UPDATE: The bill has passed the Senate. It's now in the House with a vote likely the week of 3/13. Sen. Michele Brooks is jumping on Trump’s “Women Must be Punished” bandwagon. This ban is part of the plan by anti-choice zealots to punish women and criminalize doctors who perform abortions. Here is what you need to know about 20-week bans: 20-Week Bans Are Part of an Agenda to Ban All Abortion: The introduction of these bans doesn’t come in isolation. They’re part of a dangerous, out-of-touch, and coordinated effort to chip away at abortion access. Anti-abortion politicians in the General Assembly are pushing their agenda, bit by bit, to ultimately outlaw abortion completely. 20-Week Bans Criminalize Doctors: Politicians shouldn’t have the right to take options away from doctors in dangerous medical situations or prevent them from informing patients about all their health care options — and politicians certainly shouldn’t be allowed to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term with no chance of survival. 20-Week Bans Are Unpopular: These bills — and the extreme agenda they are part of — are deeply unpopular with the public. When Americans understand the real-world impact of 20-week bans, a solid 60 percent of voters oppose them. In fact, 78 percent of Democrats, 62 percent of Republicans, and 71 percent of Independents — say this is the wrong issue for legislators to be spending time on. 20-Week Bans Are Unconstitutional: 20-week bans are unconstitutional and a clear attempt to erode Roe v. Wade at the expense of women’s health. In fact, 20-week ban proponents are outspoken about their goal to challenge the 1973 Supreme Court decision protecting a woman’s right to safe and legal abortion.

This seat was stolen from President Barack Obama. The Republicans changed the rules of the Supreme Court in the judiciary nomination process by refusing to consider any nominee put forward by President Barack Obama following the death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. This was their delay tactic. We need to tell Congress that Gorsuch does not deserve a confirmation because the process that led to his nomination was illegitimate. The Senate’s Republican majority, Mitch McConnell, declared they would not give Garland hearings, would not examine his qualifications, and would not take a vote. They made up a rule: A nominee for the Supreme Court can be considered for only three-quarters of any president’s term. In the fourth year, confirmations have to wait until after the election. They changed the rules of the game to their own benefit. Further, last October, Ted Cruz, John McCain, and Richard Burr were pledging to hold the vacant seat open for four years in the event of a Hillary Clinton win. That was their commitment. We, the people, must continue to tell our Congressional leaders to stand up against this administration and its bullying, filibuster Gorsuch nomination and demand Garland provides the baseline against which to measure any SCOTUS nominee’s ideological reasonableness.

The Union for Democratic Communication and its mission of inclusivity rejects the unconstitutional standard this ban sets. Please call on members of Congress to go on the record to reject Trump's Muslim ban.

We can't allow Senate Republicans to set the precedent of ignoring a duly appointed meritorious nominee for the Supreme Court. The Democrats mistakenly chose not to go nuclear. Now they must get the job done through boycott, filibuster, and whatever legal means necessary. Force the Republicans' hand. Either they back down and appoint Judge Garland or they go nuclear. Either way, the Democratic caucus will remain the principled party. It is a mistake to consider a new nominee and attempt to defeat or diminish him.

The Baltimore City Police Department (BPD) is currently navigating a DOJ consent decree that emphasizes improving community relations. A first step they could take is literally not crapping on our neighborhoods. Unlike other cities with mounted units, BPD refuses to clean up after their horses or use manure bags, allowing their horses to defecate where we live and work. It is unsightly, a safety hazard, and if dog owners and arrabers have to clean up after their animals why can't the BPD?

Two Saudi sailors have been killed by Houthi rebels in Yemen in what Saudi Arabia has called a suicide boat attack and Houthis rebels have called a missile attack. [1] Fox News reported that the Pentagon believes the attack was meant for a US warship. [2] Trump Administration national security adviser Michael Flynn blamed Iran and threatened unspecified retaliation against Iran. [3] This dangerous situation was anticipated by Congress when it passed the War Powers Resolution during the Vietnam War. U.S. military forces are participating in the Saudi war in Yemen. There is a significant risk that U.S. forces will be drawn deeper into military conflict against Houthi rebels and possibly even against Iran. Yet Congress has never authorized the use of force against Houthi forces in Yemen, nor against Iran. Under the War Powers Resolution, a single Member of Congress can force a debate and vote on the deployment of U.S. forces to a conflict that has not been authorized by Congress. [4] Urge your Representative and Senators to invoke the War Powers Resolution to force a debate and vote on U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen before further U.S. military escalation by signing our petition. References: 1. https://www.yahoo.com/news/2-saudis-killed-yemen-rebel-sea-strike-coalition-060300258.html 2. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/01/31/exclusive-pentagon-believes-attack-on-saudi-frigate-meant-for-us-warship.html 3. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/01/iran-trump-michael-flynn-on-notice 4. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp

Millions of tourists visit the state park at Niagara Falls, NY every year. The city of Niagara Falls, NY is poverty-stricken and rampant with heroin and crime. NYS plans to spend millions to redevelop the state park; these funds would be better utilized in the city itself, where the quality of life for many Niagarians is suffering. Tell NYS to use the money to fix the blight downtown, which will drive tourists up into the city and help our local economy.

