The Supreme Court recently voted to stop implementation of the Clean Power Plan (cutting carbon pollution from fossil fuel power plants) until legal challenges are heard. But climate change is not taking a timeout while the courts ponder. The Arctic won’t stop melting, the oceans will not stop rising, storms will not become less intense, asthma rates won’t come down, and record temperatures won’t cool while lawyers debate. Despite the Supreme Court decision, states can--and must--continue planning for a rapid transition to clean power.  With the impacts of climate change intensifying, our kids and grandkids can’t afford any delay in moving as quickly as possible to a clean energy future. So far governors from more than a dozen states, from Washington to New Hampshire, have said they are moving forward to develop their state clean power plans. Unfortunately, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval--who is being vetted by President Obama to fill the Supreme Court vacancy--has not yet made this commitment.  Please sign the petition telling Governor Sandoval to move forward now with a strong state clean power plan to combat climate change.

MSNBC hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski are using their positions as TV commentators to actively support Donald Trump’s candidacy – and they just got caught. They recently used their position on MSNBC to hold a “town hall” with only Trump. That’s bad enough, but a recording just leaked of Scarborough and Brzezinski talking in between commercial breaks, like friends who are on the same team. Brzezinski asks whether she should ask questions about deportation: “Do you not want me to do, the um, the ones with, um, deportation?” Trump says “Nothing too hard, Mika,” and Mika says “Okay.” No questions about deportation were asked. At another point, Trump says “This will make us all look good,” to which Scarborough replies “Exactly.” Scarborough and Brzezinski aren’t coming right out and saying they’re for Trump. Instead, they’re using their position on MSNBC to act like journalists, but shape media coverage so that it helps Trump. It’s completely unacceptable, especially given Trump’s racist demonization of Latinos, and his encouragement of violence against those who oppose him. It's an embarrassment for the network and it should embarrass corporate sponsors that their money is reinforcing hate, racism and violence. Join us in telling executives at NBC and MSNBC that if they want to have any credibility with Latinos, they need to take Scarborough and Brzezinski off the air, and replace them with someone who will challenge Trump’s violent and racist rhetoric, not support it.

I am starting this petition because I believe that Climate Change is the greatest threat that humanity has ever faced. If radical steps are not taken immediately to make the switch from fossil fuels to Renewable energy technologies like wind and solar, the undeniable and inevitable environmental consequences will produce effects unlike anything the world has ever seen. We owe it to all future generations and the world. If you agree, join or support #Greenpeace Earth Day Clean Energy Campaign and send a message to our political representatives.

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority provides safe, quality public paratransit through MetroAccess so that everyone can get where they need to go, like work, the doctor’s office or just to run errands. The staff is friendly and well-trained and the vehicle fleet is adequately equipped to provide a high level of service to persons with disabilities. But now, WMATA is considering contracting with companies like Uber and Lyft to provide these services to communities in the metropolitan Washington, D.C., area. This is concerning because neither company ensures drivers have adequate access for wheelchair-accessible vehicles. This partnership also may lead to the creation of a system that will segregate passengers into those with mobility challenges and those without—leading to a lower class of service for wheelchair users. The working conditions and regulation of Uber and Lyft also bring into question if they are the right fit to provide public transportation services. We applaud WMATA for making efforts to give passengers quality transportation options. Now, it’s up to us as riders to make sure the solutions it implements will work for all passengers, prioritize safety and promote good working conditions and decent wages.

