to 45 percent, followed then-Prime Minister David Cameron’s decision to temporarily hand Holyrood the power to hold a referendum. This time, no such consent from Westminster will be forthcoming.
After pro-independence parties gained a majority of seats in last year’s Holyrood elections, Sturgeon argued her government now had a mandate to hold a fresh vote. In response, Johnson and U.K. ministers have pointed to nationalist statements from 2014 that the first referendum would be a “once in a generation” event, and say Sturgeon’s current focus should be on helping Scots with the cost-of-living-crisis.
Sturgeon will say Tuesday that her preferred option remains a repeat of the 2014 transfer of powers, stating in pre-released remarks: “Westminster rule over Scotland cannot be based on anything other than a consented, voluntary partnership.”
“It is time to give people the democratic choice they have voted for.”
Nationalists and unionists alike expect this plea to fall on deaf ears. An official from the U.K. government said its position in opposition to another referendum would not change.
The most hotly anticipated portion of Sturgeon’s speech will therefore concern how her government plans to hold a referendum if Westminster does not grant consent.
In a press conference earlier this month, Sturgeon stressed that any efforts to hold a referendum must be done “in a lawful manner” — a reference to the widely-held view that either the U.K. government or an activist private citizen would take the Scottish government to court if it tried to hold a referendum against the will of Westminster.
One way to get around the legal difficulties could be to hold a purely advisory poll, according to a former senior civil servant involved in the negotiations for the 2014 referendum.
“Perhaps instead of a ‘referendum on independence,’ the bill is instead about something like asking the people of Scotland for a mandate to open independence negotiations with the U.K,” Ciaran Martin wrote in the Sunday Times. He added that such a measure “might stand a better chance in court.”
Some unionists have made clear they would boycott any consultative poll, regardless of its legality. But with October 2023 penciled in as Sturgeon’s ideal date for a fresh referendum, and legislation to enact a vote expected in Holyrood later this year, a court battle looks increasingly inevitable.
POTENTIAL SCOTLAND INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM POLL OF POLLS
📢 This just in: the Scottish are coming … for their independence! 🏴
The UK is headed for a fresh crisis as Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon prepares to outline plans for a second vote on Scottish independence.https://t.co/8X8ZcWo7Zs
Nicola Sturgeon accused of sowing ‘division and strife’ over plan for second Scottish independence referendum – UK politics live https://t.co/CLokWtcNk3
Congratulations to the Conservative Party of the UK, who as paid agents of the Russian government have installed Russian oligarchs in the House of Lords, compromised the NHS in the middle of a global pandemic, knocked the legs out from under several UK industries, weakened the EU, weakened NATO and brought about the likely dissolution of the UK.
David Cameron, Teresa May, Boris Johnson… traitors to their country, all.
Christ. I don’t know if I should bother with this one, since everyone’s going to be talking Braveheart shite.
The SNP have no currency plan. They are lying about us getting straight into the EU. Scexit negotiations, if they happened, would make Brexit negotiations look like cancelling a broadband contract, and this time the tories they’d be negotiating with would actually (not in their lies) hold all the cards.
I live in Scotland, and I am dependent on state benefits and the NHS. My appetite for risk is very fucking limited indeed. As is the appetite of most people in Scotland. Unless a non-binding referendum was boycotted, like the private referendum financed by SNP donor Brian Souter when he wanted to keep Section 28, Remain would win.
First, Braveheart is 20 years old and is an overrated film with the historical accuracy of sheep shit.
Second, not everyone. There is a strange draw I admit in the States to independence from everything it seems, definitely in light of the Crown (talk about a solution in search of a problem), Ireland, and Scotland. As if anything associated with England is tethered to a war that a bunch of colonists won only with the aide of France.
