# data[].attributes.headline
Currently, stated control election policy.  In an effort to try to secure elections and prevent voter fraud, some states have passed new voting laws.  Opponents say these laws are restricting certain voters and violating their democratic right to vote.  Should the Federal government step in and create policy to protect voter rights and prevent voter suppression OR should states continue to be allowed to make their own election policy?

# data[].attributes.subject
Currently, stated control election policy.  In an effort to try to secure elections and prevent voter fraud, some states have passed new voting laws.  Opponents say these laws are restricting certain voters and violating their democratic right to vote.  Should the Federal government step in and create policy to protect voter rights and prevent voter suppression OR should states continue to be allowed to make their own election policy?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON (AP) - WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN ELECTIONS?

The federal government has very little role in the elections that choose who is going to run it. Elections are run at the local level and supervised by states. The federal government can help fund elections and set certain standards - such as the requirement that people can register to vote when getting drivers' licenses - through federal law. And of course Washington, D.C., plays a big role in monitoring foreign actors to make sure they don't interfere in elections. But the actual machinery of democracy is run at the state and local level.

States devise the rules of their own elections. Some send everyone a ballot through the mail, others only allow people over age 65 to use that method of voting. The administering of the polls, printing of the ballots and counting of the vote usually occurs on the county level. The state tabulates the counties' totals and declares winners of statewide races, including the presidential contest, and assigns presidential electors accordingly.

The federal government can monitor and ensure that all candidates for federal office are reporting their campaign contributions and expenditures publicly, as required under federal law. It can act to ensure that voters are not deprived of their civil rights. It has in the past sent money to help local elections offices, including $400 million in the CARES Act in March to help with shifts in voting during the pandemic. But the federal government has no role in the operation of polling places or the counting of ballots.

__

This is a new series from the AP dedicated to answering commonly asked questions from our audience about the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Does the federal government have a role in the vote?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON (AP) - WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN ELECTIONS? The federal government has very little role in the elections that choose who is going to run it. Elections are run at the local level and supervised by states.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What voting options are available in your state, and how do those options compare to other states? Use the table below to see how to vote in your state, and click through for additional details.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What voting options are available in your state, and how do those options compare to other states? Use the table below to see how to vote in your state, and click through for additional details.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
2024 was another extremely active year for voting legislation, and early indicators suggest little signs of a slowdown in 2025.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Efforts to Undermine the Freedom to Vote, Explained

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Any attempt to limit the freedom to vote is an attempt to silence American voters.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Voting Rights and the Fierce Urgency of Now. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (VRAA) and the Freedom to Vote Act (FTVA) will protect voters from race-based discrimination and set minimum standards to enable all voters to experience free and fair elections.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
tarr@camden.rutgers.edu
Alan Tarr was founder and director of the Center for State Constitutional Studies and is now Board of Governors Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Rutgers University-Camden. He served as editor of State Constitutions of the United States, a 50-volume reference series (Oxford University Press) and as co-editor of the three-volume State Constitutions for the Twenty-first Century (State University of New York Press), of Constitutional Origins, Structure, and Change in Federal Countries (McGill-Queen's University Press), and of Federalism, Subnational Constitutions, and Minority Rights (Praeger). He is the author of Without Fear or Favor (Stanford University Press), Understanding State Constitutions (Princeton University Press) and Judicial Process and Judicial Policymaking (Rutledge); co-author of State Supreme Courts in State and Nation (Yale University Press) and of American Constitutional Law (Rutledge).

Abstract
This article examines the U.S. Constitution's treatment of voting and elections and the use that the federal government has made of the powers granted to it by the Constitution. Because the thirteen states that formed the nation differed in the qualifications they imposed for voting, the Constitution originally avoided setting national qualifications, authorizing persons to vote in federal elections if they could vote for the lower house of their state legislature. Constitutional amendments have established a federal floor on voting qualifications, forbidding discrimination based on race, gender, age, and ability to pay a poll tax. States have largely regulated both their own and federal elections, but the Constitution grants the federal government concurrent authority in this area, and the constitutional amendments have granted it authority to enact "appropriate legislation" to enforce their prohibitions of discrimination. Congress relied on that authority to adopt the Voting Rights Act of 1965, giving the federal government unprecedented power to supervise state elections and voting regulations. This power has been circumscribed by Supreme Court rulings in recent years, leading Democrats in Congress to introduce bills to restore that power. Congress has also legislated to facilitate voting more generally, though Republicans have sought instead to restrict voting, claiming that this will combat election fraud. A major piece of legislation, the For the People Act, is currently before Congress, designed to nationalize election regulations and facilitate voting, but it faces strong Republican opposition, and its fate is uncertain.
When one thinks about American federalism, what comes to mind is the distribution of powers between the federal government and state governments, as mandated and safeguarded by the Federal Constitution. But with regard to voting and elections, things are different. Instead of sharply distinguishing federal and state powers, the U.S. Constitution grants overlapping authority. Article I, section 4 states: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations." Note the Constitution's emphatic "at any time", confirming that federal power is coextensive with state power. Constitutional amendments have also established national standards for the franchise-making it illegal to bar anyone from voting on the basis of race, gender, age of at least 18, or through the use of a poll tax-and each amendment grants Congress the power to enforce its restrictions by "appropriate legislation". Voting and elections, then, are fields of fully concurrent power, of shared responsibility between nation and state, with the added proviso that should federal and state laws conflict, the Supremacy Clause dictates that federal law prevails.

This is not to denigrate the states' role-indeed, one scholar aptly described American elections as hyper-decentralized. For one thing, even if the federal government shares constitutional authority, often it chooses not to exercise that authority and leaves matters to the states. Arguably, that comports with the constitutional text, which assigns to state legislatures responsibility for voting qualifications and for the conduct of elections, even as it confirms the authority of the federal government to intervene "at any time". And throughout American history state governments have played the predominant role. Consider the controversy over the 2020 presidential election. It was state officials that oversaw the counting and recounting of ballots in this federal election and state secretaries of state that certified the election results.

Even when the federal government does act, federal law may establish a floor rather than a ceiling. States may not go below that floor-they can no longer, for example, deny the vote on the basis of race or gender-but they remain free to go beyond the federal law and to experiment. When an experiment in a single state succeeds, other states may choose to follow that lead-think, for example, of how several states extended the right to vote to women long before the federal government did so. Indeed, under American federalism, states historically have been the innovators-almost all federal initiatives on voting and elections were pioneered in the states. Justice Louis Brandeis referred to the states as little laboratories of democracy, and that description definitely applies with regard to voting and elections, both in the past and in the present day.

In addition, states remain totally free to determine the matters on which people vote. At the federal level, Americans vote directly only for representatives and, since the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, for senators. But in all the states citizens vote directly for the governor and often for other executive-branch officials and for judges as well, and in nineteen states they can recall these officials before the end of their term of office. Many states also authorize their citizens to vote on matters of public policy via state constitutional amendments, initiatives, and referenda. Once again, the federal government plays no role in determining the matters on which the citizens of a state can vote.

Finally, it should be noted that in setting voting qualifications for federal elections, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 confronted a dilemma: the states had already established qualifications for their own elections, and these differed from state to state. Thus any national standards for voting in federal elections would have differed from those operating in at least some states, complicating the conduct of elections and implicitly disparaging the state standards from which they diverged. Some delegates actually feared that imposing distinctive federal qualifications for voting might jeopardize the ratification of the Constitution. To avoid this, the delegates decided that persons would be able to vote in elections for the House of Representatives if they could vote for members of the lower house of the legislature in their home state. That solution had an added advantage: those administering elections would not need two lists of eligible voters, one for federal elections and another for state elections. But it introduced two complications. First, it meant that there was no uniform national standard for voting-if a state decided to lower the age for voting in state elections to sixteen, for example, then sixteen-year-olds in that state would also be eligible to vote in federal elections, but their counterparts in other states would not. Second, when the federal government does impose qualifications on voting in federal elections, this gives states a strong incentive to amend their state voting laws so that there are not different qualifications for voting in federal and state elections and different lists of eligible voters for each.

What has the federal government done with the power granted to it by the Constitution, and what might it do in the future? First of all, Congress has, albeit very belatedly, outlawed racial barriers to voting through the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Prior to its adoption, African-Americans in the South were systematically denied the vote, in blatant violation of the Fifteenth Amendment. In 1940, for example, only 3 percent of Southern blacks were even registered to vote. The Voting Rights Act authorized unprecedented intervention by the federal government to remedy that. Section 2 of the Act prohibited all state and local governments from adopting any voting law that discriminated against racial minorities. Section 5 prohibited jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination from implementing any new voting laws or regulations until they were pre-cleared by the U.S. Attorney General or by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. And Section 6 allowed federal examiners both to oversee voting registration in jurisdictions in which less than 50 percent of blacks were registered and to register voters themselves. This law had an immediate impact-in Mississippi, for example, African-American voter turnout rose from 6 percent in 1964 to 59 percent in 1969.

The Voting Rights Act continues as law today, but in diluted form. In Mobile v. Bolden (1980), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state laws or policies that had a disproportionate effect on racial minorities, absent proof of purposeful discrimination, did not violate the Voting Rights Act. Congress overturned that interpretation two years later, amending the Act to ban any voting practice that had a discriminatory effect, regardless of whether it was proved that the practice was enacted for a discriminatory purpose. Then in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) the Supreme Court struck down the Act's preclearance regime, arguing that many of the jurisdictions originally subject to preclearance no longer discriminated and that the law's determination of what jurisdictions should be subject to preclearance was therefore outdated. Four justices dissented, with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg observing that "throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet." The ruling in Shelby County had a dramatic impact on politics in those previously covered jurisdictions. Texas, for example, immediately put into operation a very strict voter identification law that had previously been blocked under the preclearance provisions, and several other states that previously were constrained or deterred by preclearance also enacted laws that would not have survived preclearance.

In March, 2021, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, in which litigants argued that the justices should interpret Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act narrowly or even declare it unconstitutional. The decision in that case will likely not be announced until June. Meanwhile, legislation has been introduced in Congress to respond to the Supreme Court's ruling in Shelby County. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, as it has been christened by its proponents, reintroduces preclearance for changes in voting and redistricting but applies it only to jurisdictions with a recent history of discriminatory action. It also specifically targets measures that states have historically used to discriminate against minority-group voters. When the bill was initially introduced in 2020, it passed in the House of Representatives on a largely party-line vote, but it was never considered by the Senate. It has been reintroduced in 2021, but it has yet to be voted on by either the House or the Senate.

Federal legislation on voting and elections has not been limited to combatting racial discrimination; it has also focused on facilitating voting and safeguarding the security of elections. Take, for example, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (also known as the Motor Voter Law). The Act required States to offer voter registration at state motor vehicle agencies and some other state and local offices. It also required states to permit voter registration by mail-in application. Finally, it set standards and procedures for the administration of voter registration in order to ensure that states maintained accurate and current voter registration lists. When the law took effect, it affected forty-four states that did not already provide such registration opportunities. Or, put differently, six states had already pioneered the changes the law prescribed, acting as the little laboratories referred to earlier.

Events have sometimes also prompted congressional action on voting and elections. For example, in 2002 Congress adopted the Help America Vote Act, in response to the ballot controversy in Florida in the 2000 presidential election. The law required states and localities to upgrade their election procedures, including their voting machines, their registration processes, and poll worker training. However, it provided federal funds for these purposes, and it granted the states considerable leeway in how they would implement the requirements, so it was not a major imposition on the states.

The most comprehensive federal legislation affecting voting and elections is now before Congress, christened by its proponents the For the People Act. In March, 2021, the bill passed in the House of Representatives by a 220-210 vote, without a single Republican supporting it, and its fate in the Senate likely depends on whether the slim Democratic majority eliminates the filibuster and other obstacles to its passage. The For the People Act deals with matters as diverse as redistricting, campaign finance, the disclosure of campaign contributions, the recruitment and training of poll workers, the extension of voting rights in presidential elections to citizens living in American territories, the security of elections from cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns, ethics reforms for all three branches of the federal government, and the disclosure of tax returns for presidents, vice presidents, and candidates for those offices. In short, as even its supporters admit, it is a laundry list of proposals, united in their view by a concern to make elections more inclusive and secure and to ensure that they better reflect the popular will. As the bill states, the provisions are severable, that is, a ruling that one or more of them is unconstitutional does not affect the validity of the other provisions.

Let me highlight a few provisions of the Act dealing with voting and the conduct of elections. First, voter registration: The Act provides for online voter registration for federal elections nationwide and requires states to offer same-day registration for those elections. It also requires states to implement Automatic Voter Registration, under which when eligible citizens provide information to government agencies like the Department of Motor Vehicles, they are automatically registered to vote unless they affirmatively decline. This would in essence shift voter registration from an "opt-in" to an "opt-out" process.

In a sense, there is nothing novel about any of these proposals. Currently forty states have online voter registration, twenty-one have same-day registration, and eighteen have automatic voter registration. One can see this as the "little laboratories" aspect of federalism at work, proposing that initiatives that have succeeded in some states now be adopted more generally. But opponents object that this represents a nationalization of standards that currently differ from state to state and that reflect the differing perspectives of those states, a diversity that federalism is also designed to encourage.

Much the same can be said of the Act's provisions dealing with the conduct of elections. These extend early voting to all fifty states, requiring states to allow at least two weeks of early voting for federal elections (including weekends), for a period of at least ten hours per day; to ensure that early voting locations are within walking distance of public transportation, and are accessible to rural voters; and to begin processing and scanning ballots cast during early voting at least two weeks prior to the date of the election. The Act also requires states to give every voter the option to vote by mail, and it simplifies the task of returning ballots by requiring states to provide drop boxes.

These proposals likewise are hardly novel. In 2020, forty-five states allowed their residents to vote in person before election day, and twelve allowed such voting for at least two weeks prior, which is the standard proposed in the bill. Most states also encouraged vote by mail-in fact, forty-six percent of voters used that option in the November 2020 election. Nor is the aim of these proposals, namely, to facilitate voter participation, controversial. The question is whether a national standard is necessary or desirable or whether it is better to permit variation among the states.

Yet the issue is unlikely to be resolved based on federalism concerns. Democrats believe that facilitating participation in elections will work to their advantage, so they have both principled and partisan incentives for supporting the legislation. Republicans insist that the legislation will encourage voter fraud and destroy popular confidence in American elections, as well as working to their political disadvantage. They have therefore sought to address these issues through legislation in states in which they are the political majority, and so they oppose efforts to impose national standards governing voting and elections.
Tarr, A. 2021. 'Voting, Elections and US Federalism: The Federal Government Perspective', 50 Shades of Federalism.
Further Reading

Brennan Center for Justice. "Voting Laws Roundup: March, 2021." www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-march-2021 .

Gardner, James A. "Illiberalism and Authoritarianism in the American States," 70 AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 829- 912 (2021).

Hasen, Richard L.; Lowenstein, Daniel Hays; Tokaji, Daniel P.; and Stephanopoulos, Nicholas O. ELECTION LAW-CASES AND MATERIALS, 6th edition. Carolina Academic Press, 2017.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Voting, Elections and US Federalism: The Federal Government Perspective - 50 Shades of Federalism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abstract This article examines the U.S. Constitution's treatment of voting and elections and the use that the federal government has made of the powers granted to it by the Constitution.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should physician assisted suicide be banned by the federal government or left up to each individual state to decide?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should physician assisted suicide be banned by the federal government or left up to each individual state to decide?

# data[].attributes.headline
Was the Supreme Court correct in overturning Roe v Wade in 2022 which gave authority to the states to decide their abortion laws versus federal protection of the right to choose?

# data[].attributes.subject
Was the Supreme Court correct in overturning Roe v Wade in 2022 which gave authority to the states to decide their abortion laws versus federal protection of the right to choose?

# data[].attributes.headline
Education is a reserved power to the states, but can the federal government control how public schools are run?

# data[].attributes.subject
Education is a reserved power to the states, but can the federal government control how public schools are run?

# data[].attributes.headline
Do sanctuary cities violate federal immigration laws?

# data[].attributes.subject
Do sanctuary cities violate federal immigration laws?

# data[].attributes.headline
 Should gun control laws be uniform for the entire country or individualized by the needs of each state? 

# data[].attributes.subject
 Should gun control laws be uniform for the entire country or individualized by the needs of each state? 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
March 24, 2015 About an hour read Download Report

Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy

Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., researches and writes about marriage, bioethics, religious liberty and political philosophy.

Summary

Allowing physician-assisted suicide would be a grave mistake for four reasons. First, it would endanger the weak and vulnerable. Second, it would corrupt the practice of medicine and the doctor-patient relationship. Third, it would compromise the family and intergenerational commitments. And fourth, it would betray human dignity and equality before the law. Instead of helping people to kill themselves, we should offer them appropriate medical care and human presence. We should respond to suffering with true compassion and solidarity. Doctors should help their patients to die a dignified death of natural causes, not assist in killing. Physicians are always to care, never to kill.

Key Takeaways

The Hippocratic Oath proclaims: "I will keep [the sick] from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect."[1] This is an essential precept for a flourishing civil society. No one, especially a doctor, should be permitted to kill intentionally, or assist in killing intentionally, an innocent neighbor.

Human life need not be extended by every medical means possible, but a person should never be intentionally killed. Doctors may help their patients to die a dignified death from natural causes, but they should not kill their patients or help them to kill themselves. This is the reality that such euphemisms as "death with dignity" and "aid in dying" seek to conceal.

In 2015, at least 18 state legislatures and the District of Columbia are considering whether to allow physician-assisted suicide (PAS).[2] Legalizing physician-assisted suicide, however, would be a grave mistake because it would:

Endanger the weak and vulnerable,

Corrupt the practice of medicine and the doctor-patient relationship,

Compromise the family and intergenerational commitments, and

Betray human dignity and equality before the law.

First, PAS endangers the weak and marginalized in society. Where it has been allowed, safeguards purporting to minimize this risk have proved to be inadequate and have often been watered down or eliminated over time. People who deserve society's assistance are instead offered accelerated death.

Second, PAS changes the culture in which medicine is practiced. It corrupts the profession of medicine by permitting the tools of healing to be used as techniques for killing. By the same token, PAS threatens to fundamentally distort the doctor-patient relationship because it reduces patients' trust of doctors and doctors' undivided commitment to the life and health of their patients. Moreover, the option of PAS would provide perverse incentives for insurance providers and the public and private financing of health care. Physician-assisted suicide offers a cheap, quick fix in a world of increasingly scarce health care resources.

Third, PAS would harm our entire culture, especially our family and intergenerational obligations. The temptation to view elderly or disabled family members as burdens will increase, as will the temptation for those family members to internalize this attitude and view themselves as burdens. Physician-assisted suicide undermines social solidarity and true compassion.

Fourth, PAS's most profound injustice is that it violates human dignity and denies equality before the law. Every human being has intrinsic dignity and immeasurable worth. For our legal system to be coherent and just, the law must respect this dignity in everyone. It does so by taking all reasonable steps to prevent the innocent, of any age or condition, from being devalued and killed. Classifying a subgroup of people as legally eligible to be killed violates our nation's commitment to equality before the law-showing profound disrespect for and callousness to those who will be judged to have lives no longer "worth living," not least the frail elderly, the demented, and the disabled. No natural right to PAS exists, and arguments for such a right are incoherent: A legal system that allows assisted suicide abandons the natural right to life of all its citizens.

Instead of embracing PAS, we should respond to suffering with true compassion and solidarity. People seeking PAS typically suffer from depression or other mental illnesses, as well as simply from loneliness. Instead of helping them to kill themselves, we should offer them appropriate medical care and human presence. For those in physical pain, pain management and other palliative medicine can manage their symptoms effectively. For those for whom death is imminent, hospice care and fellowship can accompany them in their last days. Anything less falls short of what human dignity requires. The real challenge facing society is to make quality end-of-life care available to all.

Doctors should help their patients to die a dignified death of natural causes, not assist in killing. Physicians are always to care, never to kill. They properly seek to alleviate suffering, and it is reasonable to withhold or withdraw medical interventions that are not worthwhile. However, to judge that a patient's life is not worthwhile and deliberately hasten his or her end is another thing altogether.

Citizens and policymakers need to resist the push by pressure groups, academic elites, and the media to sanction PAS. Recent experience with PAS both in the United States and in Europe suggests how problematic it is.

Endangering the Weak and Marginalized

To understand how PAS endangers the weak and marginalized, one must understand what PAS entails and where it leads. With PAS, a doctor prescribes the deadly drug, but the patient self-administers it. While most activists in the United States publicly call only for PAS, they have historically advocated not only PAS, but also euthanasia: the intentional killing of the patient by a doctor.

This is not surprising: The arguments for PAS are equally arguments for euthanasia. Neil Gorsuch, currently a federal judge, points out that some contemporary activists fault the movement for not being honest about where its arguments lead. He notes that legal theorist and New York University School of Law Professor Richard Epstein "has charged his fellow assisted suicide advocates who fail to endorse the legalization of euthanasia openly and explicitly with a 'certain lack of courage.'"[3]

The logic of assisted suicide leads to euthanasia because if "compassion" demands that some patients be helped to kill themselves, it makes little sense to claim that only those who are capable of self-administering the deadly drugs be given this option. Should not those who are too disabled to kill themselves have their suffering ended by a lethal injection?

And what of those who are too disabled to request that their suffering be ended, such as infants or the demented? Why should they be denied the "benefit" of a hastened death? Does not "compassion" provide an even more compelling reason for a doctor to provide this release from suffering and indignity?[4] As Professor John Keown points out:

If compassion justified us in giving a lethal prescription to a terminally ill patient on request to end their suffering, it would equally justify us in giving them a lethal injection, particularly if they were physically unable to commit suicide. It would also justify us in giving a lethal injection to a terminally ill patient who was incapable of making a request.[5]

Judge Gorsuch notes that for the Dutch, "it is the physician's assessment of the patient's quality of life as 'degrading' or 'deteriorating' or 'hopeless' that stands as the ultimate justification for killing."[6]

Although the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in two unanimous decisions that there is no constitutional right to PAS, three states permit it by statute: Oregon, Washington, and Vermont.[7] Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia are allowed in three European countries-the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg-and Switzerland allows assisted suicide.[8]

The evidence from these jurisdictions, particularly the Netherlands, which has over 30 years of experience, suggests that safeguards to ensure effective control have proved inadequate. In the Netherlands, several official, government-sponsored surveys have disclosed both that in thousands of cases, doctors have intentionally administered lethal injections to patients without a request and that in thousands of cases, they have failed to report cases to the authorities.[9]

Physician-Assisted Suicide Will Most Threaten the Weak and Marginalized.Physician-assisted suicide will most threaten the weak and marginalized because of the cultural pressures and economic incentives that will drive it.[10] The New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, established by Governor Mario Cuomo, explained in its report:

The Task Force members unanimously concluded that legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia would pose profound risks to many patients....

... The practices will pose the greatest risks to those who are poor, elderly, members of a minority group, or without access to good medical care....

... The clinical safeguards that have been proposed to prevent abuse and errors would not be realized in many cases.[11]

Dr. Paul McHugh, University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and Psychiatrist-in-Chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital from 1975 to 2001, highlights that "with physician-assisted suicide, many people-some not terminally ill, but instead demoralized, depressed and bewildered-die before their time."[12] This sad reality led Dr. Leon Kass-a medical doctor, philosopher, and former chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics-to explain that physician-assisted suicide "is, in fact, the state's abdication of its duty to protect innocent life and its abandonment especially of the old, the weak, and the poor."[13]

The people most likely to be assisted by a physician in their suicide are suffering not simply from terminal illness, but also from depression, mental illness, loneliness, and despair. "Researchers have found hopelessness, which is strongly correlated with depression, to be the factor that most significantly predicts the wish for death," write Dr. Herbert Hendin, Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science at New York Medical College and Chief Executive Officer and Medical Director of Suicide Prevention Initiatives, and Dr. Kathleen Foley, Professor of Neurology at Cornell University's medical school and attending neurologist, pain and palliative care services, at Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.[14] As Dr. Hendin reports:

Mental illness raises the suicide risk even more than physical illness. Nearly 95 percent of those who kill themselves have been shown to have a diagnosable psychiatric illness in the months preceding suicide. The majority suffer from depression that can be treated. This is particularly true of those over fifty, who are more prone than younger victims to take their lives during the type of acute depressive episode that responds most effectively to treatment.[15]

From their decades of professional medical practice, Drs. Hendin and Foley report that when patients who ask for a physician's assistance in suicide "are treated by a physician who can hear their desperation, understand the ambivalence that most feel about their request, treat their depression, and relieve their suffering, their wish to die usually disappears."[16] They conclude: "Patients requesting suicide need psychiatric evaluation to determine whether they are seriously depressed, mentally incompetent, or for whatever reason do not meet the criteria for assisted suicide."[17]

Yet only five of the 178 Oregon patients who died under the Oregon assisted suicide laws in 2013 and 2014 were referred for any psychiatric or psychological evaluation. Remarkably, patients were referred for psychiatric evaluation in less than 5.5 percent of the 859 cases of assisted suicide reported in Oregon since its law went into effect in 1997.[18] "This constitutes medical negligence," writes Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, Associate Professor of Psychiatry at U.C. Irvine School of Medicine. Dr. Kheriaty concludes, "To abandon suicidal individuals in the midst of a crisis-under the guise of respecting their autonomy-is socially irresponsible: It undermines sound medical ethics and erodes social solidarity."[19]

Regrettably, even in jurisdictions that require a doctor to mention palliative care and hospice alternatives before proceeding with assisted suicide, the doctors need not be experts. Drs. Hendin and Foley point out:

They are not required, however, to be knowledgeable about how to relieve physical or emotional suffering in terminally ill patients. Without such knowledge, which most physicians do not have, they cannot present or make feasible alternatives available. Nor in the absence of such knowledge are they required to refer the patient to a physician with expertise in palliative care.[20]

The Legal Protections in Physician-Assisted Suicide Are Ineffective. Even if one were to accept an argument for PAS on the basis of autonomy and compassion, one would be forced to conclude that neither value is sufficiently protected in laws that have been enacted in several states and in current bills that would authorize it in additional jurisdictions. One of the greatest concerns is that autonomy will be violated and people pressured or coerced into killing themselves.

The District of Columbia's Death With Dignity Act of 2015 would authorize physicians to prescribe deadly drugs to patients.[21] This act is substantially similar to the laws passed in Oregon, Washington, and Vermont and others pending in various jurisdictions.[22] None of the purported protections offered in the bill are sufficient; the experience with PAS to date shows that all will prove ineffective. Professor Alexander Capron, a leading health lawyer, has concluded that the Oregon safeguards are "largely illusory."[23] So, too, are those in the D.C. proposal.

The D.C. bill states that to receive a physician's assistance in suicide, the patient must make two oral requests, separated by 15 days, to a physician of the patient's choice. Before the second request, the patient must also make a written request, no less than 48 hours before the lethal drugs are prescribed or provided. This written request must be witnessed by two individuals, neither of whom may be the physician and only one of whom may be related to the patient, stand to inherit upon the patient's death, or be an owner or employee of a health care facility where the patient is residing. The witnesses must attest that the patient is capable and acting voluntarily.

Likewise, the chosen physician must judge the patient to be capable and acting voluntarily and that the patient will likely die within six months. Then the physician refers the patient to a consulting physician who must verify these judgments.

Despite the purported safeguards, this system is ripe for abuse. One of the witnesses may be a family member with a financial or emotional incentive to see the patient die, and the other may simply be a friend willing to affirm that judgment. Patients or their more powerful guardians could shop around for a doctor who is willing to make the judgment that they are capable, acting freely, and likely to die within six months.

Moreover, the bill does not specify whether death need be likely with medical treatment or without. As a team of physicians has noted, "Deciding who should be counted as 'terminally ill' will pose such severe difficulties that it seems untenable as a criterion for permitting physician-assisted suicide."[24]

Of course, there is no reason to assume that all doctors will seek to make a serious diagnosis, because a patient can shop around for a compliant physician. Richard Doerflinger notes that Compassion and Choices (C&C), formerly known as the Hemlock Society and one of the advocacy groups pushing for assisted suicide laws nationwide, keeps a list of "friendly" doctors:

The doctors who declare patients qualified for assisted suicide are not randomly selected. C&C has boasted of its direct involvement in the vast majority of such cases in Oregon, as it has its own list of doctors who are willing and able to get patients around any pesky "safeguards." If the patient's own physician, or the next physician, discovers a disorder such as depression, the patient can simply shop around to find one who won't care (or just call C&C in the first place).[25]

Such shopping around for doctors claimed the life of Helen, a woman in Oregon. Judge Gorsuch recounts:

Helen was a breast cancer patient in her mid-eighties when the Oregon law went into effect. Helen's regular physician refused to assist in her suicide; a second doctor was consulted but also refused, on the stated ground that Helen was depressed. At that point, Helen's husband called Compassion in Dying. The medical director of the group spoke with Helen and later explained that Helen was "frustrated and crying because she felt powerless." Helen was not, however, bedridden or in great pain.... The Compassion in Dying employee recommended a physician to Helen. That physician, in turn, referred Helen to a specialist (whose specialty is unknown), as well as to a psychiatrist who met Helen only once. A lethal prescription was then supplied.[26]

Remarkably, the D.C. bill provides explicit protections for doctors to engage in such judgments by providing immunity from liabilities: "No person shall be subject to civil or criminal liability or professional disciplinary action for: (A) Participating in good faith compliance with this act." Doerflinger explains:

"Good faith" is the loosest of legal standards, much weaker than the negligence standard physicians are generally held to. Instead of meeting the objective standards for what doctors should know, a doctor need only say that he sincerely didn't know that he failed to live up to them.[27]

The political left is ordinarily quite opposed to tort reform or medical malpractice limitations, yet here they explicitly support them. Doerflinger concludes:

So, in a matter of literal life and death, standards are much lower than anywhere else in law or medicine. You're likely to be seen as terminal (hence a candidate for assisted suicide) if the doctor feels that you are, or thinks that you could become so without treatment. If you take the lethal drugs in a few weeks based on that prediction, there is, of course, no chance to prove him wrong.[28]

Judge Gorsuch echoes this concern:

[I]t is also rather remarkable that, while physicians in Oregon are held to a standard of professional competence in administering all other treatments they provide, the Oregon assisted suicide statute creates an entirely different regime when it comes to administering this "treatment," specifically and uniquely immunizing doctors from criminal prosecution, civil liability, or even professional discipline for any actions they take in assisting a suicide, as long as they act in "good faith." Thus, while a doctor may be found liable for mere negligence in any other operation or procedure, there is no recourse for family members when a doctor kills a patient even on the basis of gross negligence by misdiagnosing the patient as terminal or by misassessing the patient as competent.[29]

The disability-rights group Not Dead Yet agrees:

[I]t cannot be seriously maintained that assisted suicide laws can or do limit assisted suicide to people who are imminently dying, and voluntarily request and consume a lethal dose, free of inappropriate pressures from family or society. Rather, assisted suicide laws ensure legal immunity for physicians who already devalue the lives of older and disabled people and have significant economic incentives to at least agree with their suicides, if not encourage them, or worse.[30]

Moreover, there are no protections relating to the time when the lethal drugs are taken. Once the requirements are met, a doctor may prescribe the deadly drugs and send the patient home to self-administer them. The D.C. bill, like the state bills, provides no safeguards to ensure that the patient is mentally competent when he or she takes the drugs and is not being pressured to do so. The lack of any legal protections ensuring autonomy at the time the lethal choice is made led Judge Gorsuch to ask: "How does it serve the putative goal of autonomous patient decision making to set up a regime that allows people to commit suicide without considering whether they are, in fact, acting freely, competently, and autonomously at the time of suicide?"[31]

In sum, a family member or friend who might benefit financially from the death of a patient may act as a witness that the patient is voluntarily requesting the lethal prescription, and doctors who support the ideology of death and have never before met the patient (or the patient's family) can judge the patient to be "qualified" under the law. Finally, at the time of administering the deadly drug, there are no safeguards to ensure voluntariness or competence or to guard against coercion. Such a measure woefully fails to protect autonomy.[32]

The World's Experience with Physician-Assisted Suicide Laws Confirms the Lethal Logic. While many assisted suicide laws attempt to limit PAS eligibility to the terminally ill, and while many laws attempt to provide protections ensuring autonomous consent, the experience of countries with PAS and euthanasia suggests that safeguards fail to ensure effective control.

In 1989, while teaching law and medical ethics at the University of Cambridge, Professor John Keown began to investigate PAS and euthanasia in the Netherlands. He found that key Dutch guidelines, such as requiring an explicit request from the patient, have long been widely violated with virtual impunity.[33] He pointed out that the first of several official surveys conducted by the Dutch found that in 1990, "the total number of life-shortening acts and omissions where the doctor's primary intention ... was to kill, and which are therefore indubitably euthanasiast, is 10,558."[34]

Shockingly, the majority of these cases were nonvoluntary. Oxford legal scholar John Finnis, commenting on the Dutch data, remarks: "[W]ell over half ... were without any explicit request. In the United States that would be over 235,000 unrequested medically accelerated deaths per annum."[35] In 2013, 1.7 percent (1,807 patients) of all deaths in Belgium were due to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.[36] A 2010 study discovered that 66 of 208 identified deaths in Belgium were administered without an explicit patient request.[37]

Keown confirms that "the undisputed empirical evidence from the Netherlands and Belgium shows widespread breach of the safeguards, not least the sizeable incidence of non-voluntary euthanasia and of non-reporting."[38] In October of 2013, three judges of the High Court of Ireland voiced the same concern: "[T]he incidence of legally assisted death without explicit request in the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland is strikingly high."[39] And the numbers of those assisted in committed suicide keep growing.[40]

Part of the reason for these troubling statistics is that any purported legal safeguards can be and have been abused, and over time the logic of a "right to die" is extended to ever-wider groups of patients, including the incompetent. Keown describes the logic of PAS as based on judging some lives as unworthy of life:

Once a doctor is prepared to make such a judgment in the case of [a] patient capable of requesting death, the judgment can, logically, equally be made in the case of a patient incapable of requesting death.... If a doctor thinks death would benefit the patient, why should the doctor deny the patient that benefit merely because the patient is incapable of asking for it?... The logical "slippery slope" argument is unanswerable.[41]

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, writing in the Atlantic Monthly, affirms that this is the lesson to take from the Netherlands and that proposed American PAS laws cannot avoid the same outcome:

The Netherlands studies fail to demonstrate that permitting physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia will not lead to the nonvoluntary euthanasia of children, the demented, the mentally ill, the old, and others. Indeed, the persistence of abuse and the violation of safeguards, despite publicity and condemnation, suggest that the feared consequences of legalization are exactly its inherent consequences.[42]

In 1996, two doctors prosecuted in the Netherlands for the nonvoluntary euthanasia of disabled infants were acquitted when they argued medical necessity.[43] The Dutch courts simply followed the inexorable logic that drives the case for PAS and voluntary euthanasia to a new extent. If necessity justifies ending the life of a suffering patient who requests it, it equally justifies ending the life of a suffering patient who cannot request it. Dutch pediatricians have now devised a protocol for infanticide.[44]

A 2005 study in the New England Journal of Medicine recorded that in the previous seven years, 22 cases of infant euthanasia were reported in the Netherlands.[45] A 2013 Netherlands commission on euthanasia argued that as many as 650 infants per year should be eligible for euthanasia on the basis of the children's diagnosis as "babies who in spite of very intensive treatment are certain to die in the short term, babies with a poor prognosis and very poor expected quality of life, or babies who are not dependent on intensive treatment but who face a life of severe suffering with no prospect of improvement."[46] The U.N. Human Rights Committee formally condemned this Dutch infanticide: "The Committee is gravely concerned at reports that new-born handicapped infants have had their lives ended by medical personnel."[47]

In March 2014, Belgium became the first country to legislatively allow doctors to euthanize "consenting" minors, despite the objections of 160 physicians.[48] In an open letter, these doctors argued that legalization without age restriction was unnecessary, as palliative care is sufficient, and the bill would create excessive pressure on both children and parents to choose premature death.[49] Nevertheless, Belgium went forward and removed the age restrictions.

Diagnoses of disability are now considered sufficient grounds for death. In December 2012, Marc and Eddy Verbessem, 45-year-old deaf twins, were euthanized in a Belgian hospital after they discovered they were going blind.[50] Nancy Verhelst, a 44-year-old transsexual Belgian whose doctors made mistakes in three sex change operations, was left feeling as though she was a "monster." She then requested-and was granted-euthanasia by lethal injection.[51]

In the Netherlands, the euthanized include Ann G., a 44-year-old woman whose only ailment was chronic anorexia.[52] In the beginning of 2013, Dutch doctors administered a lethal injection to a 70-year-old blind woman because she said the loss of sight constituted "unbearable suffering."[53] In early 2015, a 47-year-old divorced mother of two suffering from tinnitus, a loud ringing in the ears, was granted physician-assisted suicide in the Netherlands.[54] She left behind a 13-year-old son and a 15-year-old daughter.[55] Gerty Casteelen was a 54-year-old psychiatric patient with molysomophobia, a fear of dirt or contamination. Her doctors decided that she would not be able to control her fear and agreed to administer a lethal injection.[56]

Corrupting the Practice of Medicine

Physician-assisted suicide threatens to:

Corrupt the culture in which medicine is practiced;

Corrupt the profession of medicine by permitting the tools of healing to be used as a technique for killing;

Fundamentally distort the doctor-patient relationship, greatly reducing patients' trust of doctors and doctors' undivided commitment to the healing of their patients; and

Create perverse incentives for insurance providers and the financing of health care.

Physician-Assisted Suicide Corrupts the Profession of Medicine. The heart of medicine is healing. Doctors cannot heal by assisting patients to kill themselves or by killing them. They rightly seek to eliminate disease and alleviate pain and suffering. They may not, however, seek to eliminate the patient. Allowing doctors to assist in killing threatens to fundamentally corrupt the defining goal of the profession of medicine.

In testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Kass elaborated on this point:

The legalization of physician-assisted suicide will pervert the medical profession by transforming the healer of human beings into a technical dispenser of death. For over two millennia the medical ethic, mindful that power to cure is also power to kill, has held as an inviolable rule, "Doctors must not kill."[57]

Dr. Paul McHugh agrees that this inviolable rule is essential to the practice of medicine:

Since ancient Greece physicians have been tempted to help desperate patients kill themselves, and many of those Greek doctors must have done so. But even then the best rejected such actions as unworthy and, as the Hippocratic Oath insists, contrary to the physician's purpose of "benefiting the sick."[58]

For this reason, the American Medical Association (AMA) code of ethics rejects physician-assisted suicide. The AMA states: "Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician's role as healer."[59] As law professor O. Carter Snead notes,[60] dozens of professional associations and groups representing vulnerable persons oppose physician-assisted suicide, including the:

American Medical Association,

World Health Organization,

American Nurses Association,

American Association of Critical-Care Nurses,

Hospice Nurses Association,

Oncology Nurses Society,

American Osteopathic Association,

American Psychiatric Association,

American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine,

American Academy of Pain Management,

American Academy of Pain Medicine,

American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons,

American Academy of Physical Medicine,

Society of Critical Care Medicine,

American Academy of Neurology,

American Neurological Association,

American Society of Anesthesiologists,

American Society of Clinical Pathologists,

College of American Pathologists,

American Society of Abdominal Surgeons,

American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists,

Society of Medical Consultants to the Armed Forces,

American Institute of Life Threatening Illness and Loss,

Massachusetts Medical Society,

Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund,

American Disabled for Attendant Programs Today,

American Association of People with Disabilities,

Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living,

Justice for All,

National Council on Disability,

National Council on Independent Living,

National Spinal Cord Injury Association,

Not Dead Yet,

TASH,

World Association of Persons with Disabilities, and

World Institute on Disability.

