ACE

Category: ACE Research

  • A Guide to the DNC: Day 3

    A Guide to the DNC: Day 3

    Wednesday, August 21st, marked the third day of the Democratic National Convention. The theme for the night was “A Fight for Our Freedoms,” as the Democratic Party aimed to highlight Kamala Harris as a protector of America’s freedoms while portraying Donald Trump as a threat to those freedoms. The night featured speeches from prominent Democrats such as former President Bill Clinton, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Minnesota Governor and Vice Presidential nominee Tim Walz. The event also included performances by John Legend, Stevie Wonder, and Maren Morris, and was hosted by actress and comedian Mindy Kaling. The speakers addressed issues such as immigration, the January 6th attack on the Capitol, women’s reproductive rights, and lowering taxes for the middle class.

    Olivia Troye, Former Trump Administration National Security Official: Olivia Troye shared her experience working under the Trump administration. She explained how Donald Trump sowed division, arguing that division is the “only way he can win.” She now supports Kamala Harris because she believes that, unlike Trump, Harris will protect “our freedom.” She then addressed her fellow Republicans, urging them to support Harris, stating that they are “not voting for a Democrat” but voting for democracy.

    Geoff Duncan, Former Lieutenant Governor of Georgia: Geoff Duncan explained that he stopped supporting Donald Trump because of the former president’s attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. He urged his fellow Republicans to “dump Trump,” claiming that Trump has made the Republican party “crazy” and that the party now “acts like a cult” worshiping Trump. He then shifted his speech to demonstrate his support for Kamala Harris, stating that if you vote for Harris, “you are not a Democrat but a patriot.” His speech follows the overall message of Republicans who have parted from Trump, arguing that a vote for Harris is the right choice to protect democracy and return the Republican party to being a party focused on policy.

    Bennie G. Thompson, Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Mississippi: Bennie Thompson, who served on the January 6th committee, spoke about his history of preserving democracy, stating that his father never had the opportunity to vote due to Jim Crow laws. Therefore, Thompson dedicated his career to protecting votes against “violence and discrimination.” He then called out Donald Trump for encouraging conspiracy theories that discredited the 2020 election results. He urged people to “choose democracy, not political violence.”

    Sergeant Aquilino Gonell, Retired United States Capitol Police Officer: Sergeant Aquilino Gonell spoke about his experience facing the insurrectionists on January 6th. He argued that instead of defending the Constitution and the officers who risked their lives on January 6th, Trump sided with those who intended to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. He then voiced his support for Kamala Harris to become the “first female Commander in Chief.”

    Andy Kim, Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, New Jersey: Andy Kim continued the Democrats’ message about January 6th, sharing that he was present in the Capitol during the certification of election results, which was then delayed after the attack on the Capitol by rioters. He described his reaction in the aftermath, stating that there was nothing to do but “pick up a trash bag” and clean up the mess left by the rioters. He painted an image of destruction and disruption encouraged by Donald Trump and encouraged supporters to vote for Harris to ensure a future of hope for their children.

    Stevie Wonder, American Singer-Songwriter and Musician: Stevie Wonder gave a short speech before his performance that night, encouraging people to “do the right thing” by voting for Kamala Harris.

    Kenan Thompson, American Comedian and Actor: Project 2025: Kenan Thompson came on stage with a copy of Project 2025, labeling it the “terms and conditions of a second Trump presidency.” Thompson spoke with several convention guests about policies outlined in Project 2025, such as eliminating protections for LGBTQ+ marriages, banning abortions, and eliminating the Department of Education.

    Hakeem Jeffries, U.S. House of Representatives Democratic Leader: Hakeem Jeffries advocated for a living wage, affordable housing, strong public schools free from gun violence, and affordable health care. Jeffries likened Trump to an “old boyfriend,” stating that America broke up with him “for a reason.” Jeffries reasoned that Trump lost his reelection bid in 2020 because Trump’s tax plan supported the wealthy and he failed to control the COVID-19 pandemic. Jeffries contrasted Trump with Harris by stating that Harris and House Democrats will “always put people over politics” by lowering costs, fixing the immigration system, strengthening relationships between the police and community, combating the climate crisis, and protecting women’s reproductive freedoms.

    Bill Clinton, 42nd President of the United States: Former President Bill Clinton began his speech by thanking President Biden for his service and for relinquishing political power to put the country’s best interests first. He then underscored that the American people get to decide who becomes president and asked them to consider what kind of president they want and what kind of future that president will lead the country into. He highlighted Harris’s background as a prosecutor and District Attorney, stating that her political history has shown her capability and experience in protecting the democratic process. Clinton then emphasized the Democratic Party’s message by stating that Harris is for the people while Trump acts only in his own interest, arguing that Harris will fight to ensure that every American “has the chance to chase their dreams,” while Trump is only about “me, myself, and I.” Calling Kamala Harris the “president of joy,” Clinton argued that she is the president the country needs.

    Nancy Pelosi, Speaker Emerita of the U.S. House of Representatives: Nancy Pelosi called the Biden presidency “one of the most successful presidencies in modern America” and stated that Kamala Harris can take America to “new heights.” She then praised Tim Walz for his service in the military and in Congress as a member of the House of Representatives, arguing that Harris and Walz are leaders who can push the Democrats to victory this November.

    Catherine Cortez Masto, United States Senator, Nevada: Catherine Masto spoke about her relationship with Kamala Harris as they worked together securing the southern border while serving as attorneys general of their respective states, noting Harris’s work fighting for victims of human trafficking. Masto also highlighted how close her own Senate race was, coming down to just around seven thousand votes, urging her supporters to show up to vote.

    Josh Shapiro, Governor of Pennsylvania: Josh Shapiro criticized Trump’s policy views, referencing Trump’s support of book bans and abortion bans, arguing that “real freedom” is supporting children’s education, protecting and investing in communities, and allowing people to “marry who [they] want” and “start a family on [their] own terms.” Speaking to the people, he encouraged them to vote for Harris and Walz to “secure our rights, protect our freedoms, and protect our democracy.”

    Oprah Winfrey, Businesswoman and Former Talk Show Host: Oprah began her surprise appearance at the DNC by quoting former congressman John Lewis, saying, “No matter what ship our ancestors arrived on, we’re all in the same boat now.” In doing so, she encouraged Americans to work together, regardless of background, to drive America forward. She stated that this election is not about “us and them” but “you and me,” encouraging unity and rejecting loyalism to one specific candidate. She then revealed that she is a registered independent before calling on “all the independents and undecided” to vote, noting that “values and character matter most of all” in order to reach beyond the Democratic voting base.

    Wes Moore, Governor of Maryland: Wes Moore reinterpreted Trump’s slogan of “Make America Great” by claiming that making America great does not include telling people “they are not wanted,” continuing the Democrats’ message of inclusion and unity. He then honored the six construction workers who died after a cargo ship crashed into the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore earlier this year as immigrants who knew “America was big enough for them too,” and noted that after the accident, Harris personally called him to demonstrate her support. He then called on the people to elect someone willing to “believe in the best of us,” stating that leader is Kamala Harris.

    Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation and Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor: Pete Buttigieg remarked on Donald Trump’s status as a convicted felon going up against a former prosecutor. He then criticized Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, for his comments on those without children, arguing that Vance’s comments show how Trump’s campaign is doubling down on “negativity” and “darkness.” He insisted that politics can be uplifting and “a kind of soulcraft.” He labeled the Republican party as divisive and exclusionary, arguing that they paint those who do not agree with their political view as the “enemy.” He then argued that this November, the people get to choose “better politics,” and that is what “Kamala Harris and Tim Walz represent,” describing this election as a battle between light and dark politics.

    Amy Klobuchar, United States Senator, Minnesota: Introducing Tim Walz, Amy Klobuchar highlighted Tim Walz’s character and background as a former public school teacher, coach, and army officer. She underscored that he has brought Minnesota together, and as running mate to Kamala Harris, he will help unite America.

