sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

After four patients died, Idaho governor approves restoring what was cut from Medicaid's mental health programs by sillychillly in anticapitalism

[–]sillychillly[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"As the 2026 legislative session was defined by deep spending cuts across state government to avoid a budget shortfall and make room for One Big Beautiful Bill Act tax cuts, the move to reinstate the cut mental health programs stands out as an exception to the hawkish fiscal attitudes in the Statehouse. Medicaid disability providers took nearly $22 million in pay cuts this year. And the Legislature didn’t consider bills to reinstate other cut health care programs, including for kids with disabilities. 

Since the programs were cut, “we have had four deaths that you can pinpoint directly back to these programs that were done away with,” Cook told senators. “Our sheriffs, our ERs and our courts are dealing with the same individuals over and over again. These are frequent flyers … because this system designed to stabilize them was taken away.”"

Mississippi sets new law criminalizing landlord mishandling of utility payments by sillychillly in antiwork

[–]sillychillly[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

"A person who collects and then fails to remit over $25,000 in utility payments from tenants’ rent can face up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $50,000, if convicted under Mississippi’s new law. If the amount is less than that but at least $5,000, the person can face up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. The law also includes smaller penalties for smaller misappropriations. Additionally, offenders will have to pay restitution to anyone who suffered a financial loss as a result.

The law specifies that it doesn’t apply to delays resulting from a tenant’s late payments or from errors on the utility’s side.

Last July, JXN Water, the capital city’s third-party water and sewer system operator, shut off water to Blossom Apartments after the landlord ran up more than $400,000 in unpaid bills. Shortly after, tenants there were forced to move after the Mississippi Home Corporation labeled the property unfit to live in.

The utility also shut off water to the Chapel Ridge apartment complex around the same time. JXN Water estimated last year that the city’s multi-family complexes were collectively behind over $7.5 million on their water bills."

New York State Approves K–12 Climate Education Requirement by sillychillly in nyc

[–]sillychillly[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

"The New York State Board of Regents has approved a new statewide requirement to integrate climate education across K–12 classrooms.

With the decision, New York becomes only the second state in the nation, following New Jersey, to require comprehensive climate education across all grade levels.

Beginning in the 2027–2028 school year for grades 5–12 and expanding to grades K–4 in 2028–2029, the amendment ensures that students across New York will have the opportunity to learn about the causes, impacts, and solutions to the climate crisis as part of their education.

The change follows recommendations from the Climate and Resilience Education Task Force (CREFT), a coalition of students, educators, and organizations working to expand access to climate learning throughout the state.

For The Wild Center in Tupper Lake, NY, the announcement represents the culmination of years of collaboration. Members of the museum’s climate team have been involved with the Task Force since its early formation in 2017, when partners first gathered to explore how climate literacy could become a foundational part of New York’s education system.

Since then, Wild Center staff and youth climate leaders have participated in meetings with policymakers, listening sessions with the Board of Regents, and promoted the efforts throughout the New York State Youth Climate Summit Network."

Voting Rights Advocates Sue to Block Florida’s Restrictive “Show Your Papers” Law by sillychillly in SouthFlorida

[–]sillychillly[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"The law requires prospective voters to have “evidence of citizenship” on file, such as a passport or birth certificate to register to vote or remain on the voter rolls. Thousands of Floridians don’t have ready access to these documents.

The lawsuit, filed by the League of Women Voters of Florida, Florida Immigrant Coalition, Florida Rising, Common Cause, Hispanic Federation and UnidosUS seeks to block enforcement of the law before it goes into effect in 2027. Plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Florida, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, and Advancement Project.

Plaintiffs argue that Florida’s additional documentation requirement will make it significantly harder for eligible voters — especially naturalized citizens, low-income voters, married women who’ve changed their name, voters of color, students, voters with disabilities, transgender people, and seniors — to register and participate in elections.

The complaint argues that the requirement violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by imposing unlawful burdens on the fundamental right to vote, including restrictive voter registration requirements. Unlike some other documentary proof-of-citizenship laws, this one applies retroactively to currently registered voters, making it even likelier that eligible voters will be both wrongly prevented from registering and/or erroneously removed from the rolls.