Practicing medicine is a not a morally neutral act of mere technical skill. Physicians do not practice medicine simply to fulfil the desires of consumer-patients, whatever those desires may be. Rather, medicine is a profession governed by its core commitment to healing patients. Dr. Kass explains that professionals profess their devotion to the purposes they serve and the ideals to which they look. Teachers are devoted to learning, lawyers to justice, clergy to things divine, and "the physician devotes himself to healing the sick, looking up to health and wholeness." Dr. Kass adds: "Healing is thus the central core of medicine: to heal, to make whole, is the doctor's primary business."[61]

Killing is incompatible with caring. Dr. Kass explains: "Can wholeness and healing ever be compatible with intentionally killing the patient? Can one benefit the patient as a whole by making him dead?... 'Better off dead' is logical nonsense." Indeed, "to bring nothingness is incompatible with serving wholeness: one cannot heal-or comfort-by making nil. The healer cannot annihilate if he is truly to heal. The boundary condition, 'No deadly drugs,' flows directly from the center, 'Make whole.'"[62]

Dr. McHugh illustrates what happens when this boundary is crossed: "Once doctors agree to assist a person's suicide, ultimately they find it difficult to reject anyone who seeks their services. The killing of patients by doctors spreads to encompass many treatable but mentally troubled individuals, as seen today in the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland."[63] Disability groups note that "numerous studies have demonstrated that physicians underestimate the quality of life of people with disabilities compared to our own assessments."[64]

Physician-Assisted Suicide Distorts the Doctor-Patient Relationship. Physician-assisted suicide will not only corrupt the professionals who practice medicine, but also affect the patients because it threatens to fundamentally distort the doctor-patient relationship, greatly reducing patients' trust of doctors and doctors' undivided commitment to the healing of their patients.

Our laws shape our culture, and our culture shapes our beliefs, which in turn shape our behaviors. The laws governing medical treatments will shape the way that doctors behave and thus shape the doctor-patient relationship. Legal philosopher John Finnis explains how a change in the law will lead to a change of heart on the part of doctors:

Now change the law and the professional ethic. Killing with intent becomes a routine management option. Oh yes, there are restrictions, guidelines, paperwork. Well meant. Not utterly irrelevant. But as nothing compared with our doctors' change in heart, professional formation, and conscience.[65]

On this point, Dr. Kass agrees:

Won't it be tempting to think that death is the best treatment for the little old lady "dumped" again on the emergency room by the nearby nursing home? Even the most humane and conscientious physician psychologically needs protection against himself and his weaknesses, if he is to care fully for those who entrust themselves to him. A physician friend who worked many years in a hospice caring for dying patients explained it to me most convincingly: "Only because I knew that I could not and would not kill my patients was I able to enter most fully and intimately into caring for them as they lay dying."[66]

Dr. Kass asks us to consider the new normal that PAS would bring to patients:

Imagine the scene: you are old, poor, in failing health, and alone in the world; you are brought to the city hospital with fractured ribs and pneumonia. The nurse or intern enters late at night with a syringe full of yellow stuff for your intravenous drip. How soundly will you sleep? It will not matter that your doctor has never yet put anyone to death; that he is legally entitled to do so-even if only in some well-circumscribed areas-will make a world of difference.[67]

Finnis dramatizes this new normal, highlighting how the change in law leads to a change in patients' behavior:

A new zone of silence. Can I safely speak to my physician about the full extent of my sufferings, about my fears, about my occasional or regular wish to be free from my burdens? Will my words be heard as a plea to be killed? As a tacit permission? And why does my physician need my permission, my request?[68]

The trust that patients place in their doctors will be seriously breached if patients fear that their doctors may encourage-and actively facilitate-their death.

Physician-Assisted Suicide Creates Perverse Incentives for Insurance Providers. Physician-assisted suicide will create perverse incentives for insurance providers and the financing of health care. Assisting in suicide will often be a more "cost-effective" measure from the perspective of the bottom line than is actually caring for patients. In fact, some advocates of PAS and euthanasia make the case on the basis of saving money.

Baroness Mary Warnock, a leading ethicist in the United Kingdom, has argued, "If you're demented, you're wasting people's lives-your family's lives-and you're wasting the resources of the National Health Service." Warnock went on to suggest that such people have a "duty to die."[69]

Derek Humphry, founder of the Hemlock Society, also points to the role of money, noting that "the pressures of cost containment provide impetus, whether openly acknowledged or not, for the practicalities of an assisted death." He goes on to add that "the connections between the right-to-die and the cost, value, and allocation of health care resources are part of the political debate, albeit frequently unspoken." Humphry, however, was one advocate willing to speak about that cost: "It is impossible to predict exactly how much money could be saved.... Conservative estimates, however, place the dollar amount in the tens of billions."[70]

Physician-assisted suicide has affected the financing of health care in the United States as well. Dr. McHugh notes:

When a "right to die" becomes settled law, soon the right translates into a duty. That was the message sent by Oregon, which legalized assisted suicide in 1994, when the state-sponsored health plan in 2008 denied recommended but costly cancer treatments and offered instead to pay for less-expensive suicide drugs.[71]

Richard Doerflinger adds:

Last year, over half the patients who committed assisted suicide in Oregon relied on the government for their health coverage or had no coverage at all. Over three-quarters of those dying under Washington's assisted suicide law were partly or completely dependent on Medicare or Medicaid.[72]

This sets the stage for a perverse alignment of public financing and patient death, just as the New York Task Force predicted in its 1994 report:

Limits on hospital reimbursement based on length of stay and diagnostic group, falling hospital revenues, and the social need to allocate health dollars may all influence physicians' decisions at the bedside.... Under any new system of health care delivery, as at present, it will be far less costly to give a lethal injection than to care for a patient throughout the dying process....

Physicians who determine that a patient is a suitable candidate for assisted suicide or euthanasia may be far less inclined to present treatment alternatives, especially if the treatment requires intensive efforts by health care professionals.[73]

These perverse financial incentives will exercise a subtle but profound pressure on patients as the advice from their physicians and the procedures covered by their insurance increasingly point toward PAS. Given the increasing number of elderly patients in modern societies, their increasing longevity, and the increasing cost of treating their chronic illnesses, PAS will increasingly be seen as a cost-effective option and one that the elderly should be encouraged to consider.

Compromising the Family and Intergenerational Obligations

Physician-assisted suicide will also negatively affect our culture, especially the family and our intergenerational obligations. The temptation to view elderly or disabled family members as burdens will surely rise. The temptation for elderly and disabled family members to view themselves as burdens will also surely rise. Instead of the solidarity of civil society and true compassion, PAS threatens to create cheap solutions by eliminating those who are perceived as socially and economically burdensome.

The Family Has Responsibility for Disabled and Elderly Relatives. There is a natural cycle to human life. Human beings enter the world as entirely needy, totally dependent newborns. Many people exit life dependent on others as well. Along the way, there will undoubtedly be periods of trial and tribulation when people need the assistance of others. Traditionally, the family has been a central social institution for weathering life's storms. Mothers and fathers take care of children at the dawn of life, and then children take care of their aging parents at the twilight.

Family life is meant to include shouldering one another's burdens and assisting those in need. In his provocatively titled essay "I Want to Burden My Loved Ones," ethicist Gilbert Meilaender explains why he refuses to accept the logic of atomistic individualism:

Is this not in large measure what it means to belong to a family: to burden each other-and to find, almost miraculously, that others are willing, even happy, to carry such burdens? Families would not have the significance they do for us if they did not, in fact, give us a claim upon each other. At least in this sphere of life we do not come together as autonomous individuals freely contracting with each other. We simply find ourselves thrown together and asked to share the burdens of life while learning to care for each other.[74]

While the family is the primary institution tasked with intergenerational care, no family is an island. As Dr. Kass and Eric Cohen point out, families are situated within a larger culture-and the law shapes this culture:

Even if the burdens of aging and death are always borne most fully by individuals and families, how we age and die are not only private matters. Our communal practices and social policies shape the environments in which aging and caregiving take place-not only in moments of crisis, when life-or-death decisions need to be made, but in the long days of struggle and everyday attendance. Faith-based institutions and community groups support families in meeting those needs they cannot meet alone. Programs like Medicaid assist those who are old and impoverished, in need of nursing that they cannot themselves afford.[75]

Physician-Assisted Suicide Creates Heightened Pressures on Disabled and Elderly Family Members. The introduction of PAS would undermine familial relationships and promote the view that disabled and elderly relatives are not people to be loved but burdens to be managed. Physician-assisted suicide would alter how people in general view the disabled and elderly and how the disabled and elderly view themselves. On the interaction between the two groups, Professor Finnis describes a dramatic scene:

Another zone of fearful silence. Outside the door are the relatives. What will they be telling the doctor about my condition and my wishes? What is prudent to tell them about my suffering, my depression, my wishes? Are they interpreting my state of mind just as I would wish? Are their interests in line with mine?[76]

Physician-assisted suicide creates a temptation for relatives and thus undermines trust. Because of its potential to corrupt these intergenerational ties, Finnis concludes that in a world with PAS, "[m]any people will find that their nearest and dearest are less and less near, and less and less dear."[77]

Victoria Reggie Kennedy, widow of the late Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), campaigned against a bill that would have legalized PAS in Massachusetts on precisely these grounds. Kennedy noted that "the proposed law is not about bringing family together to make end of life decisions; it's intended to exclude family members from the actual decision-making process to guard against patients' being pressured to end their lives prematurely."[78] She went on to explain how her husband was able to die a true death with dignity by avoiding the pressures of assisted suicide:

When my husband was first diagnosed with cancer, he was told that he had only two to four months to live, that he'd never go back to the U.S. Senate, that he should get his affairs in order, kiss his wife, love his family and get ready to die.

But that prognosis was wrong. Teddy lived 15 more productive months.... Because that first dire prediction of life expectancy was wrong, I have 15 months of cherished memories-memories of family dinners and songfests with our children and grandchildren; memories of laughter and, yes, tears; memories of life that neither I nor my husband would have traded for anything in the world.

When the end finally did come-natural death with dignity-my husband was home, attended by his doctor, surrounded by family and our priest.[79]

Mrs. Kennedy concluded that most people wish for a good death "surrounded by loved ones, perhaps with a doctor and/or clergyman at our bedside." But with PAS, "what you get instead is a prescription for up to 100 capsules, dispensed by a pharmacist, taken without medical supervision, followed by death, perhaps alone. That seems harsh and extreme to me."[80] Indeed it is.

Even if legal protections against pressure and coercion could somehow be made effective, how could they prevent the corruption of culture? In a society with PAS, legal safeguards will not mute the clear moral message transmitted by laws allowing PAS: that some lives are "not worth living" and that some people have a duty to end their lives.

These cultural pressures are not merely the suppositions of cultural philosophy. They play out in real life. Dr. Hendin has documented many such stories, such as this one:

A wife who no longer wished to care for her sick, elderly husband gave him a choice between euthanasia and admission to a home for the chronically ill. The man, afraid of being left to the mercy of strangers in an unfamiliar place, chose to have his life ended; the doctor, although aware of the coercion, ended the man's life.[81]

These stories are not isolated incidents. Dr. Hendin reports that a study of Dutch hospitals found that "doctors and nurses reported that more requests for euthanasia came from families than from patients themselves. The investigator concluded that the families, the doctors, and the nurses were involved in pressuring patients to request euthanasia."[82] The same pressure is evident in the limited places where physician-assisted suicide is legal in the United States. Oregon Health Authority research found that 40 percent of those who were assisted with suicide cited being a burden on family or friends and caregivers as their motivation to end their lives.[83]

These considerations are particularly disturbing because suicide is a phenomenon that can spread throughout a society, based on imitation. Social scientists, Dr. Kheriaty notes, "know that there is a 'social contagion' aspect to suicide."[84] In its guide to preventing suicide, the World Health Organization notes the scholarly research on the imitative nature of suicide:

Over 50 investigations into imitative suicides have been conducted. Systematic reviews of these studies have consistently drawn the same conclusion: media reporting of suicide can lead to imitative suicidal behaviours.... Particular subgroups in the population (e.g., young people, people suffering from depression) may be especially vulnerable to engaging in imitative suicidal behaviours. Finally, and probably most importantly, overt description of suicide by a particular method may lead to increases in suicidal behaviour employing that method.[85]

Commenting on Brittany Maynard's suicide, Dr. Kheriaty argues that "given what we know about suicide's social effects, and given the media portrayal around her death, we can anticipate that her decision will influence other vulnerable individuals."[86] Dr. Kheriaty concludes that PAS will send a signal to legitimize such suicidal desires:

Refusing to legitimate suicide helps those in need. The practice of physician-assisted suicide ... sends a message that some lives are not worth living. The law is a teacher: If assisted suicide is legalized, this message will be heard by everyone who is afflicted by suicidal thoughts or tendencies.[87]

In doing so, PAS undermines our entire culture.

Betraying Human Dignity and Equality Before the Law

Perhaps the most profound injustice of PAS is that it violates human dignity and denies equality before the law. Every human being has intrinsic dignity and worth. For our legal system to be coherent and just, the law must respect this dignity by taking all reasonable steps to prevent the taking of innocent lives. Classifying a subgroup of people as legally eligible to be killed violates our nation's commitment to equality before the law and shows profound disrespect for the elderly and disabled.

No natural right to physician-assisted suicide exists, and arguments for such a right are indeed incoherent. A legal system that permits assisted suicide undermines the natural right to life for all of its citizens.

Every Human Being Has Intrinsic Human Dignity and Worth. The American Creed, best articulated in the Declaration of Independence, holds it to be a self-evident truth "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Philosophers Patrick Lee and Robert P. George explain that "every human being, of whatever age, size, or degree of development, has inherent and equal fundamental dignity and basic rights."[88]

This dignity does not depend on subjective evaluations of worth, even of self-worth, or on the ability to "contribute" to society. Rather, the dignity is intrinsic. Human dignity is not based on an instrumental account of what a person can do, but on recognition of what a human being is: a person made for reason, freedom, and love. Lee and George explain that "a human being is valuable as a subject of rights in virtue of what he or she is.... And so a human being remains a subject of rights, someone who has a right not to be intentionally killed, for as long as he or she exists."[89]

Of course, a belief in human dignity is not unique to the United States. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights begins by noting that the "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world."[90] The European Convention on Human Rights also emphasizes the inalienable right to life: "Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. This right is one of the most important of the Convention since without the right to life it is impossible to enjoy the other rights."[91]

The Law Must Respect Human Dignity and Equality Before the Law. The deepest injustice of PAS, then, is that it treats some human lives as lacking dignity or worth-and therefore unworthy of the law's protection. Lee and George conclude that "the choice to kill an innocent human life, whether one's own or another's, even for the sake of avoiding terrible suffering, is intrinsically immoral. Euthanasia and suicide are contrary to the intrinsic dignity of human persons."[92]

Obviously, this does not require that every medical procedure to extend life must be accepted. As the Supreme Court held in a unanimous decision upholding New York's prohibition on PAS, there is a significant difference between allowing someone to die of natural causes and killing him.[93]

The D.C. assisted suicide bill, like most, attempts to define which lives are unworthy of legal protection and thus eligible for physician assistance in killing. That definition is unavoidably a statement of who is unworthy of legal protection.There is no way around it. While the evidence discussed in the first section of this paper indicates that its proposed safeguards would fail to ensure effective control, even the attempt to define which lives are eligible for suicide is a grave injustice: It violates human dignity and equality before the law. It declares that some lives matter less than others.

Disability-rights groups are particularly concerned about the ways in which assisted suicide deprives disabled people of the law's equal protection. In 2009, for example, Not Dead Yet, ADAPT, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, the National Council on Independent Living, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association filed a joint amicus brief in the Montana court system in a case reviewing Montana's law on assisted suicide.

Diane Coleman, president of Not Dead Yet, summarized these arguments in an article for the Disability and Health Journal.[94] Coleman explains that the push for assisted suicide undermines the value of the lives of people with disabilities:

The primary underlying practical basis for the physician's determination that the individual is eligible for assisted suicide is the individual's disabilities and physical dependence on others for everyday needs, which is viewed as depriving them of what nondisabled people often associate with "autonomy" and "dignity," and may also lead them to feel like a "burden." This establishes grounds for physicians to treat these individuals completely differently than they would treat a physically able-bodied suicidal person.[95]

In addition to denying the intrinsic human dignity of the disabled, PAS laws violate the equal protection of the law. The law and government officials would treat suicidal disabled citizens differently from able-bodied citizens:

Not Dead Yet's central argument is that legalized assisted suicide sets up a double standard for how health care providers, government authorities, and others respond to an individual's stated wish to die. Some people get suicide prevention while others get suicide assistance, and the difference between the two groups is the health status of the individual.[96]

As the joint amicus brief notes, "Assisted suicide singles out some people with disabilities, those labeled 'terminal' or very severely impaired, for different treatment than other suicidal people receive."[97] Government policy should seek to respect the innate dignity of the disabled by eliminating every form of unjust discrimination against them, not by expressly approving the worst form of discrimination of all.

A "Right" to Physician-Assisted Suicide Is Incoherent, Grounded in Neither Nature Nor Reason. Not only does PAS violate human dignity and equality, but any supposed right to assisted suicide is incoherent, grounded neither in nature nor in reason.

Dr. Kass highlights the absurdity of a "right to die": "As the ultimate new right, grounded neither in nature nor in reason, it demonstrates the nihilistic implication of the new ('postliberal') doctrine of rights, rooted in the self-creating will." He later adds: "If we start at the beginning, with the great philosophical teachers of natural rights, the very notion of a right to die is nonsensical." This is partly because "the right to life is a matter of nature, not will."[98] Dr. Kass notes that:

We Americans hold as a self-evident truth that governments exist to secure inalienable rights, first of all, the right to self-preservation; now we are being encouraged to use government to secure a putative right of self-destruction. A "right to die" is surely strange and unprecedented, and hardly innocent.[99]

If there is a right to the pursuit of happiness, how could one argue that the pursuit of happiness could entail the elimination of the person with that right?[100]

The American Founders would agree with Professors Kass, Lee, and George. They distinguished liberty from license. Liberty, they rightly understood, is self-directed action in accord with the moral law; license is self-destructive action that debases one's community. The Founders would have little patience for an argument based on "autonomy" (what they would view as license) to commit PAS, especially as the legal allowance of such a practice would threaten other people's right to life. Dr. Kass highlights the absurdity in terms of the philosophy of Kant:

For Kant, autonomy, which literally means "self-legislation," requires acting in accordance with one's true self-that is, with one's rational will determined by a universalizable, that is, rational maxim. Being autonomous means not being a slave to instinct, impulse or whim, but rather doing as one ought, as a rational being. But "autonomy" has now come to mean "doing as you please," compatible no less with self-indulgence than with self-control.[101]

Any purported right to assisted suicide is both incoherent and impossible to specify. To highlight this incoherence and lack of specificity, John Finnis reflected on the phrase "right to die":

Where is the proposition specifying who has the right, to what acts, by which persons? Is it the right of terminally ill patients? (And what is terminal illness?) Or only of those who are suffering? (And what sort and degree of sufferings?) Or of all who are suffering whether or not their illness is terminal? Is it a right only to be assisted in killing oneself...? Or also that others be permitted (or perhaps under a duty) to kill me? (When I cannot do so myself? Or also when I choose?)[102]

In truth, the entire concept of a right to assisted suicide will be applied only to certain people whom government officials have classified as "eligible." Finnis explains:

Even when you fall seriously ill, or become clinically depressed, you will find (if the reformers [i.e., those proposing bills to allow assisted suicide] are to be believed) that your right to autonomy does not give you the right to be assisted in suicide unless you are ill enough or suffering enough, or depressed severally and incurably enough-in each case "enough" in the view of somebody else, other people.[103]

Rather than allow the government to decide whose life is unworthy of life, it is much better to have the government respect the intrinsic dignity of every human life and thus provide for the equal protection in law of all human beings. The alternative, as Finnis presents it, requires that we "allow some people to sit in judgment on the life of another human person, to judge that person's life worthless, and so to authorize themselves or others to carry out that person's request for death."[104]

If we empower such people to judge other people's lives as worthless, how long will it be until the choice for death under certain circumstances becomesan obligation-perhaps enforced by other people. Thus, an incoherent "right" to assisted suicide might very well result in a duty to have oneself euthanized.

The Legal System as a Whole Must Protect Rights. Physician-assisted suicide would transform our nation's legal system. A society that creates a right to assisted suicide will seriously compromise the natural right not to be killed. As Finnis has argued, "A whole new breed of lawyers and law teachers and judges will rapidly come into existence to give effect to the new régime."[105] With this new set of legal officials interpreting and enforcing new laws, society can expect to see more people have their right not to be killed violated.

Given the various ways in which PAS will change the practice of medicine, law, and the culture, Finnis asks "which legal framework will take ... rights most seriously." He answers:

[T]he secular, highly experienced, and sophisticated members of the Walton Committee [House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics, chaired by Lord Walton] and the New York Task Force judge that if euthanasia were legalized at all, the right not to be killed would be catastrophically nullified for very many more people than the few whose supposed right to die is compromised by present law.[106]

The right not to be killed cannot be protected effectively in a nation that allows physician-assisted suicide.

The Alternative: Respecting Human Dignity and Equality and Offering True Compassion

Physicians are always to care, never to kill. They are to eliminate illness and disease but never eliminate their patients. Not every medical means must be used. Patients can refuse or doctors can withhold particular treatments that are useless or causing more harm than good.[107] But in deciding that a treatment is useless, we must not decide that a patient is worthless. Doctors should not kill.

Mental Health and Palliative Care: True Compassionate Treatment. Instead of embracing PAS, we should respond to suffering with true compassion. Most people seeking PAS suffer from depression or other mental illnesses, physical illness, or simply loneliness. Dr. Kheriaty notes:

Suicidal individuals typically do not want to die; they want to escape what they perceive as intolerable suffering. When comfort or relief is offered, in the form of more-adequate treatment for depression, better pain management, or more-comprehensive palliative care, the desire for suicide wanes.[108]

Rather than helping suicidal people to kill themselves, we should offer them treatment and support. For those in physical pain, palliative care and other pain management can manage their symptoms effectively. For those for whom death is imminent, hospice care and fellowship to accompanying them in their last days is what a true death with dignity looks like. Victoria Reggie Kennedy has said it best:

My late husband Sen. Edward Kennedy called quality, affordable health care for all the cause of his life. [PAS] turns his vision of health care for all on its head by asking us to endorse patient suicide-not patient care-as our public policy for dealing with pain and the financial burdens of care at the end of life. We're better than that. We should expand palliative care, pain management, nursing care and hospice, not trade the dignity and life of a human being for the bottom line.[109]

Palliative care focuses on improving a patient's quality of life by alleviating pain and other distressing symptoms of a serious illness. Palliative care is an option for people of any age at any stage in illness, whether that illness is curable, chronic, or life threatening.

When a patient receives a terminal or life-altering diagnosis, the subsequent life changes are not limited to the medical challenges. Patients encounter the physical trauma of the medical diagnosis while also experiencing psychological difficulties, social changes, and even existential concerns. In Oregon Health Authority research, 91 percent of those who were assisted with suicide cited loss of autonomy as their motivation to end their lives, and 71 percent cited loss of dignity as their motivation. Only 31 percent cited inadequate pain control.[110] These needs require different forms of care. Palliative care seeks to take into consideration every facet of the patient's situation-with professionals who can attend to all aspects of the patient's needs.

The most common structure in which patients receive palliative care is in hospice. Hospice care can be provided in patients' homes, hospice centers, hospitals, long-term care facilities, or wherever a patient resides. By rejecting PAS and committing to palliative care and hospice care, we can better people's lives at the end of life. As Dr. Kass notes:

We must care for the dying, not make them dead. By accepting mortality yet knowing that we will not kill, doctors can focus on enhancing the lives of those who are dying, with relief of pain and discomfort, moral and social support, and, when appropriate, the removal of technical interventions that are merely useless or degrading additions to the burdens of dying.[111]

Regrettably, palliative care is not as widely available as it should be. The United States has only one palliative care physician for every 1,200 persons living with a serious or life-threatening illness. Even with the aging population, only 63 percent of hospitals report a palliative care program.[112]

In order to increase the availability and understanding of palliative care, medical schools should ensure that students are trained in managing pain and other common distressing symptoms and that they learn how to talk to patients about palliative options at the end of life. As Drs. Hendin and Foley note, when there is a lack of comprehensive support for patients with terminal or life-altering diagnosis, "the focus shifts away from relieving the distress of dying patients considering a hastened death to meeting the statutory requirements for assisted suicide."[113] This we must resist.

Always to Care, Never to Kill

Doctors should help their patients die a dignified natural death, but doctors should not assist in killing or self-killing. Physicians are always to care, never to kill.

Physician-assisted suicide endangers the weak and marginalized in society. Where PAS has been allowed, safeguards that were put in place to minimize this risk have proved inadequate and over time have been weakened or eliminated altogether.

Introducing PAS changes the culture in which medicine is practiced. It corrupts the profession of medicine by permitting the tools of healing to be used as techniques for killing. It also distorts the doctor-patient relationship by reducing patients' trust of doctors and doctors' undivided commitment to the healing of their patients. Physician-assisted suicide also creates perverse incentives for insurance providers and the financing of health care.

Worse yet, PAS negatively affects our entire culture. The temptation to view elderly or disabled family members as burdens will increase, as will the temptation for elderly and disabled family members to view themselves as burdens. Instead of solidarity through civil society and true compassion, PAS creates quick-fix, discriminatory, and lethal solutions.

The most profound injustice of PAS is that it violates human dignity and denies equality before the law. Every human being has intrinsic dignity and is the subject of immeasurable worth. No natural right to PAS exists, and arguments for such a right are incoherent. A legal system that sought to vindicate a right to assisted suicide would jeopardize the real natural right to life for all of its citizens.

For all of these reasons, citizens and policymakers need to resist the push for physician-assisted suicide.
-Ryan T. Anderson, PhD, is William E. Simon Fellow in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center, of the Institute for Family, Community, and Opportunity, at The Heritage Foundation.

Show References

Authors

Ryan Anderson

Read Full Report

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Always Care, Never Kill: How Physician-Assisted Suicide Endangers the Weak, Corrupts Medicine, Compromises the Family, and Violates Human Dignity and Equality

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Hippocratic Oath proclaims: "I will keep [the sick] from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect."[1] This is an essential precept for a flourishing civil society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Physician-assisted suicide is legal in ten US states and the District of Columbia. It is an option given to individuals by law in Colorado, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. It is an option given to individuals in Montana and California via court decision. Individuals must have a terminal illness as well as a prognosis of six months or less to live. Physicians cannot be prosecuted for prescribing medications to hasten death.

Mandated by State Law

Mandated by Court Ruling

Other Facts

The specific method in each state varies, but mainly involves a prescription from a licensed physician approved by the state in which the patient is a resident.

Many proponents of the practice now refer to the term as Physician-assisted death (PAD) and no longer include the word "suicide" when describing the act.

Physician-assisted suicide differs from euthanasia, which is defined as the act of assisting people with their death in order to end their suffering, but without the backing of a controlling legal authority.

Statistics

The process of reporting applications and deaths varies by state.

California - According to the state's 2020 Department of Public Health annual report, 2,858 individuals received prescriptions, and 1,816 people died after ingestion of the dispensed medication between June 9, 2016, and December 31, 2020.

Colorado - The state Department of Public Health and Environment reported that in 2021, 222 prescriptions for aid-in-dying medication were written by physicians for patients, and in 156 of those, the medication was dispensed by a pharmacy.

Oregon - Has had a physician-assisted suicide law on the books since 1997. Since its enactment, there has been a steady increase in both prescription recipients and the number of deaths. According to the 2021 Data Summary, as of January 22, 2022, prescriptions have been written for 3,280 people, and 2,159 patients have died from ingesting the drugs.

Vermont - A January 2021 report from the Department of Health indicated there were 21 total prescriptions filled under the law, and 17 of those patients utilized the patient choice prescription before their death.

Washington - According to the 2020 annual report, since 2009 prescriptions have been written for 2,008 people, and there have been 1,874 reported deaths after ingestion of the medication.

Timeline

June 1997 - The US Supreme Court rules that state laws banning physician-assisted suicide do not violate the Constitution in the case Washington v. Glucksberg. The court left the matter of the constitutionality of a right to a physician's aid in dying to the states.

October 27, 1997 - Oregon's Death with Dignity Act becomes law. Passed in a 1994 election with 51% of voters in favor, the law was delayed initially because US District Judge Michael Hogan issued an injunction and then ruled it unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling, and the injunction was lifted when the US Supreme Court referred the matter back to the state in 1997.

November 1998 - American pathologist and assisted suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian, known as "Dr. Death," videotapes the death of Thomas Youk, submits it to CBS's 60 Minutes and it is broadcast on television. The airing prompts murder charges against Kevorkian, rather than assisted suicide charges, because Kevorkian injected the drug into Youk, who had Lou Gehrig's disease.

March 26, 1999 - Kevorkian is convicted of second-degree murder and delivery of a controlled substance. He serves eight years of a 10 to 25-year sentence.

November 4, 2008 - Washington's initiative, the Death with Dignity Act, is passed with 57.91% of voters in favor.

March 5, 2009 - The Washington Death with Dignity Act goes into effect.

December 31, 2009 - A Montana Supreme Court ruling in the case Baxter v. Montana asserts that the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act protects a physician who prescribes aid from liability.

May 20, 2013 - Vermont signs the Patient Choice and Control at End-of-Life Act into law.

January 13, 2014 -New Mexico Second Judicial District Judge Nan Nash rules in favor of an individual's right to die in the case Morris v. Brandenberg. In appeal by the Office of the New Mexico Attorney General, the case is assigned to the New Mexico Court of Appeals/Supreme Court. The ruling remains in effect but only for Bernalillo County, according to the attorney general's office.

November 1, 2014 - Brittany Maynard, a 29-year-old with terminal brain cancer, ends her life under Oregon's "Death with Dignity Act." She had moved to Oregon following her January 1, 2014, prognosis in order to take advantage of the Death with Dignity law. There is no such law in her native California. She garnered a large following advocating for physician-assisted suicide laws via social media.

October 5, 2015 - California Governor Jerry Brown signs into law the End of Life Option Act, which legalizes physician-assisted suicide for Californians with terminal illnesses. In a letter to members of the California State Assembly, Brown wrote that he thought about his own death while considering whether to sign the bill. "I do not know what I would do if I were dying in prolonged and excruciating pain. I am certain, however, that it would be a comfort to be able to consider the options afforded by this bill."

March 10, 2016 - The California legislature adjourns a special session, paving the way for the End of Life Option Act to take effect on June 9.

November 8, 2016 - Colorado voters approve Proposition 106, which includes the Colorado End of Life Options Act. It takes effect on December 16, 2016.

December 19, 2016 - The District of Columbia signs the Death with Dignity Act into law. The Act goes into effect February 18, 2017.

April 5, 2018 - Hawaii's "Our Care, Our Choice Act" is signed into law. The Act goes into effect January 1, 2019.

May 15, 2018 - California's Riverside County Superior Court Judge Daniel Ottolia overturns the 2016 state law that allows doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to terminally ill adult patients. In his tentative oral ruling, he says it is unconstitutional because the Legislature passed it during a special session convened by Gov. Jerry Brown to address health care-related issues. The state attorney general has five days to file an emergency writ, a type of appeal, to seek a stay and keep the law in place.

May 15, 2018 - Judge Ottolia issues an oral ruling in favor of the plaintiffs and ends physician-assisted suicide in the state of California. A motion to vacate the judgment is rejected. Five days later, Ottolia issues his written opinion. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra requests an immediate stay and appeals to the state's Court of Appeals. In June, the judgment ending physician-assisted suicide is stayed by the appellate court, making it legal in California again, pending further litigation.

February 27, 2019 - The California Supreme Court affirms the stay issued by the state's Court of Appeals, making the option of aid in dying legal for terminally ill adults who meet certain qualifications.

April 12, 2019 - New Jersey Gov Phil Murphy signs the Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act into law. It will allow adults with a prognosis of six months or less to live to get a prescription for life-ending medication. The law requires either a psychiatrist or psychologist must determine that the patient has the mental capacity to make the decision. The law goes into effect on August 1.

June 12, 2019 - Maine Gov. Janet Mills signs the Death with Dignity Act into law. The legislation says mentally competent patients over age 18 with terminal diseases that, "within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within 6 months" can request life-ending medication. It requires those patients to make two verbal and one written request for the medication with waiting periods between the requests and receiving the prescription for lethal medication.

April 8, 2021 - New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signs the Elizabeth Whitefield End-of-Life Options Act, allowing terminally ill adults with a prognosis of six months or less to live to ask physicians for lethal medication. The patient must take the lethal medication themselves. The law goes into effect on June 18.

April 27, 2022 - Governor Phil Scott of Vermont signs a bill modifying the state law and increasing patient access to end of life prescriptions by use of telemedicine.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Physician-Assisted Suicide Fast Facts | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Physician-assisted suicide is legal in ten US states and the District of Columbia. It is an option given to individuals by law in Colorado, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. It is an option given to individuals in Montana and California via court decision.

# data[].attributes.body
Should the federal government create one uniform death penalty law for the entire nation or should individual stated be able to decide those laws for themselves? (Is it right to commit a crime in one state and get the death penalty but not another?)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abortion Policies in {{ selectedState.state }}

{{ selectedState.environment_type }}

States have constructed a web of abortion laws and regulations that restrict or support whether, when and under what circumstances providers can offer abortion care and a pregnant individual can obtain an abortion. While a state's abortion policies affect all people seeking care, they are particularly significant for individuals who find it difficult or outright impossible to access care when forced to navigate around abortion bans and restrictions. This includes people already facing barriers due to factors like their race, income, age or gender identity.

Abortion policies currently in effect in {{ selectedState.state }} include the following:

People Who May Need an Abortion

Affordable and accessible abortion care is a right that exists only on paper for many people who are already marginalized and oppressed by structural inequities, including people with low incomes, Black and Brown communities and other people of color, young people, and those who are uninsured or are prohibited from using their insurance for abortion care.

Please note: Anyone who can get pregnant may need an abortion, including people who do not identify as women. We use "women of reproductive age" when describing the potential pool of abortion patients in order to reflect the terminology of our data sources. Only a fraction of the women of reproductive age in any state will need an abortion in any given year.

{{ selectedState.state }} has {{ selectedState.wora_in_state_15_49 }} women of reproductive age (15-49)

{{ selectedState.residents_in_state_born_outside_us }}% of women aged 15-49 in {{ selectedState.state }} were born outside the United States

{{ selectedState.income_level_below_fpl }}% of women aged 15-49 in {{ selectedState.state }} have incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level

Type of insurance coverage for women aged 15-49 in {{ selectedState.state }}

Age distribution of women of reproductive age in {{ selectedState.state }}

Abortion Facts in {{ selectedState.state }}

Key data points like the number of abortions obtained in a state and the distance patients have to travel to reach the nearest abortion provider can offer important context for each state. It is important to note that abortion data often take several years to become available and may not reflect recent changes. This is especially true in any state that has recently enacted restrictions on abortion or has seen a recent increase in patients traveling from states with restrictions or bans.

{{ selectedState.abortions_obtained_in_2017 }} abortions were obtained in {{ selectedState.state }} in 2020

{{ selectedState.abortions_per_1000_women_aged_15_44_in_2017 }} Abortions
per 1,000 Women aged 15-44 in {{ selectedState.state }} in 2020

{{ selectedState.clinics_provided_abortion_in_2017 }} Clinics {{ selectedState.clinics_provided_abortion_in_2017 }} Clinic provided abortion
care in {{ selectedState.state }} in 2017

{{ selectedState.counties_without_abortion_provider_in_2017 }}% of {{ selectedState.state }} counties did not have an abortion provider in 2017

{{ selectedState.residents_in_counties_without_an_abortion_provider_in_2017 }}% of women aged 15-44 in {{ selectedState.state }} lived in a county without an abortion provider in 2017

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Interactive Map: US Abortion Policies and Access After Roe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The abortion landscape is fragmented and increasingly polarized. Many states have abortion restrictions or bans in place that make it difficult, if not impossible, for people to get care. Other states have taken steps to protect abortion rights and access.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Geography and Race Influence the Death Penalty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Are individuals sentenced to death truly the “worst of the worst” – or simply those with the worst lawyers, the wrong geographic location, or the wrong skin color?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sentenced To Death Because Of Where You Live: The Death Penalty’s Geographic Bias | ACLU

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ACLU dares to create a more perfect union — beyond one person, party, or side. Our mission is to realize this promise of the United States Constitution for all and expand the reach of its guarantees.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Geography Determines Death Sentences | American Civil Liberties Union

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most people are shocked to find that whether the death penalty is imposed is determined more by where the crime was committed and the capital trial took place than the facts of the actual case. In 1976 the Supreme Court found capital punishment to be constitutional with the qualification that it be fairly and consistently administered.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should environmental policy be determined by the federal government or state governments?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should environmental policy be determined by the federal government or state governments?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Capital Punishment | Center for the Study of Federalism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The United States occupies an unusual position with respect to the death penalty. In its early history, the United States was at the forefront of death penalty reform. Almost immediately…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Laws Relating to the Death Penalty

Constitution * Congress * Executive * Federal Courts * State Governments

Introduction

Most of the discussion we hear about the death penalty concerns practices by state governments. States traditionally are responsible for policing and crime/prosecution, and most criminal trials are held in state courts.

The federal government has the death penalty too - for federal offenses. It has been used much less frequently. In fact, under Obama, the federal government placed the federal death penalty on hold (a formal moratorium on executions) to do a review of the practice. The review was spurred by a highly publicized failed execution in Oklahoma, where the prisoner regained consciousness and exhibited signs of pain during the execution.

The federal death penalty has gained public attention recently as President Trump's Justice Department declared on July 25, 2019 that the U.S. government will resume executions.

Most cases that make their way to the federal court system, however, are state death penalty cases. The Constitution places limits on states' criminal punishment processes (Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments), so many cases are constitutional challenges by individuals to state death penalty practices. In the October 2018 term, for example, the Supreme Court evaluated an inmate's challenge to a state's execution method (Bucklew v. Precythe) and an inmate's challenge to his state execution based on his mental state (Madison v. Alabama). In the upcoming term, the Supreme Court will evaluate the state of Kansas's approach (or lack thereof) to allowing an insanity defense in a death penalty case (Kahler v. Kansas).

Legal Landscape
What laws relate to the death penalty in the United States?

The Constitution
The Federal vs. State Death Penalty
The Legislative Powers part of the Constitution ( Article I) gives Congress the power to make laws relating to certain "federal" issues, or issues of national concern. Those powers are listed/enumerated in Article 1 (at Section 8) (and called the " Enumerated Powers"). The end of the list says that Congress, in addition, has the power to make any laws "necessary and proper" to carry out the rest of the laws (the " Necessary and Proper Clause ").

Because of the clauses above, the death penalty on the federal level is imposed in relation to crimes that are inherently federal. The Enumerated Powers include, for example (a nonexhaustive list):

crimes "committed on the high seas,"

"organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia" and

(the most expansive) regulating commerce with foreign nations, between the states and with Indian nations

The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution says that the States have all powers not specifically granted to the federal government. This is the concept of "Federalism." Federalism is code for states' autonomy (on all issues not-federal).

General powers of crime and punishment traditionally are state powers. This is most of what we think of as criminal law. Because police power is traditionally "local" or state-controlled, most often the death penalty is imposed by a state government. States must abide by the protections of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, when they carry out the death penalty.
Protections in the Bill of Rights:
The Eighth Amendment protects individuals against "cruel and unusual punishment." This applies to both the federal government and to state governments. Many individuals have challenged the death penalty using the 8th Amendment. See cases in the Judicial section.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees that a defendant has the right to have a jury decide the facts of the case instead of the judge. Ring v. Arizona is a Supreme Court case that applied this to the death sentence (see Judicial section).

The Fourteenth Amendment includes a right to Procedural Due Process. Procedural due process ensures fairness in the process by which someone's life, liberty or property rights may be taken away. It includes, for example, the right to a fair trial and the right to confront witnesses against you. In regards to the death penalty, due process concerns sometimes are considered under the 8th Amendment or the 6th Amendment.

Congress

The federal government conducts many fewer executions than the state governments. Since 1977, there have been 37 federal executions and 1453 by the states (reported by the Death Penalty Information Center).

We outline here the laws of the early federal death penalty and of the the modern federal death penalty.
The Early Federal Death Penalty:
The Crimes Act of 1790 was the first law allowing for the federal death penalty. Federal crimes that received the death penalty were treason, counterfeiting federal records, murder, disfigurement and robbery in federal jurisdictions or on the high seas.

In 1897, " An Act To reduce the cases in which the penalty of death may be inflicted " was passed. It narrowed the number of federal crimes that could qualify for the death penalty and also made a death sentence an option for juries rather than required. With this Act, the federal death penalty occurred much less frequently.
Expanded Federal Law Enforcement
Throughout the 20th century, social perception of the death penalty rose and fell. While some states abolished the death penalty, the federal government began inserting itself more into federal law enforcement. The goal (sometimes a political one) was to be tough on organized crime.
Conflict with States on Place of Execution
When the states started abolishing the death penalty and the federal government continued, a practical difficulty arose. If a person is sentenced to death for a federal crime in a state that does not conduct executions, where should the execution take place?