    Tim Walz, Governor of Minnesota and Democratic Vice President Nominee: Introduced by a former student, Tim Walz arrived on stage as the keynote speaker of the night. He highlighted his rural roots, growing up in a small town of around four hundred people, his military service, and his work as a social studies teacher and football coach to demonstrate his commitment to the “common good.” Describing his underdog story as a public school teacher with “zero political experience,” Walz recounted his journey from being elected to Congress to becoming Governor. He stated that in these leadership positions, he learned how to “compromise without compromising [his] values.” He then listed his accomplishments as Governor, such as cutting the cost of prescription drugs and passing a law to ensure free breakfast and lunch in schools. Walz criticized Donald Trump and JD Vance for having an agenda that “serves nobody except the richest and most extreme amongst us” and referenced his viral comments on the Republican Party, calling Trump’s agenda “weird” and leading the crowd in chants of “we are not going back.” He concluded his speech with a “pep talk,” referencing his days as a football coach, and with chants of Harris’s campaign slogan, “When we fight, we win.”

  • A Guide to the DNC: Day 2

    A Guide to the DNC: Day 2

    Day 2 of the Democratic National Convention (DNC) featured speeches from the descendants of prominent political figures, as well as key speakers including the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, and former First Lady Michelle Obama. The speeches touched on various themes such as reproductive rights, climate change, Project 2025, and freedom. Below is a summary of key points from some of the speakers, with their quotes included:

    Jason Carter – Grandson of Jimmy Carter

    Jason Carter, grandson of Jimmy Carter, the 39th President of the United States, expressed admiration for his grandfather and noted qualities he sees in Kamala Harris. Carter described his grandfather as having “a commitment to loving their neighbors as themselves” and being a man for whom “it was never about fame, recognition, accolades, or awards.” He stated that Kamala Harris carries on his grandfather’s legacy and concluded by sharing that his grandfather is hopeful and eager to vote for Harris.

    Jack Schlossberg – Grandson of John F. Kennedy

    Jack Schlossberg, grandson of John F. Kennedy, spoke about his grandfather’s inspiration for a new generation to ask “what they could do for their country.” Schlossberg suggested that Kamala Harris embodies this spirit, noting her dedication to public service and belief in America. He highlighted Harris’s commitment to defending freedoms regarding healthcare, voting rights, and combating gun violence, urging viewers to vote for her and stating that “history is watching.”

    Mitch Landrieu – DNC Day 2 Co-Chair

    Mitch Landrieu, Co-Chair of DNC Day 2, criticized JD Vance and Donald Trump, accusing them of wanting to “rip away our rights, crush the middle class, and destroy our democracy.” He expressed belief that they are targeting “books and human bodies” and stated that Kamala Harris and Tim Walz have a “vision where every American has a fair shot at the American dream.” Landrieu concluded with “we are not going back.”

    Malcolm Kenyatta – Pennsylvania State Representative

    Malcolm Kenyatta, Pennsylvania state representative, expressed his discontent with Project 2025, describing it as a “radical plan to drag us backwards, bankrupt this middle class, and raise prices on working families like yours and mine.” He shared a story about his grandmother, Muhammad I. Kenyatta, expressing regret over past challenges and emphasized that it is “our turn to stand up for working people and stand up for our nation’s promise.” He concluded by saying it is “our time to make history our friends by electing Kamala Harris.”

    Ana Navarro – Co-Host of The View

    Ana Navarro, co-host of The View, addressed comparisons of Kamala Harris to communist leaders, stating, “I know communism, I fled communism from Nicaragua and do not take it lightly.” She argued that communist leaders attack the press, place unqualified individuals in power, and refuse to accept legitimate elections, suggesting that these characteristics do not apply to Harris. Navarro expressed her support for Harris.

    Chuck Schumer – Senate Majority Leader

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer started by stating that only one candidate will move America forward. He noted achievements under the Biden administration, such as lower drug costs and job creation. Schumer praised Kamala Harris as a fearless leader focused on important issues like neighborhood safety and building an economy that offers everyone a chance at the American Dream. He expressed confidence that Democrats will retain the Senate and highlighted discrepancies in actions by JD Vance and Donald Trump, citing their absence or opposition to certain measures.

    Bernie Sanders – Senator

    Senator Bernie Sanders outlined the challenges faced in recent years, including the pandemic and economic issues. He praised the Biden administration for passing the American Rescue Plan, expanding benefits, and providing emergency assistance. Sanders called for renewed political will to address ongoing struggles and emphasized the need to “stand up to wealth and power and deliver justice for people at home and abroad.” He also advocated for a ceasefire in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and criticized corporate greed. Sanders urged support for Kamala Harris to “move forward and create the nation we know we can become.”

    Angela Alsobrooks – U.S. Senate Candidate

    Angela Alsobrooks, a U.S. Senate candidate from Maryland, shared her personal journey of overcoming challenges and being inspired by figures like her grandmother and Kamala Harris. She recounted how Harris’s work as a district attorney in Prince George’s County and her efforts to address violent crime were impactful. Alsobrooks expressed confidence that Harris will help keep criminals out of office and urged support for her in the upcoming election, stating, “we stand with Kamala and we are not going back.”

    John Giles – Mayor of Mesa, Arizona

    John Giles, a Republican mayor, began by noting that he feels more at home at the DNC than in today’s Republican Party. He called for an “adult” in the White House and criticized Donald Trump for failing to deliver on promises. Giles praised Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for their efforts, referencing John McCain’s example of putting country over party. He concluded by urging voters to “put our country first.”

    Tammy Duckworth – DNC Committee Chair

    Tammy Duckworth, a veteran and DNC Committee Chair, expressed her personal commitment to protecting freedoms and criticized Donald Trump’s stance on reproductive rights. Duckworth shared her experience with infertility and the importance of reproductive care, stating that removing it would be “punishing our heroes for their willingness to serve.” She concluded by saying, “every American deserves to be called mommy or daddy without being treated like a criminal” and urged voters to elect Kamala Harris.

    Doug Emhoff – Husband of Kamala Harris

    Doug Emhoff, husband of Kamala Harris, expressed gratitude for Harris’s leadership and her ability to rise to challenges. He described her as a “joyful warrior” who is ready to lead and emphasized her commitment to justice and support for his faith. Emhoff highlighted Harris’s role in fighting against anti-Semitism and her focus on positive, meaningful change.

    Michelle Obama – Former First Lady

    Michelle Obama opened her speech by stating, “hope is making a comeback” and reflected on her own grief and her mother’s values. She emphasized the importance of not squandering the sacrifices made for future generations and praised Kamala Harris for embodying these values. Obama described Harris as a dignified leader who understands the unseen labor that contributes to America’s greatness and called on viewers to “do something.”

    Barack Obama – Former President

    Barack Obama criticized Donald Trump for focusing on personal gain and neglecting the concerns of the middle class. He highlighted Trump’s failure to support bipartisan solutions and his disregard for issues like reproductive rights. Obama argued that “we do not need four more years of chaos” and endorsed Kamala Harris as a capable leader who has demonstrated a commitment to justice and progress. He also expressed support for Tim Walz and concluded by calling on Americans to vote for Harris.

  • A Guide to the DNC: Day 1

    A Guide to the DNC: Day 1

    Monday, August 19th marks the first night of the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago, Illinois. The theme of the night is “For the People.” The start of this convention marks one month and a day since President Biden announced he would not be running for re-election and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for the presidency. 

    The first major event of the convention was the ceremonious vote to confirm Tim Walz as the Democratic Party’s nominee for Vice President. In this ceremonious vote, the Democrats’ delegates reaffirmed the nomination of Tim Walz. Walz is expected to officially accept the nomination in his speech Wednesday night. The delegates officially nominated Kamala Harris and Tim Walz as the Party’s nominee for President and Vice President in a virtual meeting earlier this month. The convention will hold Harris’ ceremonious confirmation vote on Tuesday night. 

