Tommy Tuberville opposes Biden Administration’s efforts to expand abortion access by mail
U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville joined other lawmakers in two separate letters last week to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and U.S. Food and Drug Commissioner Dr. Robert Califf, urging the officials to revoke guidance that removes what Tuberville called key safeguards required by law to protect expectant mothers and their babies. “The reckless distribution of abortion drugs by mail or other carriers to pregnant mothers who have not been examined in person by a physician is not only dangerous and unsafe, it is criminal,” said Sen. Tuberville. ‘Through its decision to permit no-test, mail-order abortions after a telemedicine visit, the FDA has abandoned its dual obligations to protect the public and vulnerable populations from harm and to comply with Federal law, including Federal requirements to protect patient safety and longstanding Federal criminal laws which expressly prohibit the mailing and shipping of abortion drugs.’ Tuberville has been a leading voice on pro-life issues in the U.S. Senate. Additionally, just last week, Senator Tuberville cosponsored a bill to establish a permanent ban on using federal taxpayer dollars for abortion. On January 3rd, 2023, the FDA released new guidance removing in-person dispensing requirements for chemical abortion drugs such as mifepristone, making self-administered abortion drugs permanently available by mail or through certain pharmacies. Tuberville and the other lawmakers sent a detailed letter to Commissioner Califf explaining their view on the policy and legal faults in the FDA decision, citing it as “dangerous, reckless, and illegal.” They claim that the new policy: · Threatens the health and safety of pregnant mothers by eliminating the requirement for in-person dispensing, increasing risks of potentially life-threatening complications without an in-person screening. · Violates the FDA’s legal obligations to protect the safety of women and girls. · Violates longstanding federal criminal laws barring the mailing and shipping of abortion drugs. · Imperils the conscience rights of pharmacists by failing to provide protections for pharmacists who do not want to participate in the practice of abortion. “Through its decision to permit no-test, mail-order abortions after a telemedicine visit, the FDA has abandoned its dual obligations to protect the public and vulnerable populations from harm and to comply with Federal law, including Federal requirements to protect patient safety and longstanding Federal criminal laws which expressly prohibit the mailing and shipping of abortion drugs,” Tuberville and the other lawmakers wrote. “We therefore insist that the FDA pull the deadly drug mifepristone from the market, or, at minimum, promptly restore and further strengthen the initial basic health and safety requirements for abortion drugs, and comply with Federal criminal law.” The positions outlined in the letter have been endorsed by the SBA Pro-Life America, Americans United for Life, CatholicVote, March for Life, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, National Right to Life, Concerned Women for America, Heritage Action, Students for Life of America, Family Research Council, Scholars with the Ethics and Public Policy Center, Family Policy Alliance, and Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. Tuberville was joined in the letter to Commissioner Califf by U.S. Senators Cindy Hyde-Smith, James Lankford, Steve Daines, Jim Risch, Mike Crapo, Marsha Blackburn, John Hoeven, J.D. Vance, Marco Rubio, Rick Scott, Roger Marshall, Kevin Cramer, Roger Wicker, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, John Thune, Bill Hagerty, Todd Young, Markwayne Mullen, Mike Braun, Deb Fischer, Ted Budd, Josh Hawley, along with 54 members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Last December, the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) released an opinion saying the U.S. Postal Service is legally allowed to deliver abortion drugs, even to mailing addresses in states that decided to prohibit access to chemical abortion pills by mail as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs versus the Jackson Women’s Health Organization that reversed the controversial Roe v. Wade decision. The letter to Garland claims that the DOJ’s memo violates existing laws. “It is disappointing, yet not surprising, that the Biden administration’s DOJ has not only abdicated its Constitutional responsibility to enforce the law but also has once again twisted the plain meaning of the law in an effort to promote the taking of unborn life. The OLC memo should be immediately rescinded or, at minimum, redrafted to articulate an accurate application of the law,” Tuberville and the members wrote. The second letter is supported by the Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, Students for Life, Family Policy Alliance, Americans United for Life, CatholicVote, Scholars with the Ethics and Public Policy Center, Heritage Action, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Family Research Council, March for Life, and SBA Prolife America. Senator Tuberville represents Alabama in the United States Senate and is a member of the Senate Armed Services, Agriculture, Veterans Affairs, and HELP Committees. He is serving his first term in the Senate after unseating incumbent Sen. Doug Jones in the 2020 election. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Additional counties eligible for unemployment disaster assistance