In the 1930s, the federal government, led by an Attorney General with a tough-on-crime political agenda executed someone for a federal crime in Michigan. Michigan was the first state that abolished the death penalty. Holding the execution in the state caused controversy. Today, there is a law directing that for federal law executions tried in a state without the death penalty, the judge should identify an executing state to impose the punishment. However the practice of trying someone with a potential death sentence in a state without the death penalty is still controversial because the federal government is essentially bypassing state law. See the discussion about Attorneys General in the Executive section.
Temporary Halt of Executions
Societal opposition to the death penalty reached a high in the 1960s. Activists led by the NAACP brought a series of legal challenges to the death penalty, which jammed up the courts and caused delays. The federal government conducted its last execution of the 20th century in 1963. In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty, as it was applied in Georgia, was unconstitutional, but the Court did not explain exactly why. The decision left the death sentence unclear around the nation. See Furman v. Georgia (Judicial section). The federal government did not enact a law to reengage the death penalty until 1988.
The Modern Day Federal Death Penalty:
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, the first death penalty law after years of nonuse, established the death penalty for intentional killing related to a "continuing criminal enterprise" or a major drug felony. The Act was passed during the "War on Drugs" and the process pronounced was intended to address the ruling in Furman v. Georgia (see Judicial section).

The Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994 established additional categories for which the death penalty can be imposed. These crimes fall into three categories: (1) homicide offenses; (2) espionage and treason; and (3) non-homicidal narcotics offenses. The Act also created procedures for carrying out the federal death penalty. This Act was part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 validated the death penalty for a U.S. citizen found guilty of using a weapon of mass destruction. It also reformed (majorly limited) the process by which a citizen could appeal to a federal court on grounds that the state court had treated his case unfairly. This appeal, called habeas corpus, is used as a last resort for individuals on death row and has found serious errors in state capital cases.

The USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 established new procedures for the death penalty for individuals convicted of terrorism.

For a complete list of federal offenses that qualify for the death penalty, see the Death Penalty Information Center.

The President and Executive Agencies

The Department of Justice plays an important role in death penalty enforcement. That's because attorneys in the DOJ represent the government against people accused of crimes. If a federal law allows for the death penalty (see Legislative section), the DOJ decides whether it will ask for the death penalty in a specific case.

The Attorney General, the head of the Department of Justice, leads the federal government in deciding the process determining when the death penalty will be sought and how aggressively.
Attorney General Janet Reno
In 1995, to address the new activity of the federal death penalty that had come with the Federal Death Penalty Act, then-Attorney General Janet Reno issued procedures for the Department of Justice to follow when seeking the death penalty:

The Death Penalty Protocol is a set of rules that the government follows in determining whether or not to seek the death penalty in a particular case. As first issued by AG Janet Reno, all cases in which a U.S Attorney decided to seek the death penalty would have to be approved by the Attorney General and a proper evaluation of the case would need to take place. As mentioned in the Legislative section, the federal death penalty could cause controversy if sought in a non-death penalty state. The Protocol under Janet Reno acknowledged the difference of states' laws and ended up seeking the death penalty less often in states that had abolished the death penalty. The Protocol also permitted a plea deal to act as a work-around for a U.S. Attorney to avoid seeking the death penalty.

Attorney General John Ashcroft, a death penalty proponent who stepped in with George W. Bush in 2001, altered the Death Penalty Protocol to encourage its use. He places restrictions on plea deals that allowed U.S. Attorneys to get away from seeking the death penalty.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, also appointed by George W. Bush, made clear that the federal death penalty was to be applied with consistency around the nation. This again made it more difficult to avoid the federal government seeking the death penalty even in a state that had abolished it.

Attorney General Eric Holder, appointed by Barack Obama, was personally opposed to the death penalty. He questioned and ordered a review of its use, but he also approved federal prosecution of the death penalty in several cases. In 2015, Holder ordered a nationwide halt on the death penalty after an error of an execution in Oklahoma. He placed executions on hold until the Supreme Court could review the practice. The Court affirmed it (see Glossip v. Gross in the Judicial section).

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, appointed by Donald Trump (and then replaced), is an outspoken supporter of the death penalty. Here is an article critical of his actions seeking the death penalty as Alabama's attorney general.

Attorney General William Barr, who replaced Jeff Sessions under Trump, also supports the death penalty. On July 25, 2019, Barr formally declared an end to the hold on federal executions. The same press release stated the U.S. will use the drug pentobarbital to conduct the executions. The drug caused several botched executions in the past, and the government will likely face lawsuits challenging its use.

Current Federal Death Penalty Protocol. You can read the current rules here.

See this article by Tirschwell and Hertzberg for an account of the federal death penalty, which was instructive in creating this report.

Federal Courts
Background on Death Penalty in the Supreme Court:
In Weems v. U.S. (1910), the Supreme Court ruled that the protection against cruel and unusual punishment means that "punishment for [a] crime should be graduated and proportioned to [the] offense." The case was not a death penalty case, but it set out the proportionality rule.

In Furman v. Georgia (1972), the Supreme Court ruled the death sentence, given arbitrarily (without rational standards to determine when it should be imposed), violates the 8th Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Five of the Justices making up the majority believed that Furman's case was one of those arbitrary/unjust ones, but they did not agree on exactly why. The justices wrote several concurrences and dissents. In Furman, a man committed murder during a robbery when he tripped and his gun went off, killing the victim. After Furman, states widely rethought and redefined their death penalty statutes. It was not until 1976, the next set of cases that the Supreme Court clarified the constitutionality of the death penalty.

In 1976, the Supreme Court decided the " Death Penalty Cases ":

After Furman, considering these cases together, the Court ruled to guide states as to what the constitution would permit in regards to the death penalty. It declared that the nation still supports the death penalty as a method of punishment, both for retributive purposes (to get back at someone who commits a most grievous affront to humanity) and for deterrent ones (concluding someone may consider the death penalty before committing a calculated murder although no empirical study showed this). The Court set rules on the trial decision process necessary to conclude in a sentence of death. State laws defining how a case may result in a death sentence must include a several-step process that adequately narrows an individual first into an offense eligible for consideration of the death penalty, and then into the type of person especially deserving of the worst type of punishment (some states use "aggravating factors" for this latter analysis).
More Recent Cases Setting Boundaries on the Death Penalty: Death Penalty not Allowed for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities:
In Atkins v. Virginia (2002), the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty is not valid for an individual with an intellectual disability. The Court acknowledged a lessened culpability for those individuals and said the standards of decency do not justify the penalty of death in such a case. The Court said that determining the proportionality of the punishment should be considered by the standards of today instead of the standards of when the 8th Amendment was enacted. Several later cases have considered how to determine whether someone has an intellectual disability that can qualify for this defense.
Death Penalty not Allowed for Juveniles:
In Roper v. Simmons (2005), the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty is not valid for juveniles. It violates the 8th Amendment because sentencing a juvenile to death was out of line with national standards of decency. The Court pointed to the number of states that disallowed it (30 at the time).
Death Penalty not Allowed for Rape Alone:
In Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008), the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty is not valid for an individual convicted of raping of a child where death was not caused and death was not the intended result. It violates the 8th Amendment because the sentence was not proportional to the crime. This decision means that a death sentence cannot be imposed on someone who did not commit murder.
Death Penalty Without Intending Murder Allowed if Involved in a Felony:
In Tison v. Arizona (1987), the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty may be imposed for someone involved with a felony (present and aiding in the course of a felony) in which a murder occurred, regardless of whether that person caused or intended to cause the murder, as long as the person was substantially involved with the felony and exhibited a reckless disregard for human life. This rule is very controversial.
Jury Must Decide the Facts to Determine a Death Sentence:
In Ring v. Arizona (2002), the Supreme Court ruled a jury must decide on the facts, rather than a judge, to determine the imposition of the death penalty. Arizona argued that the judge should be able to decide "aggravating factors" to push the penalty to death, after a jury has decided the capital offence. But the Court disagreed. The right to have a jury decide such important facts is a guarantee of the 6th Amendment.
Manner of Execution: Some Risk of Pain is Allowed.
In Baze v. Rees (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that lethal injection is permissible and does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The 8th Amendment bans punishments of torture, including "deliberate infliction of pain for the sake of pain." This case challenged a lethal injection method of a three-drug process because administering the drugs has a potential for error and consequently the potential for pain. The Court ruled a method of execution is unconstitutional only if it has a "substantial risk of serious harm" or an "objectively intolerable risk of serious harm." In short, the state must avoid unnecessary cruelty by trying to avoid pain and trying to ensure the process is quick but it does not need to adopt any proposed alternatives unless an alternative is tested (proven by study) to be equally effective and without its own concerns.

In Glossip v. Gross (2015), the Supreme Court affirmed a three-drug lethal injection process similar to the one in Baze above. The Court reasoned that because the death penalty is constitutional, "there must be a constitutional means of carrying it out." It restated that some risk of pain is inherent in imposing a death sentence and the lethal injection method prevalent in many states today is the states' best efforts at imposing a quick and painless death. The dissent by Justice Breyer suggested the Court revisit the issue of whether the death penalty is constitutional.

The Glossip opinion starts with a history of the methods of execution. For those interested in reading it, skim past the first four pages (the "Syllabus" which is the summary).

State Governments

States define their own categories of crimes. In all states, murder has varying degrees, ranging from unintentional to intentional and horrific. The most severe kinds of murder are those for which the state may, within the limits of the U.S. Constitution, seek a death penalty.

Some states have banned the death penalty through their own State Constitutions. Michigan, the first state to abolish the death penalty, actually specifically stated so in its Constitution, while in other states, the courts ruled the death penalty violates the state's constitution.

Some states have banned the death penalty by legislative acts.

Some states still use the death penalty.

See here to get state-by-state information (from the Death Penalty Information Center). Click around on this site, which has a lot of information about the death penalty.

The 31 states allowing the death penalty must follow Constitutional requirements. So any state laws (definitions of murder allowing the death penalty or procedures related to the death penalty) must not violate the limitations discussed in the Judicial section.

You can see a map of death penalty states here, along with state-specific information about methods of execution and recent laws relating to the death penalty (from the National Conference of State Legislatures).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Death Penalty in the United States | Subscript Law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Laws Relating to the Death Penalty Constitution * Congress * Executive * Federal Courts * State Governments Introduction Most of the discussion we hear about the death penalty concerns practices by state governments. States traditionally are responsible for policing and crime/prosecution, and mo ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CASE PREVIEW

The Supreme Court doesn't care all that much for method-of-execution challenges. It particularly disfavors Eighth Amendment litigation attacking familiar lethal injection protocols as "cruel and unusual" punishment. In the past 20 years, the court has announced substantive constitutional law, pleading requirements, and timeliness rules that make it harder to win such arguments. Nance v. Ward (to be argued on Monday) is about the procedural vehicle that prisoners must use to challenge execution methods. The case is important because Georgia's preferred rule would quite substantially curtail judicial remedies for unlawful executions. After filing a brief in support of the prisoner (Michael Nance), the United States sought and was granted time at oral argument.

Nance committed a murder after a botched bank robbery, and he was sentenced to death in 1997. His lengthy post-conviction litigation included a new sentencing proceeding in 2002 and, crucially, an earlier round of federal habeas corpus litigation. Nance eventually challenged Georgia's lethal injection protocol, which uses a single drug (pentobarbital). He alleges that his veins cannot support intra-venous access, and that any attempt to administer the pentobarbital will cause his veins to lose their structural integrity and "blow." If the veins blow, Nance alleges, then the pentobarbital will leak into his bloodstream, compromise anesthesia, and cause him to experience death as burning and suffocation.

Nance (and the United States) contend that he can challenge the execution protocol under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the iconic civil rights statute permitting plaintiffs (including prisoners) to sue state officers for infringing constitutional rights. Georgia, by contrast, argues that Nance must bring the Eighth Amendment claim under the federal habeas statutes. Heck v. Humphrey sets forth the famous rule requiring that certain claims otherwise litigable under Section 1983 be brought in habeas petitions. A challenge to confinement is " Heck-barred" - and must be presented in a habeas petition - if relief would result in discharge or shortened detention, or if it necessarily invalidates a conviction or sentence. Nance is about whether a claimant's attack on an execution protocol is Heck-barred because relief would invalidate his death sentence.

The logic of the Heck bar is straightforward. There are stringent limits on federal habeas relief for convicted state prisoners, and those limits prioritize interests in finality and federalism. Those limits wouldn't do much good if a prisoner could simply use another, less-restricted vehicle to raise a constitutional challenge to a conviction or sentence. The Heck bar therefore prevents state prisoners from using Section 1983 to skirt the habeas restrictions. If a state prisoner makes a claim that necessarily implies that the conviction or sentence is invalid, then the prisoner is limited to habeas remedies. Georgia argues that Nance's lethal injection challenge is Heck-barred, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit took that position below - "reconstruing" Nance's Section 1983 complaint as a habeas petition.

Since at least Nelson v. Campbell in 2004 and Hill v. McDonough in 2006, Section 1983 has been the recognized vehicle for method-of-execution claims. So how is Nance's claim different? Nance sits at a new decisional intersection of pleading requirements and the Heck bar. In 2019, Bucklew v. Precythe announced that death-sentenced prisoners who challenge execution methods under the Eighth Amendment must always indicate a "feasible and readily implemented alternative method." But that alternative need not be an execution method authorized under a state's current law. Bucklew observed that a contrary rule requiring state prisoners to plead only presently authorized alternatives would unwisely permit the Eighth Amendment inquiry to be "controlled by the State's choice of which methods to authorize in its statutes."

Because Eighth Amendment claimants must now plead alternative execution methods, and because those methods will often be outside the scope of existing authorization, Bucklew's requirement put pressure on its Heck jurisprudence. Specifically, the court has expressly referenced the possibility that habeas might be the appropriate vehicle for method-of-execution claims when "present law" does not authorize a claimant's preferred execution method. Georgia argues that Nance's claim implies the invalidity of the sentence, and activates the Heck bar, because he seeks to be executed using a firing squad - which is authorized in several states but not in Georgia.

Georgia is urging the court to Heck-bar such challenges, which would require Eighth Amendment claimants indicating a presently unauthorized alternative to rely on habeas litigation. Georgia argues that, were a court to find the state's lethal injection protocol unconstitutional under such circumstances, the constitutional determination necessarily invalidates the death sentence. Nance and the United States respond that Nance's Eighth Amendment claim has no bearing on the validity of the death sentence at all - at least in the sense contemplated by Heck. There is no resentencing, the death sentence remains valid, and Georgia would simply need to comply with an injunction in order to implement it. Nance and the United States analogize any responsive authorization that follows a successful lethal injection challenge to responsive appropriations that would follow a successful Section 1983 claim for improved health care. In neither case, Nance and the United States insist, does the need to implement responsive statutory changes invalidate the criminal sentence. Georgia counters by distinguishing the two: The Section 1983 claim for medical care would not result in release from prison, but the Section 1983 claim against the death protocol would result in "release[,] ... at least for a time," from execution.

The change in procedural treatment - that is, forcing most method-of-execution litigation into federal habeas postures - would throttle judicial enforcement of the Eighth Amendment right. If state prisoners must bring their method-of-execution challenges in habeas petitions, then they must run a gauntlet of modern statutory restrictions on habeas relief: relitigation bars, statutes of limitations, exhaustion rules, limits on new evidence, and so forth. These procedural obstacles are especially perilous for prisoners challenging execution protocols, because method-of-execution claims do not ripen until the end of the capital punishment sequence. Prisoners who are executed are now killed, on average, roughly 20 years after their death sentences are announced. But these claimants cannot lodge their method-of-execution challenges until they have a realistic idea of what the planned protocols are. (Imagine a state prisoner basing a method-of-execution claim on a guess about what a state's protocol would look like 20 years later!) It is theoretically possible that a state prisoner could overcome all the habeas obstacles and obtain relief on a meritorious challenge to an execution method, although the practical feasibility of such a litigation strategy is small. But Georgia argues that claimants can still bring their Eighth Amendment claims in their initial habeas petitions, so the courthouse doors remain "wide open."

The parties also disagree about the administrability of Georgia's preferred rule. Per Georgia, method-of-execution claims indicating a presently authorized alternative should get Section 1983 treatment, and claims indicating a presently unauthorized alternative should be in habeas petitions. Nance and the United States argue that such a dual-track system would bog down when litigants shuttle across state and federal judiciaries in order to fight about, among other things, whether the indicated alternative is authorized. Georgia downplays the possibility of such disputes, and also argues that the court's real policy concern should be the potential gamesmanship invited by the rule that Nance and the federal government prefer.

If the Supreme Court concludes that Nance's challenge must be analyzed as a habeas claim, then it must answer the second question presented: whether that claim should be subject to the near-categorical prohibition on "successive" habeas litigation. The pertinent habeas provision ( 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)) prohibits consideration of successive petitions, with extremely thin exceptions for new rules of substantive constitutional law and overwhelming evidence of innocence. (Neither exception matters in most method-of-execution litigation.) But not all second-in-time petitions are classified as successive. So Nance presents a question about whether a second-in-time petition containing a method-of-execution challenge should be classified as "successive" within the meaning of Section 2244(b)(2). Georgia says it should, and Nance says it shouldn't. (The United States takes no position on the second issue.)

The most important precedent on this question is Panetti v. Quarterman, which took a functionalist approach to "successiveness." Panetti involved a so-called "," which is an allegation that a prisoner is not competent to be executed. Because Ford claims involve a prisoner's mental fitness at the moment of execution, they can't be raised until the timing of an execution is ascertainable. Panetti therefore held that a Ford claim is not successive within the meaning of Section 2244(b)(2), even though such claims formally appear in a second-in-time petitions. The second question in Nance is whether the court is going to treat Panetti as a rule for Ford claims only, or as a slightly broader rule for other claims that remain unripe at the moment the prisoner files their initial federal petition.

Nance is ultimately a case about how aggressively the Supreme Court wants to suppress method-of-execution claims, which it generally views as legalistic ploys to delay imposition of valid death sentences. If it adopts Georgia's preferred rule, then it will meaningfully alter the form and timing of Eighth Amendment challenges, and it will substantially reduce judicial enforcement against the states. The court's general disposition towards method-of-execution claims notwithstanding, the court agreed to review a lower court decision against a prisoner - which raises the very real prospect that Nance might be a case in which the court is actually prepared to rule in the prisoner's favor.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Justices will clarify how death-row prisoners can contest a state's method of execution - SCOTUSblog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Supreme Court doesn't care all that much for method-of-execution challenges. It particularly disfavors Eighth Amendment litigation attacking familiar lethal injection protocols as "cruel and unusual" punishment. In the past 20 years, the court has announced substantive constitutional law, pleadi

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Capital punishment is currently authorized in 31 states, by the federal government and the U.S. military. In recent years several states have abolished the death penalty, replacing it with a sentence of life imprisonment with no possibility for parole.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Last week, the Supreme Court of the United States decided in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that "the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe (v. Wade) and (Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v.) Casey are overturned; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives." Since this decision, 13 states that had legislated bans, which were set to go into effect if Roe were struck down, will prohibit abortion within 30 days.

VCU News spoke to four experts about the impact this decision could have in the U.S. and what this change in access to reproductive health care will mean for those it affects.

Deirdre Condit, Ph.D.

Condit, an associate professor of political science at the VCU College of Humanities and Sciences, conducts research in feminist political theory on women and politics, the politics of reproductive and genetic technologies, maternal political theory and sex and gender identity. She has spoken on the History of American Reproductive Law in an installment of C-SPAN3's "American History TV."
From the founding of the nation, women's status as citizens within the democracy has been unclear. As Elizabeth Cady Stanton's Declaration of Sentiments issued at Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848 noted, women at the founding lived within a democracy, were subjects of the democracy, but had no purchase on governance within that democracy. As the dissent in Dobbs underscores, since then, women have had to claw their way to have secure constitutional inclusion for even the most minimal of rights, including citizenship, within the constitutional framework.
Brubaker, a professor of criminal justice and public policy and administration and director of VCU's certificate in gender violence intervention at the Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs, studies sexual and domestic violence, gender violence and reproductive and sexual health in connection with criminal justice and public policy.
Despite the court's rather disingenuous attempt at isolating the Dobbs decision from the myriad of cases that clearly are implicated in this decision, the impact of this case will be catastrophic across our democracy, generally, but for women, in particular. The court overtly ignores the fact that its decision immediately wrought enormous trauma to women's lives all across the country; women in states with trigger laws are suddenly rendered politically powerless to take care of their own health. Second, health care providers across the country are now scrambling to understand whether and how to treat women with life-endangering health care situations. And finally, the long-term implications for understanding the status of women as citizens in the democracy in which they live has now been undermined.

The court argues that the word "abortion" does not exist in the Constitution, but then, neither do the words "fetus" or "fetal life" or "potential human life." Rather, the 14th Amendment explicitly identifies "persons born" as the measure of human rights-bearing status. The court's argument dispenses with the idea that women have liberty interests in their own body but empowers states to elevate the personhood of fetuses. Moreover, the court's sleight of hand reliance on footnote 20 from Geduldig v. Aiello, which argued that pregnancy has nothing to do with sex, and that therefore, pregnant women can be treated differently from other people without offending the Constitution, relegates pregnant women, in particular, to a status outside the constitutional protections that lie at the very heart of the founders' design.

We cannot yet fully understand the cataclysmic impact that this decision will have on the body politic, but we can say, assuredly, that the impact on women of child-bearing capacity will be significant and certainly more threatened.
Aughenbaugh, an associate professor of political science at the VCU College of Humanities and Sciences, teaches courses on constitutional law, public policy and courts and politics. He cohosts "Civil Discourse," a podcast with Nia Rodgers, a VCU Libraries public affairs research librarian, that uses federal documents, including the U.S. Constitution, to spark conversations about the workings of government.

Sarah Jane Brubaker, Ph.D.

Ingram, an associate professor in the Department of Psychology and chair of the Department of Gender, Sexuality and Women's Studies in the College of Humanities and Sciences, has studied the impact of unsupportive social interactions (negative responses from others) to the lived experiences of girls and women, LGBTQIA+ individuals, people of color and individuals with disabilities.
There are many problems related to the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade, but I'd like to touch on three areas. The first is gender violence. A major form of gender violence issexual assault/coercion, which is common in our culture and can lead to unwanted pregnancies. Forcing someone to be pregnant and give birth in these circumstances further traumatizes the victim and denies them autonomy and choice over what happens to their bodies. This applies to rape by a stranger, an acquaintance or a partner.

The 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey estimates that 2 million women in the U.S. have become pregnant as a result of rape by an intimate partner, and 5% of women reported that, at some point in their lifetime, an intimate partner had tried to impregnate them when they did not want to get pregnant.

Reproductive control is a major form of domestic violence, where an abusive partner controls the reproductive decisions of another person. This can involve tampering with birth control to cause a pregnancy, denying contraception or forcing one to use contraception, increased abuse during pregnancy and other forms of power and control that are used to increase the victim's dependence on the abuser.

The state prohibiting abortion expands the power and control of the abuser and further traps victims, denying them autonomy and freedom. Being forced to be pregnant and give birth further ties the victim to the abuser and gives them even less hope of escaping a violent relationship.

Intimate partner violence victims are among the least likely among pregnant people to be able to travel out of state or safely self-manage a medication abortion at home, leaving them no choice but to carry a pregnancy to term. The Guttmacher Institute reports the unintended pregnancy rate in the United States is highest among women aged 18-24, the age group with the highest prevalence of intimate partner violence.

The second area is expanded criminalization. As fetal rights and fetal personhood agendas have gained support, not only have they contributed to restrictions on abortions, they have increased the criminalization of pregnant people's reproductive decisions and behaviors beyond abortion. Fetal personhood laws, currently operating in 38 states, criminalize a pregnant person for presumed harm to their fetus. Many states increasingly also have fetal personhoodlaws that grant full legal protections to fetuses, sometimes from conception, even though as many as 50%-75% of pregnancies end in miscarriage in the early weeks. Because of these fetal personhood laws, there have already been cases of pregnant people being arrested, detained and prosecuted for having miscarriages, using drugs while pregnant and being denied the right to give birth as they choose (e.g., at home, vaginally versus cesarean section) because the court has placed the rights of the fetus above the rights of the pregnant person. This will only increase as more states criminalize abortion.

Pharmacists and health care providers are also at risk of arrest for assisting with miscarriage care - which uses medication similar to abortion pills - ectopic pregnancy care and other lifesaving forms of care. And research shows that Black and brown people, and those who are economically vulnerable, will be most vulnerable to the surveillance and criminal response of enforcing these laws.

The last problem I want to raise is health risks to pregnant people experiencing miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy. Miscarriage care requires medical treatment to ensure that the pregnancy matter is cleared from the body and often involves medication used in abortion pills. If pharmacists are not able to supply the medication and health care providers cannot provide this care, there is an increased risk of harm to the pregnant person. In addition, in the United States, 1 in 50 pregnancies are ectopic, when a fertilized egg implants outside the uterus. Ectopic pregnancies are not viable, meaning they will never reach full term. Without treatment, they can lead to hemorrhaging and death.

John M. Aughenbaugh, Ph.D.

While many in the country are reeling from, or, conversely, championing the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, anyone who thinks court cases concerning abortion have ended in this country will more than likely be quite disappointed.

First, just because the court held there is no right to abortion in the federal constitution does not mean there will not be debates concerning whether women have such a right in the various state constitutions. State governments derive their powers generally from the 10th Amendment of the federal Constitution, but specifically from the powers granted them by their citizens in state constitutions. Thus, could state courts find there is a right to an abortion in a state constitutional provision? Yes, see state court rulings in Massachusetts and California. Could state courts declare their constitutions do not protect such a right? The answer is also yes; see a recent ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court. It is worth bearing in mind that how state courts interpret state constitutional provisions could have a significant impact on what elected officials may be able to do concerning abortion.

Additionally, we should not be surprised to see court cases on a number of other issues, including: conflict between federal laws - say, if Congress protects or bans a woman's right to choose based on the Interstate Commerce Clause of the federal Constitution - and state laws that provide the opposite; whether states could ban their citizens from crossing state lines to receive an abortion; and if states may prohibit or limit medication abortions (abortion pill) in conflict with federal law and Food and Drug Administration regulations.

In short, while the Supreme Court may have declared there is no privacy right to an abortion in the federal Constitution, I suspect the Dobbs ruling will merely change the focal points and location of abortion litigation in this country.

Kathleen Ingram, Ph.D.

The ability to exercise control over major life decisions contributes to a person's mental health and well-being. Decisions about whether and when to have children are among the most intimate and consequential choices a person can make. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to eliminate the constitutional right to abortion will have significant mental health implications for people who experience an unwanted or unsafe pregnancy.

From more than 50 years of research about abortion and mental health, we can draw two main conclusions.

First, having an abortion does not cause mental health problems. For many people, the unwanted pregnancy is the primary source of distress. In addition, a person's mental health status before they became pregnant is a key predictor of their mental health after having an abortion.

Second, denying access to abortion can cause harm to those who are facing an unwanted or unsafe pregnancy. For example, in the Turnaway Study, researchers found that women who were denied an abortion experienced higher levels of distress, lower self-esteem and greater economic hardship compared to women who received an abortion. Also, for individuals in a relationship with a violent partner, being unable to obtain an abortion can increase the risk for continued exposure to physical violence.

Historically, discussions and research about abortion have focused on white cisgender women. However, the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade limits the rights of all people who are or can become pregnant. The court's decision is likely to have a disproportionately negative impact on those from historically excluded groups, such as Black, Indigenous and other people of color; transgender men and nonbinary individuals; people with limited financial resources, people with disabilities, young people and individuals living in rural areas.

We already have a mental health crisis in the United States. Eliminating the constitutional right to abortion will place further strain on our overburdened mental health system. The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association of Social Workers have condemned the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Ultimately, the court's decision will have devastating consequences for countless people across the country. This ruling undermines individuals' bodily autonomy, further stigmatizes abortion and jeopardizes the health and well-being of people who are faced with an unwanted or unsafe pregnancy. It perpetuates an unjust social system in which power resides in the hands of a few while others are treated as second-class citizens.

Subscribe to VCU News

Subscribe to VCU News at newsletter.vcu.edu and receive a selection of stories, videos, photos, news clips and event listings in your inbox.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Exploring the impact of Dobbs v. Jackson

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last week, the Supreme Court of the United States decided in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that "the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe (v. Wade) and (Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v.) Casey are overturned; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Trump administration rescinded federal guidance that required emergency rooms to provide an abortion if the procedure would save a patient's life. The Biden-era guidance argued the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act required hospitals to provide treatment during a medical emergency, even in states with near-total abortion bans. Geoff Bennett discussed more with Sarah Varney.
Geoff Bennett:
The Trump administration rescinded federal guidance that required emergency rooms to provide an abortion if the procedure would save a woman's life.

That guidance issued by the Biden administration in 2022 after Roe v. Wade was overturned argued a law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, required hospitals to stabilize a patient's health during medical emergencies, even in states with near-total abortion bans.

Yesterday, the administration said the guidance did not reflect President Trump's policy.

For more on how this will affect pregnant women and access to lifesaving medical care at large, we're joined by special correspondent Sarah Varney.

Sarah, thanks for being here.

So why was this law known as EMTALA, why was it implemented in the first place? What problem was it trying to solve?
Sarah Varney:
So, President Ronald Reagan signed this bill in 1986. At the time, hospitals were routinely turning away poor patients, patients without insurance, and turning them away even when they might have life-threatening medical conditions.

So this law was written. It went into effect, and it said that E.R.s across the country that receive Medicare payments, which is essentially every hospital in the United States, has to stabilize a patient with an emergency medical condition before they can transfer them.
Geoff Bennett:
So what did the Biden administration require post-Dobbs? And what is the Trump administration now saying it no longer has to do?
Sarah Varney:
A month or so after the Dobbs decision, the Biden administration issued a memorandum.

It went out to all the hospitals around the country that received these Medicare funds, and it reminded them that EMTALA was in effect, and that, according to the Biden administration's reading of EMTALA, it meant that even in states that had very strict abortion bans, that women who presented in emergency rooms with life-threatening medical conditions, if an abortion was the procedure that was needed to stabilize her, that those hospitals had to provide that treatment.

What the Trump administration is essentially saying is, we're rescinding that letter and leaving it open to interpretation from the different hospitals about whether or not certain emergency medical conditions meet their state ban.
Geoff Bennett:
And what state, Sarah, would be most affected by this?
Sarah Varney:
There's certain states where there's really no exception for the health of the pregnant woman. That includes Arkansas, Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and South Dakota.

So these are some places where a pregnant person could go into the emergency room, and there would be some debate about whether or not they could have an abortion if that was necessary to stabilize their health. Just as an example, for instance, in South Dakota, they released a report last year that showed that there were - according to their records, that there were zero abortions that happened in South Dakota hospitals in 2023.
Geoff Bennett:
Sarah, how would this affect a pregnant woman in a red state versus a blue state?
Sarah Varney:
So there's already - even with the Biden guidance in effect, there has been pretty significant differences between the types of care that pregnant women have gotten in states with abortion bans and states without abortion bans.

The Associated Press did an investigation that found dozens of women who were turned away from emergency rooms, including when they needed an abortion to stabilize their health care. ProPublica has also done pretty extraordinary investigative reporting, finding that women have been turned away from emergency rooms or not received the care that they needed.

They were either harmed or, in some cases, they died. So we already have seen this divide, really, and this patchwork of care emerging across the United States.
Geoff Bennett:
And how are anti-abortion groups responding to this announcement?
Sarah Varney:
Anti-abortion groups are celebrating the rescission of this Biden-era guidance.

They say it's actually not necessary. They point to these induced termination of pregnancy reports that I was just mentioning about South Dakota in places like Texas, where you had 14 abortions mostly due to emergency situations in Texas in January of 2025.

So the anti-abortion groups and lawmakers, anti-abortion lawmakers say that these laws are working as they were intended and that women can, in fact, get emergency room care when it's necessary.
Geoff Bennett:
As I understand it, this decision was outlined in Project 2025, that conservative blueprint for a second Trump term. Tell us more about that.
Sarah Varney:
Well, the EMTALA rescission was actually included in Project 2025, so we're seeing that checked off the list. It also calls for the administration to stop defending existing EMTALA lawsuits that were held over from the Biden administration. They have also done that.

And then there's many, many things in Project 2025 that have to do with abortion, including calls for a national abortion surveillance program so that there would be national data about the number of abortions that are happening in the United States. It calls for the reversal of FDA approval of the abortion pill and for the enforcement of what's called the Comstock Act, which would essentially cease the mailing of abortion pills around the country.
Geoff Bennett:
Special correspondent Sarah Varney.

Sarah, thanks again for your time this evening.
Sarah Varney:
Thank you, Geoff.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
White House revokes guidance requiring hospitals to provide emergency abortions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Trump administration rescinded federal guidance that required emergency rooms to provide an abortion if the procedure would save a patient's life. The Biden-era guidance argued the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act required hospitals to provide treatment during a medical emergency, even in states with near-total abortion bans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A yearslong legal battle over the right to an emergency abortion in Idaho has been abruptly upended now that President Donald Trump has moved to drop the high-profile case.

Under the Biden administration, the Justice Department had argued that emergency-room doctors treating pregnant women had to provide terminations if it was needed to save their lives or to avoid serious health consequences.
READ MORE: What to know about state proposals to ban abortion pills and punish women who seek to end pregnancies
Yet a little more than a month after taking over the White House, Trump's decision to abandon the legal fight signals how the Republican administration plans on interpreting federal law designed to protect urgent care when up against states' abortion bans.

Here's what to know.

How did we get here?

In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to an abortion. The ruling came down while President Joe Biden, a Democrat, was in office, but many of the justices who helped reverse Roe v. Wade were appointed under Trump.

So in response, Biden warned that his administration considered abortion part of the stabilizing care that federal law requires facilities to provide to patients who show up at an emergency room. A month later, Biden sued Idaho, which had enacted an abortion ban that makes it a crime with a prison term of up to five years for anyone who performs or assists in an abortion.
READ MORE: The Supreme Court ruling on emergency abortions in Idaho
The Biden administration argued that Idaho's abortion ban prevented ER doctors from offering an abortion if a woman needs one in a medical emergency. But Idaho's attorney general has pointed out that federal law also requires hospitals to consider the health of the "unborn child" in its treatment, too.

The lawsuit has twisted and turned in the legal system ever since. Last year, the Supreme Court agreed to step into the Idaho case, but it handed down a narrow ruling: Hospitals were allowed to make determinations about emergency pregnancy terminations, but the key legal question about what care hospitals should legally provide remains unresolved.

Tell me more about this federal law

Known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA, the 1986 law requires emergency rooms to offer a medical exam if you turn up at their facility. The law applies to any ERs that accept Medicare funding - so nearly all of them.

Those ERs are also required to stabilize patients experiencing a medical emergency before discharging or transferring them. Notably, if the ER doesn't have the resources or staff to treat a patient, medical staffers must arrange a medical transfer to another hospital - they can't simply direct a patient to go elsewhere.
READ MORE: What's EMTALA, the federal law at the center of the Supreme Court's Idaho abortion case?
EMTALA is more scrutinized than ever since Roe was overturned. Multiple doctors and families have told The Associated Press about pregnant women with dangerous medical conditions showing up in hospitals and doctors' offices only to be denied the abortions that could help treat them. Some women described facing harmful delays.

Has Trump said why he's dropping the case?

Not yet. And the DOJ's three-page motion didn't explain why they wanted to abandon the lawsuit either. However, since having a hand in revoking the constitutional right to abortion, Trump has repeatedly touted his support of leaving abortion regulations up to the states.

Meanwhile, ending the effort to use federal law to protect emergency abortions was a goal of Project 2025, the blueprint created by the Heritage Foundation for a second Trump term, which calls for reversing what it describes as "distorted pro-abortion" interpretations of federal law. Trump insisted during his 2024 presidential campaign that Project 2025 was not part of his agenda.
WATCH: 'Every abortion is a tragedy,' RFK Jr. says
"Their move to drop this case against Idaho I think really shows what their true priorities are - and it is to push an anti-abortion political agenda rather than support the lives, health and well being of pregnant women and people, not just in Idaho but across the country because this case does have far-reaching impact," said Brittany Fonteno, president and CEO of the National Abortion Federation, an association of abortion providers.

What's going on elsewhere?

Trump's decision to drop the Idaho case comes several months after the Supreme Court said the federal government couldn't require hospitals to provide pregnancy terminations when it would violate Texas' abortion ban.

Texas had sued over the Biden administration's enforcement of EMTALA, and a lower federal court eventually sided with the state. But similar to the case in Idaho, the Supreme Court stopped short of deciding whether the federal law can supersede a state's abortion ban.
WATCH: Access to mifepristone remains unchanged as Supreme Court rejects abortion pill challenge
Meanwhile, concern has grown over whether Trump's decision in the Idaho case is a sign that his administration may also reverse course in a longstanding legal battle over telehealth access to mifepristone, the medication used in the nation's most common abortion method.

The Department of Justice under Biden had sought to dismiss a complaint brought by a handful states seeking to roll back access to mifepristone. It's currently unclear how Trump plans on proceeding.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What to know about the Idaho emergency abortion case dropped by the Trump administration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Donald Trump's decision to abandon the legal fight signals how the Republican administration plans on interpreting federal law designed to protect urgent care when up against states' abortion bans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As pro-life Americans celebrated the victory for life and the rule of law as the U.S. Supreme Court correctly overturned Roe v. Wade last Friday, Heritage Foundation experts and staff jumped into action to report on this monumental decision-without the spin found in the legacy media and with the in-depth analysis that Americans simply couldn't find anywhere else.

It started with Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts immediately releasing a statement and a quick one-minute video reaction following the court's decision. He followed that with a one-on-one sit-down with national radio host and former Trump White House Advisor Sebastian Gorka to talk about how the battle for life was not over but enters a brand-new stage.

Dr. Roberts also discussed the ramifications of the decision with Roger Severino, Heritage's vice president of domestic policy, a national authority on rights of conscience and religious freedom who has been in the pro-life arena for decades. Now, much of the lawmaking to protect life rests with state legislators, but Congress also things it can do to protect the unborn at the federal level.

He also wrote for The Hill how for 49 years, the Supreme Court forced the abortion issue on the American people and deprived us of our right to decide the issue for ourselves through our elected representatives. He said that Justice Samuel Alito's opinion has restored to us what pro-abortion politicians and activists really oppose: democracy.

In the days since the decision, many Heritage experts have been tirelessly reacting to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, appearing on national radio shows, in newspapers across the country, and on places such as Fox Nation, Newsmax, Newsy, and C-SPAN. You can see just a sampling of some of the TV interviews below.
I'm Encouraged That Justices Didn't Respond To Political Pressure | Sarah Parshall Perry Planned Parenthood Ignores That There Are Choices for Women Facing Unplanned Pregnancies| Roger Severino The Left Has Lost the Stronghold They've Had on Abortion | Genevieve Wood The Left Is Only Tolerant of Those That Adopt Their Ideology | Virginia Allen
Heritage experts have also played a huge role in getting the Supreme Court to the conservative constitutional majority it is today. In 2016 and in 2020, when vacancies opened up on the Supreme Court, our experts provided President Donald Trump with lists of judges who would be outstanding nominees. After the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016, a Heritage expert helped shape the nominee list. And then again in 2020, Heritage got behind Amy Coney Barrett with a very public campaign of media interviews, newspaper op-eds, and TV and social media ads to promote her nomination and ultimate appointment to the bench.

In addition to Heritage's long-term efforts to bring about the demise of Roe v. Wade, it has worked in other ways to protect life, including most recently working with the Trump administration in 2019 to craft restrictions on federal funding for fetal tissue research from abortions and also restrictions to strip tens of millions of taxpayer dollars from Planned Parenthood through the Title X program.

Heritage is grateful to be a part of this enormous step forward in the protection of innocent human life. And we know that there is still much more to be done.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Heritage's Unparalleled Analysis of the Defeat of Roe v. Wade and What Comes Next

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As pro-life Americans celebrated the victory for life and the rule of law as the U.S. Supreme Court correctly overturned Roe v. Wade last Friday, Heritage Foundation experts and staff jumped into action to report on this monumental decision-without the spin found in the legacy media and with the in-depth analysis that Americans simply couldn't find anywhere else.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the most anticipated case of the 2021-22 term, and one of the most impactful in decades, the U.S. Supreme Court ended the constitutional right to an abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. This decision explicitly overturns Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood and hands the issue to states to regulate.