    The convention then moved into agenda-setting measures in which the Democratic Party committees gave their committee reports and plans for the Democratic Party’s platform. The convention then moved into hearing speakers pledging their support for Vice President Harris and Governor Walz, speaking on the Democratic Party’s platform for 2024, and criticizing Donald Trump and the Republican Party’s political agenda.

    Around 8:10 pm Central Time, Kamala Harris made a surprise appearance on stage. During her quick appearance, she thanked President Joe Biden for his service as president and urged her supporters to unite and turn out to vote this November, stating that “When we fight, we win.”

    The host for the first night of the DNC, actor and director Tony Goldwyn, followed Harris, giving a speech in which he argued that this election is about the future of America and that Harris and Trump each represent “two very different futures” for America. He then stated that Harris represents the “future of the middle class, the future of reproductive rights, the future of the climate, security, and schools, and the future of our very democracy.” He describes Harris as a leader who will fight for the futures of all Americans, amping up the crown as he continued to mark Harris’ accomplishments throughout the night.

    Key Speakers:

    Mallory McMorrow, Michigan State Senator: Addressing Project 2025

    State Senator McMorrow came on stage with a copy of Project 2025, a policy plan for a Republican lead administration. She then read excerpts from the plan in which she argued Project 2025 sets the stage for a Trump dictatorship as the policy plan would allow him to appoint an “army of loyalists” to positions of power within the government and weaponize the Department of Defense, going so far as to argue that Trump could make the “FBI his own personal police force” through Project 2025’s policies. She then claims that another Trump presidency would make him “immune to the law” and prosecution because he “handpicked” the current Supreme Court. She then stated that Kamala Harris would protect American democracy, reiterating Harris’s campaign message of “not going back” to a Trump administration.  

    Steve Kerr, Team USA Men’s Basketball coach and Golden State Warriors coach

    Steve Kerr first recapped his experience watching the men’s and women’s Olympic Basketball teams winning gold and the pride he felt for his country in that moment. He then relates his experience as a coach and former basketball player helping him know what kind of leader he and his fellow Americans need. He underscored that Kamala Harris and Tim Walz have the leadership qualities the “country needs.” He also urges unity, comparing the success of twelve Americans winning gold in Paris in Men’s Basketball to the success America could have when its citizens put aside their party identities. Kerr then encourages people to vote, using Stephen Curry’s catchphrase to emphasize his hopes that on election day this November, “we can tell Donald Trump ‘night, night.’”

    Shawn Fain, President of the United Automobile Workers

    Shawn Fain first thanked President Biden for walking the picket line with Union Automobile Workers in September of 2023. He then praised Kamala Harris, stating that she is “one of us” and a “fighter for the working class” while calling Donald Trump a “scam,” causing the crowd at the DNC to begin chanting “Trump’s a scam.” Fain criticized Trump’s ability to bring back automobile jobs, claiming that “Donald Trump is all talk, and Kamala Harris walks the walk because “Trump did nothing” while union workers were on strike in 2019 while Kamala Harris stood alongside union workers on the picket line.

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, New York

    Ocasio-Cortez first shared her experience working as a waitress, fighting bills and home foreclosure due to her father’s unexpected death, before being elected congresswoman for the House of Representatives. She states that like herself, Kamala Harris is “from the middle class and for the middle class.” She states that Harris is committed to not only protecting reproductive rights and civil rights and taking down corporate greed but is also committed to “securing a cease-fire in Gaza and bringing hostages home.” Ocasio-Cortez then criticizes Trump for only “fighting for the wealthy and big businesses” and urges Democratic supporters to not only vote Harris and Walz into the White House but to vote to get strong democratic majorities in Congress. Ocasio-Cortez finishes her speech by underscoring Harris’ campaign messages, stating that “the people of this nation will not go back” and that this nation will create a path that is “for the people and by the people.”

    Hillary Clinton, Former United States Secretary of State

    Hilary Clinton first spoke of women’s first throughout America’s political history, from when women finally gained the right to vote in 1920 to acknowledging Victoria Woodhull, the first woman to run for President. Clinton marked the historic nature of her run for office in 2016 and Kamala Harris’ current run for office, stating that both of their parents would urge them to “keep going” as Clinton urges the American people to “keep going” in order to send Harris to the White House. Clinton then draws similarities between her and Harris as they both got their start in politics as “young lawyers helping children who were abused and neglected,” describing Harris’ background as a prosecutor and contrasting that background to Trump’s status of becoming the first convicted felon to run for president. Clinton’s speech reiterated Harris’ commitment to being “for the people” and highlighted the parallels between her run for the presidency and Harris’ run.

    James E. Clyburn, Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, South Carolina

    James Clyburn began his speech by announcing the accomplishments of the Biden-Harris administration, including their handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and the nation’s infrastructure. He then targets Project 2025, calling the policy plan “Jim Crow 2.0” and arguing that Trump is only “falsely pleading ignorance” on the subject. Clyburn then quotes the Bible to demonstrate America’s perseverance and that under Harris, America will “march to a more perfect union.”

    Jamie Raskin, Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Maryland

    Jamie Raskin first criticized the Republican party, stating that Republican leadership converted the party from a “party of Lincoln” to a “cult of personality.” He then references the January 6 attack on Congress in 2021, highlighting his concern for the protection of democracy if Trump were to be re-elected, citing Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election results as evidence that Trump does not wish to maintain a peaceful democracy. 

    Jasmine Crockett, Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Texas

    Jasmine Crockett criticizes Republicans for holding legislation that would “secure the border and send aid to Ukraine.” Crockett then states that Harris has “lived the American Dream” while Trump has been “America’s Nightmare,” arguing that Harris is the only candidate qualified for the position of president. Crockett then draws parallels between her career as a public defender to Harris’ career as a prosecutor, telling the story of how Harris gave her advice when Crockett was first elected to the House of Representatives, leaving an impactful mark on the congresswoman. She states that when Harris is elected as president, “America will be a beacon of hope once more.”

    Joint Remarks: Amanda and Josh Zurawski, Texas; Kaitlyn Joshua, Louisiana; Hadley Duvall, Kentucky

    The Zurawskis, Kaitlyn Joshua, and Hadley Duvall each shared their experience with receiving reproductive health in their respective states. They pledge their support for Kamala Harris and desire for a national bill to ensure the right to an abortion and reproductive freedom. 

    Andy Beshear, Governor of Kentucky

    Andy Beshear first criticized Trump and Vance’s stance on abortion rights and the Supreme Court’s overturning of Row vs. Wade, arguing that “all women should have the freedom to make their own decisions.” He remarked on Harris’ call and action of unity, stating that Harris acts to support all Americans, not just the ones who vote for her. He reiterated the need for Americans to “love thy neighbor” in a time of division. 

    Reverend Raphael G. Warnock, United States Senator, Georgia

    Raphael Warnock highlighted the Democrats’ accomplishments in 2020, stating that they not only sent Biden and Harris to the White House, but they also “vaccinated [their] citizens” and “stood by [their] small businesses.” Warnock criticized Trump’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and his instigation of the January 6th insurrection that led to “voter suppression laws in Georgia and around the country.” He argues that this election decides if the nation will “embrace all of us or just some of us” and that Trump seeks to divide the American people while Kamala Harris and Tim Walz represent “the new way forward.” 

    Chris Coons, United States Senator, Delaware

    Chris Coons praised President Biden’s accomplishments during his presidency and thanked Jill Biden for her continued support of Joe Biden. He describes Biden as a compassionate man and friend who has “done so much for this country” and thanked Biden for his courage in “fighting for our democracy.” 

    Dr. Jill Biden, First Lady of the United States

    Dr. Jill Biden compared Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’ character, stating that they know how to “heal wounds” and “serve the community.” She urges Harris supporters to “fight and win” together, throwing her support behind Harris and reiterating the Democratic Party’s commitment to the transfer of power between Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. 