This petition will go to all of the U.S. Senators who are in the last year of their six-year term and who have said they will not allow a vote to fill the Supreme Court vacancy because President Obama is in the last year of his term. From the Huffington Post: President Barack Obama is in the last year of his second term, Republican senators argue, so he should no longer have a say in something so important as who sits on the Supreme Court. Let's wait for the voters to weigh in this fall, they say. But Obama isn't the only elected official in the last year of his term who has a key role in choosing the next justice, whose party may or may not hold onto his power post, and who generally makes consequential decisions. The GOP logic seems to be that voters may have changed their minds about what sorts of leaders they want over the past three years, so rather than let Obama function for his full four-year term, the Senate should stall him. Beyond the Supreme Court vacancy, Republicans have also refused to hold hearings on Obama's budget, and one senator had himself recorded throwing Obama's final proposal to close the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prison base into the trash. If after a mere three years, however, Obama has lost his mandate, what about those other elected officials who haven't gone before the voters in five years? There are 34 senators serving the final years of their six-year terms. Ten of them are Democrats, and 24 are Republicans, including at least seven facing difficult re-election fights. One of those going before the voters this fall is Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which in theory holds hearings on Supreme Court nominees. The logic that says a president shouldn't be allowed to make a consequential appointment in his final year would seem to indicate those "lame duck" senators shouldn't be allowed to cast consequential votes. One might even suggest that argument is stronger against senators, who are one among one hundred, than against the singular president.

We are in the midst of an historic election, a battle of two different visions of America just like we were in the last two elections where the American voters overwhelmingly voted for President Barack Obama. In this nomination you can help shine a light on what is at stake again, from acting as good stewards of Mother Earth protecting future generations from Climate Change, to the corruption of our representative form of democracy through the disastrously wrong ruling of Citizens United, to securing humane immigration policies, to protecting reproductive freedoms, defending the right to collectively bargain for workers rights, to restoring the now gutted Voting Rights Act and protecting Marriage Equality and the next generations struggles as yet unseen struggles for equality and freedom! Now is the time Mr. President to use your eloquent voice to rouse the American electorate once more to go to the ballots and choose hope instead of fear, to choose love for our neighbors as the wisdom of the ages said, "love thy neighbor as thyself" as our Golden Rule and reject the idea that he or she with all the gold makes the rules. Please Mr. President we the American people beseech you to nominate someone who will fight for the vulnerable among us! "Promoting active liberty does not mean allowing the majority to run roughshod over minorities. It calls for taking special care that all groups have a chance to fully participate in society and the political process. -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg" We put our faith in not just our system of government but in the deep yearning for a just society that the people we elect to lead us like yourself Mr. President! Please nominate someone to inspire us all. Thank you!

The headline in Politico says it all: "Shuster lounges poolside with airline lobbyists as he pursues FAA bill "It's the latest example of the Transportation Committee chairman's coziness with the airline industry." (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bill-shuster-faa-bill-airline-lobbyists-219666#ixzz41BxPY6Ls) On Feb. 10, Nick Calio, head of the nation’s top airline trade group, Airlines for America, testified before Rep. Bill Shuster’s House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The topic was a top priority for both men: A bill to overhaul the Federal Aviation Administration, most controversially by putting air traffic control in the hands of an entity favorable to the airlines. Two days later, Shuster’s committee approved the measure. And the week after that, he and Calio escaped to Miami Beach, Florida, with Shelley Rubino, an Airlines for America vice president who is Shuster’s girlfriend. The three lounged by the pool and dined together during festivities tied to Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart’s (R-Fla.) annual weekend fundraising trip. Attendees said it they looked as if they were traveling in a pack. It’s the most recent example of Shuster’s cozy relationship with the powerful airline association. His panel has jurisdiction over the $160 billion U.S. airline industry. The FAA bill is critical to the Pennsylvania Republican’s legacy, and to Airlines for America’s members, which include every major airline and cargo carrier in the country except Delta Air Lines. Calio testified that modernizing the air-traffic control system would provide an “immense benefit” to the airlines and their customers. The bill would spin off the nation’s air-traffic control apparatus into a nonprofit company. The airline industry would have more representation than any other industry on the entity’s board. Pilots would also get a seat, handing the airlines effective control of the air-traffic control system. Regional airlines, which operate roughly half of the nation’s flights, would have no representation on the board.

We need coastal ecosystem conservation.