On Friday, Alabama Department of Labor Secretary Fitzgerald Washington announced that workers who became unemployed as a direct result of severe storms, straight-line winds, and tornadoes in Greene, Sumter, and Tallapoosa Counties on January 12 may also qualify for unemployment assistance. Washington had already announced that unemployed workers in Autauga, Coosa, Elmore, Dallas, and Hale Counties may be eligible for the assistance. “Generally, those who are eligible for state unemployment benefits are not eligible for DUA, but a claimant may qualify if state unemployment compensation benefits are exhausted,” said Washington. “If you believe you are entitled to these benefits, I urge you to file a claim to see if you are eligible.” People who live in or worked in these counties and became unemployed due to severe storms, straight-line winds, and tornadoes during the period of January 12 may be eligible for assistance under the Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA) program, which was triggered when President Joe Biden added those counties to the area designated as a disaster area on January 15, 2023. People who may be eligible for Disaster Unemployment Assistance include the following: · individuals who no longer have a job · are unable to reach the place of employment · or were scheduled to start work in the major disaster area, and the job no longer exists · those who became the breadwinner or major support of the family because the head of household died · those who cannot work because of an injury incurred during the major disaster All of the previously described circumstances must be as a direct result of severe storms, straight-line winds, and tornadoes. Claims can be filed through ADOL’s website or by calling 1-866-234-5382. The deadline to file a DUA claim is March 1, 2023. There is also federal disaster assistance available to persons in the five counties that were impacted by the severe weather on January 12. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Daniel Sutter: The economic empowerment of women
Everyone should be empowered to craft a life of their choosing. Do the conditions for this differ for men and women? The provocatively titled Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism suggests that government must help women. Recent voting patterns suggest that American women increasingly believe this. Professor Kristen Ghodsee of the University of Pennsylvania authored the provocative book. Despite the title, the book builds off her research on women in Bulgaria following the collapse of communism and explores how economic independence affects women and marriage. Economic independence certainly empowers people. And economic dependence is a poor basis for marriage. No woman should feel compelled to stay in a terrible marriage to afford food and shelter. And as Professor Ghodsee observes, men often find marriages based on economic dependence unfulfilling. But is government the path to independence? I contend it is economic freedom which has in America eliminated legal barriers for women in work, contracting, and ownership. Markets emphasize evaluating workers and products based on their merits and performance, not gender. Government can provide transfers and a safety net. Yet dependence on government is still dependence. The Soviet Union illustrates the perils of government “empowerment.” The regime controlled everyone, male and female. Soviet leaders commanded women to work in factories and offices to hasten industrialization. As a by-product, women gained independence from their husbands. But Soviet leaders could have ordered women to stay home and raise children. Professor Ghodsee acknowledges this: “In no country were women’s rights promoted as a project to support women’s individualism and self-actualization.” The professor prefers the entitlements of Scandinavian democratic socialism. Indeed, she even attributes the failures of a pickup artist in Denmark to their economic independence. As an aside, Scandinavian countries are better described as market economies with high levels of government spending. Still, government provision of many life necessities means women need not rely on benefits from a husband’s job. Unmarried women in America seem to embrace this as well. Joel Kotkin and Samuel Abrams report in “The Rise of the Single Woke Female” (SWF) that single adult women voted 68 percent Democratic in 2022. This demographic stemmed the red wave. Undoubtedly abortion impacted 2022 votes but only accelerated the trend. Kotkin and Abrams offer Taylor Swift as an exemplar of SWF. Yet Ms. Swift has succeeded on her talent and drive, not government assistance. With an estimated net worth of $570 million before her Eras Tour, Ms. Swift should presumably vote for low taxes, not a party questioning whether billionaires (whose ranks she will likely soon join) should exist. The SWFs are predominantly urban, college-educated professionals with presumably good-paying jobs and decent