    Joe Biden, President of the United States

    Introduced by his daughter Ashley Biden, Joe Biden gave the keynote speech for Night 1 of the DNC. He walked onto the stage to chants of “We love Joe” from the crowd and replied, “America, I love you.” He then moved to attack Trump’s response to losing the 2020 election, stating that “you can’t only love America when you win” and arguing that the change in leadership allowed “democracy to prevail” but in this new election cycle the people must ensure that “democracy is preserved.” Biden then spoke on the rise of extremism and anti-semitism that has occurred in this country since Trump’s presidency, citing the Charlottesville riots in 2017 as one of the compelling factors that encouraged him to run for President in 2020. He then reiterated his commitment to the middle class and dedication to “all Americans.” Biden also addressed the protesters outside the convention, who are calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, stating that they “have a point” and promising that his Secretary of State is working to bring the hostages home and increase the amount of humanitarian aid entering Gaza. Biden also called for a ceasefire and an end to the war in Gaza. 

    Crediting his administration with getting control of the COVID-19 pandemic, creating the “strongest economy in the world,” creating record jobs and small business growth, passing stronger gun control, reducing the cost of higher education, and lowering inflation, Biden claims that America is “moving in the right direction.” He then closes with the remark that “America is a nation of possibility” and that Harris and Walz understand that about America, reiterating his commitment and support for Kamala Harris’ campaign for president.

  • Journey to the White House: Kamala Harris’s 2020 Campaign Unpacked

    Journey to the White House: Kamala Harris’s 2020 Campaign Unpacked

    As Vice President Kamala Harris ascends to the spotlight amid President Joe Biden’s decision not to run for reelection, she is beginning to separate herself from the Biden Administration, making the pitch of a new face with similar policies.

    However, Kamala Harris did not always agree with President Biden, especially when they went head to head in the 2020 Democratic primary. As voters attempt to understand a new candidate in such a short window of time, it is important to take a look at Vice President Harris’s 2020 presidential campaign and the vision she had for America before joining Biden on the ticket.

    Harris, the junior U.S. Senator from California, officially began her bid for the White House on January 21, 2019, Martin Luther King Jr. Day. She made the announcement in an appearance on “Good Morning America,” with a rally in Oakland later that day which drew a crowd of over 20,000 supporters.

    Here were her views on key issues:

    Immigration

    Kamala Harris’s immigration policy during her 2020 presidential campaign was characterized by strong opposition to the Trump administration’s hardline stances and a commitment to humane and comprehensive immigration reform.

    She was a staunch advocate for reinstating DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) protections and supported providing a path to citizenship for DREAMers, young undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children.

    Harris was highly critical of the Trump administration’s policy of separating children from their parents when illegally crossing the southern border. She called for increased oversight of detention centers and opposed the detention of pregnant immigrants.

    One of Harris’s most notable stances was her support for making illegal immigration a civil offense rather than a criminal one. She claimed that it would reduce the harsh penalties associated with border crossings and shift the focus toward civil procedures and protections.

    Harris also expressed support for re-evaluating and possibly abolishing ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). She criticized ICE’s practices under the Trump administration, which she viewed as excessively aggressive and inhumane. Harris proposed restructuring immigration enforcement to focus on serious criminal activity rather than indiscriminate raids and deportations.

    She called for a comprehensive immigration reform package that included a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States. Her plan emphasized humanely securing the border, protecting asylum seekers, and expanding legal immigration channels.

    Economy/Taxes

    In 2019, Harris proposed several changes to the tax code which aimed to support low- and middle-class families while increasing taxes on the wealthy. Her plan, which she called the “LIFT Act,” included a new refundable tax credit that would provide up to $500 per month to families making less than $100,000 per year.

    Along with this, she proposed an increase in the top marginal income tax rate from 37% to 39.6%, targeting the top 1% of earners. This increase was part of her broader plan to ensure the wealthiest pay their fair share of taxes, a sentiment that was echoed constantly in the Biden Administration. 

    She proposed increasing the corporate tax rate from 21%, set by Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, up to 35%, arguing corporations should contribute more to federal revenue to support public service and infrastructure. Her plan also included imposing a financial transaction tax on stock and bond trades, and derivative transactions.

    Healthcare

    Harris initially supported Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for All” plan, which proposed eliminating private health insurance in favor of a government-run system. However, she later moderated her stance, proposing a plan that allowed for regulated private insurance alongside a public option​​, aiming to balance progressive goals with practical implementation.

    Harris emphasized the need to address the maternal mortality crisis, particularly among Black women, and called for increased investments in maternal healthcare services and policies to reduce these disparities​.

    She also proposed measures to reduce prescription drug costs, including allowing the federal government to negotiate drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies and importing cheaper drugs from other countries​.

    Gun Control

    Kamala Harris’s stance on gun control during her 2020 presidential bid included several progressive measures aimed at reducing gun violence.

    She supported implementing universal background checks for all gun purchases, including private and public sales. She advocated for renewing the federal assault weapons ban, arguing these weapons are often used in mass shootings and have no place in civilian hands. Harris also supported laws that allow law enforcement to temporarily seize firearms from individuals deemed a threat to themselves or others, aiming to prevent potential tragedies.

    She also proposed stricter regulations on gun dealers, including mandatory background checks for those selling more than five guns a year and enforcing penalties for violations.

    Criminal Justice and Social Justice

    In the wake of the killing of George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter movement, racial inequality and injustice became hotbed topics of the 2020 Democratic primary. The Black prosecutor from California used this issue to her advantage.

    Harris pledged to end mass incarceration by eliminating private prisons, abolishing mandatory minimum sentences, and promoting alternatives to incarceration for low-level offenders, which she claimed disproportionately target Black and brown Americans.

    Following the killing of George Floyd, Harris supported a comprehensive package of police reforms, including banning chokeholds, requiring body cameras, and establishing a national standard for the use of force. She also advocated for increased accountability measures for police misconduct. She focused on addressing racial disparities in the criminal justice system, proposed measures to combat racial profiling, expanded anti-bias training for law enforcement, and supported community-based public safety programs.

    She also aimed to address economic inequalities exacerbated by the criminal justice system. She proposed a plan to provide financial support to individuals returning from incarceration to help them reintegrate into society and reduce recidivism.

    Environment

    Harris supported the Green New Deal and called for aggressive action to combat climate change. Her plan included transitioning to 100% clean electricity by 2030 and achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2045. She also advocated for rejoining the Paris Agreement.

    She proposed a nationwide ban on fracking, citing the environmental and public health risks associated with hydraulic fracturing, and emphasized the need to address environmental racism, arguing that low-income and minority communities are disproportionately affected by environmental hazards.

    Harris called for substantial investments in green energy infrastructure and technology. Her plan included federal funding for renewable energy projects, incentives for electric vehicle adoption, and the development of sustainable public transportation systems.

    ____________________________________________________________________________

    Harris’s campaign faced significant challenges and, citing a lack of funds, she suspended her campaign on December 3, 2019, before the Iowa caucuses. She immediately endorsed Joe Biden and was selected to be his running mate on August 11, 2020.

    As Vice President, Harris has had to align her previous campaign positions with the broader goals of the Biden administration, sometimes leading to perceived backtracking on issues like healthcare and criminal justice. She is the first major party nominee in history to never win a single presidential primary election.

    As she prepares for her 2024 presidential run, it remains to be seen whether she will revert to her previous progressive stances or aim for a more centrist approach to appeal to a broader electorate. Her selection of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate suggests she is trying to energize the Democratic base rather than pivot to the center. This choice indicates a strategic decision to rally core supporters while also leveraging Walz’s appeal in the Midwest, neutralizing JD Vance’s rustbelt appeal.

    Harris’s 2024 campaign will have to find a way to balance her past progressive proposals with a pragmatic approach to executive governance. Voters will watch closely to see if she maintains her strong positions on healthcare, immigration, and criminal justice reform or adjusts her policies to attract a wider range of voters. The challenge for Harris will be to unify the Democratic Party while presenting a clear and compelling vision for the future of all Americans.