While 68% of Americans believe that abortion should remain legal nationwide, at least 26 states are likely to implement total or near-total bans on abortion in the wake of the decision. Others may loosen restrictions as states with legal abortions are expected to experience an influx of out-of-state abortion seekers.

The Dobbs Decision

The 6-3 decision in Dobbs, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, largely followed the draft opinion leaked to the public in early May. The conservative block of justices held that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to an abortion, instead finding that while substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment may protect some unenumerated rights, it does not protect a woman's right to choose whether to continue her pregnancy.

Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barret, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch joined Justice Alito's majority opinion in full. Chief Justice John Roberts concurred in the judgment - that the "viability" standard set out in Casey v. Planned Parenthood was unworkable - but would have chosen a different approach, one that gave women a "reasonable opportunity to choose". Justice Thomas joined the majority opinion in full but wrote separately to note his support for ending all unenumerated rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, including the right to birth control, private sexual acts, and interracial marriage.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented.

What's to Come?

With the overturn of Roe, over 40 million people will be directly impacted in states where abortion is expected to be banned or criminalized. Existing "trigger" laws, passed in anticipation of the Court's overturning of Roe, will take effect immediately in states like Texas and South Dakota and ban abortion.

Further legislation in states without trigger bills are also expected. It is yet to be determined whether some or all of those states will completely ban abortion or choose instead to implement harsher restrictions. State laws already vary. Florida, for example, will implement a 15-week abortion ban in July. This will have no exceptions for rape or incest. An abortion could be permitted if the parent's life is in danger.

Similar anti-abortion legislation is expected from many other U.S. states. Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have protected abortion in state law.

Still Leaves Some Questions Unanswered

There remains some uncertainty in the law even after the Court's decision in Dobbs. For example, it's still unclear if it will be difficult, or perhaps even impossible, for pregnant women to get an out-of-state abortion. In Kavanaugh's concurring opinion, he expressed the view that states choosing to implement abortion bans or restrictions would not be able to prohibit pregnant women from traveling out of state to get an abortion "based on the constitutional right to travel." However, as a concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh's view does not carry the force of law and the ultimate answer to that question may still need to be resolved in the courts.

Related Resources:

You Don't Have To Solve This on Your Own - Get a Lawyer's Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
the practical impact of dobbs v. jackson women’s health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Practical Impact of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health - FindLaw

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the most anticipated case of the 2021-22 term, and one of the most impactful in decades, the U.S. Supreme Court ended the constitutional right to an abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. This decision explicitly overturns Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood and hands the issue to states to regulate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Life Wins: In Overturning Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court Issues Victory for Rule of Law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Roe v. Wade-one of the most contentious Supreme Court decisions of the modern era-was sent to history's dustheap on Friday. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, stating:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On Friday, the Supreme Court delivered what is by far the premiere conservative victory of the century. Roe v. Wade has been overturned; it should be something we celebrate, as we acknowledge those whose hard work has put us in this position. However, many of the reactions to the decision are quite concerning, and they accentuate a truth we have known since the time of Saint Paul, "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." We may have the Dobbs decision that ends Roe, but it ends the letter of the law. The spirit of Roe, however, endures, and it gives rise to questions that must be confronted-questions about who we are as a nation.

Following the release of the Dobbs decision, President Joe Biden delivered a brief speech to the American people. His remarks reveal much. He began by portraying Friday as a "solemn day," in which the Supreme Court "took away a constitutional right from the American people." Most of his speech focused on this idea that the court was committing an unprecedented act of taking away a sacrosanct right from the American people. He then altered course, calling for solutions and action, and said something worth serious consideration: "Let me be very clear and unambiguous, the only way we can secure a woman's right to choose... is for Congress to restore Roe v. Wade as federal law."

While the ruling says only that it returns the matter of abortion to the people and their elected representatives, to many, the point of the Dobbs decision is to take the federal government's hands out of an issue seen as belonging to the states, focusing on elementary principles of federalism-extending the sphere, taking in a greater variety of parties and interests, and letting the states act as competing factions; thus, there can be no tyranny of majority at the federal level. This is Madison's argument in Federalist No. 10, and it is quite clever. Yet, this could potentially be its flaw, and, in my estimates, President Biden's remarks help unveil it.

There is a natural tendency to use the federal government to secure, for the nation as a whole, what we believe to be the most integral functions of civil society in the states (and, concerning abortion, with the Dobbs ruling, this is still possible). For example, take, along with Roe, the cases Justice Thomas lists in his concurrence, Obergefell, Lawrence, and Griswold. These are cases which deal with the principal aspects pertaining to the human person: marriage, sex, and the dignity of human life. They deal with our deepest passions and desires, what the very telos of human life is, and they have tremendous effects on our societies; thus, they fall under the jurisdiction of governments. As Hamilton says in Federalist No. 15, "Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint."

Hamilton is right, and in the same paper he states that "we must extend the authority of the Union to the persons of the citizens-the only proper objects of government." Inherent in these quotes is an Aristotelian view of government: that it is created "to secure life itself, and continues to exist to secure the good life." The government has a stake in what it means to live the good life, and Americans know this-it is why Biden wants abortion solved at the federal level. Which leaves us asking: can this issue belong solely to the states?

Our federal government has a claim on citizens, not just states in a confederacy (unlike federal constitutions of the past). We all see ourselves as Americans, sharing a common end. What happens when we are pursuing two antithetical ends? The Green Day rock singer, Billie Joe Armstrong, has renounced his U.S. citizenship over Dobbs. Why? Because he does not want to live in a country where states are allowed to restrict a woman's fundamental right to choose. I cannot say I want to live in a nation where, in other states, babies are ripped apart in their mother's womb.

All of these reactions raise the question of whether a nation is a nation at all-if nation truly means anything-if it allows both. Dobbs leaves us asking what it means to be American. Perhaps the federalist nature of our government, in perpetuity, makes that very question increasingly difficult to answer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dobbs, Federalism, And Green Day - The American Conservative

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On Friday, the Supreme Court delivered what is by far the premiere conservative victory of the century. Roe v. Wade has been overturned; it should be something we celebrate, as we acknowledge those whose hard work has put us in this position.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
To discuss the aftermath of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Center, Boston Review spoke with Rachel Rebouché about innovative legal responses and the conflicts likely to unfold between states and the federal government. A leading scholar of reproductive health law and feminist legal theory, Rebouché has written before in these pages about abortion access and what reproductive justice requires.

Boston Review: Dobbs took away a federal right to abortion and seems to return abortion law to the states. Yet you point out that the end of Roe will entail complicated and ongoing fights between states and the federal government over borders and jurisdictions. What will those battles look like? Where will they be fought? And what do they mean for American federalism?

Rachel Rebouché: With Roe v. Wade overturned, states now have broad leeway to restrict and ban abortion at any stage of pregnancy. The legal landscape, as well as how people gain access to abortion, will depend on where one lives. This was always true to a large extent; well before the Dobbs decision, so-called "abortion deserts" existed in the South and Midwest. Those regions had few providers, and they all operated in states with heavy restrictions on abortion care.

We can expect marked conflict among states, and between states and the federal government.

But until now, even the most restrictive states could not ban abortion entirely; the constitutional minimum established by Roe (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) prevented as much. The widely discussed Texas Heartbeat Act (SB 8), which went into effect last September, was an attempt to do the most that could be done in a Roe legal landscape: it banned abortion after around six weeks anddeputized citizens to enforce the ban through civil lawsuits. SB8 remained in force not because the Supreme Court held it was constitutional; indeed, as a pre-viability ban, it was unconstitutional under Casey and Roe. It stood because Texas successfully made a procedural argument about who could sue and when. Now, after Dobbs, Texas can and will ban all abortion, excerpt perhaps in very limited circumstances: it will no longer need to rely on procedural maneuvering.

Yet Texas and states with similar intentions will not stop at banning abortion within their borders. The ultimate aim of the anti-abortion movement is to put an end to abortion throughout the country. This spring, before Dobbs, Missouri considered a bill that would impose civil liability on those helping Missouri citizens travel out of state to obtain an abortion. This ambition runs up against nearly half the states' permission for or advancement of abortion rights, some explicit, following Dobbs.

The result, as we are already seeing, will be conflict between states that seek to ban abortion and states that seek to protect it. Several states have passed laws protecting in-state providers-as well as their patients and people who assist them-from out-of-state penalties. At the same time, the current federal government, given the Biden administration's recent pledge to protect abortion rights, could intervene using its federal powers-over land and through preemption, for example-to blunt the effect of state abortion bans.

We can thus expect marked conflict among states, and between states and the federal government. These conflicts will undermine the state-by-state cooperation so many Americans have taken for granted. Our federalist system ensures the right to enjoy the protections offered in other states that are not our own and anticipates that states will cooperate with, or at least not burden, each other. Policies that seek to apply one state's law outside its borders, as well as those that shield providers from another state's reach, undermine those foundational values.

BR: In light of this new landscape, many have expressed concern that people who live in a state that outlaws abortion will be prosecuted for seeking abortions in another. Is that likely to happen? What role will abortion medication prescribed via telehealth play?

RR: At present, state laws banning abortion target providers, not the people seeking abortions. But that could change given the changing nature of abortion care. As a practical matter, state bans on abortion might be difficult to enforce given that contemporary abortion, at least early in pregnancy, is effectively and safely accomplished using medication abortion-the two-drug regimen before ten weeks of pregnancy. In states where it is legal, virtual abortion services have proliferated.

The supremacy of federal law could undercut state abortion bans in significant ways.

This growth follows the decision by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last December to lift the requirement that people collect medication abortion in person at a health care facility. But even in states that ban abortion (including medication abortion), people circumnavigate those restrictions using internet services that work with international providers and pharmacies to order otherwise-banned medication abortion. Once pills are in the mail, they become difficult, though not impossible, to police. But providers that prescribe the pills from outside a state's jurisdiction become harder to punish.

Some states may turn to surveilling and attempting to directly penalize the people that seek out medication abortion online. We know, based on the past and what we have seen already since Dobbs, that poor people and people of color will be prosecuted disproportionately. And even without laws that directly target people seeking to terminate a pregnancy, prosecutors nonetheless could use their prosecutorial powers by applying ordinary criminal laws in the abortion context.

That said, states intent on enforcing abortion bans and potentially applying them out of state face not only practical difficulties but also potential legal challenges. Restricting travel or applying the law of one state outside its borders could invite constitutional challenge, under, for example, constitutional protection of the right to travel or of interstate commerce. But, to reiterate, possible unconstitutionality is unlikely to thwart the most anti-abortion legislators.

BR: What do you make of Justice Kavanaugh's remarks about a constitutional right to travel? How will the new abortion laws challenge norms about jurisdictions and state borders?

RR: The Supreme Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect an individual's right to travel. Other constitutional provisions protect the ability of states to participate in interstate commerce and of residents of one state to avail themselves of the protections and resources of another. Justice Kavanaugh's Dobbs concurrence invokes the Due Process protection of the right to travel, though his statement could encompass other sources of constitutional protection as well. But whether it is constitutional for abortion bans to have extraterritorial effect may not be as clear cut as he suggests.

While there has long been a right to travel in this country, the scope of its enforcement is not clear.

Moreover, the Due Process Clause's application to rights not enumerated in the Constitution has been a source of disagreement and controversy. Justice Alito sought to distinguish abortion from all other rights protected by the Due Process Clause in the Dobbs opinion. As many have opined, though, his analysis-that only rights rooted in a long history and explicit text of the Constitution deserve protection-could leave other rights vulnerable. Justice Thomas's concurrence offers a blueprint for why: he argues that the Due Process Clause offers no substantive protections at all. In short, while there has long been a right to travel in this country, the scope of its enforcement is not clear.

BR: To go back to what you said above: What role will state surveillance play in all this? What does Dobbs mean for privacy?

RR: Actually enforcing state laws banning abortion means trying to ascertain who is breaking those laws. On this score, we might expect state officials to deploy their own means of surveillance as well as enlisting the assistance of health care providers and other intermediaries. But there are limits to what health information a state may access under federal law. For example, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) prohibits health care providers from disclosing peoples' private health information to law enforcement unless a statutory exception is met. One such exception is when providers are served with a summons, warrant, subpoena, or administrative request for private medical information. For this exception to apply, however, the provider would be responding to law enforcement, not initiating contact.

This June, the Biden Administration clarified how HIPAA interacts with abortion crimes, attempting to make clear what federal privacy protections dictate. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) could modify the regulations to explicitly exempt abortion-related crimes. Doing so would preempt contradictory state law.

BR: What can legal efforts on behalf of abortion rights learn from social movements? And what role can movements play in advancing legal victories?

RR: In many ways the struggle for or against abortion rights has always been shaped by social movements. But the way forward, after Dobbs, will depend on what choices movement actors make. Over the last fifty years, we have seen the anti-abortion movement tirelessly chip away at Roe and Casey, at times losing and at times winning. Their strategies tested the understanding of what the Constitution requires, as SB8 demonstrates. With Roe overturned, the anti-abortion movement will need to pivot in pursuit of abortion bans that reach across the country. The abortion rights movement, by contrast, will need to change its approach, too, adopting its own novel strategies. Those strategies will challenge who can regulate abortion and how-between states themselves, and between states and the federal government-and must wrestle with the reality of how people seek abortion care on the ground. But the status quo is not an option and given the increasingly complex legal and access landscapes, now is the time for bold action.

BR: You argue that "the supremacy of federal law provides a novel and untested argument for chipping away at state abortion bans" and suggest there's precedent for the use of federal law to preempt abortion bans. How?

RR: Federal law preempts state law in areas where the federal government has power to regulate, and as suggested by Biden's executive order, HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra's guidance, and the remarks of Attorney General Merrick Garland, the current administration supports strategies that assert federal authority over aspects of state abortion regulation. The supremacy of federal law could undercut state abortion bans in significant ways, but it is also important to note that this is an underdeveloped area of law, and its development will be left to federal courts.

The status quo is not an option. Given the increasingly complex legal and access landscapes, now is the time for bold action.

To take one example, the FDA has closely regulated medication abortion, specifically the first drug in the regimen (mifepristone), since approving it in 2000. The FDA invests decades of research into a drug's efficacy and safety before allowing it to enter the market; Congress assigned the FDA this duty by statute. States that seek to ban an FDA-approved drug therefore contradict the FDA's congressionally granted authority. Indeed, states typically do not ban FDA-approved drugs. If FDA regulation preempts contradictory state laws, states' bans on medication abortion contrary to FDA policy would not survive.

Other federal powers could likewise protect access to in-person and telehealth abortion, such as those that govern the use of federal land. To take another example, state law does not always apply on federal land, so abortions provided on leased federal land within antiabortion states might not be subject to state bans. And even if state criminal laws are incorporated on federal land, federal prosecutors can exercise their enforcement discretion not to charge people with abortion crimes. So, without a federal law banning abortion in "exclusive enclaves," abortion would be legal.

There are risks to offering abortion on federal land; states will target abortion providers, potentially along with patients and those who assist, with punitive measures once they step foot back on state land. As with all untested ideas, some risks may not be worth taking. But there are costs to not trying to understand what is possible and what might be worth the risk.

Editors' Note: This interview draws from Rebouché's research and writing with David S. Cohen and Greer Donley, reflected in their forthcoming article, " The New Abortion Battleground," in the Columbia Law Review.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the Federal Government Can Fight Abortion Bans - Boston Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To discuss the aftermath of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Center, Boston Review spoke with Rachel Rebouché about innovative legal responses and the conflicts likely to unfold between states and the federal government. A leading scholar of reproductive health law and feminist legal theory, Rebouché has written before in these pages about abortion access and what reproductive justice requires.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Congress clears bipartisan gun reform legislation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On June 25, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (P.L. 117-159), the first major gun reform legislation in decades. The bill makes critical changes to the process for acquiring a firearm and includes funding opportunities to assist in identifying and…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Divided We Fall is a non-profit news publication working to provide bipartisan dialogue for the politically engaged. They publish written debates between individuals who disagree in order to demonstrate productive civil discourse and bipartisanship. They have generously shared this content with us; see original piece by by John C. Fortier and Walter Suza here.

Differing Perspectives on the History of Voting Rights and Implications Today

A look into the Independent Nature of State and Local Government Elections
By John Fortier - Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
The American government was designed with a heavy dose of federalism. Perhaps nowhere is this more prevalent than in American elections, which are mostly governed by state law and administered by local officials but where federal law takes precedence in certain key areas. This federalism of elections frustrates some. The lack of uniformity, the difficulty of reform, the complexities of elections compared to other countries are all common complaints. But federalism in elections does have virtues: the nationwide corruption prevention, the experimentation, the tailoring of voting practices to fit state and local customs and needs. For better or worse, we are likely to maintain our decentralized election structures. As we see from recent reform efforts, we may adopt nationwide reforms in some limited areas where there is broad-based support, but most of our reforms will be varied state and local.

The U.S. Constitution Enshrines the Idea of Federalism in Elections

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations..."

This constitutional division was borne out by our national history. State laws have been primary and dominant, and local governments are the primary administrators of elections. This makes American elections some of the most decentralized in the world. While some have argued that the Constitution does not give all power to run federal elections to the states, Congress can only weigh in with national laws if it wants to override state laws.

Consider the differences in state practices. States have different hours at polling places, different laws about the certification and purchase of voting machines, great differences in mail-in ballot restrictions, differences in early voting rules. Some other examples are the varying rules about voter identification with some requiring photo identification, others requiring a signature or simply to state your name and address, different rules about felon voting, different implementation of modes of voter registration, and different rules about counting and certifying the vote.

How Does the U.S. Voting System Compare?

Most countries in the world have a fair amount of uniformity in voting. Even countries that have influential states or provinces with local governments often have similar ballots, government offices that appear on the ballot, and election administration.

This is not the case in the US. America is one of the few countries without a national electoral commission. Additionally, local governments vary widely in size and organization. For example, elections are run by local officials in Los Angeles County, with a population of over ten million, and in small towns with a population under 100. Depending on which state you live in, you might see a Secretary of State, Attorney General, Land Commissioner, or judge on the ballot. At the local level, you might see mayors, city councilors, school boards, library trustees, sheriffs, coroners, or dog catchers.

Modern Federal Legislation for Elections

Despite this diversity in elections, Congress has weighed in on certain areas with a national standard. Key examples include voter registration regulation, funds for upgrading voting technology and voter registrations systems, and overseas absentee ballot legislation. Similarly, while elections have been funded almost exclusively at the state and local level, Congress did step in with federal funding after the 2000 election for the purchase of new voting technology and again in recent years for election security and dealing with the election run during the pandemic.

Election reform in the coming years is likely to be done primarily at the state and local levels. Take, for example, the recent For the People Act, an example of federal legislation proposed by congressional Democrats. It is an ambitious bill taking on large areas of the voting process: encouragement of voting by mail, automatic registration, federal public financing for political campaigns, and redistricting reform to name a few. In each of these areas, there are strong partisan as well as regional divides and tension between national law and local election practices. This is not to say that some national reforms might not be enacted, but they will be difficult to achieve and will require some level of partisan, state, and regional consensus.

Mail-in Ballots Lead to more Differences Between States

The real action has been and will be in the states, reflecting the fact that on many issues there is no consensus between the parties on a vision for running elections. Take for example the issue of voting by mail. Prior to 2020, there had been a thirty-year trend of increased voting by mail and over twenty percent of all ballots were cast by mail in 2016. But this trend varied state by state. Some states, such as Oregon and Washington, had moved to nearly 100% voting by mail. Others, especially in the northeast, looked more traditional with the vast majority of votes cast on Election Day at polling places. With the COVID-19 pandemic, voting by mail skyrocketed to over 40% of ballots cast. With this greater interest in voting by mail and changes in state laws, there was also an emerging division between Republicans and Democrats on voting by mail. Large majorities of Democrats favored voting by mail, while large majorities of Republicans preferred voting in person.

Blue states, like New Jersey, have been enacting laws to move to more voting by mail. Republican-controlled states like Georgia and Texas returned to their pre-COVID-19 roots and enacted laws that pointed in the direction of more voting in person at early voting sites and on Election Day.

While there has been controversy over these efforts, it does show the workings of federalism. If we had a national consensus on this issue, federal legislation would have an easy path to passage. But, as it stands, states are reflecting differences in the philosophy of the parties. That is the federalism that we have come to expect in voting and that is not likely going away.

Jim Crow Returns to Deconstruct Voting Rights
By Walter Suza - Adjunct Associate Professor, Iowa State University
The Long Road to Voting Rights for All
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana.
The Founding Fathers declared in 1776 that "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." Yet they still left out women and ignored the injustice of slavery. Even after the 13th Amendment was passed to abolish slavery in 1865, Southern states still refused to grant equality to Black people. Instead, they created Black codes and used them to subjugate former enslaved Africans and trap them in predatory labor contracts. Then came the 14th Amendment of 1866, which would have granted citizenship and equal protection to former enslaved Africans, yet still failed to grant them the right to vote.

Then came the 15th Amendment of 1870, which tells us: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Instead, Southern states enacted Jim Crow laws, which subjected African Americans to egregious abuse, including poll taxes, literacy tests, intimidation, and violence to deny them their voting rights.

Even though the 15th Amendment bestowed Congress with the power to protect voting rights, it would take an additional 50 years for the 19th Amendment to pass in 1920 to protect women's right to vote yet Black women still struggled to vote.

Sacrifices for the Right to Vote

"All we wanted to be was ordinary citizens," said Medgar Evers, a Black civil rights activist who was shot and killed by a member of the Ku Klux Klan in Jackson, Mississippi in 1963, a couple of months before Dr. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. Although Evers was denied a chance to see the Dream, he died holding a t-shirt with the inscription, "Jim Crow Must Go."

He would not be the last to spill his blood. James Earl Chaney, Michael Henry Schwerner, and Andrew Goodman were murdered for their participation in the 1964 Freedom Summer to register Black voters in Mississippi.

Jim Crow persisted and armed Southern politicians with the filibuster, an insidious tool that they used to kill civil rights bills. The most notable example being when Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes to try to kill the 1957 Civil Rights Act. Seven years later, several Southern senators used the filibuster in their attempt to kill the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

African Americans would endure more suffering to earn their right to vote. Civil rights protesters marching from Selma to Montgomery witnessed and experienced flesh torn apart in the jaws of canines, skulls fractured by batons, lungs suffocated by teargas, and skin peeled from the flesh by water cannons so the Voting Rights Act could pass in 1965.

The Return of Jim Crow

Despite this history, in 2013, the decision by the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder weakened the Voting Rights Act by reducing transparency and fairness because of race. Last month, the Supreme Court did more damage to the Civil Rights Act through a 6-3 vote to kill a provision meant to protect minority voters from state laws that make it harder to vote.

The nation is also witnessing a relentless onslaught on voting rights fueled by the lie that the 2020 presidential election was rigged. Reaction to the lie resulted in the Jan. 6 insurrection and a coordinated effort in several GOP-led states to enact sweeping measures to suppress voting. The Brennan Center for Justice reports that in 17 states, 28 laws have been passed to make it difficult to vote by reducing early voting days or limiting access to voting absentee or by mail.

Jim Crow has returned. "This is Jim Crow in the 21st Century. It must end. We have a moral and Constitutional obligation to act," said President Joe Biden in his response to the passing of restrictive voting laws in Georgia.

Obstructing the Solutions to Our Problem

The moral truth is that power once solely in the hands of white men denied African Americans and white women their right to vote. Through civil strife, today that power is meant to be in the hands of each American voter. Yet the political reality births skepticism that GOP lawmakers would use their power to make it easy for everyone to vote. This is why it does not make sense that Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema would still favor the filibuster, which was used by GOP senators just last month to stop the advancement of the For the People Act.

One would expect our sworn leaders to protect the Constitution, yet the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the For the People Act, which would protect voting rights, have stalled in the Senate. "I believe that partisan voting legislation will destroy the already weakening binds of our democracy, and for that reason, I will vote against the For the People Act," Manchin wrote in an op-ed in the Charleston Gazette-Mail.

What else has the strength to weaken our democracy than denying people their right to vote? How else can we protect the rights of millions who will be disenfranchised if we do not expand people's access to the ballot box?

The Dangers of Voting No

By voting no, the lawmakers will vote against a bill that will make it easier to vote, end congressional gerrymandering, reform federal campaign finance laws, increase protection from foreign interference in U.S. elections, and strengthen government ethics rules. By voting no, the lawmakers will disregard the human suffering and loss during the Civil Rights movement. By voting no, the lawmakers will disregard the truth that African American men and women were lynched for fighting for our right to vote. By voting no, the lawmakers will disregard the truth that Dr. Martin Luther King was murdered because he fought for our right to vote.

To vote no is to ignore the long and bloody journey to voting rights. In an evenly split U.S. Senate, the no vote against the For the People Act is a bullet to the heart of democracy. John Lewis will turn over in his grave.

Protecting American Democracy

Let us not forget that Iowa was the final state to ratify the 15th Amendment, making it possible for Thomas Mundy Peterson to become the first Black man to vote. Let us not forget that Tennessee was the final state to ratify the 19th Amendment after its state legislator, Harry T. Burn took heed of his mother's plea and used his vote to break a tie, making it possible for white women to vote.

John Lewis said: "The vote is precious. It is the most powerful non-violent tool we have in a democratic society." Let us protect America's democracy by not repeating the history of voter suppression. Let us protect our sacrosanct right to vote by supporting the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the For the People Act.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The History of Voting Rights by Divided We Fall | BillTrack50

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Divided We Fall is a non-profit news publication working to provide bipartisan dialogue for the politically engaged. They publish written debates between individuals who disagree in order to demonstrate productive civil discourse and bipartisanship. They have generously shared this content with us; see original piece by by John C.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Can The Federal Government Stop States’ Restrictive Voting Laws?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NPR’s Audie Cornish talks with Rick Hasen, book author and law professor at the University of California, Irvine, about steps the federal government could take to counter restrictive voting laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to main content

Exceptions to Voter Identification Requirements

Most states with strict voter identification requirements make some exceptions. These exceptions may include people who:

Have religious objections to being photographed (Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin)

Are indigent (Indiana, Tennessee)

"Have a reasonable impediment" to getting an ID (South Carolina)

Do not have an ID as a result of a recent natural disaster (Texas)

People who are victims of domestic abuse, sexual assault or stalking and have a "confidential listing" (Wisconsin)

Additionally, voter ID requirements generally apply to in-person voting, not to absentee ballots or mailed ballots.

All voters, regardless of the type of verification required by the states, are subject to perjury charges if they vote under false pretenses.

PLEASE NOTE: The information provided below and throughout this webpage should be used for general informational purposes and not as a legal reference. If you have questions regarding the voter ID requirements in your state, please contact your local election administrator.
The box allows you to conduct a full text search or type the state name.

Vote a provisional ballot or vote a regular ballot if s/he is identified by two election officials as an eligible voter on the poll list, and both election workers sign a sworn affidavit so stating.

If voting a provisional ballot, the voter has until 5:00PM on the Friday after the election to bring the required ID

An election official may waive the identification requirement if the election official knows the identity of the voter. A voter who cannot exhibit a required form of identification shall be allowed to vote a questioned ballot.

Valid Arizona driver's license

Valid Arizona non-driver identification

Tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification

Valid U.S. federal, state or local government issued identification

Utility bill dated within 90 days of the election

Bank or credit union statement dated within 90 days of the election

Valid Arizona vehicle registration

Indian census card

Property tax statement

Vehicle insurance card

Recorder's certificate

An elector who does not provide the required identification shall receive a provisional ballot. Provisional ballots are counted only if the elector provides identification to the county recorder by 5 p.m. on the fifth business day after a general election that includes an election for federal office, or by 5 p.m. on the third business day after any other election.

A voter shall verify registration by presenting a document or identification card that:

Documents and identification cards that comply with the requirements include without limitation:

A document or identification card may be presented in a digital format on an electronic device if it complies with other requirements and has been approved or issues by the U.S., the state of Arkansas or an accredited post-secondary educational institution.

§1-1-104(19.5) and 1-7-110
NOTE: Since the passage of HB 1303 in 2013, most CO voters now vote by mail. However, at least one location is open on Election Day for in-person voting, and the ID requirement spelled out here applies to those voters.

Colorado driver's license

Colorado Dept. of Revenue ID card

U.S. passport

Employee ID card with photo issued by the -U.S. government, Colorado state government, or political subdivision of Colorado

Pilot's license

U.S. military ID with photo

Copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the elector

Medicare or Medicaid card

Certified copy of birth certificate

Certified documentation of naturalization

An eligible elector who is unable to produce identification may cast a provisional ballot.

The designated election official shall attempt to verify that an elector who cast a provisional ballot is eligible to vote. The designated election official or designee shall complete the preliminary verification of the elector's eligibility to vote before the ballot is counted. (§1-8.5-105)

Social Security card

Any other preprinted form of identification which shows the elector's name and either the elector's address, signature or photograph

Elector shall, on a form prescribed by the secretary of the state, write the elector's residential address and date of birth, print the elector's name and sign a statement under penalty of false statement that the elector is the elector whose name appears on the official checklist.

Photo ID

Utility bill

Paycheck

Any government document with voter's name and address

In the event the voter does not have proof of identity with them, he or she shall sign an affidavit of affirmation that he or she is the person listed on the election district record.

One of the following current and valid picture identifications:

Florida driver's license

Florida ID card issued by the Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles

U.S. passport

Debit or credit card

Military identification

Student identification

Retirement center identification

Neighborhood association ID

Public assistance identification

Veteran health identification card issued by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs

A license to carry a concealed weapon or firearm

Employee identification card issued by any branch, department, agency, or entity of the Federal Government, the state, a county, or a municipality.

If the picture identification does not contain the signature of the elector, an additional identification that provides the elector's signature shall be required.

A voter without one of the acceptable forms of photo identification can vote on a provisional ballot. He or she will have up to three days after the election to present appropriate photo identification at the county registrar's office in order for the provisional ballot to be counted.

Acceptable types of ID are not specified by law. Hawaii's office of elections provides this information: "Forms of acceptable identification include a valid photo ID (Drivers License, State ID, etc), a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, or other government issued document that shows your name and address."

If the voter has no identification, the voter will be asked to recite his/her date of birth and residence address to corroborate the information provided in the poll book.

A voter may complete an affidavit in lieu of the personal identification. The affidavit shall be on a form prescribed by the secretary of state and shall require the voter to provide the voter's name and address. The voter shall sign the affidavit. Any person who knowingly provides false, erroneous or inaccurate information on such affidavit shall be guilty of a felony.

Voters who are unable or decline to produce proof of identification may vote a provisional ballot. The ballot is counted only if (1) the voter returns to the election board by noon on the Monday after the election and: (A) produces proof of identification; or (B) executes an affidavit stating that the voter cannot obtain proof of identification, because the voter: (i) is indigent; or (ii) has a religious objection to being photographed; and (2) the voter has not been challenged or required to vote a provisional ballot for any other reason.

Note: The Secretary of State's Office is required to provide a voter identification card to all active registered voters who do not have one of the five forms of identification at the time of passage of the bill (HB 516 in 2017). Going forward, county auditors will be required to issue voter identification cards to newly registered voters who do not possess a valid form of ID, as prescribed by the Secretary of State's Office.

In 2018, voters will be asked for ID and anyone who does not have necessary ID will be asked to sign an oath verifying their identity, and will be allowed to cast a regular ballot.

In 2019, voters without the necessary ID will be offered a provisional ballot and can provide ID up until the time of the county canvass of votes (Monday after election day).

A person who is registered to vote but is unable to present a form of identification listed may present any of the following:

a. A current voter identification card that contains the voter identification number if the voter identification card is signed before the voter presents the card to the election official.

b. Other forms of identification sufficient to establish identity and residence dates, or describe terms of residency current to, within forty-five days prior to presentation:

(a) Residential lease.

(b) Property tax statement.

(c) Utility bill.

(d) Bank statement.

(e) Paycheck.

(f) Government check.

(g) Other government document.

A person who is registered to vote but is unable to present a form of identification listed above, may establish identity and residency in the precinct by written oath of a person who is also registered to vote in the precinct. The attesting registered voter's oath shall attest to the stated identity of the person wishing to vote and that the person is a current resident of the precinct. The oath must be signed by the attesting registered voter in the presence of the appropriate precinct election official. A registered voter who has signed two oaths on election day attesting to a person's identity and residency as provided in this subsection is prohibited from signing any further oaths as provided in this subsection on that day.

If a voter cannot meet any of the above options, the voter may cast a provisional ballot.

The following forms of identification are valid if they contain the name and photograph of the voter and have not expired. Expired documents are valid if the bearer is aged 65 or older.

A voter who is unable or refuses to provide current and valid identification may vote a provisional ballot.

To have his or her ballot counted, the voter must provide a valid form of identification to the county election officer in person or provide a copy by mail or electronic means before the meeting of the county board of canvassers.

Driver's license

Social Security card

When the officers of an election disagree as to the qualifications of a voter or if his right to vote is disputed by a challenger, the voter shall sign a written oath as to his qualifications before he is permitted to vote.

Louisiana driver's license

Louisiana special ID card

Military ID with photo

Other generally recognized picture identification

If the applicant does not have identification, s/he shall sign an affidavit to that effect before the commissioners, and the applicant shall provide further identification by presenting his current registration certificate, giving his date of birth or providing other information stated in the precinct register that is requested by the commissioners. However, an applicant that is allowed to vote without the picture identification required by this Paragraph is subject to challenge as provided in R.S. 18:565.

Michigan driver's license

Michigan personal identification card

A voter who does not possess either of the above may show any of the following, as long as they are current:

An individual who does not possess, or did not bring to the polls, photo ID, may sign an affidavit and vote a regular ballot.

Driver's license

Photo ID card issued by a branch, department, or entity of the State of Mississippi

United States passport

Government employee ID card

Firearms license

Student photo ID issued by an accredited Mississippi university, college or community/junior college

United States military ID

Tribal photo ID

Any other photo ID issued by any branch, department, agency or entity of the United States government or any state government

Mississippi Voter Identification Card

An individual without ID can cast an affidavit ballot which will be counted if the individual returns to the appropriate circuit clerk within five days after the election and shows government-issued photo ID.

Voters with a religious objection to being photographed may vote an affidavit ballot, which will be counted if the voter returns to the appropriate circuit clerk within five days after the election and executes an affidavit that the religious exemption applies.

Nonexpired Missouri driver's license;

Nonexpired or nonexpiring Missouri nondriver's license;

A nonexpired United States passport; or

Another photo ID issued by the United States or the state of Missouri which is either not expired or expired after the date of the most recent general election.

*If the driver or non-driver license has expired after the most recent general election, it is an acceptable form of voter ID.

If ID is not presented, the voter votes on a provisional ballot and must return that day before 7 p.m. to show ID. A provisional ballot is also counted if the signature on a voter's provisional ballot envelope is determined by a local election authority to match the signature on the voter's registration record.

Driver's license from New Hampshire or any other state, regardless of expiration date

Photo ID card issued by the NH director of motor vehicles

Voter ID card issued under R.S. 260:21

U.S. armed services photo ID card

U.S. passport, regardless of expiration date

Valid student ID card

Any other valid photo ID issued by federal, state, county or municipal government

Any other photo ID that is determined to be legitimate by the supervisors of the checklist, the moderator, or the town or city clerk, provided that if any person authorized to challenge a voter under RSA 659:27 objects to the use of such photo identification, the voter shall be required to execute a qualified voter affidavit as if no identification was presented.

Verification of the voter's identity by a moderator or supervisor of the checklist or clerk of a town, ward or city (not a ballot clerk). If any person authorized to challenge a voter does so under this provision, the voter shall be required to fill out a challenged voter affidavit before obtaining a ballot.

A person's identity may be verified by a moderator or supervisor of the checklist or the town or city clerk, but if any person authorized to challenge a voter under RSA 659:27 objects to such verification, the voter shall be required to execute a challenged voter affidavit.

If a voter does not have a valid photo identification, the ballot clerk shall inform the voter that he or she may execute a challenged voter affidavit. Unless the voter has a religious objection to having his or her photo taken, the moderator will take his or her photo and affix it to the affidavit.The voter may then cast a regular ballot.

By Jan. 10 in odd numbered years or within 90 days after any other election, the secretary of state is required to mail a nonforwardable letter to each voter who executed a challenged voter affidavit, notifying the person that a person who did not present valid photo identification voted using his or her name and address and instruct the person to return the letter within 90 days with a written confirmation that the person voted or to contact the attorney general immediately if he or she did not vote. Any such letters returned as undeliverable must be turned over to the attorney general, who shall investigate for voter fraud. Notice from any voter receiving such a letter that s/he did not vote is also forwarded to the attorney general for investigation. The secretary must also turn over to the attorney general a list of all voters who fail to respond to the letter to confirm that they voted.

North Carolina

§ 163A‑1145.1 NOTE: Implementation was to begin in 2020, though the law was struck down in 2021. An appeal is likely.

NOTE: Implementation was to begin in 2020, though the law was struck down in 2021. An appeal is likely.

Any of the following that is valid and unexpired, or has been expired for one year or less and contain a photo:

Any of the following, regardless of whether the ID contains an expiration or issuance date (with photo):

Military ID card

Veterans ID card

Any expired form of ID allowed in this subsection presented by a registered voter who is 65 or older, provided the ID was unexpired on the voter's 65th birthday

If a registered voter cannot produce the required ID, a provisional ballot is required. It is counted only if the voter brings an acceptable ID to the county board of elections no later than the day before the canvass. There are exceptions for a religious objection, a reasonable impediment, or natural disaster. In this case the voter has to fill out a Reasonable Impediment Declaration Form and affidavit. These are reviewed by the county board of elections and the provisional ballot is counted unless the county board has grounds to believe the affidavit is false. Reasonable impediments include: inability to obtain photo identification due to lack of transportation, disability or illness, lack of birth certificate or other underlying documents required, work schedule or family responsibilities; lost or stolen photo identification; photo identification applied for but not yet received by the registered voter voting in person; or other reasonable impediment. If the registered voter checks the "other reasonable impediment" box, a further brief written identification of the reasonable impediment shall be required, including the option to indicate that State or federal law prohibits listing the impediment.

Identification must provide:

Legal name

Current residential street address in North Dakota

Date of birth

A valid form of identification is:

Driver's license

ID card issues by the North Dakota department of transportation

ID issued by tribal government to a tribal member residing in the state

If an individual's valid form of ID does not include the required information or the information is not current, the identification must be supplemented by one of the following that provides the missing or outdated information:

If an individual is not able to show a valid form of identification but asserts qualifications as an elector in the precinct in which the individual desires to vote, the individual may mark a ballot that must be securely set aside in a sealed envelope designed by the secretary of state. After the ballot is set aside, the individual may show a valid form of identification to either a polling place election board member if the individual returns to the polling place before the polls close, or to an employee of the office of the election official responsible for the administration of the election before the meeting of the canvassing board occurring on the sixth day after the election. Each ballot set aside under this subsection must be presented to the members of the canvassing board for proper inclusion or exclusion from the tally.

The following forms of identification are valid for individuals living under special circumstances who do not possess a valid form of identification:

For an individual living in a long-term care facility, a long-term care certificate prescribed by the secretary of state and issued by a long-term care facility in this state;

For a uniformed service member or immediate family member temporarily stationed away from the individual's residence in this state, or a resident of the state temporarily living outside the country, a current military identification card or passport; and

For an individual living with a disability that prevents the individual from traveling away from the individual's home, the signature on an absentee or mail ballot application from another qualified elector who, by signing, certifies the applicant is a qualified elector.

Current and valid photo identification, defined as a document that shows the individual's name and current address, includes a photograph, includes an expiration date that has not passed, and was issued by the U.S. government or the state of Ohio

Current utility bill

Current bank statement

Current government check, paycheck or other government document

A voter who has but declines to provide identification may cast a provisional ballot upon providing a Social Security number or the last four digits of a Social Security number. A voter who has neither identification nor a Social Security number may execute an affidavit to that effect and vote a provisional ballot. A voter who declines to sign the affidavit may still vote a provisional ballot.

Voters who cast a provisional ballot because they did not provide acceptable proof of identity must appear in person at the board of elections to provide such proof within the 10 days immediately following Election Day. (see the Ohio secretary of state's FAQ on provisional voting)

"Proof of identity" shall mean a document that satisfies the following:

Shows a name that substantially conforms to the name in the precinct registry

Shows a photograph

Includes an expiration date that is after the date of the election

Was issued by the United States, state of Oklahoma, or a federally recognized Indian tribe or nation

A voter registration card issued by the appropriate county elections board may serve as proof of identity without meeting all of the above requirements.

A provisional ballot cast by a voter who declines or is unable to produce proof of identity shall only be considered verified and approved for counting if the voter's name, residence address, date of birth, and driver's license number or last four digits of Social Security number as provided on the affidavit match what is in the registration database.