There is definitely a need for more input in terms of Scotland’s access to economically driven initiatives, particularly in the Highlands and the Northern Islands/Hebredes, which, in truth, the SNP doesn’t seem to deal much with at all. The loss of association with the EU definitely hurt crofters for one small example, and of course, the whole fishing industry thing. But those, and even increased voice in Westminster, can be resolved without a total break, which would just create even more chaos. Let’s face it: the economic ties bind; the whole separation thing might have been wonders when Catholics and Protestants were burning each other at the stake, but Mary, we’ve moved on.
It’s not the Scotland hates England; to be honest, that is a very American centric view. Are there representation issues? Yes, but independence is not a strong way to go for a country that is so linked economically to its neighbor to the south, and that is, truly, so small in population to support its own without that economic (and etc.) safety net. We are talking a country that has about 1/.2 the population not of England but only of London. There are too many ties that bind for a complete separation.
Honest question here… Right now the EU seems (to my American ass) poised to accelerate membership for a few countries such as Ukraine and Moldova for very obvious reasons. I’m assuming that the expectation is that it wouldn’t do the same for Scotland despite it being a former member because Scotland isn’t under the same kind of threat as Ukraine and Moldova. And thus Scotland would have to go through a some-number-of-years long process to join. Have I got that right?
My uncle, when a student in Edinburgh, was arrested when he climbed a flagpole to replace the Union Jack with the flag of Scotland. That would have been sometime In the late 1930s. Independence has been festering for a long time, but it’s a lot like Texas seceding in that it’ll cause more problems than it solves.
YouGov’s latest tracking data on an independence vote shows that, if there was a vote today, the outcome would be identical to how it was in 2014, with 55% saying they would vote No and 45% Yes. Since the referendum, support for remaining in the UK has tended to be above support for leaving, and while in 2020 we saw the biggest Yes lead of any YouGov poll at 53%, this support has dwindled in subsequent polls through 2021 and 2022.
Rightwing justice appears to offer preview of the court’s potential future rulings after decision to remove US abortion rights
Donald Trump with Clarence Thomas as Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the supreme court in October 2020. Photograph: Alex Brandon/AP
Many Americans reacted to the supreme court’s decision to reverse Roe v Wade and remove federal abortion rights in the US with shock, but many also asked a terrified question: what might be next?
The conservative justice Clarence Thomas appeared to offer a preview of the court’s potential future rulings, suggesting the rightwing-controlled court may return to the issues of contraception access and marriage equality, threatening LGBTQ rights.
“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion to the ruling on Roe.
Griswold v Connecticut established a married couple’s right to use contraception without government interference in 1965. The court ruled in the 2003 case of Lawrence v Texas that states could not criminalize sodomy, and Obergefell v Hodges established the right for same-sex couples to marry in 2015.
In the decision written by Justice Samuel Alito, the conservative majority makes it clear that the decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization should not be interpreted as a threat to other major precedent cases. But the court’s three liberal justices – Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – dismissed that logic as a farce in their fiery dissenting opinion.
“Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy or additional constitutional rights are under threat,” the liberal justices wrote. “It is one or the other.”
Thomas’s concurring opinion confirmed what many progressive lawmakers and reproductive rights advocates have feared for years. The end of Roe marks the beginning, not the end, of judicial overreach by the court’s conservative majority, they say.
“It is important that Americans understand that this supreme court and Republicans in Congress will not stop here,” said Pramila Jayapal, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “It is clear [Thomas] and the court’s majority have no respect for other precedents that have been won in recent decades.”
Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, warned that the court’s decision to overturn Roe would only intensify its “giant legitimacy crisis” with millions of Americans.
“Five Republican justices appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote are routinely making hyper-partisan decisions that take away the rights of Americans,” Green said.
For now, Thomas does not seem to have the support of his conservative colleagues in overturning other major cases, as they did not join his opinion. But the majority decision written by Alito could lay the foundation for discarding decades-old precedents that have become central to the American way of life, said Paul Schiff Berman, a professor at George Washington University Law School.