The security of the United States of America depends on there being no conflict of interest on the part of the president. If Donald Trump claims he has no conflicts of interest, he needs to prove it by revealing his taxes. There is no reason why he needs to wait until his IRS audit is complete.

I do not want this issue to be buried and forgotten due to the rancor that now exists in Congress and this administration. The election of Donald Trump is tainted by this scandal and Trump's overt support of Putin is most troubling.

An 18-year-old can buy a home, for example, but can’t run for office to represent the districts in which they vote and pay taxes. Nearly all state constitutions have included age qualifications of their own, some closely to those outlined in the Federal Constitution. Many do not. Consequently, the right of a young person to run for office in the United States is determined by a nonsensical patchwork of statutes that is plainly indefensible for its arbitrariness, even if one genuinely believes that young people, by and large, can’t be trusted with elected office

President Trump has stated that no one cares about his conflicts of interest or his financial status. As the Commander in Chief, President Trump's financial debts to foreign organizations, Deutsche Bank and the Bank of China, is a vulnerability and expose him to influence. An explanation of the conflicts of interest is available here: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/12/guide-donald-trump-debt The Director, Office of Government Ethics has stated: "A conflict of interest is anything that creates an incentive to put your own interests before the interests of the people you serve. The Supreme Court has written that a conflict of interest is, and I’m quoting here, “an evil which endangers the very fabric of a democratic society, for a democracy is effective only if the people have faith in those who govern, and that faith is bound to be shattered when high officials and their appointees engage in activities which arouse suspicions of corruption.” That same Court referred to what it called a “moral principle” underlying concerns about conflicts of interest. The Court cited, and I’m quoting again, “the Biblical admonition that no man may serve two masters, a maxim which is especially pertinent if one of the masters happens to economic self-interest.” A President is no more immune to the influence of two masters than any subordinate official. In fact, our common experience of human affairs suggests that the potential for corruption only grows with the increase of power." https://www.oge.gov/web/oge.nsf/0/6E08189CF6AF742B852580A500799063/$FILE/Remarks%20of%20W%20M%20Shaub%20Jr%20(1).pdf 5 USC 1100 PART III Subpart J CH 110 states: The enhanced personnel security program of an agency shall integrate relevant and appropriate information from various sources, including- .... information relating to any criminal or civil legal proceeding; financial information relating to the covered individual, including the credit worthiness of the covered individual; .... including relevant security or counterintelligence information .... that may suggest ill intent, vulnerability to blackmail, compulsive behavior, allegiance to another country, change in ideology, or that the covered individual lacks good judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness... Title 3 The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 Disclosures of financing and personnel; limitation on acceptance of donations: "Sec. 6. (a)(1) The President-elect .... shall disclose to the Administrator the date of contribution, source, amount, and expenditure thereof of all money, other than funds from the Federal Government, and including currency of the United States and of any foreign nation, checks, money orders, or any other negotiable instruments payable on demand, received either before or after the date of the general elections.... Please read https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-build-an-autocracy/513872/

U.S. Senator Feinstein has introduced a bill in the U.S. Senate that would immediately rescind Donald Trump's Muslim Ban executive order. U.S. Representative Lofgren has also introduced the SOLVE Act in the House of Representatives to defund and rescind the ban. The United States Constitution expressly protects individuals from persecution perpetrated by their own government. This includes discrimination based on faith, on national origin, and on skin color. The executive order ban on travelers from Muslim-majority and Middle Eastern nations is one of the first steps in a Trump-era agenda that criminalizes faith, nationality, and people of color. The Muslim Ban is an attempt to illegally legislate discrimination -- and is not about safety at all. That’s why more than 16 State Attorneys General signed onto a letter saying the ban is unlawful and un-American; many states are suing; and it’s also why several federal judges have already ruled the same. In short, Trump’s ban is putting our nation on the verge of a Constitutional crisis. Together, we can stop the Muslim Ban. Sign on now!