A valid (unexpired or expired within the last 6 months) document showing a photo of the person to whom it was issued, including:

If the person claiming to be a registered and eligible voter is unable to provide proof of identity as required, the person shall be allowed to vote a provisional ballot pursuant to section 17-19-24.2. The local board shall determine the validity of the provisional ballot pursuant to section 17-19-24.3.

Summary of section 17-19-24.3: The local board shall examine each provisional ballot application to determine if the signature matches the signature on the voter's registration. If the signatures match, the provisional ballot shall count. If the signatures do not match, the ballot shall not count and shall be rejected as illegal.

Voters who have a reasonable impediment to obtaining photo ID may show a non-photo voter registration card in lieu of photo ID, sign an affidavit attesting to the impediment, and cast a provisional ballot.

From the State Election Commission's web site:

If you have a reasonable impediment to obtaining photo ID, you may vote a provisional ballot after showing your nonphoto voter registration card. A reasonable impediment is any valid reason, beyond your control, which created an obstacle to obtaining photo ID. Some examples include:

To vote under the reasonable impediment exception:

1. Present your current, nonphoto registration card at the polling place

2. Sign an affidavit stating why you could not obtain a photo ID

3. Cast a provisional ballot that will be counted unless the county election commission has reason to believe your affidavit is false.

If you do NOT have photo ID and do NOT have a reasonable impediment to obtaining one, or you simply forgot to bring it with you to the polls, you may still vote a provisional ballot. However, for your vote to be counted, you must provide one of the photo IDs to the county election commission prior to certification of the election (usually Thursday or Friday after the election).

If a voter is not able to present a form of personal identification as required, the voter may complete an affidavit in lieu of the personal identification. The affidavit shall require the voter to provide his or her name and address. The voter shall sign the affidavit under penalty of perjury.

If a voter is unable to present the proper evidence of identification, then the voter will be entitled to vote by provisional ballot in the manner detailed in the bill. The provisional ballot will only be counted if the voter provides the proper evidence of identification to the administrator of elections or the administrator's designee by the close of business on the second business day after the election.

However, "A voter who is indigent and unable to obtain proof of identification without payment of a fee or who has a religious objection to being photographed shall be required to execute an affidavit of identity on a form provided by the county election commission and then shall be allowed to vote." §2-7-112(f)

Election Code §63.001 et seq.

With the exception of the U.S. citizenship certificate, the identification must be current or have expired no more than four years before being presented for voter qualification at the polling place.

Voters who do not possess an acceptable form of photo ID and cannot obtain one of the forms of acceptable photo ID listed due to a reasonable impediment, may present a supporting form of ID and execute a Reasonable Impediment Declaration, noting the voter's reasonable impediment to obtaining an acceptable form of ID.

Supporting forms of ID that can be presented if the voter does not possess one of the forms of acceptable photo ID and cannot obtain one due to a reasonable impediment:

After presenting a supporting form of ID, the voter must execute a Reasonable Impediment Declaration.

If a voter possesses an acceptable form of photo ID but does not have it at the polling place, the voter will still be permitted to vote provisionally. The voter will have six (6) days to present an acceptable form of photo identification to the county voter registrar or the voter's ballot will be rejected.

Voters with a disability who do not have an acceptable form of photo ID may also apply with the county voter registrar for a permanent exemption.

Voters who have a consistent religious objection to being photographed and voters who do not present any form of acceptable photo identification as a result of certain natural disasters as declared by the President of the United States or the Texas Governor, may vote a provisional ballot, appear at the voter registrar's office within six (6) calendar days after election day, and sign an affidavit swearing to the religious objection or natural disaster, in order for your ballot to be counted.

OR

Two forms of ID that bear the name of the voter and provide evidence that the voter resides in the precinct

Except for first time voters covered by HAVA, any voter who does not show one of the forms of ID specified shall be allowed to vote a regular ballot after signing a statement under penalty of perjury verifying their identity. A voter who does not show ID or sign a statement shall be offered a provisional ballot.

Washington

§29A.40.160(7)

NOTE: Most Washington voters now vote by mail. However, county auditors are required to open at least one vote center where voters can cast a ballot in person, and the ID requirement spelled out here applies to those voters.

The county auditor shall require any person desiring to vote at a voting center to either sign a ballot declaration (generally in locations where ballots are scanned) or provide identification (generally in counties where voting is done electronically, although even in these counties the auditor can verify a voter's signature to a signature on record).

If identification is used it must be valid photo identification, such as:

West Virginia driver's license or ID car

Valid driver's license issued by another state

U.S. Passport

Valid employee identification card with photo issued by the U.S. Government or state of West Virginia

Valid student identification card issued by an institution of higher education in West Virginia or high school in West Virginia

Valid military identification card with photo issued by the United States

Valid concealed carry permit with a photograph

Valid Medicare or Social Security card

Valid birth certificate

Valid voter registration card issued by a county clerk in the State of West Virginia

Valid hunting or fishing license issued by the State of West Virginia

Valid identification card issued by the West Virginia Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program (SNAP)

Valid identification card issued by the West Virginia Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF)

Valid West Virginia Medicaid card

Valid bank or debit card

Valid utility bill issued within six months of the date of the election

Valid bank statement issued within six months of the date of the election

Valid health insurance card

OR

In lieu of providing a valid identifying document, a registered voter may be accompanied at the polling place by an adult known to the registered voter for at least six months. That adult may sign an affidavit on a form provided to clerks and poll workers by the Secretary of State, which states under oath or affirmation that the adult has known the registered voter for at least six months, and that in fact the registered voter is the same person who is present for the purpose of voting. For the affidavit to be considered valid, the adult shall present a valid identifying document with his or her name, address, and photograph.

A poll worker may allow a voter, whom the poll worker has known for at least six months, to vote without presenting a valid identifying document.

All of the above must include a photo and a name that conforms to the poll list.

If the ID presented is not proof of residence, the elector shall also present proof of residence.

An elector who appears to vote at a polling place and does not have statutory ID shall be offered the opportunity to vote a provisional ballot.

An elector who votes a provisional ballot may furnish statutory ID to the election inspectors before the polls close or to the municipal clerk no later than 4pm on the Friday following Election Day.

Wyoming driver's license

Tribal identification card issued by the governing body of the Eastern Shoshone tribe of Wyoming, the Northern Arapaho tribe of Wyoming or other federally recognized Indian tribe

A Wyoming identification card

A valid United States passport

A United States military card

A driver's license or identification card issued by another state or US territory

Student ID card with a photograph issued by the University of Wyoming, a Wyoming community college or a Wyoming public school

A valid Medicare insurance card (until December 31, 2029)

A valid Medicaid insurance card (until December 31, 2029)

An elector who appears to vote at a polling place and does not have statutory ID shall be offered the opportunity to vote a provisional ballot.

An elector who votes a provisional ballot must furnish statutory ID to the county clerk by the close of business on the day following the election.

DO NOT DELETE - NCSL Search Page Data

Related Resources

State and presidential primary dates for 2020 are listed by state and date. State and presidential primaries are used by political parties to determine which candidates for legislative seats, office of president and other offices will go on the general election ballot on November 3, 2020.

Polls have closed for the 2022 general election, where voters in 46 states decided on 6,279 state legislative races, 36 governors and 133 statewide ballot measures.

Information about digital political ads, legislative options for regulating them, and a table that includes all significant introduced and enacted legislation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Skip to main content Most states with strict voter identification requirements make some exceptions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Education is primarily a State and local responsibility in the United States. It is States and communities, as well as public and private organizations of all kinds, that establish schools and colleges, develop curricula, and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation. The structure of education finance in America reflects this predominant State and local role. Of an estimated $1.15 trillion being spent nationwide on education at all levels for school year 2012-2013, a substantial majority will come from State, local, and private sources. This is especially true at the elementary and secondary level, where about 92 percent of the funds will come from non-Federal sources.

That means the Federal contribution to elementary and secondary education is about 8 percent, which includes funds not only from the Department of Education (ED) but also from other Federal agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services' Head Start program and the Department of Agriculture's School Lunch program.

Although ED's share of total education funding in the U.S. is relatively small, ED works hard to get a big bang for its taxpayer-provided bucks by targeting its funds where they can do the most good. This targeting reflects the historical development of the Federal role in education as a kind of "emergency response system," a means of filling gaps in State and local support for education when critical national needs arise.

The original Department of Education was created in 1867 to collect information on schools and teaching that would help the States establish effective school systems. While the agency's name and location within the Executive Branch have changed over the past 130 years, this early emphasis on getting information on what works in education to teachers and education policymakers continues down to the present day.

The passage of the Second Morrill Act in 1890 gave the then-named Office of Education responsibility for administering support for the original system of land-grant colleges and universities. Vocational education became the next major area of Federal aid to schools, with the 1917 Smith-Hughes Act and the 1946 George-Barden Act focusing on agricultural, industrial, and home economics training for high school students.

World War II led to a significant expansion of Federal support for education. The Lanham Act in 1941 and the Impact Aid laws of 1950 eased the burden on communities affected by the presence of military and other Federal installations by making payments to school districts. And in 1944, the "GI Bill" authorized postsecondary education assistance that would ultimately send nearly 8 million World War II veterans to college.

The Cold War stimulated the first example of comprehensive Federal education legislation, when in 1958 Congress passed the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) in response to the Soviet launch of Sputnik. To help ensure that highly trained individuals would be available to help America compete with the Soviet Union in scientific and technical fields, the NDEA included support for loans to college students, the improvement of science, mathematics, and foreign language instruction in elementary and secondary schools, graduate fellowships, foreign language and area studies, and vocational-technical training.

The anti-poverty and civil rights laws of the 1960s and 1970s brought about a dramatic emergence of the Department's equal access mission. The passage of laws such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which prohibited discrimination based on race, sex, and disability, respectively made civil rights enforcement a fundamental and long-lasting focus of the Department of Education. In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act launched a comprehensive set of programs, including the Title I program of Federal aid to disadvantaged children to address the problems of poor urban and rural areas. And in that same year, the Higher Education Act authorized assistance for postsecondary education, including financial aid programs for needy college students.

In 1980, Congress established the Department of Education as a Cabinet level agency. Today, ED operates programs that touch on every area and level of education. The Department's elementary and secondary programs annually serve nearly 18,200 school districts and over 50 million students attending roughly 98,000 public schools and 32,000 private schools. Department programs also provide grant, loan, and work-study assistance to more than 12 million postsecondary students.

Despite the growth of the Federal role in education, the Department never strayed far from what would become its official mission: to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

The Department carries out its mission in two major ways. First, the Secretary and the Department play a leadership role in the ongoing national dialogue over how to improve the results of our education system for all students. This involves such activities as raising national and community awareness of the education challenges confronting the Nation, disseminating the latest discoveries on what works in teaching and learning, and helping communities work out solutions to difficult educational issues.

Second, the Department pursues its twin goals of access and excellence through the administration of programs that cover every area of education and range from preschool education through postdoctoral research. For more information on the Department's programs see the President's FY 2022 Budget Request for Education.

One final note: while ED's programs and responsibilities have grown substantially over the years, the Department itself has not. In fact, the Department has the smallest staff of the 15 Cabinet agencies, even though its discretionary budget alone is the third largest, behind only the Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services. In addition, the Department provides over $150 billion in new and consolidated loans annually.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
federal government; federal programs; federal state relationship; federal aid;

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This page discusses the role of the U.S. Department, providing a brief history of the Department as well as a descrption of the Department's mission and staffing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is the Role of the Federal Government in Education? - California State PTA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Education is primarily a state and local responsibility in the United States. It is states and communities, as well as public and private organizations of all kinds, that establish schools and colleges, develop curricula, and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation. The structure of edu…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Arguments for and against voter identification laws

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
MAKE A GIFT

Every day, the experts at Giffords Law Center work tirelessly to craft, enact, and defend the gun safety policies and programs that save lives. A safer America is within reach, but we need your courage and commitment to get there.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every day, the experts at Giffords Law Center work tirelessly to craft, enact, and defend the gun safety policies and programs that save lives. A safer America is within reach, but we need your courage and commitment to get there.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our gun-data spreadsheet now includes spending on state- and federal-level lobbying; state and federal contributions from gun control groups, gun rights groups, and gun manufacturers; contributions to members of Congress; and current NRA data.

Gun violence is a fact of life in the United States, and mass shootings continue to occur with frightening regularity.

Mass shootings are often quickly politicized as lawmakers and members of the public alike grapple with how to address senseless gun violence. But organizations on both sides of the issue have been working in Washington for decades, contributing to decades of political gridlock broken in June 2022 by the bipartisan gun safety bill.

National outcry for solutions after several high-profile mass shootings preceded recent legislative action. Less than two weeks after a May 10 shooting left 10 people in the Tops Friendly Markets in Buffalo, N.Y., dead and several others injured, 19 children and two adults were in an elementary school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. Between the two mass casualty events, another left one dead and multiple injured at a Taiwanese church in California. The and shootings are being investigated as hate crimes.

Congress passed bipartisan legislation that expanded background checks for buyers under 21, funds state intervention programs including so-called "red flag" laws and allocates millions for mental health and school safety resources. The bill also cracks down on gun trafficking and straw purchasers and expands the ban on domestic abusers to include serious or recent partners. Fifteen Senate Republicans voted with Democrats to pass the legislation, although a majority of congressional Republicans, backed by prominent gun rights groups including the National Rifle Association, opposed the bill as too broad.

President Joe Biden signed the bill into law on June 25, 2022.

A week later, a gunman killed seven people at a 4th of July parade in the Highland Park neighborhood in Chicago. The killing highlighted acknowledged limitations of the bipartisan bill to stop such mass shootings, but broader bans on assault rifles or other weapons are unlikely to pass the current Congress.

We've been here before

Deadly shootings across the country shock the conscience and spur debate in both communities and Congress.

In April 2019, a shooting at a synagogue in the town of Poway in Southern California killed one and injured three in what officials deem a hate crime. The Poway synagogue shooting came exactly six months after a man spouting anti-Semitic slurs opened fire on worshippers at the Tree of Life synagogue in an attack that left 11 dead. The Anti-Defamation League described the Tree of Life shooting as on the Jewish community in American history.

The deadliest mass shooting in modern American history occurred one year earlier, in Oct. 2017, at a Las Vegas music festival, resulting in the deaths of 58 concertgoers and injuring hundreds more.

Only 16 months before that, a gunman armed with a handgun and a semi-automatic rifle murdered 49 people and injured 58 at an Orlando nightclub in what was then the country's worst mass shooting. The horrific attack in Orlando came less than six months after a man and a woman opened fire at a San Bernardino, Calif., social services center, killing 14 and injuring 22.

The issue of how to strike a balance between gun rights and public safety has been a political hot potato for years. Prominent gun rights organizations consistently spent millions more on lobbying in Washington than their gun control counterparts, according to OpenSecrets data, contributing to decades-long stalemate.

But former President Donald Trump repeatedly pledged to protect Second Amendment rights and often warned gun owners that their Second Amendment rights are "under assault." In an April 2019 speech to NRA members, he will not ratify America's participation in the international Arms Trade Treaty, which would provide some international oversight on arms sales.

In opposition to the Republicans, the Democratic-controlled House prioritized passing gun control legislation. The House previously with some bipartisan support that strengthen and expand the background check process and reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act, because of the bill's measure that seeks to prevent domestic abusers from obtaining guns.

In June 2016, Democrats mounted a successful filibuster that forced Senate Republicans to vote on four gun control proposals - none of which passed.

A .44 caliber political issue

The last major piece of gun control legislation to make it into law prior to the bipartisan gun bill passed in June was the assault weapons ban, passed in 1994 as part of a larger crime-related bill approved by Congress and signed by then-President Bill Clinton. But the ban, which applied to the manufacture of 19 specific models of semi-automatic firearms and other guns with similar features, expired in 2004, and repeated attempts to renew it failed.

81% of Americans

told Pew Research Center in 2021 that they support expanding background checks to include private firearm sales and purchases at gun shows, including a majority of Republican respondents. Preventing individuals with mental illnesses from purchasing guns is also supported by the vast majority of people on both sides of the political spectrum.

Some Democrats thought their support for the assault weapons ban cost them control of Congress in the 1994 midterm elections. Whether or not that's true, there's little question that the politics of gun ownership have swung to the right. Republicans largely oppose gun control, and Democrats are split, with some lawmakers cautious about going against the views of more conservative constituencies, especially in rural districts.

Gun control versus gun rights was a major issue of the 2020 presidential election. One Democratic candidate, Rep. (D-Calif.) made the central issue he ran on. The necessity of more gun control legislation was among all Democratic candidates, several of whom own guns.

Despite highly publicized mass shootings, no earlier gun control measures, with the exception of the bump stock ban, made it into law prior to the recent bipartisan gun safety legislation.

OpenSecrets of the 46 senators who voted against the amendment had accepted significant campaign contributions from the political action committees of gun rights groups. There were exceptions to the rule, notably the measure's sponsors, Sens. (D-W.Va.) and (R-Pa.). But in general, the correlation was a close one.

Guns and money

There's no denying that much of the strength of the leading gun rights organization - the NRA - comes from its broad and passionate membership base and its mastery of grassroots politics.

But if lawmakers seem to tiptoe around gun issues, that could be in part because the NRA and other gun rights groups are loaded for bear with a seemingly limitless stash of cash ammunition.

During the 2018 midterm elections, gun control groups outspent the NRA for the first time by a $2.6 million margin. But gun control groups' total $23.5 million in 2020 election spending was dwarfed by the NRA's spending that cycle, and gun control organizations are outpacing gun rights groups in outside spending ahead of the 2022 midterms.

The NRA spent $29.1 million in 2020 federal elections, most of that to support in the final months of the cycle, with around $19.5 million of that spending bankrolled by its newly created super PAC and $9 million by its traditional .

Just four years earlier, the group spent during the 2016 election cycle, breaking the group's prior spending records. Of that, $31.2 million went to supporting Trump's first presidential campaign. Most of the NRA's 2016 spending was routed through its main " " group, which does not disclose its donors.

During the 2018 election cycle, the NRA made around $9.4 million in outside expenditures, a significant decrease from the $27 million spent during the 2014 midterm election cycle and a massive drop from its 2016 presidential election spending.

Those interests gave $52 million to candidates and party committees from 1989 through the second quarter of 2022, with nearly all of that going to Democrats.

Despite being by gun rights lobbying and campaign contributions, gun control groups have increased outside spending since the 2018 election cycle. Gun control advocates $16.6 million into outside spending in 2020 compared to just $14,000 in 2016.

Most of the gun control movement's political clout comes from two well-connected organizations. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's Everytown for Gun Safety super PAC is the leading outside spender supporting gun control. The super PAC $3.6 million of the total $4.4 million spent by gun control groups through May in the 2022 cycle. , a super PAC backed by Bloomberg, supports a variety of causes including stricter gun laws. After spending a whopping $56.5 million on the 2020 election, mostly supporting President , the super PAC has poured over $1 million into 2022 midterms as of May. It spent around $37.5 million on independent expenditures during the 2018 midterms. The money supports federal candidates who favor gun control and attacks those who do not.

Another major gun control lobby spender is , an organization founded by gun violence victim and former Rep. (D-Ariz.) and her husband, current U.S. Sen. (D-Ariz.), who is running for re-election in Arizona in the 2022 midterms. Giffords spent about $500,000 on in 2021. The group's hybrid PAC spent more than $11 million during the 2020 election cycle and spent about $6.6 million during the 2022 election cycle as of June figures from OpenSecrets.

Powerful gun rights groups including the NRA and have poured millions into lobbying, campaign contributions and outside spending to advocate for the right to bear arms. At least Americans owned guns in 2021.

Gun rights groups are still powerful in the realm of lobbying, consistently spending more money to influence policy than gun control organizations. Gun rights groups a record $15.8 million on lobbying in 2021 and have $190 million in lobbying efforts since 1998.

Gun rights advocates spent more than $114 million of that total since 2013. Lobbying by gun rights advocates nearly tripled in 2013 after a gunman murdered 26 people, including 20 children, at Sandy Hook Elementary on Dec. 14, 2012. The following year was the the Senate came to passing meaningful gun control legislation in the decade between the shooting and the bipartisan gun control bill.

Groups advocating for gun control spent a record $2.9 million in 2021. But gun control advocates, spearheaded by and Everytown for Gun Safety , spent just under $30 million on lobbying from 1998 through the second quarter of 2022 - about six times less than gun rights groups spent over the same period.
- Taylor Giorno, Anna Massoglia, Raymond Arke, Geoff West (July 2022)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our gun-data spreadsheet now includes spending on state- and federal-level lobbying; state and federal contributions from gun control groups, gun rights groups, and gun manufacturers; contributions to members of Congress; and current NRA data. Gun violence is a fact of life in the United States, and mass shootings continue to occur with frightening regularity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
History of Gun Control Laws
Gun control laws are just as old or older than the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791). Some examples of gun control throughout colonial America included criminalizing the transfer of guns to Catholics, enslaved people, indentured servants, and Native Americans; regulating the storage of gun powder in homes; banning loaded guns in Boston houses; and mandating participation in formal gathering of troops and door-to-door surveys about guns owned.

Guns were common in the American Colonies, first for hunting and general self-protection and later as weapons in the American Revolutionary War. Several colonies' gun laws required that heads of households (including women) own guns and that all able-bodied men enroll in the militia and carry personal firearms. Read more history...

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1

The Second Amendment is not an unlimited or individual right to own guns.

Further, the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of militias to own guns, not the right of individuals to own guns. Former Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissenting opinion for District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, wrote, "the Framer's single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee 'to keep and bear arms' was on military use of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias," hence the inclusion of the phrase "well regulated militia."

Michael Waldman, President of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, stated there is nothing about an individual right to bear arms in the notes about the Second Amendment when it was being drafted, discussed, or ratified; the US Supreme Court declined to rule in favor of the individual right four times between 1876 and 1939; and all law articles on the Second Amendment from 1888 to 1959 stated that an individual right was not guaranteed.
Read More

Pro 2

More gun control laws would reduce gun deaths.

Approximately 50% of unintentional fatal shootings were self-inflicted; and most unintentional firearm deaths were caused by friends or family members.

Five women are murdered with guns every day in the United States. A woman's risk of being murdered increases 500% if a gun is present during a domestic dispute. During the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, 5,364 US soldiers were killed in action between Oct. 7, 2001 and Jan. 28, 2015; between 2001 and 2012 6,410 women were killed with a gun by an intimate partner in the United States.

Researchers found that a "general barrier to firearm access created through state regulation can have a significant deterrent effect on male suicide rates in the United States. Permit requirements and bans on sales to minors were the most effective of the regulations analyzed."

Gun licensing laws were associated with a 14% decrease in firearm homicides, while increases in firearm homicides were seen in places with right-to-carry and stand-your ground-laws.

More gun control leads to fewer suicides. When US gun ownership goes down, overall suicide rates drop; meanwhile, each 10 percentage-point increase in gun ownership is linked to a 26.9% increase in the youth suicide rate. In Indiana and Connecticut, after "red flag" laws to remove guns from people who may pose a threat were enacted, gun suicides decreased by 7.5% and 13.7% respectively, while suicides by other means did not decrease during the same time. A person who wants to kill him/herself is unlikely to commit suicide with poison or a knife when a gun is unavailable.

The US General Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that 31% of total accidental shooting deaths could have been prevented by installing safety devices on guns: 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills him/herself or another child could be prevented by automatic child-proof safety locks; and 23% of accidental shooting deaths by adolescents and adults per year could be prevented by loading indicators showing when a bullet was in the chamber ready to be fired.

Marjorie Sanfilippo, PhD, Professor of Psychology at Eckerd College who has researched children's behavior around guns, stated, "We put gates around swimming pools to keep children from drowning. We put safety caps on medications to keep children from poisoning themselves.... [B]ecause children are naturally curious and impulsive, and because we have shown time and again that we cannot 'gun-proof' them with education, we have a responsibility to keep guns out of the hands of children."
Read More

Pro 3

The presence of a gun makes a conflict more likely to become violent.

The FBI found that arguments (such as romantic triangles, brawls fueled by alcohol or drugs, and arguments over money) resulted in 1,962 gun deaths (59.9% of the total).

An editorial published in the American Journal of Public Health noted, "gun-inflicted deaths [often] ensue from impromptu arguments and fights; in the US, two-thirds of the 7,900 deaths in 1981 involving arguments and brawls were caused by guns." A study published in the same journal found that "the weapons used [in altercations]... were those closest at hand." And thus, according to another study, "[r]ather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."

Common sense gun control laws can decrease the likelihood of a violent situation turning deadly. President Ronald Reagan and others did not think the AR-15 military rifle (also called M16s by the Air Force) should be owned by civilians and, when the AR-15 was included in the assault weapons ban of 1994 (which expired on Sep. 13, 2004), the NRA supported the legislation. A Mother Jones investigation found that high-capacity magazines were used in at least 50% of the 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012.When high-capacity magazines were used in mass shootings, the death rate rose 63% and the injury rate rose 156%.
Read More

Pro 4

A majority of adults, including gun owners, support common sense gun control such as background checks, bans on assault weapons, and bans on high-capacity magazines.

According to a Feb. 20, 2018 Quinnipiac Poll, 97% of American voters and 97% of gun owners support universal background checks. 67% support a nationwide ban on assault weapons, and 83% support mandatory waiting periods for gun purchases.

As much as 40% of all gun sales are undocumented private party gun sales that do not require a background check (aka the "gun show loophole").

53% of all adults surveyed approve of high-capacity magazine bans. 89% of adults with a gun in the home approve of laws to prevent the purchase of guns by the mentally ill, and 82% approve of banning gun sales to people on no-fly lists.

77% of Americans support requiring a license to purchase a gun.

Don Macalady, member of Hunters against Gun Violence, stated, "As a hunter and someone who has owned guns since I was a young boy, I believe that commonsense gun legislation makes us all safer. Background checks prevent criminals and other dangerous people from getting guns."

Many would like to see the U.S. enact more laws like other countries, citing the fact that countries with restrictive gun control laws have lower gun homicide and suicide rates than the United States. Both Switzerland and Finland require gun owners to acquire licenses and pass background checks that include mental and criminal records, among other restrictions and requirements. In 2007 Switzerland ranked number 3 in international gun ownership rates with 45.7 guns per 100 people (about 3,400,000 guns total). In 2009 Switzerland had 24 gun homicides (0.31 deaths per 100,000 people) and 253 gun suicides (3.29 deaths per 100,000 people). Finland ranked fourth in international gun ownership rates with 45.3 guns per 100 people (about 2,400,000 guns total). In 2007 Finland had 23 (0.43 deaths per 100,000 people) gun homicides and 172 gun suicides (4.19 deaths per 100,000 people).
Read More

Con 1

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership.

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution reads, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Lawrence Hunter, Chairman of Revolution PAC, stated, "The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights."
Read More

Con 2

Gun control laws are discriminatory and infringe on citizens' rights

Current gun control laws are frequently aimed at inner city, poor, black communities who are perceived as more dangerous than white gun owners. Charles Gallagher, Chair of Sociology at LaSalle University, stated that some gun control laws are still founded on racial fears: "Whites walking down Main Street with an AK-47 are defenders of American values; a black man doing the same thing is Public Enemy No. 1."

Background checks and micro-stamping are an invasion of privacy. Background checks require government databases that keep personal individual information on gun owners, including name, addresses, mental health history, criminal records, and more. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) worried that Senator Harry Reid's 2013 proposed background check legislation (the bill failed 54-46) would have allowed the government to keep databases of gun purchases indefinitely, creating a "worry that you're going to see searches of the databases and an expansion for purposes that were not intended when the information was collected." Micro-stamping similarly requires a database of gun owners and the codes their personal guns would stamp on cartridge cases. Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Ted Cruz (R-TX) wrote that they would oppose any legislation that infringes "on the American people's constitutional right to bear arms, or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance."

Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self-defense and deny people a sense of safety. The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would "make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families." Nelson Lund, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, "The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life" and "many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals." A Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s.

Gun control laws, especially those that try to ban "assault weapons," infringe upon the right to own guns for hunting and sport. In 2011, there were 13.7 million hunters 16 years old or older in the United States, High-powered semiautomatic rifles and shotguns are used to hunt and in target shooting tournaments each year. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, "So-called 'Assault weapons' are more often than not less powerful than other hunting rifles. The term 'assault weapon' was conjured up by anti-gun legislators to scare voters into thinking these firearms are something out of a horror movie... [T]he Colt AR-15 and Springfield M1A, both labeled 'assault weapons,' are the rifles most used for marksmanship competitions in the United States. And their cartridges are standard hunting calibers, useful for game up to and including deer." According to a Feb. 2013 Pew Research report, 32% of gun owners owned guns for hunting and 7% owned guns for target or sport shooting.
Read More

Con 3

Gun control laws simply do not work.

Gun control efforts have proved ineffective. According to David Lampo, Publications Director of the Cato Institute, "there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates." Banning high-capacity magazines will not necessarily deter crime because even small gun magazines can be changed in seconds.The "gun show loophole" is virtually nonexistent because commercial dealers, who sell the majority of guns at shows and elsewhere, are bound by strict federal laws. According to a Mar. 10, 2016 Lancet study, most state-level gun control laws do not reduce firearm death rates, and, of 25 state laws, nine were associated with higher gun death rates.

Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people). The country has only one legal gun store (the Directorate of Arms and Munitions Sales), compared to at least 63,709 legal gun stores and pawn shops in the United States as of Feb. 10, 2014. Mexico's gun store is on a secure military base and customers must present a valid ID, go through a metal detector, and turn over cellphones and cameras to guards. To actually buy a gun, customers have to show proof of honest income, provide references, pass a criminal background check, prove any military duties were completed with honor, and be fingerprinted and photographed. If allowed to purchase a gun, the customer may buy only one gun (choosing from only .38 caliber pistols or lower) and one box of bullets. Between 2006 and 2010, Mexico's one gun shop sold 6,490 guns, yet as of 2012, Mexicans own about 15,000,000 guns, or about 13.5 guns per 100 people.

The main reason gun control doesn't work is because laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws. Of 62 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, 49 of the shooters used legally obtained guns. Collectively, 143 guns were possessed by the killers with about 75% obtained legally. A Secret Service analysis found that of 24 mass shootings in 2019 at least 10 (42%) involved illegally possessed guns.

The logical conclusion is that gun control laws do not deter crime; gun ownership deters crime. A study in Applied Economics Letters found that "assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level" and "states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders." While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. Journalist John Stossel explained, "Criminals don't obey the law... Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job... As the saying goes, 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.'"

More gun control is not needed; education about guns and gun safety is needed to prevent accidental gun deaths. 95% of all US gun owners believe that children should learn about gun safety. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, Inc (SAAMI), stated, "Whether in the field, at the range or in the home, a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner is rarely involved in a firearms accident of any kind." According to Kyle Wintersteen, Managing Editor of Guns and Ammo, studies show that "children taught about firearms and their legitimate uses by family members have much lower rates of delinquency than children in households without guns" and "children introduced to guns associate them with freedom, security, and recreation-not violence." [82] [85] [154]
Read More

Con 4

Gun control laws give too much power to the government and may result in government tyranny and the government taking away all guns from citizens.

57% of people surveyed by Pew Research in Feb. 2013 said that gun control laws would "give too much power to the government over the people."

The NRA's Wayne LaPierre stated, "if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it [the Second Amendment] there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny."

Concurring, Alex Jones, radio host, stated, "The Second Amendment isn't there for duck hunting, it's there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs... 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!"

Marco Rubio (R-FL), US Senator, speaking about gun control laws during his 2016 presidential campaign, stated, "If God forbid, ISIS visits our life, our neighborhood, our school, any part of us, the last thing standing, the last line of defense could very well be our ability to protect ourselves."
Read More

Did You Know?

1. A Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer, and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer.

2. The US General Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills him/herself or another child could be prevented by automatic child-proof safety locks.

3. The Centers for Disease Control listed firearms as the #12 cause of all deaths between 1999 and 2015, representing 1.3% of total deaths. They were also the #1 method of death by homicide (67.3% of all homicides) and by suicide (51.9% of all suicides).

4. Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people).

5. Carrying a concealed handgun in public has been permitted in all 50 states since 2013, when Illinois became the last state to enact concealed carry legislation.

6. Five women a day are killed by guns in America. A woman's risk of being murdered increases 500% if a gun is present during a domestic dispute.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns. Opponents say the amendment protects individual gun ownership.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Six-in-ten U.S. adults say gun violence is a very big problem in the country today, up 9 percentage points from spring 2022.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
*Updated 2021

America - land of the free, home of the brave and protector of constitutional rights. The great nation of opportunity, where dreams and guns are both within reach, boasts higher levels of gun ownership than other developed countries. Around of Americans say they or someone in their household owns a gun. During the Covid-19 pandemic, gun sales boomed (for example, sales in May 2020 increased year over year). Research by the Swiss-based in 2018 showed that Americans owned , both legally and illegally. This means that roughly for every 100 residents in America, there are 120.5 guns. That being said, as the law doesn't allow a country-wide database for people to register the guns they own, , only those produced by various polls. And yet, in 2020, were killed by gun violence. there is no official number

Here are three arguments in support of gun control laws and three more in support of gun ownership.

Arguments for Gun Control
Gun control laws don't diminish the Second Amendment.
Gun control proponents aren't interested in taking away citizens' guns. They cheer the Second Amendment , which states: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." They support the Supreme Court 2008 decision , which validates the interpretation of the amendment that protects an individual's right to own a firearm unrelated to serving in a militia, and to use that arm for lawful purposes, such as self-defense within one's home.

But this same Supreme Court decision also emphasizes that, in former Justice Antonin Scalia's words: The Second Amendment is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for any purpose whatsoever." Regulating deadly machinery (as we do with cars) is not about denying access but about oversight in the interest of safety for the community at large.
Gun restrictions prevent selling to the wrong hands.
If anything, gun restrictions are aimed at making the world safer by limiting guns from getting into the wrong hands. This leads to fewer deaths. Universal background checks on private and gun show sales, an issue that survivors of the February 2018 Parkland massacre helped push legislators to prioritize, can help prevent criminals and the mentally ill from getting guns. asserts that federal checks could cut gun deaths by an estimated 90%. And let's not forget about mandatory safety features. Installing safety devices on guns would minimize accidental gun deaths, especially of and by children. Think about it: We have childproof caps on medicine bottles, so why not have childproof firearms?
Such laws help prevent selling the wrong guns.
High-capacity magazines enable a shooter to fire multiple times without reloading, turning murderers into mass murderers. An investigation into mass shootings found that high-capacity magazines were used in at least 50% of the 62 mass shootings that were analyzed. For example, the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida , saw 17 people dead and 14 wounded, thanks to a semi-automatic AR-15 - a deadly, military-inspired rifle that has been the weapon of choice for many mass shooters. After the deadly mass shooting in Las Vegas in October 2017, the Trump administration banned bump stocks , a device that lets semi-automatic rifles function like machine guns.

So while banning the purchase of such technology, magazines or assault weapons won't prevent gun crime from happening, it will greatly reduce the carnage.

Arguments for Gun Ownership
An enhanced sense of safety.
Law enforcement agencies are constantly protecting civilians . Countless have heroically saved others during shootings even at the expense of their own lives. Still, the police can't always protect everyone everywhere all of the time, so firearms significantly contribute to gun owners' sense of - and actual - safety. In a 1982-83 study , almost 2000 imprisoned felons in 10 states were surveyed about whether gun control prevented crime. More than half (57%) said that most criminals feared armed citizens more than the police. Additionally, 40% said they were deterred from carrying out their crime when they thought their potential victim was armed. It's no surprise, then, that 57% of people feel that possessing a gun prevents them from being victimized.
Exercises civil liberties.
Gun ownership exercises a fundamental individual right under the U.S. Constitution. For most upstanding citizens, owning a gun is as important to them as maintaining freedom of speech, the press, religion, among others. In fact, three quarters of gun owners believe that the right to bear arms is paramount to their freedom. No wonder gun owners take it personally when gun control laws appear to infringe on this right, thus impeding efforts to acquire firearms and protect themselves and their families. Plus, there's the risk that certain proposed background checks may require government databases to keep gun owners' personal information indefinitely. This could lead to future database searches unrelated to the information when it was first collected. This understandably can be perceived as an unfair invasion of privacy.
Unintended consequences of ineffective gun restrictions.
When the law meant to protect you, instead, turns you into prey, it's understandable to want to take self-defense into your own hands. In Chicago, where there are bans on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, and where gun shops were banned until 2012, gun control laws are not proving effective. Though the city has some of the toughest gun restrictions in place, it suffers from rising gun and gang violence . The city's mayor, Lori Lightfoot, is working to increase public safety, but has an uphill battle . is just one example of many cities where law-abiding citizens are paying the price - with their lives - of ineffective gun control laws.

The Bottom Line: Gun control laws keep people safer , and self-preservation is why gun owners have guns to begin with. With that, law-abiding gun owners still have the constitutional right to protect themselves against crime and should not be penalized for the actions of others. How would you feel about keeping a gun in your house?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is there a need for tighter gun control?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Updated 2021 America - land of the free, home of the brave and protector of constitutional rights. The great nation of opportunity, where dreams and guns are both within reach, boasts higher levels of gun ownership than other developed countries. Around of Americans say they or someone in their household owns a gun.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gun control laws don’t work and they’re flawed concepts. The Right to Bear Arms protects law-abiding citizens from violent crime and saves lives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Going back to the Colonial era we explore the history of gun legislation in the United States with key events, statistics, and Acts of Congress.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court expands gun rights, with nation divided

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Supreme Court has ruled that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, a major expansion of gun rights.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While the legislation, which was passed with bipartisan support, has many limits, it was a step in America's efforts to tackle escalating gun violence. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court issued a decision that cast the future of more strict limits on gun ownership in doubt.

So where does gun control go from here? Here's a look at some solutions that gun-control advocates and gun-rights proponents say could help stop escalating gun violence - and our North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher assesses their chances.

Red flag laws, also known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders, allow police to temporarily seize legally owned guns from people who a judge has ruled to be a danger to themselves or others.

A judge's emergency order can be issued even in cases where a gun owner has no criminal record or history of mental illness.

Opponents say this violates the right to due process, as the orders can be issued by a judge without the subject present to object.

The law just passed by Congress does not establish a national red flag law, but includes $750m in incentive payments for states to set up their own.

Growing Gun-Free Zones

Government offices, hospitals and transport centres commonly ban guns under federal laws.

It's unknown exactly how many so-called gun-free zones exist in the US.

Gun-rights advocates argue that these zones are easy targets for mass killers. They point out that places with extremely restrictive gun laws see high levels of violent crime committed using illegal guns.

With a few exceptions, federal law bars people under 21 from purchasing a handgun - though not a long gun like a rifle or shotgun.

But many mass gunman - including most recently in Highland Park, Buffalo and Uvalde - have been able to legally purchase weapons despite being 21 or younger.

In several attacks, the gunman had previously exhibited behaviour - such as making violent threats - that may have prevented him from passing a background check and buying a gun. But that information had not been submitted to the FBI's background check database.

Buying guns back

Some police departments in the US choose to use some of their operating funds to pay people to voluntarily surrender firearms they no longer want. Private citizens, fed up with gun crime, have even taken to crowdfunding their own gun buyback programmes.

Proponents of buybacks say they are a convenient way to get unwanted guns off the streets, including firearms acquired through the estate of a deceased relative.

Other cities have offered groceries and gift cards in exchange for unwanted guns. Many guns used in violent crimes are stolen or otherwise illegally owned, and experts say that removing guns from attics and closet storage spaces may help keep them out of the hands of criminals.

Banning assault rifles

Semi-automatic rifles, commonly known as assault rifles, include popular AR-15s and AK-47s. Capable of firing high-calibre bullets that are larger and travel faster than rounds fired from a pistol, they are much more lethal and have been used in the most deadly mass shooting attacks throughout modern US history.

In the absence of federal laws, seven states and several cities, including Highland Park, have stepped in to ban certain types of high-powered semi-automatic rifles. Still, an estimated 20m assault rifles are privately owned right now.

More rules for gun owners

Although there is no federal law requiring any training to own a gun, some states include mandatory training courses for certain elements of ownership.

For instance, concealed carry (carrying a hidden gun on your person in public) requires a permit in some states - with classes required to get one.

Studies also find that gun owners are far more likely to have their guns stolen, or used by a child, if they are not locked away.

The removal of this barrier is expected to lead to state laws requiring permits for certain types of guns to be struck down as well.