“The logic of Justice Alito’s opinion, as the dissent pointed out, would absolutely threaten the constitutional legitimacy of all constitutional privacy rights,” Berman said. “It goes against the institutional obligation to respect precedent. And it also goes against, as Chief Justice Roberts pointed out in his opinion, the principle that you don’t decide in a given case, more than you have to resolve in that case.”
Berman expressed concern that the Dobbs decision could weaken public trust in the supreme court, which has already been waning in recent years. According to a Gallup poll taken this month, only 25% of US adults say they have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the supreme court. That is the lowest reading in Gallup’s nearly 50-year history of polling public perception of the court.
“I think this opinion reflects the fact that a radical faction of the supreme court is moving in a maximalist direction, despite the fact that the American people as a whole are becoming increasingly progressive on this issue,” Berman said.
For the millions of Americans dismayed by the reversal of Roe, they have few options to change the composition of the court in the near future. Justices are appointed to lifelong terms, and the three conservative judges confirmed during Donald Trump’s presidency – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – are all under 60.
Democratic lawmakers are instead looking at legislative ways to protect Americans’ fundamental rights, and demands for action will probably only intensify now that Roe has been overturned.
The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, issued an urgent demand for Americans to support Democrats in the midterm elections this November, thus giving them an opportunity to codify the right to abortion into federal law and protect other crucial freedoms.
“Termination of pregnancy is just the opening act,” Pelosi said on Friday. “A woman’s right to choose, reproductive freedom is on the ballot in November. We cannot allow [Republicans] to take charge so that they can institute their goal, which is to criminalize reproductive freedom.”
But some progressives are looking beyond legislation to significant reform of the court itself. Immediately after the decision in Dobbs was announced, a number of progressives reiterated their calls to expand the court, which would allow Democrats to confirm more liberal justices.
“As we fight to make abortion legal at the federal level, I continue to reject the legitimacy of such an undemocratic institution,” the progressive congresswoman Ilhan Omar said on Twitter. “Expand the court.”
01:47
‘A slap in the face to women’: Nancy Pelosi condemns overturning of Roe v Wade – video
As of now, Democrats do not have the votes in the Senate needed to expand the court. That could change after November, if the American people decide to give Democrats the chance to do so.
Dozens of political committees with ties to Florida conservatives are funneling thousands of dollars toward candidates who share Gov. Ron DeSantis’ priorities.
Poll workers at the Miami-Dade County Elections Department deposit peoples’ mail in ballots into an official ballot drop box on primary election day on Aug. 18, 2020 in Doral, Fla. | Joe Raedle/Getty Images
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Florida Republicans are capitalizing on the national movement surrounding parental rights and education by jumping into local school board races with crucial endorsements and much-needed cash.
Dozens of political committees with ties to Florida conservatives are funneling thousands of dollars toward candidates who share Gov. Ron DeSantis’ priorities by campaigning against issues like critical race theory. DeSantis endorsed a slate of 10 school board candidates — a rare, if not unprecedented, move for a Florida governor that could help Republicans capture more support in the midterms from parents energized by contentious issues such as masking students during the pandemic.
“People are frustrated with the business-as-usual on these school boards,” said Christian Ziegler, vice chair of the Republican Party of Florida whose wife, Bridget, is running to keep her seat on the Sarasota County school board and has been endorsed by DeSantis.
“Payback is coming in August” when the school board elections are held, Ziegler said.
School board races in Florida are traditionally nonpartisan, sleepy down-ballot races. But Republicans, led by DeSantis, are getting more involved this year after the Covid-19 pandemic inflamed interest in education and what students are learning in schools, particularly about race and gender identity. Democrats have not shown similar levels of funding.
The candidates backed by GOP-tied cash and endorsements from DeSantis show that Republicans are gunning to unseat incumbent school leaders and reshape boards in key spots across Florida. The effort could help Republicans control nearly all levers of government in the state, from the governor’s mansion, Cabinet, state Legislature down to local school boards.