benefits. They do not need free stuff from the government, while government policies make their housing, healthcare, and daycare unnecessarily expensive. More economic freedom would seemingly improve their lives. Two factors may explain this left-leaning political orientation. Feminist scholars rarely recognize spontaneous order or the emergence of institutions in society from human action but not human design. An analysis of patriarchy omitting spontaneous order will see a system designed to subjugate women. Government provides relief from an exploitative system. Historical poverty also matters. The Great Enrichment began around 1700 and lifted the average person above the subsistence level for the first time. Social and legal customs maintaining families appear cruel to women in hindsight intentionally but merely reflected harsh economic realities. The Great Enrichment – enabled by economic freedom – has helped liberate women. The complexity of society means that customs and government policies can have unintended and unexpected consequences, sometimes compromising women’s economic independence. Professor Ghodsee identifies one. When women do not work outside the home, they do not contribute to Social Security. Without her own retirement income, a woman may be stuck in a bad marriage. We should address such barriers when identified. Proponents of economic freedom should perhaps also devote more attention to ensuring that all people develop agency to act on freedom. But economic freedom offers the best path to economic independence – from a spouse or the government. Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University and host of Econversations on TrojanVision. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of Troy University.
Katie Britt believes Alabama taxpayers do not want taxes paying for elective abortions
United States Senators Katie Britt and Roger Wicker joined 45 other Senators in introducing the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. This legislation would establish a single, government-wide standard to permanently prohibit the flow of federal funding for abortion. “The vast majority of Alabamians do not want their hard-earned dollars funding elective abortions in California and New York,” Britt stated. “The Hyde Amendment has saved an estimated 2.5 million lives – approximately half the population of Alabama,” said Sen. Britt. “Sadly, radicals in the Democratic Party continue to trumpet their calls for abortion at any time, for any reason. They have now targeted the long-standing, bipartisan Hyde Amendment, annually passed by Congress since 1976, which ensures federal taxpayer dollars are not used to fund abortions. It is time to make the Hyde Amendment and its lifesaving protections permanent so the far-left does not attempt to hold the nation hostage every year. The vast majority of Alabamians do not want their hard-earned dollars funding elective abortions in California or New York. I will continue to fight to defend life, support parents, grow opportunities for hardworking families, and preserve the American Dream for our children and our children’s children.” “Most Americans do not want their hard-earned tax dollars being used for abortion-on-demand, but our current patchwork of regulations has brought years of uncertainty,” stated Sen. Wicker. “The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act would simplify federal rules, ensuring that American tax dollars are never used for the destruction of innocent, unborn life.” This legislation would make permanent the restrictions on funding for elective abortion and elective abortion coverage, including the Hyde Amendment, which currently relies on yearly approval. It would also eliminate Obamacare’s taxpayer subsidies for elective abortion coverage on the Affordable Care Act exchanges through refundable tax credits. U.S. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama) also co-sponsored the legislation. “Millions of hardworking Americans believe that life begins at conception and don’t want their taxpayer dollars inadvertently funding abortions,” said Sen. Tuberville. “As a Christian and as a conservative, I share their belief that every life is sacred and every American has a right to life. That’s why I’m proud to sign on to this legislation that will solidify abortion funding restrictions that have been in place for decades and better protect the unborn.” Britt, Tuberville, and Wicker joined Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) John Barrasso (R-Wyoming), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee), John Boozman (R-Arkansas), Mike Braun (R-Indiana), Ted Budd (R-North Carolina), Shelley Moore Capito (R-West Virginia), Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Steve Daines (R-Montana), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Deb Fischer (R-Nebraska), Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Bill Hagerty (R-Tennessee), Josh Hawley (R-Missouri), John Hoeven (R-North Dakota), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Mississippi), Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin), John Kennedy (R-Louisiana), James Lankford (R-Oklahoma), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming), Roger Marshall (R-Kansas), Jerry Moran (R-Kansas), Markwayne Mullin (R-Oklahoma), Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), Pete Ricketts (R-Nebraska), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Mitt Romney (R-Utah), Mike Rounds (R-South Dakota), Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Eric Schmitt (R-Missouri), Rick Scott (R-Florida), Tim Scott (R-South Carolina), Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), Thom Tillis, (R-North Carolina), John Thune (R-South Dakota), J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), and Todd Young (R-Indiana). With Democrats in control of the Senate, it is unlikely that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will allow this bill to even be introduced on the Senate floor. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Analysis: Alabama’s corporate tax rates are higher than most of its neighbors
An analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation says Alabama’s corporate tax rate is as high or higher than all of its neighboring states. In the ranking by highest rates, Alabama and Tennessee each have a rate of 6.5% and tied for 23rd. Behind them were Georgia (5.75%, 31st), Florida (5.5%, 32nd), and Mississippi (5%, 34th). The highest corporate tax rates are New Jersey at 11.5%, followed by Minnesota (9.8%) and Illinois (9.50%). North Carolina had the lowest corporate tax rate at 2.5%, followed by Missouri and Oklahoma (both at 4%) and North Dakota (4.31%). The Alabama Policy Institute, in its Conservative Platform for Alabama, recommends that lawmakers lower the rate to 4.75% and end the ability of corporations to deduct federal corporate tax paid. According to the platform, this ability to deduct federal tax made the state tax dependent on the federal rate. When the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 was signed into law by then-President Donald Trump, corporate taxes were reduced, and this resulted in Alabama companies paying an effective rate of 5.2% since they didn’t have as much federal tax to deduct. Alabama’s corporate tax collections are only a small part of the state’s revenues. In fiscal 2020, the state collected $12.2 billion in revenue, with corporate income tax representing only 4.9% of that figure ($604 million). In fiscal 2021, the state collected $13.9 billion, with the state’s corporate income tax accounting for 6.97% of that figure ($973 million). The Yellowhammer State also didn’t fare well in the Tax Foundation’s analysis of the business tax climates of the states, ranking 41st. Florida ranked fourth, followed by Tennessee (14th), Mississippi (30th), and Georgia (32nd). Alabama’s corporate tax rate, along with its individual income tax (30th) and sales tax rate (50th), hurt its ranking among neighboring states. Tennessee and Florida don’t levy state income taxes. Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Gov. Kay Ivey issues rules for responding to public record requests
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey on Thursday ordered state agencies to follow new procedures for responding to public record requests, changes intended to provide structure in a state with one of the weakest open records laws in the country. Ivey signed an order instructing executive-branch agencies to: establish a portal for requests; respond within 15 days for a simple request or 45 days for a more complicated request; and limit fees to $20-per-hour for preparation time and 50 cents per page for paper copies. “Access to public records is essential to guaranteeing transparency in government, and I am proud to sign this executive order that improves this process as a whole,” Ivey said in a statement. However, the order only applies to executive-branch agencies and does not address an appeal process or the exemptions that have been used to deny requests. Alabama’s public records law says any citizen has the right to inspect and take copies of public writings, except for those exempted by law. However, it does not provide deadlines for responses or an enforcement mechanism beyond filing a lawsuit. A 2007 comparison of state open records laws conducted by the Better Government Association and the National Freedom of Information Coalition ranked Alabama at the bottom of the nation. While the review gave 38 states, including Alabama, an “F” grade, Alabama tied for last place in the comparative rankings. Felicia Mason, executive director of the Alabama Press Association, said the executive order is a step forward. Mason said many state laws provide remedies to pursue if a request is denied, and most address response requirements and possible fees. “We applaud the governor’s executive order, which provides a minimum response time as well as addressing the fees charged for obtaining the records,” Mason wrote in an email. State Sen. Arthur Orr, who has previously tried to overhaul the open records law, said he also welcomed the governor’s efforts. Orr, a Republican from Decatur, Alabama, said he will introduce legislation in the upcoming session to include other government entities. “I certainly applaud the governor’s efforts to bring more transparency to state government. However, the work must continue with city and county level governments to complete the circle,” Orr said. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Hayneville receiving funds to upgrade failing sewer system