Thirteen states set laws on how some firearms should be locked away. State rules also exist to punish people if their guns fall into the wrong hands, such as a child or a convicted felon.

Arming schools

Opponents of gun control measures say that teachers should be trained to use a firearm.

The father of a teenager killed at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, has been one of the most vocal champions for arming teachers.

Some gun advocates also say that pupils should be allowed to carry arms at school. Older, mostly rural, gun owners still fondly recall bringing their guns to school in their youth to hunt at lunch.

The sale of bulletproof backpacks, which can theoretically be used as protection during a shooting, spiked in 2012 after the attack on Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut.

Turning schools into fortresses

Many conservative gun owners say a necessary solution is "hardening" schools - essentially turning soft targets into fortresses.

According to Republican champions of this policy, government buildings and other potential terrorism targets are already fortified - so why not schools?

Armed guards, locked doors, cameras and other security measures would become the norm under this plan at schools, shops, theatres, churches and other public venues.

Despite the presence of an armed guard at the Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, it still took police over an hour to confront the rampaging gunman. The officer stationed in Parkland also failed to confront the gunman, and was later charged with child neglect.

The new gun bill provides $300m to schools to boost their physical security, and even more money for schools to expand their mental health services.

Of course, there are only about 500 commercial airports in the US, while the nation has approximately 130,000 schools.

Crucially, schools would need a single point of entry in order to restrict who can come and go. That would be difficult to maintain for buildings where hundreds frequently come and go, or on campuses with multiple buildings.

The amount of resources it would take to staff and secure each building is well beyond the reach of even the most ambitious government funding programme, let alone the $300m in school security funding in the new congressional gun law.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While the legislation, which was passed with bipartisan support, has many limits, it was a step in America's efforts to tackle escalating gun violence. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court issued a decision that cast the future of more strict limits on gun ownership in doubt. So where does gun control go from here?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Gun control advocates may embrace the 10th Amendment.

(Illustration: Lex Villena; Paul Morse, White House)

In 2005, President George W. Bush signed into law the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a statute designed to protect gun makers, dealers, distributors, and importers from being sued "for the harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals."

"Our laws should punish criminals who use guns to commit crimes," Bush declared, "not law-abiding manufacturers of lawful products." The law's passage was widely seen as a victory for the gun rights movement. But a new case out of Pennsylvania now asks whether the same law should be shot down for violating bedrock constitutional principles of federalism.

The case is Gustafson v. Springfield, Inc. It centers on the tragic death of a 13-year-old boy who was accidentally shot and killed by his friend. The friend falsely believed that the semiautomatic handgun he was holding was unloaded because the magazine had been removed. In fact, one round was still chambered.

The dead boy's family sued the gunmaker in state court. But the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County said the lawsuit was barred by the terms of the PLCAA, which preempts state tort law in this area. In a decision issued last week, however, a majority of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania not only reversed that ruling but also held that the PLCAA itself is unconstitutional.

"I recognize that state courts do not typically resolve claims involving the constitutionality of federal statutes," wrote Judge Deborah Kunselman. "However, that is the issue presented by the facts of the case before us. The Gustafsons filed a product-liability lawsuit under Pennsylvania common law, which, but for a federal statute, would have proceeded through our state courts like every other civil action. When their claims were abruptly dismissed under PLCAA, the question of that federal law's constitutionality fell squarely before us, and we must answer it."

The court's answer was that the PLCAA must fall. "Tort law is a decidedly state issue," Kunselman argued. "If courts allow Congress to regulate tort litigation involving these products, it could eventually regulate all litigation. This is not permitted under the Constitution of the United States' principles of federalism. As such," she concluded, the PLCAA "violates the Tenth Amendment."

Writing in dissent, Judge Judith Ference Olson charged the majority with missing the relevant constitutional provisions at play. "Congress had the express authority to enact PLCAA under its enumerated powers granted by the Commerce Clause to regulate interstate and foreign commerce," Olson argued. "Thus, the only way PLCAA could violate the Tenth Amendment is if the Act commands state legislatures to enact a particular law or state executives to administer a federal law. PLCAA does neither."

This is a case worth watching. For one thing, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania is not likely to have the last word on the matter. Eventually, this dispute will land in federal court. There is also the unusual political angle. As the case moves forward, gun control advocates-who would love to see firearms manufacturers face more product-liability lawsuits-will be embracing the sort of 10th Amendment arguments more commonly voiced by conservatives and libertarians. There's something here for practically everyone to argue about.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A case that pits gun rights activism against federalism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(Illustration: Lex Villena; Paul Morse, White House) In 2005, President George W. Bush signed into law the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a statute designed to protect gun makers, dealers, distributors, and importers from being sued "for the harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Voter suppression or voter expansion? What’s happening and does it matter?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Solidly red states tended to pass restrictive voting laws and solidly blue states tended to pass expansive voting laws. But in swing states, where the presidential race or the balance of power in Congress could be won, the attempts to expand or restrict the vote could matter greatly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
So, just how bad - or good - are these laws? The political reaction to these laws seems to have overshadowed what's actually in them. Yes, Republicans' case for rampant voter fraud is nonexistent. But Democrats' case that any current voting restrictions amount to the type of voter suppression that existed before the Civil Rights movement is also far from accurate. Furthermore, the evidence shows that restrictive (or permissive) voting laws matter less to the outcome than both parties would like to think.

Let's take a closer look at what some of these laws do. The Brennan Center, a progressive public policy group, has published a full report on these recent voting laws. The report says that Georgia "limit[ed] early voting days or hours." A survey of states rules will highlight the problem with that characterization. Under its new law, Georgia mandates 17 days of early voting, including at least two Saturdays, and open during "regular business hours," which the state has defined as from at least 9 a.m.-5 p.m. The Brennan Center didn't mention Massachusetts, however, which has just 11 days of early voting held during "regular business hours," which it doesn't define. Just in 2019, New York's Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law a new voting bill that was intended to make voting easier, and it only required nine days of early voting but also required polls to stay open from 6 a.m.-9 p.m.. The federal voting rights legislation supported by the president only mandates 14 days of early voting but then would require polls to be open for 10 hours on those days.

And so we run into part of the problem, which is trying to take any single election regulation in isolation. Georgia also has automatic voter registration, unlike Minnesota, and a voter doesn't need a reason to vote by mail, unlike Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut and Delaware. But Georgia also requires that absentee voters include the number from state-issued identification, unlike any of those states.

So is it easier or harder to vote absentee in Georgia than in New York? New York's extended early voting hours surely makes it easier for someone with a 9-5 job to vote early. But Georgia's longer period of early voting might be better for contractors or parents shuttling around kids for after school sports.

According to the Brennan Center, four states - Georgia, Texas, Iowa and Kansas - "eliminated or limited sending mail ballot applications to voters who did not request them." But taking a close look, Georgia required third party groups to tell voters the application wasn't sent from the government and prohibited them from sending applications to people who already requested one; Texas barred state employees from sending unsolicited applications but allows candidates or political parties to do so; Iowa said the election commissioner couldn't send unsolicited applications unless it was authorized by the legislature because of a public health emergency but third party groups are still welcome to do so; and Kansas required that the organization sending an unsolicited application put their name and contain a disclaimer that it was not sent by the government. So, none eliminated sending unsolicited applications and the main limitation at issue appears to be that third parties make it clear who the applications are coming from.

In addition, the Brennan Center singled out Florida for prohibiting anyone from mailing ballots to voters who do not specifically request them. But there are only seven states that do currently send ballots to every registered voter - and that's because those states do all their voting by mail (Colorado, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Utah, Oregon and Washington). So Florida is in line with the vast majority of states - both Democratic and Republican controlled - that don't.

The Brennan Center also lists eight states that "restrict[ed] assistance in returning a voter's mail ballot." This is referred to as ballot harvesting, and, currently, only 14 states allow a person to collect an unrestricted number of absentee ballots. States like Massachusetts, Minnesota and Michigan all have such restrictions. (In fact, restrictions like this are how North Carolina was able to prosecute a Republican congressional campaign operative who tried to commit election fraud in 2018.) The 2005 Carter Baker Commission, chaired by voting access advocate and former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, included restricting ballot collecting only to family members and election officials in its recommendations.

Now, there are other changes made in these states that clearly make it harder to vote. Four states limited the places that a voter can drop off an absentee ballot if they don't want to put it in the mail. It used to be that if a voter in Iowa submitted their absentee ballot application 120 days before the date officials were allowed to process them, they'd just hold onto the application. Now, if it's more than 70 days before the window, the application will be returned with a note explaining when it can be resubmitted. Harris County, Texas, rejected hundreds of absentee ballot applications because voters are now required to include the same state identification number that they used to register to vote. Those people will still be able to vote in person, of course, but there's no question it has made voting less convenient and with little obvious upside.

On balance, however, these 19 states are still very much in line with the majority of states when it comes to voting. Prohibiting drive-through voting or absentee ballot drop boxes that aren't at a voting facility may be irritating, but those options were also unheard of before 2020.

And even the more serious changes, like stricter voter ID laws that are often decried as targeting Black or low income voters, may not matter as much as either side likes to believe. Multiple academic studies have shown that these and other types of voting restrictions - limiting drop boxes and early voting - "had only minor effects on turnout and no effect at all on the Democratic margin in the presidential election" in 2020. And the effect of requiring absentee voters to provide additional proof of their identities was "pretty close to zero." And on the other side, another study showed that "expansions of absentee voting in some states in last year's election didn't alter turnout."

Taken together, these studies show that restrictions and expansions of voting laws don't have much, if any, effect on turnout compared to the perceived importance of the election. And, of course, if these laws have no effect on turnout that also means there's no discernible amount of fraud taking place either.

But perhaps most importantly, these studies and the experience of states that have implemented universal mail in ballots like ruby-red Utah show that both sides misjudge their voters. Republicans have convinced themselves that they have the advantage with "come hell or high water" voters - habitual voters who show up for every election in person and on Election Day, no matter the obstacles. So restrictions will act in their favor. Democrats, on the other hand, believe their voters are more "fair weather" voters who vote sporadically or not at all, and so every additional opportunity - more early voting days, ballot applications that automatically come to their doors, drive through voting - will help Democrats turn out these voters.

And yet, it's clear that higher turnout doesn't always favor Democrats, and plenty of Republican voters enjoy modern voting conveniences like early voting.

There is, however, another aspect to these new voting laws besides the mechanics of voting. Many have accused Republicans in state legislatures of also trying to change the way votes are counted or elections are certified. If true, those changes would be far more pernicious to our system of self-government than anything related to drop boxes and drive-throughs. But while many scary bills have been proposed (although it should be said that even proposed bills to end democracy aren't OK), only a few bills have actually passed into law.

Laws passed in Texas, Florida and Georgia give more access to partisan poll watchers. Partisan poll watchers in those states continue to be able to challenge ballots or voter eligibility, but they still have no role in handling or counting ballots like election workers do.

Arkansas, though, passed a law that allows a committee of state legislators to report local election officials to the bipartisan State Board of Elections, which could then vote to remove them. The law gave some of the powers of the elected county clerks to county boards of election commissioners, in which the county committee's majority party appoints two members and the minority party appoints one. Given the number of people involved at every level of these new rules, it's not yet clear whether this law makes it any easier for partisans to reject votes or change election outcomes.

Georgia's law removed the secretary of state from chairing the State Election Board and allows the legislature to appoint the chair. But it also says that the chair must be "nonpartisan" and "cannot have been a candidate for public office or have made any political campaign contributions" in the previous two years. It also allows the State Election Board to suspend county election officials - but only if they can prove "a minimum of three clear violations of State Election Board rules, or 'demonstrated nonfeasance, malfeasance, or gross negligence in the administration of the elections' in two consecutive elections."

These laws do make changes to who is counting votes - and that always comes with some risk for abuse by partisan actors. But the route either state provides for partisans to change the outcome of an election - even in theory - is far from clear and would certainly result in lawsuits that would be overseen in most cases by the same federal judges that rejected all of former President Donald Trump's attempts to call the 2020 election results into question.

Biden's proposed fixes to all of these laws is to set a national standard for voting across all 50 states. It would include no excuse absentee voting, two weeks of early voting and expanded access for voters with disabilities - things that many of the 19 states that he mentioned in his speech already have or exceed. Which can make this entire debate feel like much ado about nothing.

There are probably many in both parties who think that voting laws can make all the difference in who wins an election. But look at what happened in 2020. States like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia changed at least some of their voting rules to expand the vote in the run up to the election. With these new rules in place, almost every Republican candidate in those states overperformed expectations - except one: Donald Trump. In the Georgia Senate race, for example, Republican David Perdue won 88,000 more votes than the Democrat, yet Trump lost by 12,000 votes. As it turned out, 28,000 Georgia voters submitted a ballot with their picks for senator but skipped voting for president altogether. The problem, it would seem, was Trump and not the rules.

Democrats will likely find the same: While talking about voter suppression may be a useful rhetorical strategy to increase voter turnout, the reality doesn't match the rhetoric and the candidates they run will matter more than the rules.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The New Voting Restrictions Aren't as Restrictive as Many Think

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
So, just how bad - or good - are these laws? The political reaction to these laws seems to have overshadowed what's actually in them. Yes, Republicans' case for rampant voter fraud is nonexistent. But Democrats' case that any current voting restrictions amount to the type of voter suppression that existed before the Civil Rights movement is also far from accurate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Since 1977, one year after the US Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutionality of the death penalty, more than 1,480 people have been executed, primarily by means of lethal injection. Most death penalty cases involve the execution of murderers although capital punishment can also be applied for treason, espionage, and other crimes.

Proponents of the death penalty say it is an important tool for preserving law and order, deters crime, and costs less than life imprisonment. They argue that retribution or "an eye for an eye" honors the victim, helps console grieving families, and ensures that the perpetrators of heinous crimes never have an opportunity to cause future tragedy.

Opponents of capital punishment say it has no deterrent effect on crime, wrongly gives governments the power to take human life, and perpetuates social injustices by disproportionately targeting people of color (racist) and people who cannot afford good attorneys (classist). They say lifetime jail sentences are a more severe and less expensive punishment than death.

PROS & CONS BY CATEGORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Death Penalty - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The pros and cons of the death penalty debate include aguments for and against life imprisonment, crime deterrence, and methods like hanging.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Environmental policy" is a term that describes a broad set of public policies including, but not restricted to, goals ranging from the protection of human health and safety from air and water pollution to the preservation of culturally important natural landmarks. The responsibility for and authority of environmental policy is most commonly shared among federal, state, and local governments.

The majority of federal statutes considered to be the founding cornerstone of U.S. environmental policy were first enacted in the 1970's. Prior to this time, the issues associated with the natural environment were considered to be the exclusive domain of the state and local governments. A growing understanding of the impact of pollution and environmental quality on human health, combined with the tendency of these impacts to affect individuals across state borders, led to a change toward a more comprehensive and centralized approach to environmental protection.

Federal environmental statutes have developed as a form of cooperative federalism, where the authority for environmental decision making is divided between the federal and state government. Many of the federal environmental statutes expressly reserve the right for the states to develop more stringent regulatory controls than those imposed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). That action by Congress allows the federal government and the states to fashion the necessary working relationships without constant conflict over the appropriate approach to the vast array of environmental problems facing the country. For example, the Clean Air Act (42 USC §7401 et seq.) establishes the ambient air quality standards for over 27,000 of the major stationary sources of air pollutants. The federal government sets primary standards for each of the regulated pollutants, which are based on human health protection. It is also responsible for setting secondary standards to protect other types of concerns, such as aesthetic values, private property values, and the negative impacts of pollution on vegetation. The individual states are in charge of ensuring that minimum quality standards are being met through the development of state implementation plans that determine, among other things, how, why, when, and where the air emissions will be tested. Similarly, division of responsibility arrangements can also be found in other federal environmental statutes such as the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq.). Although the state and federal government must work together for a common goal, the struggle for control over environmental policy continues to exist within the framework of cooperative federalism.

THE BASIS OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY

The federal authority to regulate environmental issues is derived from the U.S. Constitution. The constitutional authority for federal environmental policy has been grounded, primarily, in what is known as the Commerce Clause. To a lesser extent, the treaty, property, and spending powers have also been used as a basis for federal control.

The Commerce Clause provides the federal government with the power to regulate commerce among the states. Beginning in the 1930's, the courts began an expansion of the exercise of federal powers permitted under the Commerce Clause. Congress has used this broad interpretation to justify a wide array of environmental statutes, including some that have very weak connections to interstate commerce. In 1995, the Supreme Court began to signal a change in the interpretation of the Commerce Clause. In the case of United States v. Lopez (514 U.S. 549 [1995]), the Court suggested several limitations to the interpretation of federal authority. In particular, the Court emphasized the need to find an enforceable limit to the application of the Commerce Clause in terms of defining activities that both directly and substantially affected interstate commerce. Even with this interpretation, the Commerce Clause still gives Congress extensive authority to regulate a wide array of environmental issues. For example, pollution control under the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act regulates commercial activities that clearly fall under the umbrella of interstate commerce. However, the constitutionality of federal environmental laws that regulate private land use, such as the Endangered Species Act, are more open to question.

The treaty powers of the federal government supersede state laws, and the treaty power has been used to establish federal control over environmental issues that otherwise would belong to the individual states. In 1913, the U.S. Congress passed the Migratory Bird Act, which placed specific hunting limitations on many species of migratory birds. Arrests for violations under the act were argued in court, where it was decided that the law was unconstitutional as the federal statute encroached on state authority. Common law had always held that the power to regulate the taking of wildlife belonged to the states. In 1916, the United States and Great Britain, on behalf of Canada, adopted the Migratory Bird Treaty, and soon thereafter Congress passed the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-12) to implement the provisions of the treaty. Challenges to this new Act were upheld on the basis of the federal treaty power. The environmental protection of federal lands as well as private areas surrounding the lands has been successfully defended under the Property Clause. Finally, the spending powers of the federal government have been linked with environmental policy and used in various ways. For example, federal highway funds have been tied to the statewide attainment of ambient air standards, and government subsidy programs have provided funds to private firms for the voluntary adoption of pollution reduction technologies.

THE BASIS FOR STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITY

The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides each state with all of the powers not specifically delegated to the federal government. This provides the states with broader statutory powers over environmental issues as compared to the federal government. The states have priority of jurisdiction in regard to the regulation of private and public property, with the exception of federal lands. This includes conservation, protection, and land use. Most states, however, typically devolve land-use decisions to the local governments. The states retain police power and the control of fish and wildlife within their own borders. One question that arises is as follows: if the states possess such broad authority over environmental issues, why do we see so much environmental legislation emanating from Congress?

THE JUSTIFICATION FOR FEDERAL CONTROL

Federal authority over environmental policy is often justified solely on the basis of it being best suited to deal with the unique features associated with environmental problems. Of these unique features, three of them tend to be most commonly discussed: (1) the interaction of economic activity and environmental protection, (2) externalities, and (3) the scientific complexity associated with environmental policy. Each of these features is discussed in more detail in the following section.

"Race to the Bottom"

The sources of a majority of the pollution and environmental degradation regulated through environmental policy are engaged in what can be called "socially valuable economic activities." For example, some water pollution is a by-product of food production, and some of the air pollution produced is a by-product of the manufacturing of pharmaceuticals. In addition, there is often some habitat disruption as a by-product of the production of lumber for homes. As a result, environmental policy both affects, and is affected by, many aspects of the economy. Many proponents of centralized environmental policy argue that it will prevent state and local governments from pursuing economic gain to the detriment of the environment. Environmental regulation imposes costs on economic activities. Therefore, an acceptable balance between economic development and environmental protection must be found.

If authority over environmental policy were to rest solely with the states, the potential exists for interstate competition to result in what has been referred to as a "race to the bottom." States seek to entice economic development away from other states by lowering the cost of doing business within their borders. This can be accomplished by reducing regulatory compliance costs through lower environmental standards. Interstate competition for economic development provides an incentive for all other states to follow suit. In the end, each state will have equally poor environmental standards, as well as the inability to entice new economic development through further compliance cost reductions. The race to the bottom is a form of the "prisoner's dilemma" and is a result of noncooperative behavior among states. Although it is in each state's best interest to collectively maintain appropriate environmental standards, individual competition results in each state pursuing an agenda that makes it worse off in terms of being unable to entice new businesses through reduced compliance costs, as well as providing its citizenry with reduced environmental amenities. Federal regulation of environmental policy can avoid this problem by mandating each state to meet a set of minimal environmental standards, removing the potential for using reduced environmental standards as a means of enticing new businesses.

Although the "race to the bottom" argument has commonly been used to justify much of our federal environmental policy, its validity is questionable. Research has yet to show that the requisite incentives for the "race to the bottom" actually exist. However, given the opportunity, very few states have adopted environmental standards more stringent than the federal minimum standards, and perhaps this signals that the potential does exist. Arguments against the "race to the bottom" justification contend that, if the problem does in fact exist, the reliance on federally set minimum standards does not fix it. Instead, it shifts the race to some other area such as worker safety or tax rates.

Externalities

It is obvious that pollution does not respect political boundaries. The problem of acid rain is a classic example. Acid rain damage to lakes and forests in the Adirondack region of New York is the product of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emitted primarily from coal-fired electric power generators in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic states. The presence of pollution spillovers means that states with pollution sources will not take all costs into account when formulating their environmental policies. The affected states bear the costs of pollution coming across their borders, but with little or no legislative recourse for addressing the problem. However, federal standards can address spillover effects, requiring the pollution-generating states to bear their own costs of pollution control.

State environmental regulations can also impose externalities on other states in terms of imposing financial costs on out-of-state producers. California's automobile emissions control standards are an example of this. The state implementing the regulation will tend to ignore the compliance costs imposed on manufacturers outside of the state, and the manufacturers pass the increased costs back to the consumers in all of the states. Federal regulations can be justified when state environmental policies impose sizable costs on interstate business.

Scientific Complexity

Environmental policy requires a high level of scientific data collection and analysis. This includes standard setting, but also extends to the monitoring and enforcement of standards. The expenditures for many of the technical aspects of environmental regulation are quite large. Concentrating the processing of these recurrent and technically difficult tasks at the federal level can create cost savings when compared with the costs of having each state perform these tasks individually. For example, the federal government has the resources to effectively perform research linking environmental standards to human health risks in setting policy, and can then apply these finding across all states.

THE WEAKNESSES OF FEDERAL CONTROL

The benefits of federal control of environmental policy come with corresponding costs. When these costs are substantial, the justification of federal authority over environmental policy is questionable. Utilizing a centralized approach has implications in terms of the impact of reliance on uniform standards, as well as the loss of local public participation.

As we have seen, the use of national uniform standards is justified on the grounds of avoiding the "race to the bottom" and interstate externalities, as well as reducing the costs associated with the scientific complexity of environmental regulation. However, these uniform national standards do not reflect the unique costs and benefits of each state. While the federal government can achieve some cost savings by taking advantage of centralized data collection and analysis, each individual state has greater knowledge of the unique attributes of the local community and environment. Each state is also familiar with local preferences, as well as the distinct costs associated with meeting any given standard. This information is important in setting environmental standards that balance the needs of the local community, and therefore must be taken into account. Uniform national standards are unable to incorporate this local information and therefore are likely to be inefficient and poorly representative of the true preferences of the citizens.

Although the potential for a "race to the bottom" is an often-cited justification for federal authority over environmental regulation, the most apparent justification is the presence of interstate externalities and spillover effects. While this justifies a crucial role for federal government oversight in environmental regulation, it does not require any particular form of policy response. Flexibility in terms of the assignment of responsibility among different levels of government, and between the public and private sector, as well as in terms of the type of policy instrument are at the heart of environmental policy success. Cooperative federalism allows for this flexibility in design.

Michael A. Taylor

Last updated: 2006

SEE ALSO: Great Society

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Environmental policy" is a term that describes a broad set of public policies including, but not restricted to, goals ranging from the protection of human health and safety from air and water pollution to the preservation of culturally important natural landmarks. The responsibility for and authority of environmental policy is most commonly shared among federal, state, and local governments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The term "sanctuary state" is a phrase that takes on different meanings in politically-charged conversations. Members of the Republican party see sanctuary states or sanctuary cities as places where illegal immigrants are protected. On the other hand, the Democratic view of sanctuary states are areas where illegal immigrants are protected from aggressive attempts of deportation.

In general, the term sanctuary state means a state that limits its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agents as much as possible to protect illegal immigrants that have come to this country to make a living. While some illegal immigrants are protected, those that commit serious crimes are turned over to authorities. Some proponents of sanctuary states and cities believe that the term is misleading, which is why some use the term "safe" to replace sanctuary.

Whether you agree with it or not, the fact remains that there are sanctuary cities and sanctuary states in the United States. This has come to light in recent years, as President Donald Trump has aggressively pushed for the removal of all illegal immigrants. As of early 2019, there are seven sanctuary states, according to the Center for Immigration Studies. Those states are: California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The term "sanctuary state" is a phrase that takes on different meanings in politically-charged conversations. Members of the Republican party see sanctuary states or sanctuary cities as places where illegal immigrants are protected. On the other hand, the Democratic view of sanctuary states are areas where illegal immigrants are protected from aggressive attempts of deportation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Federalism and Environmental Advocacy | The Regulatory Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Supreme Court appears inconsistently enthusiastic about federal regulation and state-centric environmentalism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R-S.C.) joined Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), and other Senate Republican colleagues in reintroducing the Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act. Often, sanctuary cities prohibit their law enforcement officers from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. This bill would allow local law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration authorities and would pull taxpayer-funded grants to sanctuary cities.

"Sanctuary cities have emboldened criminals and endangered American citizens, and it is wrong that our taxpayers are being forced to foot the bill for this reprehensible policy," said Senator Scott. "This legislation will bring commonsense back to the table by eliminating taxpayer grants to these criminal safe havens and empowering law enforcement to protect our communities."

"So-called 'sanctuary cities' refuse to enforce the laws on the books and release violent criminals in our country illegally-including rapists and murders-who go on to prey on both American citizens and the immigrant community. Moreover, many of these sanctuary jurisdictions actively prevent state and local law enforcement from coordinating with their federal counterparts. They release murderers, rapists, and burglars who end up preying on the community. That is wrong. The American people, and Texas communities in particular, are tired of seeing our laws flouted and the crime that often accompanies illegal immigration. These jurisdictions need to be held accountable, and I will do everything I can to enforce our immigration laws," said Senator Cruz.

"Sanctuary cities undermine our nation's legal immigration system and prevent law enforcement from being able to do their jobs. By promoting coordination between local and federal officials, this bill ensures these safe havens for dangerous criminals don't receive certain taxpayer-funded grants, and I'm proud to support it," said Senator Cornyn.

"Our country welcomes individuals from around the world who want to be a part of our country, but we expect everyone to follow the rule of law and obtain residency or citizenship through the legal process. Our laws must be enforced as written, and any city that chooses not to enforce federal immigration laws should not be allowed to use federal funds to support their liberal activist efforts to undermine law and order," said Senator Capito.

"When the whims of local politicians prevent law enforcement officers from doing their jobs, our communities are less safe and our nation's rule of law is shortchanged. City governments should not tie the hands of their law enforcement officers who are trying to comply with federal immigration law. Any city that chooses to force their officers to ignore our laws doesn't deserve the benefit of taxpayer-funded federal grants," said Senator Grassley.

"Reckless sanctuary policies have allowed dangerous criminals back into communities in North Carolina, and that number will continue to increase as liberal politicians put politics ahead of the safety and security of their constituents. This legislation is a step towards law and order and will help ensure state and local law enforcement cooperate with federal immigration authorities to stop violent criminals who are here illegally. I have long fought against sanctuary cities and am proud to work on this legislation with my colleagues," said Senator Tillis.

"We are a nation of laws. If local and state governments fail to uphold our laws that seek to keep families safe and stop dangerous criminals, there should be consequences. These laws are on the books to improve public safety and strengthen national security. We must take action if we are ever to find a long-term solution to strengthen our borders and fix the current border crisis," said Senator Rounds.

"The crisis at our southern border is out of control. To get a handle on it, the Biden administration needs to enforce our laws. Sanctuary cities disregard federal immigration laws and need to be held accountable for their actions. This legislation will help to stop sanctuary cities and ensure that we are upholding the law of the land and maintaining the rule of law," said Senator Hoeven.

"President Biden's immigration policies have created a disaster at our southern border. Liberal-run cities that support those policies and refuse to enforce immigration law are adding fuel to a fire that's hurting Americans. Cracking down on cities that endorse and facilitate illegal immigration is a commonsense way we can begin to reverse President Biden's border crisis," said Senator Tuberville.

"Sanctuary cities that prohibit their law enforcement officers from working with federal immigration authorities not only undermine our federal immigration laws, but also put law-abiding citizens at risk and create even more of an incentive for illegal immigration. This is the last thing we need as the humanitarian and national security crisis on our southern border - exacerbated by the Biden administration's policies - continues to rage. I am proud to support this legislation and I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure law and order is upheld in every community," said Senator Boozman.

"It is incomprehensible that cities and states willfully block enforcement of our immigration laws, particularly with the undeniable crisis at our southern border staring us in the face. The rule of law is vital to keeping our citizens safe, and there should be consequences for cities who refuse to make Americans' safety a priority. This bill would not only ensure that law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal immigration officers, but it would see to it that cities are not rewarded with taxpayer-funded grants for flouting our laws, " said Senator Hyde-Smith.

Organizations that support this bill include the Sergeants Benevolent Association of the New York City Police Department, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the AFL-CIO.

"Sanctuary policies not only jeopardize public safety, they also place an impossible burden on law enforcement officers who have taken an oath to enforce the laws equally and impartially. The 'Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act' will ensure that my members and police officers across this country no longer must choose between obeying local political dictates and the duty to protect their communities by cooperating with federal immigration officials to turn over violent criminals. We appreciate the leadership of Sen. Cruz in reintroducing this important legislation," said Vincent Vallelong, President of the Sergeants Benevolent Association (SBA) of the New York City Police Department (NYPD).

"Law enforcement is best able to maintain public safety when we work together at all levels. Unfortunately, sanctuary cities inhibit law enforcement collaboration, even when officers on the ground have a strong desire to work with federal agencies. This is a dangerous game to play. Especially considering federal law enforcement will not abdicate our authority to enforce the law against those that pose a threat. Therefore, sanctuary cities merely require additional federal resources to fill intelligence gaps and impose additional risks on law enforcement responding to situations. We applaud Senator Cruz for continuing this initiative to end sanctuary cities," said Larry Cosme, President of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA).

"Sanctuary cities across the country have adopted policies which undermine cooperation with federal law enforcement agencies. These policies have allowed violent offending illegal immigrants to run rampant in our cities and endanger innocent lives. The Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act recognizes the threat posed by these violent offenders and encourages local governments to comply with federal requests to detain these criminals. This act will provide necessary tools to help prevent crime and ensure our streets are safer for the American people. We stand with Senator Cruz in support of this bill and thank him for his support on this vital issue," said Bill Johnson, the Executive Director of the National Association of Police Organizations.

"The notion that a municipality can forbid law enforcement officials from sharing information or complying with a lawful detainer from federal immigration officials borders on insanity. We have seen repeatedly the victimization of people, including children, by persons who have been released from custody in disobedience to these detainers. For the federal government to assist these municipalities with funding is also absurd," said Sam Cabral, the International President for International Union of Police Associations, AFL-CIO.

Sens. Scott, Cruz, Cornyn, Capito, Grassley, Tillis, Rounds, Hoeven, Tuberville, Boozman, and Hyde-Smith were joined by Sens. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), Mike Braun (R-Ind.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), and Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) in co-sponsoring the bill.

Read the full text of the bill here.

Next Article Previous Article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sen. Scott, Colleagues Introduce The Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act | U.S. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Official U.S. Senate website of Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Immigration continues to be one of the most polarizing issues in the U.S. The ongoing struggle between border states like Texas and Florida and sanctuary cities across the country embodies that tension. Since last year, thousands of people who showed up at the border seeking refuge have been mass relocated to sanctuary cities to protest the Biden administration's immigration policies. Leaders in these cities have begged the federal government to step in as the influx of immigrants has outpaced the resources they have to offer.

Recently the spotlight has been on New York City, where the situation has become so dire Mayor Eric Adams declared there was "no more room." The city's "descent from a place that was managing to keep up, just barely, with a ceaseless flow of asylum seekers to a place that had declared defeat was sudden," The New York Times wrote. "From this moment on, it's downhill," Adams said at a City Hall news conference last week. As the crisis in NYC plays out, people are looking at it as an example of how sanctuary cities handle the influx of asylum seekers.

What are sanctuary cities?

Currently, sanctuary cities or states are communities with policies that limit local law enforcement's cooperation with federal authorities' efforts to deport immigrants. For the past few decades, "U.S. sanctuary city policies have been chiefly about welcoming immigrants whom the federal government has refused to grant humanitarian protection," The Washington Post explained.

In the 1980s, a wave of cities and towns officially declared themselves sanctuary cities and adopted policies restricting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Los Angeles was the first city to offer this sanctuary for people fleeing civil wars in El Salvador and Guatemala in 1979, per the Post. Other large cities and college towns followed suit and provided access to local services like schools and healthcare, regardless of immigration status. A clause of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 "played an outsize role in producing our contemporary landscape of sanctuary cities and anti-immigrant jurisdictions," the Post added. The 287g clause allowed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) authorities to deputize local police to help detain and deport illegal immigrants. Many cities have designated themselves as sanctuary cities in response to the clause, making them safe havens for asylum seekers.

How are they handling the influx of asylum seekers?

Since last year, thousands of migrants have been relocated from the border in Texas, Florida, and Arizona to larger sanctuary cities like New York, Denver, Chicago, and Washington D.C. Republican governors have sent busloads and planes full of migrants to these cities to protest the federal government's lax immigration enforcement and the burden being shouldered by border cities. Most relocations have come as a complete surprise for the receiving cities, and they are struggling to keep up with the influx. Mayors from the cities have called on the federal government to help mitigate the crisis, especially leading to the end of Title 42, the pandemic-era asylum regulation that expired in May. With even more migrants projected to enter the country, the cities worried the crisis would put more strain on their resources and budgets.

Before Mayor Adams announced NYC had run out of room, he'd repeatedly asked for government assistance and better communication from the states sending the buses. Migrants had begun to sleep on the streets as placement in the city's shelter system became scarce. The city has spent millions of dollars so far securing housing and providing services to migrants from all over the world. There has been a steady flow of incoming migrants for the past year or so, "nearly doubling the city's homeless population in one huge spasm," the Times reported. Over 100,000 people currently live in shelters throughout the city. The city has tried to find several resolutions to the lack of housing, including taking over entire hotels in Manhattan and building and promptly shutting down temporary shelters.

Denver officials announced in May that they would only allow migrants with formal applications to remain in the U.S. in their emergency shelters. The city has struggled to keep up with the influx of asylum seekers, having spent $20 million sheltering and supporting 12,700 migrants since December, per Axios. The shift could be attributed to a "lack of funding, lack of policy, lack of guidance from our federal government to be able to respond to this crisis appropriately," Victoria Aguilar, a spokeswoman for Denver Human Services, told the Associated Press. Last month the outgoing mayor, Michael Hancock, announced that his administration was no longer moving forward with a $40 million contract with a private company to oversee the city's migrant shelter system, Denverite reported.

Chicago is another sanctuary city feeling the strain for resources for migrants arriving there. At one point, migrants waiting for space in city shelters resorted to sleeping on the floors of local police stations and the airport. The city's shelter system was "over capacity," in May, according to a statement from Brandie Knazze, commissioner of the Chicago Department of Family and Support Services, to city officials. "Make no mistake, we are in a surge, and things have yet to peak," he added. While the migrants staying in police stations have since been relocated to t emporary shelters, Chicago officials continue to pressure the federal government to mitigate the ongoing crisis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The current state of American sanctuary cities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despite having established protocols to offer refuge to immigrants who would otherwise be barred from entering the country, sanctuary cities are finding it challenging to manage the rising number of immigrants seeking asylum.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sanctuary Cities, Border Crisis Costs, and a Rude Awakening for the Left

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Record numbers of illegal immigrants are entering the country illegally and spreading throughout the interior of United States—and it’s playing out in a sadly predictable way. Sanctuary cities like Washington, D.C., New York City and Chicago are sagging under the weight of the cost required to suppo…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nearly $300 million was awarded to sanctuary jurisdictions in 2021, representing 43 percent of all of the funding awarded in the SCAAP, Byrne JAG, and COPS funding programs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The first federal capital case tried under President Joe Biden ended with a split among jurors that means the life of an Islamic extremist who killed eight people in a New York City will be spared. It came at a rare federal death penalty trial in a state without the death penalty.

That Biden's Justice Department continued to pursue the death penalty for Sayfullo Saipov, who used a truck to mow down pedestrians and cyclists on a popular bike path, was a surprise to many given Biden's opposition to capital punishment and his 2016 campaign pledge to end it federally.

The jury's failure to reach a unanimous decision means Saipov receives an automatic sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole for the October 2017 attack.

The initial decision to seek the death penalty came under then-President Donald Trump, who tweeted a day after the attack that Saipov "SHOULD GET DEATH PENALTY!"

But Attorney General Merrick Garland, under Biden, gave his prosecutors the green light to continue pursuing it even though Garland has imposed a moratorium that means no federal executions are likely to happen anytime soon.

The federal death penalty wasn't a high-profile issue until Trump resumed them in 2020 after a 17-year hiatus. With 13 inmates put to death in his last months in office, Trump oversaw more federal executions than any president in more than 120 years.

Here is a look at the current status of the federal death penalty under Biden:

_____

HOW WAS THERE A CAPTIAL CASE IN A STATE WITHOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT?

Saipov's case was a rare instance of the Department of Justice seeking the death penalty in one of the more than 20 states that does not have capital punishment, drawing on U.S. laws that allow executions by federal authorities for exceptional crimes.

The death penalty was effectively abolished in New York by 2007, after years of efforts to restore it, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Historically, over 1,000 people have been executed in New York. The last execution in the state was in 1963.

Federal juries in Brooklyn twice gave a death sentence to a man who murdered two New York police detectives, once in 2007 and again in 2013, but both sentences were vacated on appeal. A judge ultimately ruled the killer was intellectually disabled.

Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was sentenced to death at a 2015 federal trial in Massachusetts, which abolished capital punishment in 1984. The current Justice Department has continued to fight Tsarnaev's bid to have his death sentence tossed out.

If Tsarnaev is ever executed, it would likely be at a death chamber at a U.S. prison in Terre Haute, Indiana, where federal death row is located and where the 13 prisoners executed under Trump received lethal injections of pentobarbital.

WHAT HAS BIDEN DONE TO DATE?

Biden himself has not issued any formal directives or policy statements on federal capital punishment. During the 2016 campaign, he vowed both to end the federal death penalty for good, and to work at ending it in all states. He has been silent on both federal and state death penalties.

The lack of clear steps toward abolishing the death penalty or clearing federal death row using executive authority would leave to the door open to a future pro-death penalty president once against resuming executions by the U.S. government.

Under Garland the Justice Department hasn't sought the death penalty in any new cases. It also has withdrawn requests for capital punishment sought by prior administrations against more than two dozen defendants.

The Justice Department announced in January that it would not seek the death penalty for Patrick Crusius, who is accused of fatally shooting nearly two dozen people in a racist attack at a West Texas Walmart in 2019. Crusius later pleaded guilty to federal hate crime and weapons charges.

While many have praised the White House for not wanting to interfere in the Justice Department's day-to-day decision making, capital punishment opponents say that shouldn't stop it from establishing an overall policy on executions.

WHAT HAS THE WHITE HOUSE SAID?

In an email to The Associated Press earlier this year, the White House said the president "has long talked about his concerns about how the death penalty is applied and whether it is consistent with the values fundamental to our sense of justice and fairness." It added Biden supports the attorney general's decision to impose the moratorium.

"The DOJ makes decisions about prosecutions independently. It would be inappropriate for us to weigh in on specific cases underway, but we believe it's important for victims, survivors, and their families to get justice," it said.

WHAT ABOUT THE MORITORIUM?

Garland announced a halt to federal executions in 2021, meaning the Justice Department won't issue orders to execute anyone, at least while the moratorium is in place.

But the moratorium doesn't stop the department from pursuing the death penalty and it doesn't stop U.S. prosecutors from continuing to fight legal action by death row inmates trying to avoid execution.

The Garland moratorium is similar to one ordered in 2014 by President Barack Obama following a botched state execution in Oklahoma. That Obama didn't take more far-reaching action on the federal executions enabled Trump to restart them.

Trump officials argued that carrying out the executions was a matter of complying with U.S. law and bringing long delayed justice to victims' relatives.