In Miami, for instance, one race is heating up between a career educator with support from GOP leadership and a longtime school board staple.
Monica Colucci, an elementary language arts teacher with 26 years of experience, claims in campaign material that she has “seen firsthand the detrimental impact of liberal policies” in Miami-Dade County schools. Colucci, who also spent a year serving as special assistant to GOP Lt. Gov. Jeanette Nuñez, was among the first candidates endorsed by DeSantis in her race against Marta Pérez, a school board member who has served for 24 years and considers herself a conservative.
“I know the challenges that parents are facing and teachers are facing day in and day out,” Colucci said in an interview. “You can be on a board for 24 years but if you’re not day to day facing the challenge yourself, you get a bit removed.”
Colucci has raised less than half as much cash as her incumbent opponent at this point in the race. But campaign finance reports show Colucci’s first fundraising haul came in May to a tune of $53,000 fundraising and included some $15,000 from committees linked to state Republicans. She followed that up by raising more than $31,000 between June 1-17, records show.
To that end, Colucci scored $1,000 donations from Nuñez as well as from state House members from south Florida and beyond, including Reps. Thomas Leek (R-Ormond Beach), Alex Rizo (R-Hialeah), Daniel A. Perez (R-Miami), Demi Busatta Cabrera (R-Coral Gables), David Borrero (R-Sweetwater) and Bryan Avila (R-Miami Springs).
Another Miami Dade school board candidate endorsed by DeSantis, Roberto Alonso, also has received $1,000 donations from committees led by Republican lawmakers such as outgoing Senate President Wilton Simpson and Sen. Ray Rodrigues (R-Estero), campaign finance records show.
And Colucci and Alonso each landed $1,000 from a committee led by state Sen. Ben Albritton (R-Wauchula), who represents some eight counties in Central Florida but not Miami-Dade, where the races are located. Albritton said in a written statement that he’s “proud to support candidates who share my values, particularly those who will have a voice on the school board.”
Alonso, who DeSantis in 2020 appointed to the Miami-Dade College trustee board, has raised more than $83,000 in his race while the candidate with the next highest contributions, Kevin Menendez Macki, is sitting on $16,555 for the wide-open seat. Alonso’s campaign is closely aligned with the Republican governor and promises to “oppose attempts to impose Critical Race Theory and other extreme liberal agendas in K-12” and “protect female athletes and female sports.”
Pérez, meanwhile, has raised $188,000 in her Miami-area race against Colucci, including $100,000 of her own money, records show. She raised nearly $23,000 between June 1-17, including $4,000 from committees tied to the local teachers union. Yet even with a financial lead, more than two decades experience and the power of incumbency behind her, Perez acknowledges that an endorsement from DeSantis would aid her reelection.
As a conservative, Pérez said she was “very puzzled” to see her opponent, Colucci, earn a stamp of approval from DeSantis. She touted improved graduation rates and workforce programs under her tenure on the board and how she opposed proposals that could have been linked to critical race theory.
“I just don’t understand,” Pérez said in an interview. “Because I have never had a conversation with the governor and he’s supporting someone whose agenda seems to be my agenda.”
Elsewhere in Florida, other candidates that have been — and could soon be — endorsed by DeSantis are collecting money from state Republicans.
Incoming House Speaker Paul Renner’s political committee, for example, donated $1,000 each to five school board candidates in four separate counties, including two in Duval County that were endorsed by DeSantis. These two Duval candidates — April Carney challenging an incumbent and Charlotte Joyce seeking reelection — also landed $1,000 apiece from state Rep. Clay Yarborough (R-Jacksonville), records show.