When I gave birth to my first child, the staff at The Birthing Center at Memorial Hospital offered me more than rote medical care. They held my hand, rubbed my back, and looked me in the eyes. Every staff member I encountered knew my name and respected my choices. Through the exceptional care I received during my labor, I came to believe in myself. You can't put a price tag on that kind of family-centered, evidence-based care. My family has learned that Care New England (CNE) is considering closing the Birthing Center at Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island (MHRI). We are horrified and angered that CNE would prioritize financial interests over the care of the families it serves. The Birthing Center provides patients from diverse communities and backgrounds respectful, high quality, and evidence-based care. It serves local families from Pawtucket and Central Falls (including women and babies at highest risk for poor health outcomes due to economic and racial healthcare disparities), alongside educated urban elites, including some who cross state borders because of the Birthing Center’s reputation. The Birthing Center staff cares for tenured Ivy League professors, medical professionals, women recently immigrated, incarcerated women and local high school students with the same deep respect and compassionate care regardless of income or education. We urge you to prioritize the high quality care being provided to some of the state’s most marginalized families at MHRI over the potential cost savings of service consolidation. We urge you to recognize that the Birthing Center at MHRI is the choice of many of the most privileged and educated families in our state. Closing the Birthing Center would do a monumental disservice to RI women and families. MHRI is the only hospital in the state that implements the principles of Mother-Friendly care, as outlined in the Coalition for Improving Maternity Services' Mother-Friendly Childbirth Initiative. MHRI has an unwavering commitment to normal physiologic birth, skilled support for vaginal births after cesarean (VBAC), groundbreaking and now well-established Gentle Cesarean, and consistently respectful and individualized care. This model of care cannot be found in any other hospital in our state; it is the result of countless years of focused effort and the commitment of an interdisciplinary team of birth professionals. The impact of the Birthing Center at MHRI reaches far beyond the borders of RI. As the training site for Brown University’s Maternal Child Health Fellowship, the Birthing Center at MHRI provides family medicine physicians with nationally recognized and respected supplementary training in high-risk obstetrics within a community-centered model of care. Its graduates both serve our nation’s most vulnerable women and children in physician shortage areas, and work to overcome health care disparities affecting families of color and those living in poverty. In light of this, to close the Birthing Center is to abolish CNE’s most historically enduring, unwavering example of life-saving maternity care to underserved populations. Please understand that those of us afforded the privilege to do so will travel considerable distances to obtain high-quality, compassionate, evidence-based and family-centered care – the kind of care that ALL families deserve. Should the Birthing center be closed, we will work to be sure that all families understand their rights and options in choosing maternity care. If CNE does not value the Birthing Center, it does not value me. It does not value its patients - as women and men, as mothers and fathers, as engaged citizens, and as consumers of health care services. If CNE does not value its patients, then it will lose them. If the Board decides to put profits over patients, I will obtain all possible medical care for my family outside of the CNE system. I urge you to reconsider any plans for closure.

I am a Nevadan. The recent Nevada caucus allowed the public to see to the lack of democracy and equality in our state. Anyone who was working during the time of the caucus was unable to participate. The voices of working people were not heard during the caucus. This is unacceptable. The purpose of this petition is to let our leaders know that we are dissatisfied with the caucus process. We want to return to becoming a primary election state.

HB 4040 would put into law a flawed administrative decision by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Commission (ODFWC) to remove the gray wolf from Oregon’s endangered species list. The Department's recommendation was made without the independent scientific peer-review required under Oregon law. It’s critical that wildlife management, especially of an iconic species like the gray wolf, is based on sound science, not the election-year political threats from ranchers and farmers. This legislation is an attempt to kill a lawsuit that challenges the ODFWC delisting recommendation and sets a dangerous precedent of blocking judicial review. HB 4040 directly undermines efforts at the federal level to provide federal protection for this endangered species, and it sets back years of progress made to restore the species in Oregon.

Once our public wildlands are gone, we can not get them back. They are our heritage, our refuge, and the health-giving part of our nation. Federal protection has, in the past, saved the lands in the West from environmental destruction by the states and localities. Let's keep our public wildlands safe from them into the future.