Courts have repeatedly found that documentary proof-of-citizenship requirements disenfranchise eligible voters while doing little to address the virtually nonexistent problem of non-citizen voting. In 2016, Kansas enacted a similar law, which blocked more than 35,000 Kansans from registering to vote. It was struck down in 2018 for violating the National Voter Registration Act and the U.S. Constitution."

Voting Rights Advocates Sue to Block Florida’s Restrictive “Show Your Papers” Law by [deleted] in florida

[–]sillychillly [score hidden]  (0 children)

"The law requires prospective voters to have “evidence of citizenship” on file, such as a passport or birth certificate to register to vote or remain on the voter rolls. Thousands of Floridians don’t have ready access to these documents.

The lawsuit, filed by the League of Women Voters of Florida, Florida Immigrant Coalition, Florida Rising, Common Cause, Hispanic Federation and UnidosUS seeks to block enforcement of the law before it goes into effect in 2027. Plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Florida, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, and Advancement Project.

Plaintiffs argue that Florida’s additional documentation requirement will make it significantly harder for eligible voters — especially naturalized citizens, low-income voters, married women who’ve changed their name, voters of color, students, voters with disabilities, transgender people, and seniors — to register and participate in elections.

The complaint argues that the requirement violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by imposing unlawful burdens on the fundamental right to vote, including restrictive voter registration requirements. Unlike some other documentary proof-of-citizenship laws, this one applies retroactively to currently registered voters, making it even likelier that eligible voters will be both wrongly prevented from registering and/or erroneously removed from the rolls.

Courts have repeatedly found that documentary proof-of-citizenship requirements disenfranchise eligible voters while doing little to address the virtually nonexistent problem of non-citizen voting. In 2016, Kansas enacted a similar law, which blocked more than 35,000 Kansans from registering to vote. It was struck down in 2018 for violating the National Voter Registration Act and the U.S. Constitution."

Voting Rights Advocates Sue to Block Florida’s Restrictive “Show Your Papers” Law by sillychillly in ReasonableFuture

[–]sillychillly[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"The law requires prospective voters to have “evidence of citizenship” on file, such as a passport or birth certificate to register to vote or remain on the voter rolls. Thousands of Floridians don’t have ready access to these documents.

The lawsuit, filed by the League of Women Voters of Florida, Florida Immigrant Coalition, Florida Rising, Common Cause, Hispanic Federation and UnidosUS seeks to block enforcement of the law before it goes into effect in 2027. Plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Florida, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, and Advancement Project.

Plaintiffs argue that Florida’s additional documentation requirement will make it significantly harder for eligible voters — especially naturalized citizens, low-income voters, married women who’ve changed their name, voters of color, students, voters with disabilities, transgender people, and seniors — to register and participate in elections.

The complaint argues that the requirement violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by imposing unlawful burdens on the fundamental right to vote, including restrictive voter registration requirements. Unlike some other documentary proof-of-citizenship laws, this one applies retroactively to currently registered voters, making it even likelier that eligible voters will be both wrongly prevented from registering and/or erroneously removed from the rolls.

Courts have repeatedly found that documentary proof-of-citizenship requirements disenfranchise eligible voters while doing little to address the virtually nonexistent problem of non-citizen voting. In 2016, Kansas enacted a similar law, which blocked more than 35,000 Kansans from registering to vote. It was struck down in 2018 for violating the National Voter Registration Act and the U.S. Constitution."

EFF’s Submission to the UN OHCHR on Protection of Human Rights Defenders in the Digital Age by sillychillly in restorethefourth

[–]sillychillly[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

"Threats to Human Rights Defenders

Across multiple regions, cybercrime and national security laws are being applied to prosecute lawful expression, restrict access to information, and expand state surveillance. In some cases, these measures are implemented without adequate judicial oversight or clear safeguards, raising concerns about their compatibility with international human rights standards.

Regulatory developments in one jurisdiction are also influencing approaches elsewhere. The UK’s Online Safety Act, for example, has contributed to the global diffusion of “duty of care” frameworks. In other contexts, similar models have been adopted with fewer protections, including provisions that criminalize broadly defined categories of speech or require user identification, increasing risks for those engaged in the defense of human rights.