    With just over two months until the election, it is crunch time for both Democrats and Republicans. As Republicans have struggled to shift their focus from Biden to Harris, Democrats have seen a surge in momentum in polling and fundraising. The key questions now are whether this momentum will last for Harris and the Democrats and if the Trump campaign can find a messaging strategy against her that resonates with the American people.

    Although there is little time left on the calendar, a lot can happen in two months. Just look at how much the political landscape has changed since July. As the debates between Trump and Harris approach in September, Americans will finally get to see their choices and make a decision.

    Be prepared for potential September, October, and maybe even November surprises. A lot can happen in a short amount of time, and pundits will be quick to put their spin on events before you have a chance to think for yourself. Stick with us for all the information without the spin. Stay engaged, stay informed, stay critical.

    Questions to ask yourself after reading?

    • Has my view of Vice President Harris changed now that I know what she ran on in 2020?
    • Do I support her 2020 policy positions on healthcare, immigration, the economy, criminal justice, gun control, and the environment?
    • Do I think Governor Tim Walz was a good choice as her running mate?
    • Am I more or less likely to support her 2024 presidential bid based on her past and present policies?
    • Do I believe Harris will return to her progressive stances or move towards the center to appeal to a broader electorate?
    • How important are the issues of healthcare, immigration, and criminal justice to me in evaluating Harris’s candidacy?
    • Do I feel confident in Harris’s ability to unify the Democratic Party and present a compelling vision for the future?
    • Do I feel confident in Harris’s ability to unify the entire nation and present a compelling vision for the future?
  • Pros and Cons of Florida’s SB 7066 

    Pros and Cons of Florida’s SB 7066 

    What is SB 7066?

    On June 28, 2019, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 7066 into law. Previously, convicted felons in Florida could only regain voting rights through a special appeal to the state’s clemency board. In 2018, Amendment 4 was passed, granting voting rights to most convicted felons, excluding those convicted of violent felonies like murder or sexual assault. SB 7066 was then enacted to clarify the terms of Amendment 4.

    SB 7066 requires convicted felons to pay all legal and logistical fees, known as Legal Financial Obligations (LFOs), accumulated during trials or prison time before they can vote. While Amendment 4 allowed over 1.4 million non-violent felons the right to vote in Florida, SB 7066 mandates that all terms of their sentencing, including LFOs, must be completed before they can register to vote.

    Arguments in favor of SB 7066 

    Proponents argue that SB 7066 is necessary to clarify the language of Amendment 4. Amendment 4 stated that individuals could vote after completing their imprisonment, probation, or parole. However, critics claimed that the amendment lacked clear language for restoring felon voting rights broadly, leading to unfair and inconsistent enforcement. Without SB 7066, each Florida county might interpret the amendment differently, causing statewide inconsistency.

    Proponents of SB 7066 argue that the bill supports the principle that voting rights can be restricted for ex-felons who have broken the law. In the United States, a person’s right to vote can be legally revoked if they commit a crime, just as other freedoms can be restricted when they are jailed. Supporters believe that voting is a privilege and can be rightfully denied to those who have shown disregard for the law.

    Arguments against SB 7066

    Critics of SB 7066 highlight the confusion caused by its implementation. There is currently no uniform system to inform ex-felons if they have met all voting requirements. Consequently, ex-felons who attempt to vote but are ineligible under Amendment 4 or SB 7066 risk arrest, as state law makes it illegal to vote if one is not eligible. Critics cite the arrest of 20 individuals ineligible due to violent felony convictions as evidence of the bill’s ambiguity. Additionally, the uncertainty may discourage individuals from voting if they are unsure about their eligibility.

    Critics argue that SB 7066 discriminates against individuals and restricts hundreds of thousands of voters. Since the bill requires the payment of all LFOs, many see this as a form of voter discrimination akin to a poll tax. They point out that SB 7066 effectively undoes Amendment 4, as only an estimated 360,000 of the 1.4 million restored voters are eligible due to unpaid LFOs. Additionally, critics contend that the bill disproportionately impacts Black people and people of color, who are convicted of felonies at higher rates than white individuals and tend to have lower incomes.

    Constitutional Controversy over SB 7066 

    Following the passage of SB 7066, the bill faced court challenges on claims of unconstitutionality. Florida lawyers and voting rights groups filed lawsuits to block or eliminate SB 7066, arguing that requiring convicted felons to pay off their LFOs to vote violated their constitutional right to expression and the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, which abolished poll taxes. In the case of Jones v. DeSantis, Judge Robert Hinkle ruled that it was constitutional to require payment of LFOs if the felons had the financial capacity to pay but that ex-felons who were “genuinely unable” to pay could not be denied the right to vote. However, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked Judge Hinkle’s decision, ruling that there was no constitutional violation. As a result, SB 7066 remains part of Florida law.

    Conclusion

    Since the passage of Florida’s SB 7066, there has been controversy surrounding whether or not such a piece of legislation proves to be a positive or negative contribution to their democratic processes. On one hand, proponents argue that the bill clarifies the vague language of Amendment 4 while enforcing that felons must take responsibility for their actions before regaining their rights. On the opposing side, critics assert that SB 7066 creates mass confusion in determining voter eligibility and discriminates against individuals while significantly limiting the number of eligible voters.

  • Is Online Voting the Future? Pros, Cons, and Key Considerations

    Is Online Voting the Future? Pros, Cons, and Key Considerations

    Introduction

    As internet technology advances and digital literacy increases, more daily activities such as shopping, learning, and bill paying are moving online. While online voting is currently unavailable for most voters in the United States, experts and researchers are debating its viability. Online voting is conducted remotely from the user’s own device, often through a third-party application. 

    Who Uses Online Voting?

    There are several examples of online voting abroad, especially in Estonia, Switzerland, and Australia. In Estonia, about half of registered voters choose to use the online platform to cast their ballot. Estonian online voting is only available for early voting, and includes the option for voters to change their choice up until the voting deadline.

    Within the U.S., 10 states allow remote voting reserved for specific groups of people. Voters living abroad gain the right to vote remotely through the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), and several states allow voters with disabilities to cast their ballots online as well. Recently, several states opened remote online voting options for local elections in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Pros of Online Voting

    Proponents of online voting say that it would make elections more accessible, and therefore increase voter turnout. Online voting decreases the amount of time it takes to vote—both by removing travel time for those who choose that option, and shortening lines at polling places for those who still opt to vote in person. This in turn has the potential to increase turnout, because long lines at the polling place negatively impact turnout. 

    Advocates contend that online voting will increase flexibility and privacy for voters with disabilities who would normally vote by mail—especially for those with impaired vision. Additionally, online remote voting platforms allow voters to cast their ballots from their own devices, and research suggests this would convince some people to vote who would not do so were the online option unavailable. Indeed, one study shows a 3.5% increase in voter turnout (and another an 8.2% increase) when the online option for voting is available.

    Online voting also has the potential to reduce the costs of elections for governments and voters. One study found online voting to be the most cost-effective form of voting, based on data from Estonian elections. According to the study, since usage of online voting decreases the time people take to vote, it also decreases indirect cost in terms of lost wages from time taken off to vote. As online voting is conducted remotely, it also gets rid of transportation costs from voters physically getting to the polling place. Online voting would also reduce the number of printed ballots needed, which reduces the cost of elections for the government. 

    Online voting could remove some human error from the election process. Supporters argue that online voting could prevent “messy elections” like the 2000 presidential election. There would be no uncertainty from physical counting errors, like the ones that arose in the 2000 election with “hanging chads.” Supporters say that online voting, without confusing physical aspects, would result in higher accuracy. 

    Online voting could also ensure election results are available more quickly to the public, as software and online platforms can count votes nearly instantly, unlike human counters, who require more time. Lastly, online voting could prevent voters from misunderstanding and spoiling (or even mistakenly invalidating, in the case of mail-in voting) their own ballots, therefore streamlining the election process.