Federal and state officials on Friday marked the start of a $10 million project aimed at repairing and upgrading an Alabama community’s failing sewer system that has left residents dealing with pools of raw sewage at their homes. The project in Hayneville is being funded from money allocated to the state by the American Rescue Plan — a portion of which state officials steered to high-need water and sewer projects — and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act. The Alabama Department of Environmental Management and local officials signed the funding agreements on Friday for the Infrastructure Act funding. The people of Hayneville, a community in Lowndes County of fewer than 1,000 people, have long lived with an ill-functioning sewer system that causes sewage to back up into their yards and homes. Hayneville Mayor Jimmie Davis said the sewage system is failing, and the small town doesn’t have the money to undertake this type of project. “The town has significant sewer and water needs that can have direct effect on residents’ health and well-being. Meeting those and other infrastructure needs in Lowndes County was a priority for the department,” Alabama Department of Environmental Management Director Lance LeFleur wrote in a statement. About one-third of the people in Hayneville live in poverty. The county’s plight has drawn the attention of national environmental and social justice activists, as well as federal and state officials. The heads of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Agriculture came to Lowndes County last year to announce a separate pilot program to help rural communities that face serious sewage problems like those in Hayneville. Many residents in the county aren’t connected to a centralized sewer system, and regular septic systems often don’t function properly because of the dense soil in the region. Alabama lawmakers voted last year to use about $225 million from the American Rescue Plan for water and sewer projects. The state also used Rescue Plan funds for broadband expansion and prison construction. The Alabama Department of Environmental Management also awarded $2.2 million to the Department of Public Health for a demonstration project in Lowndes County using special septic systems designed to cope with the dense soil in the Black Belt region. The U.S. Department of Justice in 2021 announced an environmental justice investigation into the county’s longstanding wastewater problems. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Ruling paves the way to remove Tuskegee Confederate statue
An Alabama judge has paved the way for officials to remove a Confederate monument placed a century ago at the center of a historic, majority-Black city as part of a “park for white people.” Since 1909, the Confederate monument has stood in the center of Tuskegee, a city famous for Tuskegee University and known as the training ground for Black pilots in World War II. The city’s population is now more than 93% Black. The monument has been a target of recent protests and vandalism attempts. The Macon County Commission filed a lawsuit to regain control of the land, which is the first step toward removing the statue. The monument was erected at a time when white supremacy reigned — and pro-Confederate groups across the South erected Civil War memorials to honor rebel troops and portray the cause of the slave-holding South as noble. Hundreds of rebel monuments were taken down in recent years as they came to be seen as symbols of racial oppression against Black people. Circuit Judge Steven Perryman on Thursday ruled that the site should revert to the Macon County Commission under the terms of a 1906 deed that gave the space to the Tuskegee Chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy for the purpose of “maintaining a park for white people and maintaining a monument to the memory of the Confederate soldiers.” Perryman said there was no evidence the space had been maintained as a segregated park, so the land should revert to the county under deed terms that said the county would get the land back if it wasn’t used for those purposes. The judge gave the Tuskegee Chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy 60 days to retrieve and remove the monument. The group could appeal the ruling. A 2017 Alabama law meant to protect Confederate monuments imposes a $25,000 penalty for removing or altering any monument that’s been in place for 40 or more years. However, a number of local governments have opted to take down Confederate structures and pay the law’s fine. Macon County Commission Chairman Louis Maxwell praised the decision. He said they needed to answer the question of who owns the property before taking any action about the monument. Maxwell said he hopes the statue will be gone by the spring festival that celebrates George Washington Carver, the famed 19th-century scientist, and Tuskegee professor. “We will celebrate the removal of this statue. We will celebrate this decision,” Maxwell said in a press conference. He asked county residents to be patient over the next 60 days. “Don’t tear it down,” Maxwell said. “Don’t deface it. Give them a chance to move it.” Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