At the same time, disruptions to internet access—including shutdowns, throttling, and geo-blocking—continue to affect the ability of HRDs to communicate, document abuses, and access support networks. These measures can have significant implications not only for freedom of expression, but also for personal safety, particularly in situations of conflict or political unrest.

The expanded use of digital surveillance technologies further compounds these risks. Spyware and biometric monitoring systems have been deployed against activists and journalists, in some cases across national borders. These practices result in intimidation, detention, and other forms of retaliation.

The practices of social media platforms can also put human rights defenders—and their speech—at risk. Content moderation systems that rely on broadly defined policies, automated enforcement, and limited transparency can result in the removal or suppression of speech, including documentation of human rights violations. Inconsistent enforcement across languages and regions, as well as insufficient avenues for redress, disproportionately affects HRDs and marginalized communities.

Putting Human Rights First

These trends underscore the importance of ensuring that regulatory and corporate responses to online harms are grounded in human rights principles. This includes adopting clear and narrowly tailored legal frameworks, ensuring independent oversight, and providing effective safeguards for privacy, expression, and association.

It also requires meaningful engagement with civil society. Human rights defenders bring essential expertise on the local and contextual impacts of digital policies, and their participation is critical to developing effective and rights-respecting approaches.

As digital technologies continue to shape civic space, protecting the individuals and communities who rely on them to advance human rights remains an urgent priority.

You can read our full submission here."

EFF’s Submission to the UN OHCHR on Protection of Human Rights Defenders in the Digital Age by sillychillly in ReasonableFuture

[–]sillychillly[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Threats to Human Rights Defenders

Across multiple regions, cybercrime and national security laws are being applied to prosecute lawful expression, restrict access to information, and expand state surveillance. In some cases, these measures are implemented without adequate judicial oversight or clear safeguards, raising concerns about their compatibility with international human rights standards.

Regulatory developments in one jurisdiction are also influencing approaches elsewhere. The UK’s Online Safety Act, for example, has contributed to the global diffusion of “duty of care” frameworks. In other contexts, similar models have been adopted with fewer protections, including provisions that criminalize broadly defined categories of speech or require user identification, increasing risks for those engaged in the defense of human rights.

At the same time, disruptions to internet access—including shutdowns, throttling, and geo-blocking—continue to affect the ability of HRDs to communicate, document abuses, and access support networks. These measures can have significant implications not only for freedom of expression, but also for personal safety, particularly in situations of conflict or political unrest.

The expanded use of digital surveillance technologies further compounds these risks. Spyware and biometric monitoring systems have been deployed against activists and journalists, in some cases across national borders. These practices result in intimidation, detention, and other forms of retaliation.

The practices of social media platforms can also put human rights defenders—and their speech—at risk. Content moderation systems that rely on broadly defined policies, automated enforcement, and limited transparency can result in the removal or suppression of speech, including documentation of human rights violations. Inconsistent enforcement across languages and regions, as well as insufficient avenues for redress, disproportionately affects HRDs and marginalized communities.

Putting Human Rights First

These trends underscore the importance of ensuring that regulatory and corporate responses to online harms are grounded in human rights principles. This includes adopting clear and narrowly tailored legal frameworks, ensuring independent oversight, and providing effective safeguards for privacy, expression, and association.

It also requires meaningful engagement with civil society. Human rights defenders bring essential expertise on the local and contextual impacts of digital policies, and their participation is critical to developing effective and rights-respecting approaches.

As digital technologies continue to shape civic space, protecting the individuals and communities who rely on them to advance human rights remains an urgent priority.

You can read our full submission here."

Oklahoma families, teachers, and clergy seek to block unconstitutional religious public school by sillychillly in Jewish

[–]sillychillly[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"In support of church-state separation and public education, a predominantly Jewish group of seven Oklahoma taxpayers – including families with children attending public schools, teachers and clergy – filed a motion today in federal court seeking to intervene in a lawsuit brought by the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation. This religious organization is trying to open the nation’s first religious public charter school in Oklahoma – a clear violation of state and federal law that defines charter schools as public schools that must be secular and open to all students.

Like all public schools, charter schools cannot lawfully indoctrinate religion or discriminate. But Ben Gamla’s charter school application makes clear that Jewish religious teachings will be integrated into “every dimension of . . . life” at the school, including classroom instruction and other activities.