    Cons of Online Voting

    The main concern of opponents of online voting is the overall security of an election, chief among these concerns being election fraud. Internet technology is complex and rapidly developing, and cybersecurity measures are often reactive and do not develop as fast as the innovations of hacking themselves. Many are concerned that elections without a paper trail are more vulnerable to election fraud, and that casting ballots over the internet would make recounts (in the event that they are needed) futile, as there would be no physical ballots to recount. Without physical proof of any particular voter’s ballot, it is possible that election fraud could occur and not be noticed, because of the lack of sufficient security protocols. Because of this, there is the possibility that hackers could change votes to manipulate election results. These vulnerabilities raise privacy concerns as well as fraud concerns. Voters’ ballots would also no longer be confidential.

    Opponents are also concerned with the involvement of third-party voting software companies in the election. Online voting is often run by for-profit companies who may value profit over election security. There is evidence of voting software companies lacking adequate security, which would compromise the integrity of an election. There is also the added potential of system failure, in which a crash of the voting software would prevent people from voting, or even invalidate their votes.

    A final potential drawback of online voting is the lack of trust that people have in the results produced from such a platform. Recently, there has been a decline in trust in U.S. elections, and online voting could exacerbate the issue because of the concerns surrounding security, privacy, and accuracy due to the threat of fraud. In the current climate of uncertainty, many believe it may be beneficial to stick with familiar voting methods.

    The Future of Online Voting

    The current election system is not without fault, but would adding online voting to the equation make things better or worse? Despite concerns, more than 300,000 registered U.S. voters used an online platform of some sort to vote in the 2020 elections, and many states have plans to increase the number of voters eligible to vote online in the coming years.

  • Pros and Cons of The HOPE Act 2023

    Pros and Cons of The HOPE Act 2023

    What is The HOPE Act 2023

    The Harnessing Opportunities by Pursuing Expungement (HOPE) Act of 2023 is a legislative proposal aimed at addressing the challenges faced by individuals with state cannabis offenses on their criminal records. The HOPE Act authorizes the Department of Justice (DOJ) to make grants to states and local governments to reduce the financial and administrative burden of expunging convictions for state cannabis offenses. This bill is designed to help clear cannabis convictions from millions of Americans’ records, allowing people to regain access to essential employment, housing, loans, and more. The Act is a bipartisan effort spearheaded by Representatives David Joyce (R-OH) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

    What does The HOPE Act 2023 do?

    The HOPE Act of 2023 is legislation that seeks to transform the landscape of cannabis policy in the United States. Furthermore, it mandates a study by the DOJ on the impacts of a cannabis-related criminal record and the costs of related incarcerations. Lastly, the reintroduction of the HOPE Act could influence political discourse and policy decisions surrounding such as cannabis policy crime reform, voting behavior, and healthcare and social service policies, in the 2024 election cycle, fostering a platform for diverse opinions.

    Argument for The HOPE Act 2023

    The HOPE Act seeks to expunge cannabis convictions, thereby addressing systemic flaws such as racial disparities, collateral consequences, and inefficient use of resources in the criminal justice system. As many employers conduct background checks, employers may be hesitant to hire someone with a criminal record. Similarly, housing applications often require background checks, and a criminal record can lead to denial of housing.  Individuals with cannabis convictions often find themselves trapped in a cycle of poverty. The HOPE Act aims to break the cycle by incentivizing states to expunge cannabis convictions. Additionally, the Act encourages broader cannabis reform, fosters opportunities for reintegration, and removes barriers to socioeconomic prosperity. 

    Economically, the Act aims to empower individuals by removing employment and housing barriers associated with cannabis convictions. This is particularly significant considering the estimated $78 to $87 billion annual GDP loss attributed to the workforce exclusion of individuals with cannabis convictions. Furthermore, the Act seeks to make the expungement process more efficient by providing federal grants to states, which will provide financial aid from the federal government to state governments to support specific programs or initiatives.

    The HOPE Act also represents a shift in cannabis policy, reflecting the growing public support for cannabis legalization, with 70% of U.S. adults favoring legalization in 2023. Over time, there has been an increased acknowledgment of the potential therapeutic uses of cannabis, which has contributed to shifting attitudes. Concurrently, there has been a growing awareness of the societal and racial disparities that have arisen from the enforcement of cannabis-related laws. 

     The HOPE Act represents an effort to align federal law with these changing societal perspectives by encouraging states to expunge cannabis convictions, not only recognizing the shifting attitudes towards cannabis but also addressing the historical consequences associated with cannabis-related convictions. In essence, supporters argue that the HOPE Act of 2023 represents a comprehensive approach to cannabis reform, addressing both social justice and economic considerations in its provisions. 

    Argument Against The HOPE Act 2023

    The HOPE Act of 2023 has been met with various criticisms, many of which prioritize other pressing issues over cannabis reform. For instance, the ongoing opioid crisis, particularly the proliferation of fentanyl analogs, is viewed by some as a more immediate concern that requires urgent attention. Opponents believe the urgency and severity of the opioid crisis demand  immediate and undivided attention. Critics argue that the resources and time spent on cannabis reform could be better utilized to combat the opioid epidemic, which is causing widespread harm and loss of life. In 2020, nearly 75% of the 91,799 drug overdose deaths involved an opioid. The number of drug overdose deaths increased by more than 16% from 2020 to 2021. They contend that while cannabis reform is important, it does not present the same level of immediate danger as the opioid crisis, and thus, should not be the primary focus at this time. The crux of the argument is not about the inability to multitask, but rather about prioritizing resources and attention based on the severity and immediacy of the issues at hand.

    Additionally, the complexity of comprehensive cannabis legislation is highlighted by the crowded landscape of cannabis reform bills, suggesting that achieving comprehensive reform may be more challenging than initially anticipated. Comprehensive reform is not just about reaching a consensus on the need for reform, but also about navigating the intricacies of differing viewpoints, reconciling conflicting interests, and crafting legislation that can garner sufficient support to pass. The HOPE Act exemplifies those factors by acknowledging the need for cannabis conviction reform, navigating bipartisan viewpoints, reconciling interests of criminal justice and cannabis offenses, and crafting a bill that offers federal grants to states for expungement, balancing state rights and reform support. 

    Following this, another layer of complexity involves the financial system and social equity objectives. This includes considering how the economic system will adapt to a legal cannabis market, and how to ensure that the benefits of this market are equitably distributed. Critics also argue that some legislation appears to prioritize financial system concerns over social justice issues, potentially undermining the social equity objectives of cannabis reform. This is further complicated by the general stigma tied to cannabis reform, which continues to influence public and political opinion. The multitude of layers involved in the process amplifies the complexity of implementing the HOPE Act.

    Indeed, some leaders advocate for maintaining marijuana’s status as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. This classification indicates that marijuana is considered to have a high potential for abuse and has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. These leaders emphasize that any changes to its classification should be based on rigorous scientific evidence.

    Concerning the HOPE Act, this stance presents a significant challenge. The Act’s objective to expunge cannabis offenses and promote social equity is in direct contrast with the Schedule I classification of marijuana. If marijuana remains a Schedule I substance, the social justice goals of the HOPE Act could be hindered, as the classification maintains the criminalization of marijuana at a federal level. Therefore, the debate around marijuana’s classification directly impacts the potential effectiveness and implementation of the HOPE Act.

    Conclusion

    As the discourse around cannabis reform continues to evolve, the HOPE Act underscores the importance of a balanced, evidence-based approach that considers both the societal implications and the individual impacts of cannabis-related offenses. Regardless of one’s political affiliation, the Act invites a broader conversation about the future of cannabis policy in the United States.

  • Pros and Cons of the EARN IT Act of 2023-2024

    Pros and Cons of the EARN IT Act of 2023-2024

    What is the EARN IT Act?