WHAT DOES THE REVIEW DURING THE MORATORIUM ENTAIL?

The Justice Department hasn't offered details, including end goals or timetables.

Garland has said the review would look at protocols put in place by Trump's attorney general, William Barr. Attorneys for death row inmates criticized the protocols, saying they allowed for hurried executions.

What the review does not entail is an assessment of whether the federal death penalty should be scrapped entirely.

WHAT ABOUT THE PROTOCOLS?

In September, the Justice Department issued a public notice seeking comment about changes to Trump protocols, including one permitting execution methods other than lethal injection, such as firing squads.

In a recent letter, Democratic U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley and Sen. Dick Durbin urged the Justice Department to quickly annul all the Trump protocols, including one authorizing the use of state facilities and staff in federal executions, calling the orders "irreparably tainted."

Another authorizes the use of a single drug, pentobarbital, to replace a three-drug cocktail deployed in the 2000s - the last time federal executions were carried out prior to Trump.

Most critics of the death penalty responded to the moratorium and review with faint praise - calling it a first step. Any changes in protocol could easily be undone by a future administration.

WHAT DO DEATH PENALTY OPPONENTS WANT DONE?

They say Biden should draw on his presidential powers to commute all federal death sentences to life in prison, which would prevent those death sentences from ever being restored.

There's also proposed legislation to strike the death penalty from U.S. statutes and resentence the more than 40 inmates still on federal death row to life. Biden has given no indication he supports any such measures.

The issue is a sensitive one for Biden. In 1994, then-Sen. Biden shepherded legislation through Congress that added 60 additional crimes for which someone could be executed. Some inmates executed under Trump were sentenced under those provisions.

Capital punishment has been a hot-button issue politically in the past but is less so now after support for capital punishment has fallen in recent decades. Backing for it currently hovers around 50%, according to most polls.

___

Follow Michael Tarm and Alanna Durkin Richer on Twitter at @mtarm and @aedurkinricher.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What's the status of the US death penalty?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The first federal capital case tried under President Joe Biden ended with a split among jurors, meaning the life of an Islamic extremist who killed eight people in a New York City will be spared.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Most U.S. adults support the death penalty for people convicted of murder, according to an April 2021 Pew Research Center survey. At the same time, majorities believe the death penalty is not applied in a racially neutral way, does not deter people from committing serious crimes and does not have enough safeguards to prevent an innocent person from being executed.

Use of the death penalty has gradually declined in the United States in recent decades. A growing number of states have abolished it, and death sentences and executions have become less common. But the story is not one of continuous decline across all levels of government. While state-level executions have decreased, the federal government put more prisoners to death under President Donald Trump than at any point since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 1976.

As debates over the death penalty continue in the U.S., here's a closer look at public opinion on the issue, as well as key facts about the nation's use of capital punishment.

Six-in-ten U.S. adults strongly or somewhat favor the death penalty for convicted murderers, according to the April 2021 survey. A similar share (64%) say the death penalty is morally justified when someone commits a crime like murder.

Support for capital punishment is strongly associated with the view that it is morally justified in certain cases. Nine-in-ten of those who favor the death penalty say it is morally justified when someone commits a crime like murder; only a quarter of those who oppose capital punishment see it as morally justified.

A majority of Americans have concerns about the fairness of the death penalty and whether it serves as a deterrent against serious crime. More than half of U.S. adults (56%) say Black people are more likely than White people to be sentenced to death for committing similar crimes. About six-in-ten (63%) say the death penalty does not deter people from committing serious crimes, and nearly eight-in-ten (78%) say there is some risk that an innocent person will be executed.

Opinions about the death penalty vary by party, education and race and ethnicity. Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are much more likely than Democrats and Democratic leaners to favor the death penalty for convicted murderers (77% vs. 46%). Those with less formal education are also more likely to support it: Around two-thirds of those with a high school diploma or less (68%) favor the death penalty, compared with 63% of those with some college education, 49% of those with a bachelor's degree and 44% of those with a postgraduate degree. Majorities of White (63%), Asian (63%) and Hispanic adults (56%) support the death penalty, but Black adults are evenly divided, with 49% in favor and 49% opposed.

Views of the death penalty differ by religious affiliation. Around two-thirds of Protestants in the U.S. (66%) favor capital punishment, though support is much higher among White evangelical Protestants (75%) and White non-evangelical Protestants (73%) than it is among Black Protestants (50%). Around six-in-ten Catholics (58%) also support capital punishment, a figure that includes 61% of Hispanic Catholics and 56% of White Catholics.

Opposition to the death penalty also varies among the religiously unaffiliated. Around two-thirds of atheists (65%) oppose it, as do more than half of agnostics (57%). Among those who say their religion is "nothing in particular," 63% support capital punishment.

Support for the death penalty is consistently higher in online polls than in phone polls. Survey respondents sometimes give different answers depending on how a poll is conducted. In a series of contemporaneous Pew Research Center surveys fielded online and on the phone between September 2019 and August 2020, Americans consistently expressed more support for the death penalty in a self-administered online format than in a survey administered on the phone by a live interviewer. This pattern was more pronounced among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents than among Republicans and GOP leaners, according to an analysis of the survey results.

Phone polls have shown a long-term decline in public support for the death penalty. In phone surveys conducted by Pew Research Center between 1996 and 2020, the share of U.S. adults who favor the death penalty fell from 78% to 52%, while the share of Americans expressing opposition rose from 18% to 44%. Phone surveys conducted by Gallup found a similar decrease in support for capital punishment during this time span.

A majority of states have the death penalty, but far fewer use it regularly. As of July 2021, the death penalty is authorized by 27 states and the federal government - including the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. military - and prohibited in 23 states and the District of Columbia, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. But even in many of the jurisdictions that authorize the death penalty, executions are rare: 13 of these states, along with the U.S. military, haven't carried out an execution in a decade or more. That includes three states - California, Oregon and Pennsylvania - where governors have imposed formal moratoriums on executions.

A growing number of states have done away with the death penalty in recent years, either through legislation or a court ruling. Virginia, which has carried out more executions than any state except Texas since 1976, abolished capital punishment in 2021. It followed Colorado (2020), New Hampshire (2019), Washington (2018), Delaware (2016), Maryland (2013), Connecticut (2012), Illinois (2011), New Mexico (2009), New Jersey (2007) and New York (2004).

Death sentences have steadily decreased in recent decades. There were 2,570 people on death row in the U.S. at the end of 2019, down 29% from a peak of 3,601 at the end of 2000, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). New death sentences have also declined sharply: 31 people were sentenced to death in 2019, far below the more than 320 who received death sentences each year between 1994 and 1996. In recent years, prosecutors in some U.S. cities - including Orlando and Philadelphia - have vowed not to seek the death penalty, citing concerns over its application.

Nearly all (98%) of the people who were on death row at the end of 2019 were men. Both the mean and median age of the nation's death row population was 51. Black prisoners accounted for 41% of death row inmates, far higher than their 13% share of the nation's adult population that year. White prisoners accounted for 56%, compared with their 77% share of the adult population. (For both Black and White Americans, these figures include those who identify as Hispanic. Overall, about 15% of death row prisoners in 2019 identified as Hispanic, according to BJS.)

Annual executions are far below their peak level. Nationally, 17 people were put to death in 2020, the fewest since 1991 and far below the modern peak of 98 in 1999, according to BJS and the Death Penalty Information Center. The COVID-19 outbreak disrupted legal proceedings in much of the country in 2020, causing some executions to be postponed.

Even as the overall number of executions in the U.S. fell to a 29-year low in 2020, the federal government ramped up its use of the death penalty. The Trump administration executed 10 prisoners in 2020 and another three in January 2021; prior to 2020, the federal government had carried out a total of three executions since 1976.

The Biden administration has taken a different approach from its predecessor. In July 2021, Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered a halt in federal executions while the Justice Department reviews its policies and procedures.

The average time between sentencing and execution in the U.S. has increased sharply since the 1980s. In 1984, the average time between sentencing and execution was 74 months, or a little over six years, according to BJS. By 2019, that figure had more than tripled to 264 months, or 22 years. The average prisoner awaiting execution at the end of 2019, meanwhile, had spent nearly 19 years on death row.

A variety of factors explain the increase in time spent on death row, including lengthy legal appeals by those sentenced to death and challenges to the way states and the federal government carry out executions, including the drugs used in lethal injections. In California, more death row inmates have died from natural causes or suicide than from executions since 1978, according to the state's Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Note: This is an update to a post originally published May 28, 2015.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 facts about the death penalty in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here's a closer look at public opinion on the death penalty, as well as key facts about the nation's use of capital punishment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
State

Date Passed

How Passed (Yes Vote)

Residency Required?

Minimum Age

# of Months Until Expected Death

# of Requests to Physician

California
ABX2-12 End of Life Option Act
Signed into Law: Oct. 5, 2015

Effective Date: June 9, 2016

"(a) Notwithstanding any other law, a person shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability solely because the person was present when the qualified individual self-administers the prescribed aid-in-dying drug. A person who is present may, without civil or criminal liability, assist the qualified individual by preparing the aid-in-dying drug so long as the person does not assist the qualified person in ingesting the aid-in-dying drug.

(b) A health care provider or professional organization or association shall not subject an individual to censure, discipline, suspension, loss of license, loss of privileges, loss of membership, or other penalty for participating in good faith compliance with this part or for refusing to participate in accordance with subdivision (e).

(c) Notwithstanding any other law, a health care provider shall not be subject to civil, criminal, administrative, disciplinary, employment, credentialing, professional discipline, contractual liability, or medical staff action, sanction, or penalty or other liability for participating in this part, including, but not limited to, determining the diagnosis or prognosis of an individual, determining the capacity of an individual for purposes of qualifying for the act, providing information to an individual regarding this part, and providing a referral to a physician who participates in this part. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to limit the application of, or provide immunity from."
*Please consult the state for the most recent information.
California Annual Reports Colorado

Proposition 106: End of Life Options Act
Voted On: Nov. 8, 2016 (65% in favor)

Effective Date: Jan. 2017

"(1) An adult resident of Colorado may make a request, in accordance with sections 25-48-104 and 25-48-112, to receive a prescription medical aid-in-dying medication if:

(a) The individual's attending physician has diagnosed the individual with a terminal illness with a prognosis of six months or less;

(b) The individual's attending physician has determined that the individual has mental capacity; and

(c) The individual has voluntarily expressed the wish to receive a prescription for medical aid-in-dying medication;

(2) The right to request medical aid-in-dying does not exist because of age or disability."
*Please consult the state for the most recent information.

Phone: 303-692-2000

Email: cdphe.information@state.co.us
Patient Eligibility: Physician Protocol: Patient Request Timeline: Other:

Use of the law cannot affect the status of a patient's health or life insurance policies.

Physicians and health care systems are not obligated to participate.

Colorado Annual Reports
2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, & 2021
District of Columbia

DC ACT 21-577 Death with Dignity Act of 2016
Signed into Law: Dec. 19, 2016

Effective Date: Feb. 18, 2017

"To provide procedures and requirements regarding the request for and dispensation of covered medications to qualified patients seeking to die in a humane and peaceful manner, to define the duties of attending physicians and consulting physicians, to provide for counseling of patients and family notification, to require informed decisions-making and waiting periods, to require reporting from the Department of Health, to outline the effect of the act on contracts, wills, insurance, and annuity policies, to provide for immunities, liabilities, and exceptions, to provide an opt-out provision for health care providers, to provide for claims against a qualified patient's estate for costs incurred by the District government when a qualified patient ingests a covered medication in public, and to establish criminal penalties."

[ Note: DC laws are subject to Congressional oversight. The Death with Dignity Act of 2016 was submitted to Congress for a 30-day review on Jan. 6, 2017. Representative Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) and Senator James Lankford (R-OK) submitted disapproval resolutions to the House and Senate respectively on Jan. 12, 2017 that would bar the law. However, the resolutions did not come up for a full vote of the House or the Senate within 30 working days, making the law effective as of Feb. 18, 2017.]
*Please consult the District for the most recent information.

DC Department of Health
Phone: 202-442-5955

Email: doh@dc.gov
Patient Eligibility: Physician Protocol: Patient Request Timeline: Other:

Use of the law cannot affect the status of a patient's health, life, or annuity insurance policies.

DC Annual Reports:
2017 & 2018
Hawaii

Signed into Law: Apr. 5, 2018

Effective Date: January 1, 2019

"The legislature concludes that adult, terminally ill residents of the State can determine their own medical treatment as they near the end of life and should have a full complement of support services available, including palliative care, hospice care, aggressive medical care, and the right to choose to avoid an unnecessarily prolonged life of pain and suffering. The choice elected by an individual must be fully informed, including about options for care that are presented and discussed with health care providers in a values-neutral manner.

The purpose of this Act is to allow qualified patients in this State with a medically confirmed terminal illness with less than six months to live and possessing decisional capacity to determine their own medical care at the end of their lives."
*Please consult the state for the most recent information.

Hawaii Department of Health
Phone: 808-586-4400

Email: webmail@doh.hawaii.gov
Patient Eligibility: Physician Protocol: Patient Request Timeline: Other:

Hawaii Annual Reports
2019, 2020, & 2021
Maine

HP 948, An Act to Enact the Maine Death with Dignity Act
Signed into Law: June 12, 2019

Effective Date: September 19, 2019

"This bill enacts the Maine Death with Dignity Act authorizing a person who is 18 years of age or older, who meets certain qualifications and who has been determined by the person's attending physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, as defined in the Act, to make a request for medication prescribed for the purpose of ending the person's life. The bill establishes the procedures for making these requests, including 2 waiting periods and one written and 2 oral requests and requires a 2nd opinion by a consulting physician. The bill requires specified information to be documented in the person's medical record, including all oral and written requests for a medication to hasten death."

[ Note: The law indicates that it does not legalize "assisted suicide." The law states that the act must be referred to as "obtaining and administering life-ending medication" in state reports.]
*Please consult the state for the most recent information.

Phone: 207-287-3707
Patient Eligibility: Physician Protocol: Patient Request Timeline: Other:

Maine Annual Reports 2020 Montana

Montana First Judicial District Court: Baxter v. Montana
Court Ruling Date: Dec. 5, 2008 in favor of plaintiffs

The plaintiffs (four Montana physicians, Compassion and Choices, and Robert Baxter, a 76 year old truck driver from Billings dying of lymphocytic leukemia) asked the court to establish a constitutional right "to receive and provide aid in dying."

Judge Dorothy McCarter ruled that a terminally ill, competent patient has a legal right to die with dignity under Article II, Sections 4 and 10 of the Montana Constitution. That includes a right to "use the assistance of his physician to obtain a prescription for a lethal dose of medication that the patient may take on his own if and when he decides to terminate his life." It further held "[t]he patient's right to die with dignity includes protection of that patient's physician from liability under the State's homicide statutes."

State Supreme Court: Baxter v. Montana

Decided: Dec. 31, 2009 in favor of plaintiffs 5-4

The Attorney General of Montana appealed the ruling of Judge McCarter to the Montana Supreme Court. The Court found that "we find no indication in Montana law that physician aid in dying provided to terminally ill, mentally competent adult patients is against public policy" and therefore, the physician who assists is shielded from criminal liability by the patient's consent.
*Please consult the state for the most recent information.

No legal protocol in place.
On Feb. 17, 2011, the Montana legislature tabled two proposed physician-assisted suicide bills. According to the Billings Gazette, "one would have banned the practice altogether (LC0041 - Republican Senator Greg Hinkle), while the other (LC0177 - Democratic Senator Dick Barrett) would have required a doctor to diagnose a patient as being terminally ill and the patient to make voluntary oral and written requests for a lethal prescription of medication. The request would have had to be signed by two witnesses and the patient also would have had to get a second doctor's opinion."

Death With Dignity National Center explained that "existing Montana state law provides immunity for physicians for withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment for a terminally-ill patient," but "does not specifically address physician-assisted suicide."

Montana Annual Reports New Jersey

Bill A1504 Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act
Signed into Law: Apr. 12, 2019

Effective Date: Aug. 1, 2019

"Recognizing New Jersey's long-standing commitment to individual dignity, informed consent, and the fundamental right of competent adults to make health care decisions about whether to have life-prolonging medical or surgical means or procedures provided, withheld, or withdrawn, this State affirms the right of a qualified terminally ill patient, protected by appropriate safeguards, to obtain medication that the patient may choose to self-administer in order to bring about the patient's humane and dignified death."
*Please consult the state for the most recent information.

Phone: 800-367-6543
Patient Eligibility: Physician Protocol: Patient Request Timeline: Other:

New Jersey Annual Reports
2019, 2020, & 2021
New Mexico

Elizabeth Whitefield End of Life Options Act
Signed into Law: Apr. 8, 2021

Effective Date: June 18, 2021

" The Act is explicit that medical aid in dying is not 'suicide.' Physicians, nurses and loved ones who may be present toward the end are protected against prosecution for "assisting suicide." Further, good faith compliance with the law may not be construed as unprofessional conduct or considered neglect. Medical aid in dying is entirely voluntary for patients, health care providers, and pharmacists. No one is obligated to participate."
*Please consult the state for the most recent information.

New Mexico Department of Health
Phone: 800-432-2080
Patient Eligibility: Physician Protocol: Patient Request Timeline:

The patient gives a written request to their health care provider, signed in front of two qualified, adult witnesses. The law provides the specific form that the patient must use.
Other:

Contracts, wills, insurance policies, or other agreements cannot be used to restrict a patient's ability to request or stop a request for medication.

Physicians and health care systems are not obligated to participate.

New Mexico Annual Reports
not yet available
Oregon

Ballot Measure 16: Allows Terminally Ill Adults to Obtain Prescription for Lethal Drugs (Death With Dignity Act)
Voted On: Nov. 8, 1994 (51% in favor)

Effective Date: October 27, 1997

"An adult who is capable... and has been determined by the attending physician and consulting physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, and who has voluntarily expressed his or her wish to die, may make a written request for medication for the purpose of ending his or her life in a humane and dignified manner."
Ballot Measure 51: Repeals Law Allowing Terminally Ill Adults To Obtain Lethal Prescription
Decided: Nov. 4, 1997 (60% against)
Supreme Court of the United States: Gonzales v. State of Oregon
Decided: Jan. 17, 2006 (6-3 in favor of the State of Oregon)

According to the court's majority opinion, the Controlled Substances Act does not empower the Attorney General of the United States to prohibit doctors from prescribing regulated drugs for use in physician-assisted suicide under state law permitting the procedure. The court's ruling upheld the Death With Dignity Act.
SB 579
On July 24, 2019, Governor Kate Brown signed SB 579 into law, changing the Death with Dignity Act. The Act now allows patients with fewer than 15 days to live to submit the second oral request for life-ending medication at any time after the first oral request, bypassing the 15-day waiting period.
Mar. 29, 2022 - Oregon Ends Residency Requirement
In a court settlement with Compassion & Choices, the Oregon Health Authority and the Oregon Medical Board agreed to stop enforcing the residency requirement and to ask the legislature to amend the law.
*Please consult the state for the most recent information.

Phone: 971-673-1222

Email: dwda.info@state.or.us
Patient Eligibility: Physician Protocol: Patient Request Timeline: Other:

Oregon Annual Reports Vermont

Act 39. An Act Relating to Patient Choice and Control at End of Life
Signed into Law: May 20, 2013

Effective Date: May 20, 2013

"A physician shall not be subject to any civil or criminal liability or professional disciplinary action if the physician prescribes to a patient with a terminal condition medication to be self-administered for the purpose of hastening the patient's death and the physician affirms by documenting in the patient's medical record [the required information]."

"A patient with a terminal condition who self-administers a lethal dose of medication shall not be considered to be a person exposed to grave physical harm... and no person shall be subject to civil or criminal liability solely for being present when a patient with a terminal condition self-administers a lethal dose of medication or for not acting to prevent the patient from self-administering a lethal dose of medication."
Act 10. An act relating to removing the residency requirement from Vermont's patient choice at end of life laws
Signed into Law: May 2, 2023

Effective Date: May 2, 2023

The act removes the text "a resident of Vermont" from Act 39, eliminating the residency requirement for MAID in Vermont.
*Please consult the state for the most recent information.

Phone: 800-464-4343
Patient Eligibility: Physician Protocol: Patient Request Timeline: Other:

Use of the law cannot affect the status of a patient's health or life insurance policies.

Physicians and health care systems are not obligated to participate.

Vermont Reports Washington
Ballot Initiative 1000: Death With Dignity Act
Voted On: Nov. 4, 2008 (58% in favor)

Effective Date: March 5, 2009

"An adult who is competent, is a resident of Washington state, and has been determined by the attending physician and consulting physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, and who has voluntarily expressed his or her wish to die, may make a written request for medication that the patient may self-administer to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner."
*Please consult the state for the most recent information.
Washington Annual Reports

State

Criminal Statute

Type of Crime or Degree of Punishment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
States with Legal Medical Aid in Dying (MAID) - Euthanasia - ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Editor's Note: We do not recommend or refer specific physicians, counselors, organizations, or other experts on end-of-life issues. 10 States and DC Have Medical Aid in Dying (MAID) 40 States Consider Medical Aid in Dying (MAID) Illegal 0 Federal Laws on Euthanasia and Medical Aid in Dying (MAID) California ABX2-12 End of Life Option Act Signed [...]Read More...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Retired real estate agent Charles Selsberg, 77, was not what anyone would call an activist. But ravaged by Lou Gehrig's disease in his dying days, Selsberg made a public plea to the Colorado legislature to legalize physician-assisted suicide.

"Living with this disease is a cruelty we wouldn't tolerate for a pet," Selsberg wrote with his daughter's help in a commentary for The Denver Postlast year. He couldn't eat, breathe on his own or speak above a labored whisper, but without a legal way to end his life, he was forced to live on as "really just a mind now, trapped in a dead body."

Selsberg's plea wasn't answered in Colorado, where a right-to-die measure failed in committee this spring, about a year after his death. But in several other states, lawmakers are listening.

California enacted a measure this month, joining Montana, Oregon, Vermont and Washington in allowing doctors to prescribe life-ending, self-administered medication for certain terminally ill patients. A similar measure has passed the New Jersey Assembly and is awaiting action in the state Senate. Supporters are promoting "death with dignity" legislation in several other states.

Out of decency and respect for the wishes of people suffering excruciating declines, doctors should be legally allowed to assist terminally ill patients end their lives, with strict safeguards against abuse. A Gallup Poll last May found that nearly 70% of Americans agree.
The vulnerable will be the victims: Opposing view
Several individuals have demonstrated in the most public way imaginable that they want this choice. Brittany Maynard, a 29-year-old Californian with brain cancer, became the new face of the death-with-dignity movement when she moved to Oregon so she could take her own life last year. Retired Los Angeles police detective Christy O'Donnell, 47, who has lung cancer and only a few months to live, campaigned for the new California law. Because opponents are threatening to seek a 2016 ballot measure to overturn the law, which won't take effect until at least April, O'Donnell may not live to take advantage of the law she worked so hard to pass.

Fears that such laws would lead to abuse and coercion have proved unfounded. Oregon, the first state to allow physician-assisted suicide, has paved the way with more than 15 years of experience and a properly structured law. Physician-assisted suicide is open only to people 18 or older who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six months. They must make two oral requests to their physician, at least 15 days apart, plus a written request. Two doctors must confirm their diagnosis and determine that they are capable of making their own health decisions. This is not a law that allows for impulsive decisions.

In Oregon, the number of suicides has been small - a total of 859 in 17 years. Last year, there were 105 physician-assisted suicides out of a total of 34,160 deaths in the state.

Fears that the poor or uneducated or minorities, lacking health insurance to provide proper care, would be forced into into suicide were unfounded, according to Oregon's statistics. Since 1998, 97% of the individuals have been white, all but 6% were high-school graduates, and 46% had a bachelor's degree or higher. More than 98% had health insurance, and 90% were enrolled in a hospice.

Critics make much of the fact that just one in four cited pain as their end-of-life concern. But individuals should not have to conform to someone else's idea of what is too painful to live with in the last months of their lives. Nearly 90% cited losing the ability to engage in enjoyable activities; 50% cited losing control of bodily functions.

In the 1990s, the zealotry of Jack Kevorkian, known as " Dr. Death," set back the cause of physician-assisted suicide. Today, the California law has 65% approval. Gov. Jerry Brown got it right when he wrote that he doesn't know what he would do if he were "dying in prolonged and excruciating pain," but that it would be a comfort "to consider the options afforded by this bill. And I wouldn't deny that right to others."
USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view - a unique USA TODAY feature. To read more editorials, go to the Opinion front page or sign up for the daily Opinion e-mail newsletter. Should choosing when to die be an option? Your Say Interactive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Physician-assisted suicide laws grant dignity: Our view

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fears that they'd lead to abuse have proved unfounded, and new California law has 65% approval.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Congress needs to act now to protect our voting rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last month marked 58 years since the Voting Rights Act was signed into law, ushering in long-overdue voter protections to protect Black Americans from the evils wrought under Jim Crow. But th…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Focus: Death

Abstract

The question of a physician's involvement in aid in dying (or "assisted suicide") is being debated across the country. This article adopts no one position because its authors hold contrasting views. It aims instead to articulate the strongest arguments in favor of aid in dying and the strongest arguments opposed. It also addresses relevant terminology and reviews the history of its legalization in the United States.

Keywords: Aid in dying, Physician-assisted suicide, End of life, Death, Dying, Ethics, Bioethics, Autonomy, Suicide

Physician aid in dying is a controversial subject raising issues central to the role of physicians. According to the American Medical Association, it occurs when a physician provides "the necessary means and/or information" to facilitate a patient's choice to end his or her life [ 1].

This essay's authors hold varying views on the ethics of aid in dying; thus, the essay explores the subject without taking a position. It addresses its terminology; history of legalization in the United States; arguments in favor of aid in dying; and arguments opposed.

Terminology

Physician aid in dying goes by many names. Perhaps the best recognized is "physician-assisted suicide." Alternative terms include but are not limited to: death with dignity, doctor-prescribed death, right to die, and physician-assisted death. For simplicity's sake, we use aid in dying (AID), although we recognize that there will be some who object, no matter the label.

A variety of factors have led to these various neologisms. Supplanting the word "physician" with "medical," for example, makes it possible for non-physician clinicians to prescribe the lethal medications. Some advocates of AID prefer not to use the term "suicide;" they contend that AID is a medical practice, distinct from the act of suicide for a depressed or hopeless person [ 2]. By contrast, opponents maintain that the process of prematurely and deliberately ending one's life is always suicide, regardless of motivation. Some insist that dissociating "physician-assisted suicide" from other types of suicide demeans those who die by suicide for other reasons, as if only medically-assisted suicides are legitimate [ 3]. People on both sides of the issue worry whether "aid in dying" or "assisted dying" might be confused with palliative, hospice, or other care of dying patients.

In the United States, physician-assisted suicide or aid in dying has always been carefully distinguished from euthanasia. Euthanasia, also called mercy killing, refers to the administration of a lethal medication to an incurably suffering patient. It may be voluntary (the patient requests it) or involuntary. Euthanasia is illegal in the United States, but voluntary euthanasia is legal in Belgium, Colombia, Luxembourg, and Canada. It is decriminalized in the Netherlands.

At risk of compounding terminology further, Canada legalized in June 2016 "medical assistance in dying" (MAiD), which includes both "voluntary euthanasia" and "medically-assisted suicide [ 4]."

A Brief History of Legalization in the United States

In the early 1900s, advocates argued forcefully for legalizing euthanasia, which was already being secretly practiced in the US. According to Jacob Appel's work on this period, the eugenics movement strongly influenced discourse on euthanasia, and opponents of legalization tended to put forth practical rather than religious or moral arguments [ 5]. When efforts to legalize euthanasia failed, public discourse on the subject waned for many decades.

In the 1980s, the pathologist Jacob "Jack" Kevorkian began advertising in Detroit area newspapers as a death counselor [ 6]. He had studied the technique of Dutch physicians in the Netherlands, and created his own device with which patients could self-administer lethal medications. His first patient ended her life in 1990 while lying on a bed inside Kevorkian's Volkswagen van. He went on to assist with some 130 deaths by suicide over the next eight years. In 1999, after Kevorkian publicly distributed a video of himself directly euthanizing a patient, he was convicted of second-degree murder and sent to prison. Although Kevorkian reignited national debate about dying, his off-putting approach and personal idiosyncrasies prevented his becoming a national leader on the issue.

Several of Kevorkian's physician contemporaries filed suit against New York's Attorney General, arguing that the State of New York's prohibition against physician-assisted suicide violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They argued, in effect, that the right to refuse treatment was effectively the same as the right to end one's life. The Supreme Court ruled in response in Vacco v. Quill (1997) that there is no constitutionally-protected right to die. It left such decisions to the states. The Court also ruled in Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) that a right to aid in dying was not protected by the Due Process Clause.

Oregon became the first to pass its death with dignity law that same year. More than a decade later, Washington legalized AID in 2008. Montana decriminalized the practice a year later. Vermont legalized it in 2013.

In 2014, a young Californian named Brittany Maynard was diagnosed with an astrocytoma and became a spokesperson for the legalization of AID. She was a newlywed facing terminal illness, and her story quickly captured the public imagination. Her well-publicized death by lethal ingestion in Oregon in 2014 influenced her home state of California to legalize AID in 2015. This was subsequently followed by Colorado in 2016, the District of Columbia in 2017, Hawai'i in 2018, and New Jersey and Maine in 2019.

Pro Arguments

The two most common arguments in favor of legalizing AID are respect for patient autonomy and relief of suffering. A third, related, argument is that AID is a safe medical practice, requiring a health care professional.

Respect for Patient Autonomy

Bioethics as a discipline gained significant traction in the 1970s, at a time when the concept of patient rights was pushing back against physician paternalism. The philosophers Tom Beauchamp and James Childress, in their well-known textbook Principles of Biomedical Ethics, advanced four fundamental principles as a framework for addressing ethically-complex cases: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Of these principles, autonomy undeniably exerts the most influence on current US medical practice [ 7].

Autonomy refers to governance over one's own actions. In the health care setting, this means a patient determines which medical interventions to elect or forgo. Patient autonomy serves as the justification for informed consent; only after a thorough explanation of risks and benefits can the patient have the agency to make a decision about treatments or participation in medical research. This logic, it is argued, naturally extends to AID; patients accustomed to making their own health care decisions throughout life should also be permitted to control the circumstances of their deaths.

Relief of Suffering

At its core, medicine has always aimed to relieve the suffering of patients from illness and disease. In the West, Hippocrates's ancient oath pledged to use treatments to help the sick, but not "administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so [ 8]." In contrast, advocates of AID argue that relief of suffering through lethal ingestion is humane and compassionate - if the patient is dying and suffering is refractory. Indeed, some of the most compelling arguments made in favor of AID come from patients, such as Maynard, who suffer from life-threatening illnesses.

A Safe Medical Practice

Aid in dying is lauded by advocates for being a safe medical practice - that is, doctors can ensure death in a way that suicide by other means cannot. Aid in dying thus becomes one option among many possibilities for care of the dying. Although individual state laws vary, most propose a number of safeguards to prevent abuses and to provide structure for an act that some people will do anyway, albeit more haphazardly or even dangerously. Safeguards include requiring that a patient electing AID be informed of all end-of-life options; that two witnesses confirm that the patient is requesting AID autonomously; and that patients are free of coercion and able to ingest the lethal medication themselves [ 9].

Con Arguments

Although opponents of AID offer many arguments ranging from pragmatic to philosophical, we focus here on concerns that the expansion of AID might cause additional, unintended harm through suicide contagion, slippery slope, and the deaths of patients suffering from depression.

Suicide Contagion

The sociologist David Phillips first described suicide contagion in the 1970s. He showed that after high profile suicides, society would witness a broad spike in suicides [ 10]. This was particularly true for individuals whose demographic profiles were similar to those of the person who died by suicide [ 11]. Although Phillips's work did not focus on AID, it has been corroborated recently by the spike in youth suicidality following the airing of Netflix's 13 Reasons Why [ 12].

The publicly-available data from Oregon, however, reveal that in the months surrounding Maynard's high-profile death in November 2014, the number of similarly situated individuals in Oregon who ended their lives by lethal ingestion more than doubled. Furthermore, from 1998 (when Oregon started recording data) to 2013, the number of lethal prescriptions written each year increased at an average of 12.1%. During 2014 and 2015, however, this increase doubled, suggesting that high-profile AID leads to more AID [ 13]. Although the data do not prove that an increase in AID causes more non-assisted suicide, a study by Jones and Paton found that the legalization of AID has been associated with "an increased rate of total suicides relative to other states and no decrease in non-assisted suicides [ 14]." They suggest that this means either AID does not inhibit non-assisted suicide or that AID makes non-assisted suicide more palatable for others.

Slippery Slope

Some opponents of AID express concern that once doctors are involved in the business of hastening patients' deaths; they have already slid down the slippery slope [ 15]. Others suggest that the slope is best exemplified by an expanding list of reasons for electing AID. Refractory physical pain is no longer the most compelling reason for ending one's life through lethal ingestion. Instead, cumulative Oregon data suggest that the vast majority of patients elect AID because they are concerned about "losing autonomy" (90.6%) or are "less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable" (89.1%). Some fear a "loss of dignity" (74.4%); being a "burden on family, friends/caregivers" (44.8%); or "losing control of bodily functions" (44.3%). Concern about inadequate pain control was the reason for pursuing a lethal ingestion in only 25.7% of cases [ 16].

Opponents also point to increasing calls in the US for euthanasia. In 2017, Senate Bill 893 was introduced to the Oregon State Legislature; it would have enabled patients to identify in a legal directive the person they wished to administer their lethal medications, effectively legalizing euthanasia [ 17]. Although this bill failed, the Oregon House passed HB2217 in 2019, which expanded the definition of "self-administer" to include options in addition to the oral ingestion of lethal drugs. The House also put forward HB2903, which seeks to expand the word "ingest" for lethal medication to "any means" and also proposes to expand the definition of "terminal disease" to include "a degenerative condition that at some point in the future" might cause death. It remains to be seen whether Oregon will become the first state to legalize euthanasia.

Although Belgium and The Netherlands permit both AID and euthanasia, the latter dominates. Over the years there has been a steady increase in acceptable criteria. Currently, patients who suffer from depression, dementia, or being "tired of life" may be euthanized. In some cases, minors may also be euthanized [ 18]. Published data from the Flanders region of Belgium highlights that vulnerable populations are especially likely to be euthanized. From 2007 to 2013, the largest increases in rates of granting euthanasia requests were among women, those 80 years or older, those with lower educational achievement, and those who died in nursing homes [ 19].

Depression in Advanced Illness

Up to half of patients with cancer suffer from symptoms of depression [ 20]. The elderly also suffer from high rates of depression and suicide [ 21]. Because depression often manifests somatically [ 22], if patients are not screened, clinicians miss half of all cases of clinical depression [ 23- 25]. Opponents of AID are concerned that in Oregon, greater than 70 percent of patients who elect AID are elderly and have cancer, but fewer than five percent are referred to a psychiatrist or psychologist to rule out clinical depression.

Conclusion

Physician AID remains a controversial subject relevant to the care of patients. The Hippocratic model dominated medical practice for thousands of years. With the rise of euthanasia in Europe during the second half of the twentieth century, many began to rethink this stance, but hastening the death of patients still sits uncomfortably with many physicians. Although a number of medical societies have begun to reconsider their positions, the American Medical Association's House of Delegates voted in June 2019 to maintain the organization's long-held opposition to physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia [ 26]. Strong arguments remain both in favor and in opposition to the practice, and physicians have an ethical responsibility to remain informed on this timely issue.

Glossary

AID

aid in dying

MAiD

medical assistance in dying

Additional Information

Co-author Daniel Callahan, PhD, died after the first submission of this article.

References

Quill TE, Brody H. Physician recommendations and patient autonomy: finding a balance between physician power and patient choice. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:763-9. [[PubMed] Google Scholar]

Hippocrates of Cos The Oath. Loeb Classical Library. 1923;147:298-9. [Google Scholar]

Bridge JA, Greenhouse JB, Ruch D, Stevens J, Ackerman J, Sheftall AH, et al. Association between the release of Netflix's 13 Reasons Why and suicide rates in the United States: an interrupted times series analysis. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2019;Apr 28:pii: S0890-8567(19)30288-6. [[PubMed] PMC free article] [Google Scholar]

https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/ama/80384

Articles from The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine are provided here courtesy of Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Focus: Death: Pros and Cons of Physician Aid in Dying

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The question of a physician's involvement in aid in dying (or "assisted suicide") is being debated across the country. This article adopts no one position because its authors hold contrasting views. It aims instead to articulate ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
At least 11 states have enacted restrictive voting laws this year, new report finds | CNN Politics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At least 11 states have enacted 13 restrictive voting laws this year, according to a new analysis from the liberal-leaning Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s law school.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Data: Voting Rights Lab; Map: Axios Visuals

Two years after Republican-led states approved waves of new voting restrictions, more states in 2023 have improved access to voting than have limited it.

The big picture: 29 states and Washington, D.C., have enacted a total of 70 laws expanding voting rights this year, while 16 states have enacted 29 laws to restrict voting, according to data and analysis by the nonprofit Voting Rights Lab (VRL).

8 states included in those counts imposed batches of laws that did both.

Why it matters: The GOP's backlash to many pandemic-era measures that improved access to voting has continued, but voting-rights advocates have struck back with some big wins in the run-up to the 2024 election.

While most of the new laws the VRL identified as improving voting rights are in blue states, some Republican-led states have come to embrace some voting policies that the GOP, led by former President Trump, had cited in their false claims of election fraud in 2020.

One example: Arkansas, a solidly red state, eased restrictions on early voting and mail-in voting.

Zoom in: Several of the most significant new laws and policies - enhancing and restricting voting procedures - are in politically divided swing states likely to be crucial in what's expected to be a tight race for president in 2024.

Michigan, where Democrats control state government, passed the nation's biggest package of bills to increase access to voting. New laws ensure that student IDs are acceptable identification at the polls, expand early voting and improve tracking procedures for mail-in ballots.

Nevada, where Democrats control the legislature but the governor is a Republican, improved voting access for Indigenous people and felons, and approved harsher penalties for tampering with voting equipment.

On the other hand, Arizona's Republican-led legislature passed a resolution that raised questions about whether the state is moving toward banning some types of electronic vote tabulation systems.

Georgia's Republican-led legislature, meanwhile, passed a measure that Democrats say could help inject partisan politics into how counties oversee their elections.

What they're saying: "Some of the greatest threats to voter access and fair elections are happening in many of the 2024 battleground states where Republicans control state government," said Megan Bellamy, vice president of law and policy at the VRL, which supports expanded access to voting.

Between the lines: The states that expanded voting rights this year also include Minnesota, which began allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to pre-register to vote and now automatically registers people to vote when they renew or receive their driver's licenses.

Connecticutapproved two weeks of early voting, protected voting access to minority communities that historically have faced discrimination, and provided more assistance to voters who don't speak English.

New Mexico enacted a law that allows Native Americans to vote and receive ballots at tribal office buildings, and automatically registers state residents to vote when they interact with the state Department of Motor Vehicles.

New York now allows any voter to vote early by mail, without needing an excuse to do so.

Other states have continued to focus more on restrictions, some of which are legacies of the false claims of election fraud in 2020:

In-state student identification cards are no longer acceptable forms of voter ID in Idaho.

Non-photo identification cards are no longer an acceptable proof of ID in Ohio, which also limited mail-ballot drop boxes to one per county. Ohio also will no longer allow early voting the day before an election.

Ballot drop boxes and write-in candidates are no longer options in Arkansas.

And election drop boxes were banned in South Dakota, a decision most county auditors disagree with.

Indiana imposed new requirements for residents who request an absentee ballot, including that they provide proof of their identity with their driver's license number or Social Security number.

Collecting and delivering someone else's ballot is now illegal in Mississippi unless the individual is a caregiver, a family member, a household member of the voter - or a mail carrier.

In a few states, legislatures approved restrictions that were vetoed by the governor.

North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat, vetoed a bill passed by the GOP-controlled legislature that would have limited absentee voting and empowered partisan poll watchers.

States with new laws the VRL listed as both expanding and restricting voting rights included Texas, which pass a total of nine measures - three that the VRL says improved voting rights, and six that added restrictions.

Two laws signed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) eliminated the nonpartisan election administrator in mostly Democratic Harris County - which includes Houston, the nation's third-largest city.