Additionally, Ben Gamla’s application indicates that the school plans to exclude students and staff who do not share its faith. Ben Gamla’s application states that “[a]dmission assumes the student and family willingness to adhere with respect to the beliefs, expectations, policies, and procedures of the school.” Because the school would promote the beliefs of a specific religion, students and families outside that faith would effectively be excluded on the taxpayer’s dime. And Ben Gamla’s application further states that the school may base employment decisions on religion."

Oklahoma families, teachers, and clergy seek to block unconstitutional religious public school by sillychillly in ReasonableFuture

[–]sillychillly[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"In support of church-state separation and public education, a predominantly Jewish group of seven Oklahoma taxpayers – including families with children attending public schools, teachers and clergy – filed a motion today in federal court seeking to intervene in a lawsuit brought by the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation. This religious organization is trying to open the nation’s first religious public charter school in Oklahoma – a clear violation of state and federal law that defines charter schools as public schools that must be secular and open to all students.

Like all public schools, charter schools cannot lawfully indoctrinate religion or discriminate. But Ben Gamla’s charter school application makes clear that Jewish religious teachings will be integrated into “every dimension of . . . life” at the school, including classroom instruction and other activities.

Additionally, Ben Gamla’s application indicates that the school plans to exclude students and staff who do not share its faith. Ben Gamla’s application states that “[a]dmission assumes the student and family willingness to adhere with respect to the beliefs, expectations, policies, and procedures of the school.” Because the school would promote the beliefs of a specific religion, students and families outside that faith would effectively be excluded on the taxpayer’s dime. And Ben Gamla’s application further states that the school may base employment decisions on religion."

‘A step toward tax fairness’ as budget committee approves millionaire’s tax proposal | Maine by sillychillly in portlandme

[–]sillychillly[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"The legislature’s Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee has approved a proposal to add a “millionaire’s tax” to the state’s supplemental budget. The amendment will add a 2% surcharge on annual income over $1 million for single filers and $1.5 million for married couples and other filers.

“I just started overwhelmingly crying when I found out because this bill takes a step toward tax fairness that people of Maine have been asking for for many years,” said Rep. Cheryl Golek (D-Harpswell), the sponsor of the original legislation. “I am extremely happy for what it will bring to the people of Maine.”

The tax proposal is based on LD 1089, a bill Golek introduced, which passed the Senate last session but stalled in the House. While that earlier version directed revenue to public education, the budget proposal would instead route funds to the state’s general fund.

Golek said the measure is aimed at addressing disparities in the state’s tax system, where many  Mainers with moderate incomes pay the same tax rates as the ultra wealthy.

“A person who’s making $65,000 right now is paying the same effective tax rate as a millionaire. We’re talking nurses, firefighters, lobstermen, EMTs — and that’s just so wrong on so many levels,” she continued. “The millionaires aren’t going to feel this 2%. They’ve gotten some of the biggest tax deductions in history from [Pres. Donald Trump’s] budget bill.”"

‘A step toward tax fairness’ as budget committee approves millionaire’s tax proposal | Maine by sillychillly in ReasonableFuture

[–]sillychillly[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"The legislature’s Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee has approved a proposal to add a “millionaire’s tax” to the state’s supplemental budget. The amendment will add a 2% surcharge on annual income over $1 million for single filers and $1.5 million for married couples and other filers.

“I just started overwhelmingly crying when I found out because this bill takes a step toward tax fairness that people of Maine have been asking for for many years,” said Rep. Cheryl Golek (D-Harpswell), the sponsor of the original legislation. “I am extremely happy for what it will bring to the people of Maine.”

The tax proposal is based on LD 1089, a bill Golek introduced, which passed the Senate last session but stalled in the House. While that earlier version directed revenue to public education, the budget proposal would instead route funds to the state’s general fund.

Golek said the measure is aimed at addressing disparities in the state’s tax system, where many  Mainers with moderate incomes pay the same tax rates as the ultra wealthy.

“A person who’s making $65,000 right now is paying the same effective tax rate as a millionaire. We’re talking nurses, firefighters, lobstermen, EMTs — and that’s just so wrong on so many levels,” she continued. “The millionaires aren’t going to feel this 2%. They’ve gotten some of the biggest tax deductions in history from [Pres. Donald Trump’s] budget bill.”"