    The Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act, or the EARN IT Act, seeks to combat the online exploitation of children. The bill replaces various statutory references to “child pornography” with “child sexual abuse material,” also known as CSAM. Activists and advocates argue that child sexual abuse material is a more fitting term than child pornography, as the inability of children to consent makes any explicit imagery containing them evidence of sexual abuse, which should be described as such.

    Combatting CSAM is an issue of particular importance. Reports of CSAM are currently on the rise, with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children’s CyberTipline experiencing a 329% increase in reports of child sexual abuse material over the last 5 years. While this problem is not unique to America, our government is uniquely well-positioned to combat it, as United States-based URLs now host more CSAM than any other individual country, or 30% of the world’s CSAM. While it is often assumed victims of sexual abuse are older children and teenagers, over 60% of CSAM involves prepubescent children, including toddlers and infants. Moreover, a large percentage of those arrested for possession of CSAM are dual offenders who concurrently sexually abused children. Unfortunately but unsurprisingly, victims of CSAM experience many long-term negative health impacts, from brain damage to physical health problems to increased mental disorders.

    The bill seeks to combat CSAM in a myriad of ways. First, the EARN IT Act establishes a National Commission on Online Child Sexual Exploitation Prevention, composed of various stakeholders. The Attorney General would serve as chairperson, with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Chairman of the FTC also serving on the commission. Otherwise the Senate majority leader, the Senate minority leader, the Speaker of the House, and the House minority leader all appoint one person in each of the four categories (for a total of another 16 commission members): firstly, someone with experience criminally investigating CSAM; secondly, a survivor of CSAM or a person with experience providing victim services to survivors; thirdly, someone with experience with consumer protection, privacy, data security, or cryptography; fourthly, one with experience working for interactive computer services companies and addressing child safety and exploitation. 

    The EARN IT Act would also change the reporting requirements for instances of CSAM reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, increasing the amount of information that must be collected and extending the amount of time that providers must retain the contents of the report from 90 days to one year.

    Finally, the EARN IT Act would hold the providers of interactive computer services liable for child sexual abuse materials distributed through their sites. Historically, Section 230(e) of the Communications Act of 1934––which provides limited federal immunity to providers and users of interactive computer services––has been interpreted by courts as protecting social media providers from being held legally liable for failure to take down user-generated content. The EARN IT Act, if passed, would remove these Section 230 protections and enable interactive computer service providers to be civilly and criminally liable “regarding the intentional, knowing, or reckless advertisement, promotion, presentation, distribution, or solicitation of child sexual abuse material.”

    Arguments for the EARN IT Act

    Proponents of the EARN IT Act argue it will help combat the distribution and availability of CSAM, and in doing so protect minors online. By removing the liability protections of Section 230, supporters of the EARN IT Act believe that technology companies will be forced to proactively seek out and remove CSAM on their sites, lest they face legal repercussions. Indeed, proponents of the bill observe that technology companies have unique resources at their disposal that even law enforcement agencies themselves do not have, and they should be required to make use of those resources to combat CSAM. By requiring online platforms to retain content reported for up to a year, supporters argue that law enforcement will have the time they need to more thoroughly investigate cases of CSAM. 

    Furthermore, the commission would establish best practices in an effort to prevent, reduce, and respond to the online sexual exploitation of children. Proponents of the EARN IT Act argue that the establishment of the commission is an effective first step between governments, industry, advocates, and victims. However, the commission is not in the house version of the bill, and the best practices are merely recommendations not requirements. Nevertheless, supporters believe all conversation over how to best protect against CSAM is potentially positive, whether it results in required actions or merely suggestions.

    Arguments against the EARN IT Act

    Opponents of the EARN IT Act argue that the removal of liability protections will force online platforms to remove end-to-end encryption and actively police formerly private correspondences. In end-to-end encryption, data is encrypted on the device of the sender and decrypted on the device of the receiver; in transit the data can not be read by intermediate entities, even the service providers themselves. By holding service providers liable for the CSAM distributed on their website, many opponents of the bill believe that organizations will be forced to get rid of end-to-end encryption or suffer the legal consequences. For this reason organizations like the ACLU and the Electronic Freedom Foundation oppose the EARN IT Act and its undermining of current privacy protections.

    While proponents of the EARN IT Act argue that removing end-to-end encryption is worth it if it helps catch nefarious actors, opponents argue that nefarious actors will always encrypt their messages, and as such the EARN IT Act will remove privacy protections for law-abiding citizens while having little effect on criminals. Moreover, some argue that the EARN IT Act could counterintuitively make prosecuting criminals more difficult, and that similar bills which removed limited liability protections were used in only a handful of prosecutions after their passing.

    Conclusion

    The EARN IT Act replaces statutory references to “child pornography” with “child sexual abuse materials” (CSAM), establishes a commision of various relevant stakeholders, extends the time period information relevant to CSAM reports must be retained from 90 days to one year, and specifies that Section 230 protections do not protect online service providers from legal recourse regarding the “intentional, knowing, or reckless advertisement, promotion, presentation, distribution, or solicitation of child sexual abuse material.” Proponents of the EARN IT Act argue it will help decrease CSAM and prosecute perpetrators of CSAM. Opponents argue the EARN IT Act will undermine end-to-end encryption and existing privacy protections for little benefit.

  • Understanding the Reproductive Freedom for All Act

    Understanding the Reproductive Freedom for All Act

    Background on Reproductive Freedom 

    The history of reproductive rights in the United States has been shaped by legal debates, societal perception, and ongoing conversations about autonomy and morality. Roe v. Wade, a landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision, legalized abortion nationwide by establishing a constitutional right to privacy in pregnancy decisions. In 2022, the Supreme Court heard Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case centered on a Mississippi law banning most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. It gained widespread attention as the Court reconsidered the scope of abortion rights. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld Mississippi’s law, which weakened the precedent set by Roe v. Wade. This decision has allowed many states to overturn formerly protected reproductive healthcare services, creating variation in what is legally protected and accessible across the United States.

    Introduction to the Reproductive Freedom for All Act

    The Reproductive Freedom for All Act originated to protect reproductive rights by ensuring that all individuals, regardless of geographic location have access to comprehensive reproductive health services. The bill can be broken down into four parts:

    1. Contraceptive Access: States cannot prohibit individuals from accessing or using contraceptives or contraceptive care.
    2. Undue Burden: States cannot impose undue burdens or excessive obstacles on a woman’s decision to have an abortion before fetal viability.
    3. Regulation Post-Viability: After fetal viability, states can regulate abortion. However, an exception will be made if a health care practitioner deems that an abortion is necessary to protect the health or life of the mother.
    4. Safety Regulations: States can create reasonable regulations that promote the health and safety of a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy, as long as these rules are not undue burdens.  

    Arguments in Support of the Reproductive Freedom for All Act

    Proponents of the bill argue that undue burdens on women limit reproductive freedom and autonomy. Supporters of sex equality “observe that abortion restrictions deprive women of control over the timing of motherhood and so predictably exacerbate the inequalities in educational, economic, and political life engendered by childbearing and childrearing.” Targeted Restrictions of Abortion Providers, sometimes referred to as TRAP laws, create requirements for abortion providers that many believe are designed more to limit access to reproductive health services rather than to genuinely improve patient safety. One example of a TRAP law is the requirement that abortion providers comply with ambulatory surgical center building requirements. Rebuilding clinics to meet these requirements is prohibitively expensive, and, many believe, does not improve health outcomes for patients.

    The definition of undue burden remains open to interpretation, and proponents of the Act argue that these burdens are not based on science and cause more strain on overall health and freedom. The aim of this section of the legislation is to remove unnecessary barriers or obligations that inhibit the right to access reproductive care.