Another new law gives the state government, which is led by Republicans, more authority to intervene in Harris County's elections.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Push to expand voting rights gains ground in 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two years after GOP-led states approved waves of voting restrictions, more states in 2023 have improved access to voting than have limited it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Common Voting Restrictions That Are More Harmful Than You Might Think | League of Women Voters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2023, at least 322 bills restricting voting access were introduced in state legislatures nationwide. Though many of these restrictions may appear simple and easy to comply with, they often have a huge impact on voters with disabilities, people of color, indigenous communities, students, young vo…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Two years ago, the biggest battles in state legislatures were over voting rights. Democrats loudly - and sometimes literally - protested as Republicans passed new voting restrictions in states like Georgia, Florida and Texas. This year, attention has shifted to other hot-button issues, but the fight over the franchise has continued. Republicans have enacted dozens of laws this year that will make it harder for some people to vote in future elections.

But this year, voting-rights advocates got some significant wins too: States - controlled by Democrats and Republicans - have enacted more than twice as many laws expanding voting rights as restricting them, although the most comprehensive voter-protection laws passed in blue states. In all, 39 states and Washington, D.C., have changed their election laws in some way this year. Here's a rundown of the most important shifts.

Where voting rights were restricted in 2023 (so far)

Driven by many Republicans' false belief that lax voting laws allowed the 2020 election to be stolen from former President Donald Trump, 2021 was a record-breaking year for voting restrictions. According to data from the Voting Rights Lab, a pro-voting-rights organization that tracks election-law legislation, state legislators introduced 566 bills restricting voter access or election administration that year, 53 of which were enacted. This year hasn't been quite so busy, but as of July 21, 366 laws with voting restrictions had been proposed and 29 had been enacted.

All but one of those 29 new laws came in states where Republicans have full control of the lawmaking process: Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming. Five of the laws include provisions that tighten voter-ID requirements, 11 include provisions that interfere with election administration and 13 have at least one provision that targets mail voting. Some notable changes include:

Ohio enacted a big election-law package that removes non-photo IDs from the list of acceptable voter IDs, limits counties to one ballot drop box each, gets rid of early voting on the day before the election, moves up the deadline for applying to vote absentee by four days and shortens the period for accepting properly postmarked absentee ballots after Election Day by six days.

Mississippi adopted a law that prohibits so-called ballot harvesting, a favorite target of Republicans who falsely believe "mules" stuffed ballot boxes to steal the 2020 election for President Biden. Specifically, this law prohibits anyone except a family member, household member, caregiver or mail carrier from collecting and delivering someone else's absentee ballot.

Idaho removed in-state student IDs from the list of acceptable voter IDs.

Florida enacted a wide-ranging bill that, among other things, places several restrictions on organizations that register voters, such as requiring them to register with the state every election cycle, attest that their workers aren't felons and turn in voter-registration applications they collect within 10 days instead of 14.

Indiana has a new law requiring people requesting an absentee ballot to provide proof of identity, such as their driver's license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number. It also prohibits anyone from mailing an absentee-ballot request form to anyone who hasn't specifically requested it.

Arkansas and South Dakota both enacted new laws banning ballot drop boxes.

Where voting rights were expanded in 2023 (so far)

Unlike two years ago, though, we'd argue that the bigger story of this year's legislative sessions was all the ways states made it easier to vote. As of July 21, according to the Voting Rights Lab, 834 bills had been introduced so far this year expanding voting rights, and 64 had been enacted. What's more, these laws are passing in states of all hues. Democratic-controlled jurisdictions (Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island and Washington) enacted 33 of these new laws containing voting-rights expansions, but Republican-controlled states (Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming) were responsible for 23 of them. The remaining eight became law in states where the two parties share power (Nevada, Pennsylvania and Virginia).

That said, not all election laws are created equal, and the most comprehensive expansive laws passed in blue states. For example:

New Mexico adopted a major voting-rights package that will automatically register New Mexicans to vote when they interact with the state's Motor Vehicle Division, allow voters to request absentee ballots for all future elections without the need to reapply each time and restore the right to vote to felons who are on probation or parole. The law also allows Native Americans to register to vote and receive ballots at official tribal buildings and makes it easier for Native American officials to get polling places set up in pueblos and on tribal land.

Minnesota followed suit with a law also establishing automatic voter registration and a permanent absentee-voting list. The act allows 16- and 17-year-olds to preregister to vote too. Meanwhile, a separate new law also reenfranchises felons on probation or parole.

Michigan enacted eight laws implementing a constitutional amendment expanding voting rights that voters approved last year. Most notably, the laws guarantee at least nine days of in-person early voting and allow counties to offer as many as 29. The bills also allow voters to fix mistakes on their absentee-ballot envelopes so that their ballot can still count, track the status of their ballot online, and use student, military and tribal IDs as proof of identification.

Connecticut became the sixth state to enact a state-level voting-rights act, which bars municipalities from discriminating against minority groups in voting, requires them to provide language assistance to certain language minority groups and requires municipalities with a record of voter discrimination to get preclearance before changing their election laws. The Nutmeg State also approved 14 days of early voting and put a constitutional amendment on the 2024 ballot that would legalize no-excuse absentee voting.

These weren't the only election-law changes that passed this year, either. The Voting Rights Lab tracked an additional 73 voting laws that have been enacted so far this year that had a neutral, mixed or unclear impact on voting rights. This category actually includes two of this year's most controversial new election laws: a pair of Texas laws eliminating the position of election administrator in counties with large populations and allowing the secretary of state to supervise elections there if there is a "recurring pattern of problems." Democrats have decried the new statutes as a partisan power grab since, in practice, they apply to only one county: solidly Democratic Harris County (home of Houston). The Texas secretary of state is appointed by the (currently Republican) governor. While this law may not implicate the rights of individual voters in the immediate term, it's part of a trend of red states taking power away from local election officials.

No matter its specific provisions, each of these election-law changes could impact how voters cast their ballots in future elections, including next year's closely watched presidential race. There's a good chance your state amended its election laws in some way this year, so make sure you double-check the latest rules in your state before the next time you vote.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
16 States Made It Harder To Vote This Year. But 26 Made It Easier.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two years ago, the biggest battles in state legislatures were over voting rights. Democrats loudly - and sometimes literally - protested as Republicans passed n...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
he rightwing governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, and his administration recently blocked a proposed black studies course for advanced placement high school students, as well as announced policies that would inhibit state universities from teaching programming about racial diversity, equity and inclusion or so-called "critical race theory". These moves follow on the heels of Florida's "don't say gay" legislation, last year, restricting teachers from discussing sexual orientation.

DeSantis and other conservative politicians argue that they are saving America's young from leftwing indoctrination, and that students should instead be exposed to "civic education" that extolls a patriotic vision of America. When DeSantis and his growing number of acolytes present themselves as champions of civic education, however, they are in fact undermining the whole point of civics: not to make children " patriotic " or just fill brains with facts (how many branches of government are there again?), but to enable individuals to be fearless, critical citizens.

That very enterprise is threatened by these systematic intimidation campaigns. In fact, DeSantis's anti-education crusade is doubly authoritarian - most obviously in its use of state power to suppress ideas and information, but also in its more subtle assumption that teaching is ultimately about imposing doctrines of one sort or another.

It is an open question whether the College Board did cave to pressure from conservatives when they removed supposedly controversial material from the new African American history AP course. It is also an open question to what extent civil rights lawyers and free speech advocates can stop DeSantis's censorship laws in court. But one thing is clear: damage to US democracy is being done already. Despite valiant resistance, on the whole, teachers and professors are intimidated. As we know from the rise of authoritarianism in other countries and periods, all-out repression is not always necessary: people obey in advance, make small adjustments, or altogether vacate a territory where the red lines which must not be crossed are left purposefully vague.

We also know from anti-education crusades disguised as culture wars in states such as Hungary that defenders of academic freedom are faced with a dilemma, one that is being reproduced in the US today. On the one hand, defenders can try to deny that anything they do is political at all. Education, they might insist, is about science and telling the kids what's what only in terms of facts.

Less obviously, they might seek to escape politics by emphasizing worthy enterprises like "service learning". Yet community service, as valuable as it can be both for students and the community, cannot substitute for genuine political education, in which students learn to discuss and, above all, to disagree. As John Hopkins president Ron Daniels has pointed out, students are ever more willing to volunteer, which is great (of course, volunteering also always looks good on CVs, one might add), but less eager to engage democratic politics more directly - and colleges seem complicit in this trend.

Teachers are rightly worried that, in an age of hyper-polarization, politics can make their classrooms explode; often enough, they also lack the time, resources and skills to deal with what can be a drawn-out and difficult process of young people learning how to negotiate their differences in a democratic manner. Add to that the sense that we are falling behind globally in Stem, and hence should not waste time on soft subjects that won't help us compete with China.

But there is no escape: those declaring the supposed " education establishment" their enemy won't accept claims that schools aren't doing politics. The likes of Viktor Orbán and his de facto pupil DeSantis will frame professors as purveyors of dangerous ideologies no matter what. For that is their political business model. Moral panics happen because political entrepreneurs want to spread panic; responses that come down to "don't panic!" or "let's talk about something else" won't work.

That is especially so with propaganda about pedagogy: schooling is so damn close to home, and yet not under the control of those at home; appeals to deep worries about what is happing to the kids when they are out of our hands can be very effective. (It is not an accident that conspiracy theories like QAnon use the quasi-natural resource of parental fears for generating panic and hate.)

So, should one simply concede that it's all politics, all the time, all the way down, and that everyone is simply spreading their ideology? Of course not. Education is political not because everyone gets to teach their politics to innocent charges, but because it is indispensable for democracy. As John Dewey, the greatest 20th-century philosopher of education put it, "democracy has to be born anew every generation and education is its midwife". Countries with well-functioning democracies also do well on civic education scores. But that is not just a matter of knowledge about democracy, but doing democracy, which can be uncomfortable, even distressing and guilt-inducing (feelings which the Sunshine State Inquisitors try to banish by law from the classroom).

Good teachers will assist students with how to think through issues; they don't tell them what to think about issues. It is telling that some conservative crusaders - with an obvious tendency to project their own approach on to others - cannot conceive of teaching this way. To them, education is a weapon; content is not to be debated, but imposed. It is one thing to find fault with the specifics of the "western civ"-style curricula that DeSantis cadres want to do; it's another to point out that the very approach is a continuation of Trump's unprofessional 1776 Commission, which can only see history as a patriotic confidence-booster and, indeed, indoctrination.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Conservatives angry about school 'indoctrination' are telling on themselves | Jan-Werner Müller

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ideologues like Ron DeSantis aren't angry at politics in education; they're angry their politics don't have a monopoly

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
New model polices for the treatment of transgender students in Virginia's schools were released last week by the administration of Gov. Glenn Youngkin. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)

The Virginia Department of Education last weekenacted the final version of its model policies for the treatment of transgender students in K-12 schools.

The policies, which were first introduced inSeptember and rolled back some protections for transgender students, became an instant flash point in Virginia politics. The model policies, which direct students to use school facilities that match their biological sex and make it harder for students to change their name or pronouns at school, drew tens of thousands of public comments and sparked student walkouts.
Fast, informative and written just for locals. Get The 7 DMV newsletter in your inbox every weekday morning.
With the new guidance in place, there is likely to be discussion and debate from school boards around the state on if and how to implement the policies.

Here's what you need to know about the new model policies and how they may affect your school.

What to know

What are model policies?

When do the policies go into effect?

Will these policies be implemented at my school?

What happens if a school board doesn't adopt the policies?

Are these policies different from those released in the fall?

I submitted a public comment to the state board about the 2022 model policies. What happened to it?

View 3 more stories

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What to know about Virginia's transgender student model policies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The policies released last week by the administration of Gov. Glenn Youngkin roll back some protections for transgender students included in the 2021 guidelines.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A leading right-wing legal society this week debated education policy issues that are red meat to conservatives-critical race theory in K-12 schools, gender identity, the Biden administration's proposed Title IX regulations, and whether the federal Department of Education should be abolished.

The vibe at the daylong Federalist Society Education Law and Policy Conference Sept. 20 was not the same as how those issues are often treated at, say, a Donald Trump campaign rally or an angry school board meeting. It was, instead, a polite and civil discourse that included participation from at least a few progressive counter-voices. But the conference underscored the education issues that continue to motivate conservatives-from school board races to governors' and congressional elections.

"Since leaving this swamp town less than two short years ago, it's jaw dropping what has come to full bloom since," Betsy DeVos, who was U.S. secretary of education under President Trump, said in a keynote address.

She cited "woke curriculum infused with critical race theory, radical gender ideology, and the intentional disruption of women's sports, historic, horrifically plummeting student achievement thanks to unnecessary, union-driven school closures, [and] teachers who feel so disempowered they are leaving the profession in droves."

Here is how DeVos and other prominent conservative advocates at the conference, which was co-sponsored by the Defense of Freedom Institute, addressed some of those issues:

Critical race theory and gender identity

A session on the highly controversial framework for examining systemic racism was dominated by the by-now well-known criticisms from the right. Some critics contend that although critical race theory may not be formally taught in K-12 schools, its concepts sometime subtly permeate such areas as teacher training, social-emotional learning, and even math textbooks. (In Florida, for example, which has a law restricting how race and racism are taught in schools, officials cited four examples of material they deemed objectionable in textbooks rejected under the state's textbook adoption process.)

"People think we're crazy when we say they are teaching CRT in 2nd grade math problems," said Kimberly Hermann, the general counsel of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, which has filed several lawsuits challenging alleged school district uses of critical race theory. "It's in there, but you have to look for it."

This was on a panel preaching to the choir in the sense that the audience of some 100 advocates seemed to be in general agreement on CRT in schools, and where there was no progressive voice to offer a dissent.

Earlier, at a luncheon keynote, former Trump administration Attorney General William Barr said progressives had moved on from "expunging religion" from the public schools-he at one point mentioned school prayer cases of the early 1960s-to advocating "alternative belief systems that will support their new secular creed."

"So what we're seeing today is the affirmative indoctrination of children with ideologies and -isms that are substitutes for religion," said Barr, who cited critical race theory and "transgenderism."

"These are the ideologies that are now getting injected into the schools," Barr said. "But where does the state get off compelling its citizens to submit to this kind of ideological indoctrination?"

At least one advocate said CRT may be fading as an issue in schools.

"I think the real frontier will be more on the gender identity [issue] than the critical race theory [issue] over the next year," said Max Eden, a research fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. On gender-identity issues in education, he said, "there's a coming showdown between red-state America and the Biden administration."

Title IX regulations

That idea spilled over into the next panel, a discussion of the Biden administration's pending regulations that would provide formal guidance on key issues under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded educational institutions.

Conservatives disagree with the proposed rules over their rollback of the Trump-era regulations that provided for stricter due process in campus sexual assault investigations. And they object to the Biden administration's view that Title IX protects transgender students.

Roger Severino, a vice president of the Heritage Foundation, said that on transgender student rights, the proposed Biden Title IX rules mistakenly rely on the U.S. Supreme Court's 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga. That decision held that prohibition against sex discrimination in the workplace under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers sexual orientation and transgender status.

Severino noted that Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, in the majority opinion in Bostock, "went out of his way to disclaim that this applied to Title IX." ( Severino added that Bostock was "a terrible decision" that "needs to be undone.")

Asked about the problem of bullying in schools and the mistreatment of LGBTQ students, Severino said, "Should there be a federal response to bullying? Generally, no. ... There are overweight kids in school. Do we need the federal government saying we need a new protective class of body size? No. This should be handled at the local level."

Role of the federal government in education

The idea of abolishing the U.S. Department of Education has been around as long as the agency was carved out of what once was the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter. It has gotten some new traction in conservative circles recently, including with DeVos in July getting wide attention for calling for the department's abolition.

In her keynote Tuesday, DeVos said the "corporate media glommed on" to that speech, which meant journalists had not been paying close attention to Trump administration proposals to return much federal education aid in the form of large block grants to the states.

"If that means the department itself isn't needed, well, so be it," DeVos said.

Earlier in the day, at a panel devoted to the federal role in education, Neal McCluskey, the director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the libertarian Cato Institute, said, "I don't want a federal department of education. I don't think it is constitutional at all."

Paul J. Ray, an economic policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said the Education Department frequently exceeds its authority by issuing "dear colleague" letters interpreting federal laws and that state and local officials treat such correspondence as having the force of law.

(Such letters are not the same as formal rules and guidance, though the department often casts them as restating legal obligations under particular statutes or regulations.)

But one of the progressive voices on the panel, Bethany Little of the law and policy firm EducationCounsel and a former White House education adviser to President Bill Clinton, said the nation has a long history of bipartisan support for federal legislation that promotes education for national defense and economic competitiveness.

"And then there is the ... equal protection and equal opportunity responsibility," she said. "These are the things the federal government is well suited for."

Chester E. Finn Jr., a former Education Department official under President Ronald Reagan's administration and a longtime Washington policy hand, said he agreed the federal education department's role had ballooned and resulted in overreach. But he expressed doubts that efforts to abolish it would come to fruition.

"I don't think that's likely to happen under any scenario I can imagine," said Finn, who is a distinguished senior fellow and president emeritus of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. "I think the department is here to stay, and it's a moot question."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Conservatives Hammer on Hot-Button K-12 Education Issues at Federalist Society Event

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The influential legal group discussed critical race theory, gender identity, and Title IX.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
News & Announcements

These are the current model policies effective with their publication on July 18, 2023. They replace all previously published versions.

VDOE is replacing the 2021 Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools with model policies that support positive and safe learning environments for all students while respecting the rights and values of parents. Public comment on the Virginia Regulatory Town Hall opened on September 26, 2022, and closed on October 26, 2022.

2021 Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools

In response to House Bill 145 and Senate Bill 161 that were enacted by the 2020 Virginia General Assembly, the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) developed Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools (Word).

Pursuant to § 22.1-23.3 of the Code of Virginia, local school boards shall adopt policies consistent with these model policies by the beginning of the 2021-2022 school year.

"1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 22.1-23.3 as follows § 22.1-23.3. Treatment of transgender students; policies.

The Department of Education shall develop and make available to each school board model policies concerning the treatment of transgender students in public elementary and secondary schools that address common issues regarding transgender students in accordance with evidence-based best practices and include information, guidance, procedures, and standards relating to:

1. Compliance with applicable nondiscrimination laws;

2. Maintenance of a safe and supportive learning environment free from discrimination and harassment for all students;

3. Prevention of and response to bullying and harassment;

4. Maintenance of student records;

5. Identification of students;

6. Protection of student privacy and the confidentiality of sensitive information;

7. Enforcement of sex-based dress codes; and

8. Student participation in sex-specific school activities, events, and use of school facilities.

Activities and events do not include athletics:

Each school board shall adopt policies that are consistent with but may be more comprehensive than the model policies developed by the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) pursuant to subsection A."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Model Policies on Ensuring Privacy, Dignity, and Respect for All Students and Parents in Virginia's Public Schools | Virginia Department of Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These are the current model policies effective with their publication on July 18, 2023. They replace all previously published versions. VDOE is replacing the 2021 Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools with model policies that support positive and safe learning environments for all students while respecting the rights and values of parents.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Groups clash over FCPS gender policy outside school board meeting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hundreds of people gathered outside the Frederick County Board of Education meeting on Wednesday during a pair of passionate — and at times tense — demonstrations related to the district’s

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ACLU-VA’s Comment Opposing Classroom Censorship Model Policies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ACLU-VA opposes the VDOE’s proposed model policies that will only exacerbate an alarming trend toward classroom censorship, all while denying students the opportunity to be inspired by stories

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fairfax County Public Schools students turned a planned rally into a celebration after receiving news that the school system had rejected Virginia's new model policies that roll back protections for transgender students.

The school system, the largest in the state, made the announcement by email on Tuesday.

Students, parents, advocates and allies marched down Gallows Road outside school system headquarters after learning that FCPS had decided to stick with its current policy toward transgender and non-binary students, rather than adopt Gov. Glenn Youngkin's "Model Policies on Ensuring Privacy, Dignity, and Respect for All Students and Parents in Virginia's Public Schools," which were announced in July. The latter outlines policies related to pronouns, names, parent notification, sports, bathrooms and locker rooms.

In particular, they cheered the decision to reject the policies directing students to use school facilities that match their biological sex and making it harder for them to change their name or pronouns at school.

"It was a relief. I know so many people still in FCPS who would've been impacted by these policies, tons and tons. It was honestly a relief when I saw the email," Ranger Balleisen, of the Pride Liberation Project, said.

Virginia Del. Marcus Simon, whose district includes Falls Church and parts of Fairfax County, explained the legal mechanism that gives Virginia's school districts choice in the matter.

"They include language that said that localities will adopt policies based on these model policies, but they could certainly go further to provide a more protective environment for transgender students, a more inclusive environment for non-binary folks," he said.

Advocacy groups throughout the state have been making their concerns known to school boards and superintendents in advance of the start of school. Tuesday's rally and march had been planned before the decision by Fairfax County Public Schools.

"This is such a great feeling for us today--and I say us meaning myself and my student, my 15-year-old who's an FCPS student who's transgender--and again, he expressed a feeling of not being able to exist as himself when these policies came out," parent Christina McCormick said.

The school district joins Arlington County Schools in choosing not to follow the Virginia Board of Education's Model Policies on Transgender and Non-Binary Students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'It was a relief': FCPS rejects Virginia's new model policies on transgender students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fairfax County Public Schools students turned a planned rally into a celebration after receiving news that the school system had rejected Virginia's new model policies that roll back protections for transgender students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In response to a request by Gov. Glenn Youngkin, Attorney General Jason Miyares released an official advisory opinion today concluding the state's model policies concerning the treatment of transgender students comply with federal and state anti-discrimination laws and reiterating the administration's stance that school boards must adopt policies in line with them.

"It is my opinion that the model policies comply with the Equal Protection Clause, Title IX, and the [Virginia Human Rights Act], and that ... local school boards are required to adopt policies that are consistent with them," Miyares wrote.

The 10-page document mainly focuses on the potential conflict between federal and state anti-discrimination laws and the policies' guidelines regarding athletics, student identification and bathroom use.

Trans_official_opinion

In a press release announcing the opinion, Miyares said the policies are about parents' rights.

"Parents, not government, are in the best position to work with their children on important life decisions, and no parent signs up to co-parent with the government," the statement said. "The Model Policies ensure that all students are treated with dignity and that parental involvement remains at the center. These policies are fully compliant with the law, and school boards across the Commonwealth should support and implement them."

The opinion notes the inaugural set of model policies produced in 2021 under former Gov. Ralph Northam was withdrawn because the Department of Education under the Youngkin administration concluded they "promoted a specific viewpoint aimed at achieving cultural and social transformation in schools."

"The revised model policies were designed to correct the failure of the prior policies to recognize that ... ultimately, 'the education of the youth of this [Commonwealth] is the responsibility of the parents of the students,'" Miyares wrote.

As Va. school districts split on transgender policies, state enforcement tools appear limited

The Virginia Department of Education's 2023 "Model Policies on Ensuring Privacy, Dignity, and Respect for All Students and Parents in Virginia's Public Schools" were first drafted in 2022 and add steps students and parents must take when seeking gender-affirming changes to the student's identity.

The policies prohibit students from using school facilities or participating in sports activities that don't align with the sex on their official school record. Changes to that designation require students and their parents to submit school divisions legal documentation like a new birth certificate or passport. A parent must provide written permission in order for a student to go by a different name or pronouns at school.

"Because the manner in which a child is addressed by school officials is inextricably tied to the educational upbringing of that child, parents' fundamental rights necessarily encompass the prerogative to decide how their child will be addressed while at school," the opinion said.

"Students who wish to be referred to by certain pronouns without the approval of their parents are not a protected class under any relevant federal or state law," the opinion continued.

That conclusion drew swift criticism from the ACLU of Virginia, which issued a statement from Legal Director Eden Heilman calling the policies "part of a coordinated, national effort to erase transgender and nonbinary students from the classroom."

"At best, they invite discrimination; at worst, they require it," Heilman said. "Attorney General Jason Miyares' opinion defending the policies is every bit as cruel and misguided as the policies themselves."

Miyares, however, argued in his opinion that discrimination on the basis of sex is different from discrimination on the basis of gender identity and that the Fourth Amendment, Title IX and the Virginia Human Rights Act allow for the separation of sexes in certain contexts.

"Both sides of the classification - biological males and biological females - include transgender students and treat them identically to all similarly situated students of the same sex," the opinion said.

The opinion also stated the model policies do not conflict with the 2020 Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board decision. In that case, the Richmond-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld a previous ruling that the local school board had violated Title IX by preventing transgender student Gavin Grimm from using a boys' bathroom.

" does not impose a blanket rule forbidding sex-separate facilities in all situations," the opinion said.

Furthermore, Miyares wrote, the model policies "expressly address situations where federal law or a binding decision interpreting federal law may require a departure from the model policy's default rule."

"The model policy addressing bathrooms requires students to use 'bathrooms that correspond to [their] sex, except to the extent federal law requires otherwise ,' and expressly cites as an example of a federal law that may require otherwise," the opinion continues. "A model policy that instructs school divisions to follow federal law, including , cannot possibly conflict with federal law and ."

Because there is not a conflict with state or federal law, the opinion concluded, then school boards are required to adopt the model policies under Virginia code.
- Attorney General Jason Miyares
However, the opinion does not comment on what enforcement tools the state has to take action against school boards who do not comply. Several school divisions, including Fairfax, Arlington and Richmond, have openly stated they do not plan to adopt the model policies.

At a press conference Wednesday, Gov. Youngkin responded to a question about steps the state could take besides telling school boards to follow the law.

"I just ask you to stand by," Youngkin said. "Just like they initially pushed back when we issued an executive order empowering parents to make decisions for their children, while they are pushing back now, eventually we got to the right place. And I expect us fully to get to the right place."

The ACLU of Virginia Thursday said that "like all attorney general opinions, today's is only advisory, not binding."

"Virginia courts are not required to follow it," the group said. "School boards continue to have an obligation to create safe, inclusive school environments for all students in compliance with state and federal law."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Va. attorney general says transgender student policies comply with anti-discrimination laws - Virginia Mercury

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"It is my opinion that the model policies comply with the Equal Protection Clause, Title IX, and the Virginia Human Rights Act," Miyares wrote.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How ID Requirements Harm Marginalized Communities and Their Right to Vote

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A report from last fall highlights how ID requirements, often which are unnecessary, create serious burdens in everyday life — especially for minority communities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Voter ID Laws Are Popular for Good Reasons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hours after Gov. Mike DeWine (R-OH) signed a new voter ID law in Ohio, the firm of Democratic super-lawyer Marc Elias announced plans to litigate against it. Abha Khanna, a partner with the Elias Law Group, echoed the Left's evidence-free canard that "voter suppression is, unfortunately, alive and well" in Ohio.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Behind The Headlines: Turmoil In Texas As Ugly State Vs Federal Government Battle Over Who Controls Immigration Law - Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tags Share This week, federal courts extended a pause on enforcement of S.B. 4, a Texas law that allows state police to arrest people they suspect crossed the U.S.-Mexico border without valid immigration status. S.B. 4 requires state judges to order people to leave the U.S. or face up to 20 years in prison if […]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The federal law driving the latest abortion battle at the US Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Supreme Court has another big decision to make on abortion. This one involves medical emergencies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ORLANDO, Fla. - Florida is the hottest state in the contiguous United States, and its residents suffer the most heat-related illness. Older people are most susceptible to the heat, and nearly 4.7 million Floridians - 1 in 5 residents - are older than 65.

The peninsula has 8,436 miles of coastline, and three-quarters of state residents live in coastal counties, imperiled by rising sea levels, extreme rainfall and more intense hurricanes.

Climate change is making Florida hotter and increasing the risk of flooding and severe storms. Increasingly, the state should expect "adverse public health outcomes, such as heat-related illness and mortality, especially among more vulnerable populations," according to the state climatologist's office at Florida State University.

But Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has opposed many efforts to address the causes and public health effects of climate change. As a result, Florida cities, counties and nonprofits have had to assume a greater role in dealing with higher temperatures - without sufficient money and resources to do so, many argue.

Perhaps more than any other state, Florida illustrates how the politicization of climate change has thwarted efforts to deal with it.

Florida, unlike a growing number of other states, does not a have a statewide plan designed specifically to help residents cope with extreme heat and other effects of climate change. Dr. Cheryl Holder, co-chair of Miami-Dade County's Climate and Heat Health Task Force, said that in the absence of state leadership, Florida cities and counties have done what they can. In 2021, for example, Miami-Dade County named its first-ever chief heat officer, and last month Tampa released a "heat resilience playbook" that includes steps such as enhancing and protecting the city's tree canopy.

But Holder said a statewide effort - akin to public health campaigns to curb smoking - would have a much greater impact.

"Systematic change is better, but we're left with a piecemeal approach," Holder told Stateline.

In Florida and around the country, state public health leadership is essential, said University of Washington professor Kristie Ebi, an epidemiologist and an expert on the health risks of climate change.

"The local health departments follow the lead of the state health department, and it's difficult to contravene," Ebi said. "It's difficult when the state health department says, 'This is the approach, this is the perspective, these are the parameters,' for the local health department to do anything differently."

DeSantis' office, the Florida Department of Health and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection did not respond to Stateline requests for comment before publication.
A bipartisan concern in the past
As recently as 2008, climate change was a bipartisan concern in Florida. But DeSantis, who unsuccessfully sought the GOP presidential nomination this year, embodies his party's current dismissive attitude toward climate change - a stance shared by his predecessor in the Florida governor's office, current U.S. Sen. Rick Scott.

In May, for example, DeSantis signed legislation erasing references to climate change from the state's energy policy and releasing state agencies from the obligation to consider climate change when executing it. "We're restoring sanity in our approach to energy and rejecting the agenda of the radical green zealots," DeSantis wrote on X.

In April, DeSantis signed a law barring Florida cities and counties from passing their own heat protections, such as mandated water breaks, for outdoor workers. As a result, Miami-Dade County had to withdraw its pending rule that would have required water breaks for outdoor workers and training on heat-related illness for employers.

Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott last year signed a similar law preempting cities from passing heat-break ordinances.

Meanwhile, many other states are moving in the opposite direction.

States such as Arizona, California, Connecticut, New York, North Carolina and Wisconsin have used federal money from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to craft statewide plans to address the effects of climate change on public health. All have Democratic governors.

In April, Democratic-led New Jersey released a draft Extreme Heat Resilience Action Plan that includes providing public cooling centers, planting more trees, and adopting workplace safety rules, among many other steps.

California launched and New Jersey plans to start statewide public information campaigns to raise awareness of the risks of extreme heat, especially among vulnerable populations such as older and homeless people.

Florida State University also received a CDC grant, but the team is focused on working with local health departments, said project lead Chris Uejio, a medical geographer and associate professor at FSU.

"We're always ready and willing partners if and when the state decides that they'd like some more information along these lines," Uejio said.
'Falling behind the pack'
Despite downplaying climate change concerns, DeSantis in 2021 approved $640 million in new state spending to help communities deal with sea level rise, intensified storms and flooding. And in 2019, he appointed the state's first chief resilience officer.

But DeSantis' interest in such efforts waned as his presidential campaign ramped up. Florida was one of five states (Iowa, Kentucky, South Dakota and Wyoming were the others) that declined to apply for federal Climate Pollution Reduction Grants under President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. The federal government allowed large metro areas to apply for their own climate planning grants. Five Florida areas applied for their own and received dollars for planning, but no grants for implementation.

A year ago, DeSantis rejected nearly $350 million in federal energy efficiency incentives and consumer rebates under the Inflation Reduction Act. But this year, after dropping out of the primary race, DeSantis accepted the money.

Susan Glickman, vice president of policy and partnerships at the CLEO Institute, a Florida-based nonprofit focused on climate education and advocacy, praised the state for addressing sea level rise and for assessing the vulnerabilities of coastal communities. But Glickman said Florida must address the root causes and cascading effects of climate change.

"We must adapt to the warming climate, but the decisions we make right now, not addressing the root cause of the problem, is really unacceptable," Glickman said. "You cannot adapt your way out of climate change."

Kim Ross, executive director of ReThink Energy Florida, a Tallahassee-based nonprofit that advocates for clean energy, said the DeSantis administration has been a roadblock.

"This could be a state that's really focused in on the inventions that need to happen," Ross said. "Instead, we're just kind of falling behind the pack."

Ross said that whenever she sees opportunities for federal climate change grants, her first question is whether it's possible to get one without state support.

"I'm like, 'Is there a non-state option?' And I keep encouraging anybody I can talk to at the federal level to have there be a non-state option," she said.
Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: [email protected] . Follow Stateline on Facebook and X.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate change poses health risks. But it's hard to fight when state policy ignores it * Missouri Independent

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ORLANDO, Fla. - Florida is the hottest state in the contiguous United States, and its residents suffer the most heat-related illness. Older people are most susceptible to the heat, and nearly 4.7 million Floridians - 1 in 5 residents - are older than 65. The peninsula has 8,436 miles of coastline, and three-quarters of state [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What are Sanctuary Cities and Why do they Exist? | Global Refuge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To combat closed borders, detention, and deportation, communities across the country are proclaiming sanctuary city status.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some say that sanctuary city policies protect both citizens and undocumented immigrants, while others argue that sanctuary cities should not receive federal funding because they are not enforcing federal immigration laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The K-12 education system in the United States continues to exemplify an element of the U.S. constitution that has been a priority since its inception: federalism. Unlike most countries, the U.S. has a federal system of government. This means that in comparison to unitary countries - those with one, centralized system of government - the United States has multiple levels of government, each with their own responsibilities.

One level of government includes the governing bodies of school districts. In an interview with the HPR Paul Peterson, the Director of Program on Education Policy at Harvard, stated that the United States is home to over 14,000 school districts. While confined to requirements and regulations imposed by the state and federal governments, school districts have leeway on how to fulfill their objectives of educating their students, making them the perfect example of the theory of cooperative federalism, which contends that different levels of government work together to implement programs. Altogether, the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that despite being governed independently, school districts invested their resources around similar objectives and that the federal government became, albeit temporarily, a critical component in education funding.

On matters regarding the funding of K-12 schools in the United States, different levels of government have varying levels of involvement. According to Peterson, "the most important thing to know is that the federal government has historically played a minimal role." Peterson added that before the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government contributed only approximately 10% to a school district's total funding, with the rest coming from state governments or from local revenue sources such as property taxes.

However, as a result of COVID-19 aid packages, passed under then President Trump, as well as President Biden, school districts received an influx of one-time federal funds designated to assist in navigating the wide variety of challenges that schools and students faced. These funds are known as Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funds.

According to the Center for Reinventing Public Education at Arizona State University, while districts have had broad discretion on how to exactly spend their funds, many districts across the country share commonalities. A preliminary analysis from the Center for Reinventing Public Education found that "many districts are prioritizing investments to help students recover from the pandemic. More than half (51 percent) say they'll allocate money to make up for lost instructional time, and more than four in ten (43 percent) plan to invest in social-emotional support for students."

In an interview with the HPR, Robin Lake, the director of the Center on Reinventing Public Education, emphasized that their findings have demonstrated mixed results among districts depending on how the programs were implemented and the level of stakeholder involvement in deciding how to spend funds."The data on the effectiveness of how ESSER funds have been spent tells a very clear story, our hope for academic recovery has not materialized ... What is needed is a massive shift in mindset from our education leaders."

Norway Vulcan Area Schools provides an example of the extensive work districts undertook to implement an academic recovery program. This rural school district in the upper peninsula of Michigan with a student population of approximately 600 students went to great lengths to help students recover academically, according to Superintendent Louis Steigerwald. In an interview with the HPR, Steigerwald stated that the approximately $1.3 million his district received greatly aided in helping their students recover. According to Steigerwald, the main modes that were utilized to provide the students with academic support were existing summer school and after-school tutoring programs. Steigerwald wrote that the district had "run after school and summer programs for some time now," adding that the one-time funds "allowed us to continue those programs when we were worried we'd have to cut them or curtail them." The program has been considered a success, recognized both among the various stakeholders within the district as well as outside sources. According to Steigerwald, their elementary school was recently designated a "National Blue Ribbon school based on our 2022 state test scores, [and our] 2023 scores [are] even better."

Norway Vulcan Area Schools' investment in supplementary academic programming represented one major focus that many school districts diverted their one-time funds to, but an equal priority that school districts emphasized was improving students' social and mental wellbeing. School districts across the country utilized a wide variety of approaches to help their students improve their mental health and social skills, something foundational to allowing them to succeed academically.

The Lucia Mar Unified School District, located on the Central Coast of California, serves as a prime example of the diligent work school districts undertook in order to help their students recover from the emotional difficulties induced by COVID-19. In an interview with the HPR, Superintendent Paul Fawcett stated that the district of 9,700 students, of which 54% are designated as qualifying for free or reduced lunch, received approximately $12 million in one-time funds from the federal ESSER program.

In order to determine how to best invest this one-time funding, the district conducted a wide range of community outreach efforts to the various stakeholders in the district. According to Fawcett, the district conducted outreach to parents and guardians of students, certificated and classified staff, and engaged in conversations with school site administrators to determine the needs of students and potential avenues of response. This resulted in the district directing attention toward providing comprehensive support for students' mental health and emotional needs. "Academics [were largely impacted], but the one that is more long term is the social-emotional and social skills gaps, students are still lagging behind where they were compared to before the pandemic," Fawcett said.

As a result, like many other districts across the country, Lucia Mar Unified began to retool and expand pre-existing programs and services to greater benefit students. At the elementary school level, the district increased the number of counselors so that each site had its own counselor. According to Fawcett, this allowed counselors to identify students that were struggling from an early age and respond quicker to help provide them the skills they needed to succeed.

On the middle and high school levels, the district retooled an existing advisory program to "focus on social-emotional wellbeing and social skill development." Fawcett added that "advisories historically were more of a college and career exploration opportunity; in this case the attention was diverted to the social-emotional aspects." The district measures the impacts of its investments through both the California Healthy Kids survey and a student self screener tool that allows students to evaluate their own social and emotional wellbeing.

While the ESSER funds greatly aided districts, Peterson does not expect this level of federal involvement in education funding to continue in the coming years. "I think education [funding] will see a major drop from the current level," he said. When asked about potential changes in the federal government's involvement specifically, Peterson added that he expects "we will see more involvement in comparison to pre-COVID, but not at this level."

Both Superintendents Fawcett and Steirgwald expressed to the HPR concerns about the termination of funding. Steigerwald worries that the expiration of funds will force the district to make difficult decisions on the programs that improved his students' outcomes. "Now that our ESSER dollars are spent, I am concerned we may not be able to continue some programs," Steigerwald said.
Although the advisory programs and presence of additional counselors on elementary school sites will be continued, Fawcett expressed his belief that a need for increased funding in K-12 education still exists. "The need in education has gone up significantly as a result of the pandemic. [It] isn't going to go away," Fawcett said, "The need academically and social-emotionally continues to increase; our schools still need more money to do what's necessary to move all learners along." With the need for investments in K-12 education continuing, it remains to be seen if and how the federal government will respond to this pressing issue impacting the nation's next generation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Federalism in Action - Harvard Political Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With the need for investments in K-12 education continuing, it remains to be seen if and how the federal government will respond to this pressing issue impacting the nation's next generation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Media Statement from Fairfax County Public Schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr. Reid shares a media statement with an update on FCPS’ ongoing efforts to resolve a matter with the U.S. Department of Education (DOE).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. Department of Education Places Five Northern Virginia School Districts on High-Risk Status and Reimbursement Payment Status for Violating Title IX

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. Department of Education announced it is placing five Northern Virginia School Divisions on high-risk status with the condition that all federal funding flowing to these districts is done by reimbursement only due to their violations of Title IX.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
States and localities that restrict federal enforcement of immigration and gun laws promote diversity and help protect against authoritarianism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
300,000 lives could be saved in next decade if every US state followed California's example on gun laws, new study shows | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nearly 300,000 lives could be saved from the nation's wrath of gun violence over the next decade if every US state enacted gun control laws held by states such as California and New York, according to a new study published Thursday by a gun violence prevention non-profit group.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore our state-by-state guide on end-of-life options. Understand the legal landscape and procedures surrounding Death with Dignity laws in various states.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Physician Assisted Suicide | US State Laws on Assisted Suicide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
See which states currently have physician assisted suicide laws, and what the US Supreme Court has to say on "suicide rights."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Priscilla Alvarez, Danya Gainor, Taylor Romine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Federal immigration operations ramping up in Chicago and Boston as other sanctuary cities are on alert | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Talk of imminent immigration enforcement is ramping up across Chicago as deportation efforts escalated in Boston and the nation’s border czar vowed a much broader surge in the coming days.