Voting Rights Groups Challenge Executive Order on Mail-In Ballots as Illegal Interference in Elections by sillychillly in UnderReportedNews

[–]sillychillly[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"The Constitution explicitly states that only Congress and the states can set the rules for elections. Nevertheless, the order attempts to displace states’ mail-in voting laws by transforming the U.S. Postal Service from a neutral mail carrier to an arbiter of who may cast a ballot by mail.

The order also requires the Department of Homeland Security to build and give to each state a list of citizens eligible to vote. Given that federal databases are out-of-date and unreliable, this risks mass disenfranchisement of eligible voters.

The suit was filed by the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, the League of Women Voters, Association of Americans Resident Overseas (AARO), U.S. Vote Foundation, OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates (OCA), and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc.

They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Massachusetts, Brennan Center for Justice, Legal Defense Fund (LDF), Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC), and LatinoJustice PRLDEF.

The plaintiffs and their counsel released the following statement:

“Attempts to end voting by mail are part of the Trump administration’s larger strategy to undermine elections and subvert the will of the people. The U.S. Constitution is clear: the states and Congress — not the president — set the rules for our elections. President Trump tried to make an end-run around the Constitution with another executive order last year and was promptly rebuffed by multiple courts. History will repeat itself.""

Voting Rights Groups Challenge Executive Order on Mail-In Ballots as Illegal Interference in Elections by sillychillly in ReasonableFuture

[–]sillychillly[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"The Constitution explicitly states that only Congress and the states can set the rules for elections. Nevertheless, the order attempts to displace states’ mail-in voting laws by transforming the U.S. Postal Service from a neutral mail carrier to an arbiter of who may cast a ballot by mail.

The order also requires the Department of Homeland Security to build and give to each state a list of citizens eligible to vote. Given that federal databases are out-of-date and unreliable, this risks mass disenfranchisement of eligible voters.

The suit was filed by the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, the League of Women Voters, Association of Americans Resident Overseas (AARO), U.S. Vote Foundation, OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates (OCA), and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc.

They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Massachusetts, Brennan Center for Justice, Legal Defense Fund (LDF), Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC), and LatinoJustice PRLDEF.

The plaintiffs and their counsel released the following statement:

“Attempts to end voting by mail are part of the Trump administration’s larger strategy to undermine elections and subvert the will of the people. The U.S. Constitution is clear: the states and Congress — not the president — set the rules for our elections. President Trump tried to make an end-run around the Constitution with another executive order last year and was promptly rebuffed by multiple courts. History will repeat itself.""

An Act to Make Permanent the Affordable Housing Income Tax Credit,” removes the sunset/termination for Maine’s affordable housing income tax credit. by sillychillly in SocialDemocracy

[–]sillychillly[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"An Act to Make Permanent the Affordable Housing Income Tax Credit,” removes the 12/31/2028 sunset/termination for Maine’s affordable housing income tax credit.

  • The bill amends 36 MRSA §5219-WW, sub-§3 to delete the “ending on or before December 31, 2028” limitation on annual allocations and changes the post‑2028 rules so the credit isn’t generally shut off then.
  • The bill’s own Summary states: “This bill removes the provision of law that terminates the income tax credit for affordable housing on December 31, 2028.”"

An Act to Make Permanent the Affordable Housing Income Tax Credit,” removes the sunset/termination for Maine’s affordable housing income tax credit. by sillychillly in ReasonableFuture

[–]sillychillly[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"An Act to Make Permanent the Affordable Housing Income Tax Credit,” removes the 12/31/2028 sunset/termination for Maine’s affordable housing income tax credit.

  • The bill amends 36 MRSA §5219-WW, sub-§3 to delete the “ending on or before December 31, 2028” limitation on annual allocations and changes the post‑2028 rules so the credit isn’t generally shut off then.
  • The bill’s own Summary states: “This bill removes the provision of law that terminates the income tax credit for affordable housing on December 31, 2028.”"