    Supporters of the Act argue that without federal protections, states will criminalize abortions, affecting not only women seeking to terminate unintended pregnancies but also a diverse range of patients needing medical care for various reasons. Additionally, proponents argue that restricting access to abortion leads to higher rates of unsafe abortion procedures. According to a 2018 study by the Guttmacher Institute, countries with the least restrictive abortion laws had a 1% rate of unsafe abortions, while countries with the most restrictive laws had a 31% rate. Advocates of the Act believe that regardless of the legal status of reproductive services, people will continue to seek out these services, even if it means that birth control or abortions are provided in an unsafe way. Unsafe reproductive services are considered preventable causes for maternal death and physical health risks, and are included in the World Health Organization’s list of essential health care services. 

    While some believe that abortion access should be legislated at the state level, others argue that restrictions in some states impact access in other states because people travel across state lines to require healthcare. For example, if New Hampshire bans the procedure but Vermont does not, people are likely to travel from New Hampshire to Vermont, increasing wait times and overwhelming clinic capacities in Vermont. For this reason, many argue that federal protection is required because restrictions in some states affect recipients of abortion services in others. 

    Inconsistent laws surrounding reproductive freedom and abortion can place an undue burden on healthcare providers who offer these services. Following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, states with total abortion bans required clinics to stop abortion procedures. Between 2020 and 2023, the overall number of abortions increased by 11%, and 17% were performed on patients who traveled from out of state to access services. Healthcare providers are now required to navigate evolving legal and medical circumstances and make decisions under uncertain conditions,  increasing their liability. 

    Restrictions on reproductive services affect providers in several ways. Staffing sustainability, changes in organization structure, increased workload for certain practitioners, and financial costs all create an increased burden on certain providers. Some argue that restrictions on reproductive freedom will ultimately create systemic inefficiencies that increase waiting times for all patients and increase workload for staff.

    Arguments Against the Reproductive Freedom for All Act

    Opponents often have religious or moral objections to the nuanced nature of reproductive ethics. Some argue that there are various key features that indicate a fetus is a living being:

    • Distinct: “has a DNA and body distinct from parents.”
    • Living: “grows by reproducing cells… turns nutrients into energy through metabolism… and can respond to stimuli.”
    • Human: “has a human genetic signature.”
    • Organism: “is an organism (rather than a mere organ or tissue) [which is] an individual whose parts work together for the good of the whole.”

    An embryo has the genetic makeup of a human being, and although immature, some argue that the embryo will grow to develop into a mature human being. Many have religious objections to terminating pregnancies, while others believe that terminating a fetus that has reached viability is akin to extinguishing a human life and should be regulated as such. Actions that limit the potential for life or intentionally terminate a pregnancy, such as contraceptive use or abortion, are considered unjust by some.

  • Pros and Cons of Prison Nursery Expansion in the United States

    Pros and Cons of Prison Nursery Expansion in the United States

    What are Prison Nurseries? 

    United States prison nurseries are programs within correctional facilities that allow pregnant, incarcerated mothers to keep their infants with them from the child’s birth to the end of their sentence. Located within a separate wing of a prison, the nurseries are subject to decreased security and expanded mobility for inmates. Babies have access to on-site daycare while their mothers work prison jobs, attend school, or undergo rehabilitation. Prison nursery expansion would predominantly impact women who are serving time for non-violent crimes and are due to give birth between 18 months to 2 years before their sentence ends. There are currently eleven active prison nurseries in the United States.

    SIMARRA

    Due to significant increases in female incarceration rates, the debate surrounding prison nursery expansion is gaining momentum. There are currently over 170,000 women in prison, 58% of whom are mothers, and an estimated 58,000 who are pregnant upon incarceration. In 2021, Texas representative Sheila Lee Jackson introduced the Stop Infant Mortality and Recidivism Reduction Act of 2021 (SIMARRA), which aimed to establish prison nurseries programs in all federal prisons. The proposed legislation ordered mandatory parenting classes and frequent health assessments for participants and their infants. Although the bill died at the beginning of 2023, it left controversy in its wake.

    Recidivism Benefits Vs. Constitutional Controversy 

    Advocates of prison nurseries often cite decreased rates of recidivism, or the rate of reoffending, as evidence to support expansion efforts. A study conducted in a prison nursery within Nebraska’s Correctional Facility for Women found that over an 18-year period, there was a 28% reduction of recidivism for successful nursery program participants. Compared to mothers who are separated from their children following birth, prison nursery participants often develop strong maternal bonds and a sense of obligation that encourages healthy parenting and discourages reentrance into the criminal justice system. 

    However, critics believe that prison nurseries are unconstitutional. Due to the fact that prison nursery expansion would only extend to female correctional facilities, some argue that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating against incarcerated men. Furthermore, since infants and toddlers cannot cognitively make choices in their best interest, nor vocalize their desire to leave a facility, some believe that the programs are in violation of a child’s due process rights. Finally, a rigid selection process inhibits most qualified pregnant women from participating in the prison nursery programs. Therefore, while some women are given the opportunity to serve their sentence in close contact with their child, others face forced, and often permanent separation from their infant. The discrepancies between prisoner treatment are often considered unethical.

    Cognitive & Emotional Benefits vs. Psychological Uncertainties

    Mother-child attachment fostered in prison nursery settings has been found to yield positive and lasting psychological effects for both infant and incarcerated mother. A study conducted in New York State’s Bedford Hills prison nursery tracked the preschool outcomes of children after prison nursery completion. Research found that there are positive or neutral short-term developments in motor-skills and cognitive growth. Compared to infants separated from their mothers at birth, children raised in prison nurseries have been more likely to develop secure attachment, which results in better mental and emotional health, maintenance of strong relationships, and a decrease in one’s likelihood to engage in delinquent behaviors in the future. 

    Nevertheless, critics note that early childhood development in a correctional facility produces stress for infants, which can lead to trauma. For example, some mothers drop out of prison nursery programs electively due to the pressures of raising a baby in restrained conditions, while others are expelled due to violations of rules. The repercussions of failed participation often instills lifelong feelings of dejection for children who are separated from their mother after initial bonding. Deborah Jiang Stein, an author who spent her first months in the Federal Prison Camp in West Virginia, was removed from her mother after a year in the prison nursery program. She attributes her frequent sensations of internal displacement with the separation and her subsequent time in foster care. Due to high rates of eventual and often abrupt mother-child separation during or after completion of prison nursery programs, some argue that immediate separation of the mother and child after birth is psychologically healthier for the infant.

    Financial Advantages vs. Mother-Child Best Interest

    Familial and personal challenges lead many incarcerated women to place their infant into the child welfare system. However, due to the oversaturation of the United States foster care system, supporting children in prison nursery programs is financially less expensive. Low prison nursery recidivism rates indirectly cause a decrease in spending on the prison system and child welfare programs. One study found that in West Virginia, prison nursery programs save the state $1,000 per child, per month and in Nebraska, the state saves an average of $17,500 per child, per year. No prison nursery has exceeded the cost of any other child welfare alternative.

    Despite the financial draws, critics claim that prison nurseries are not always in the best interest of all mother-child pairs. Today, incarcerated mothers must undergo an application process within their correctional facility to earn a place in the prison’s nursery program. However, there is no individual legal proceeding that determines whether a nursery program is the best option for a particular child. For example, professor, author, and legal scholar James Dwyer argues that prison nurseries have not been proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be better than any other “non-incarceration placement alternative.” Options including adoption, which often allow for the development of a relationship between a biological mother and her child, have not been proven by the state to be inferior to prison nursery programs. Without an individual evaluation of each child, some believe that prison nurseries are impeding infants’ rights to freedom and liberty.

    Conclusion

    The debate surrounding prison nurseries is projected to increase as rates of female incarceration in the United States grow. While research on the topic of prison nurseries in the United States is considered less populous than research on other criminal justice issues, new policies are increasing discussion surrounding the prison programs. It is expected that legislation like SIMARRA will be prominent in national discourse surrounding future criminal justice reform policies. Ultimately, the path forward is dependent on deciding whether prison nursery programs should be federally mandated and controlled, or if their establishment and maintenance should remain in the hands of individual prison facilities.