Carney, a conservative mother who “believes that families know what is best for their children — not bureaucrats or elected officials,” holds a slight financial lead over Elizabeth Anderson, a former educator and board member since 2018, with both raising more than $65,000. Joyce, who earlier this year proposed a proclamation in support of DeSantis and recent legislation that prohibits educators from leading classroom instructions on sexual orientation or gender identity for kids in kindergarten through third grade, has raised nearly $30,000 compared to almost $8,000 by her challenger, Tanya Hardaker.
“We need strong school board members who will set Florida’s children up for success, ensure parental rights in education, and combat the woke agendas from infiltrating public schools at the local school board level,” DeSantis said in a statement accompanying his endorsements.
Some candidates are linked to political committees that have donated to candidates backed by DeSantis, a possible sign of another round of contenders that could eventually get a blessing from the governor.
Jessie Thompson, a Volusia County mother, was endorsed by Renner and Republican Congressman Byron Donalds (R-Fla.), and is in a three-person race to fill a vacated seat.
And in Lee County, a GOP stronghold that’s home to Fort Myers, there have been no endorsements from DeSantis and yet at least a dozen political committees have invested a total of $22,000 in four different candidates. Among this spread are donations from committees led by Republicans like Albritton and state Reps. Jenna Persons-Mulicka (R-Fort Myers), Sam Garrison (R-Fleming Island), Lawrence McClure (R-Dover), Josie Tomkow (R-Polk City) and Mike Beltran (R-Lithia), records show.
One of those races features two challengers who are raising more cash than an incumbent and both could earn DeSantis’ endorsement.
Jason “Big Mama” Jones, a radio host and parent, is leading the pack by eclipsing $32,000 so far without donations from political committees. Jones proudly bills himself as the only parent vying for the seat and contends his local school board is missing the needs of students, something he believes puts him in line with the governor.
Jones said he would welcome an endorsement from the DeSantis, whose campaign is pushing for candidates to complete surveys gauging how they closely they align with him on issues like critical race theory and parental rights.
Jones is facing an incumbent in Debbie Jordan, the current chair of Lee’s school board, and Dan Severson, a former “Top Gun Fighter Pilot” and ex-Minnesota lawmaker.
Severson, who spent eight years as a representative of the Minnesota House, including a stint as Minority Whip, appears well aligned with DeSantis by vowing to put “parents back in control of their children’s education” and grapple with “out of control spending, infighting, and liberal policies [that] have taken the focus away.” His campaign, which has raised nearly $21,000 compared to $6,100 for the incumbent, also has ties to state Republicans, receiving $1,000 donations from Rodrigues, state Rep. Spencer Roach (R-North Fort Myers) and another committee that also donated to Colucci in Miami.
The endorsements from DeSantis are expected to shake up races leading to the Aug. 23 primary elections when school board contests — labeled as nonpartisan statewide — unfold. His name and surging political popularity attached to candidates could also help them raise cash in the coming weeks. The effects of DeSantis’ backing are already being felt, like in Miami, where Perez worries about fundraising now that DeSantis threw his support behind her opponent
“Funding for me is like I’m a pariah,” Pérez said. “I’m working like I’ve never worked in my life.”
Payback for what? What exactly have the schools done that is horrible Good luck getting teachers, Florida. Wait until the teacher retirements start en mass.
Teachers, nurses, doctors, they should just leave for another states and let Florida crumble into a shit hole state. Not a place for anyone to raise children.
They will ruin the education system. First, they will set up all these rules for teachers to follow, and they will chafe under them and leave. They won’t be able to fill a lot of the positions, and will lose the best teachers. Next, they won’t want to deal with boring stuff like budgets and maintenance, so the system will get wrecked from negligence, lack of any over sight, and so on. Spending will get out of control. Except corruption, and funds being channeled to bizarre things instead of maintenance and salaries. Once they have screwed it up past the hopeless point, they will declare victory over the liberals and step down. Then someone else will have to pick the pieces by raising taxes.
Majority Opposes Overturning Roe v. Wade… More than Six in Ten Say Decision Will Push Them to the Polls in November
In a majority decision, the United States Supreme Court on Friday overturned Roe v. Wade which, for nearly fifty years, guaranteed access to abortion in the United States. However, majorities of Americans oppose the Court’s ruling and have concerns that the decision will have broader constitutional implications. Following the decision, President Joe Biden asserted that Roe will be on the ballot in November. 61% of Americans agree, saying the Court’s decision will make them more likely to vote in this year’s midterm elections, and, by a double-digit margin (15 points), they think the decision will motivate them to vote for a congressional candidate who will support federal legislation that will restore the protections of Roe v. Wade.
Overturning of Roe v. Wade
The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned the 1973 decision in Roe versus Wade which guaranteed the right to abortion. Do you support or oppose the Supreme Court´s decision to overturn Roe versus Wade?
Source: NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll National Adults. Interviews conducted June 24th through June 25th, 2022, n=941 MOE +/- 4.9 percentage points. Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.
With 55% of Americans saying they mostly support abortion rights, 56% of Americans oppose the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. This includes 45% who say they strongly oppose the decision. Democrats (88%) are more than four times as likely as Republicans (20%) to oppose the decision. 53% of independents agree.
56% of Americans are concerned that the Supreme Court’s decision could also jeopardize the rights to contraception, same-sex marriage, or same-sex relationships. This includes a plurality of Americans (42%) who report they are very concerned that the Court will use the decision to reconsider other previous rulings. 89% of Democrats and 55% of independents are either concerned or very concerned about the impact of the decision. A notable 18% of Republicans agree. Women (63%) are more likely than men (49%) to worry about the ripple effects of overturning Roe v. Wade.
A majority of Americans (57%) think the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was politically motivated and not motivated by the law of the land (36%). The debate over abortion rights will most likely play out on the campaign trail. 62% of registered voters say the Supreme Court’s decision will make them more likely to vote in this year’s midterm elections. Democrats (78%) are more motivated by the decision than Republicans (54%) and independents (53%).
51% of voters nationally say the Supreme Court’s decision will make them more likely to vote for a congressional candidate who would back a law that would restore the protections of Roe. 36% would definitely vote against a candidate with that intent, and 13% are unsure. Among independents, a plurality (47%) would vote for a candidate who would restore the protections of Roe. 38% of independents think they will definitely vote against such a candidate.
Democrats (48%) currently have the advantage over the Republicans (41%) among registered voters in the congressional generic ballot question. Their advantage has slightly widened from five points (47% for the Democratic candidate and 42% for the Republican candidate) in May after the leaked draft of the Roe v. Wade decision.
“With the midterm elections less than five months away, the decision by SCOTUS has sent shockwaves through the electorate,” says Lee M. Miringoff, Director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion. “Men are +12 points and women are +18 points more likely to support congressional candidates who pledge to codify the protections of Roe v. Wade. Digging deeper, 63% of women, including 74% of suburban women, are also concerned that the Court’s decision is a harbinger of things to come.”
Americans’ Express Low Confidence in Supreme Court
The image of the Supreme Court has further diminished. 39% of Americans say they have either a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the Supreme Court, comparable to an already dismal 40% in May. Americans’ perceptions of the Supreme Court have plummeted since 2019 when 60% of Americans had confidence in SCOTUS.
Should the U.S. Supreme Court Be Expanded?
Despite the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, a majority of Americans (54%) do not want the Court expanded to include more justices.
President Joe Biden’s Job Approval Rating
President Joe Biden’s job approval rating is 40%, inched up slightly from 38% earlier this month. By more than three to one, Americans are more likely to strongly disapprove (41%) of the job Biden is doing in office than to strongly approve (13%) of his job performance.
Abortion in the United States
About two in three Americans (66%) — including 70% of Democrats, 55% of Republicans, and 74% of independents — say they have a personal connection to someone who has had an abortion. 33% say they do not.