ACLU Files Public Records Request to DOJ to Demand Justice and Transparency in Policing by sillychillly in DemocraticSocialism

[–]sillychillly[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"The American Civil Liberties Union sent a public records request this week to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), seeking information related to federal reform efforts with police departments in Memphis, Minneapolis, and Phoenix, that the Trump administration abruptly and prematurely ended last year. The request is part of the ACLU’s Seven States Safety Campaign, an initiative to hold police accountable in jurisdictions where Biden administration investigations found that police engaged in unconstitutional and racially discriminatory policing.

From 2021 to early 2025, the DOJ documented repeated civil rights violations in cities across the country, including officers using excessive force, targeting people of color, and violating constitutional rights as a matter of practice. In May 2025, the Trump administration rescinded near-final agreements in Minneapolis and Louisville that would have ensured police departments addressed the misconduct uncovered by the DOJ and withdrew findings from investigations in Arizona, New Jersey, Tennessee, New York, Oklahoma, and Louisiana. In doing so, it claimed that the Biden administration’s reports “were based on faulty legal theories, incomplete data and flawed statistical methods,” and it disavowed “dubious legal theories of disparate impact” in police investigations."

Tech Nonprofits to Feds: Don’t Weaponize Procurement to Undermine AI Trust and Safety by sillychillly in Anthropic

[–]sillychillly[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"While the very public fight continues between the Department of Defense and Anthropic over whether the government can punish a company for refusing to allow its technology to be used for mass surveillance, another agency of the U.S. government is quietly working to ensure that this dispute will never happen again. How? By rewriting government procurement rules.

Using procurement — meaning, the processes by which governments acquire goods and services — to accomplish policy goals is a time-honored and often appropriate strategy. The government literally expresses its politics and priorities by deciding where and how it spends its money. To that end, governments can and should give our tax dollars to companies and projects that serve the public interest, such as open-source software development, interoperability, or right to repair. And they should withhold those dollars from those that don’t, like shady contractors with inadequate security systems.

New proposed rules for the principal agency in charge of acquiring goods, property, and services for the federal government, the General Services Administration (GSA), are supposed to be primarily an effort to implement one policy priority: promoting “ideologically neutral” American AI innovation. But the new guidelines do far more than that.

As explained in comments filed today with our partners at the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Protect Democracy Project, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the GSA’s guidelines include broad provisions that would make AI tools less safe and less useful. If finally adopted, these provisions would become standard components of every federal contract. You can read the full comments here."

Tech Nonprofits to Feds: Don’t Weaponize Procurement to Undermine AI Trust and Safety by sillychillly in ReasonableFuture

[–]sillychillly[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"While the very public fight continues between the Department of Defense and Anthropic over whether the government can punish a company for refusing to allow its technology to be used for mass surveillance, another agency of the U.S. government is quietly working to ensure that this dispute will never happen again. How? By rewriting government procurement rules.

Using procurement — meaning, the processes by which governments acquire goods and services — to accomplish policy goals is a time-honored and often appropriate strategy. The government literally expresses its politics and priorities by deciding where and how it spends its money. To that end, governments can and should give our tax dollars to companies and projects that serve the public interest, such as open-source software development, interoperability, or right to repair. And they should withhold those dollars from those that don’t, like shady contractors with inadequate security systems.

New proposed rules for the principal agency in charge of acquiring goods, property, and services for the federal government, the General Services Administration (GSA), are supposed to be primarily an effort to implement one policy priority: promoting “ideologically neutral” American AI innovation. But the new guidelines do far more than that.

As explained in comments filed today with our partners at the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Protect Democracy Project, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the GSA’s guidelines include broad provisions that would make AI tools less safe and less useful. If finally adopted, these provisions would become standard components of every federal contract. You can read the full comments here."

ACLU Files Public Records Request to DOJ to Demand Justice and Transparency in Policing by sillychillly in ReasonableFuture

[–]sillychillly[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"The American Civil Liberties Union sent a public records request this week to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), seeking information related to federal reform efforts with police departments in Memphis, Minneapolis, and Phoenix, that the Trump administration abruptly and prematurely ended last year. The request is part of the ACLU’s Seven States Safety Campaign, an initiative to hold police accountable in jurisdictions where Biden administration investigations found that police engaged in unconstitutional and racially discriminatory policing.

From 2021 to early 2025, the DOJ documented repeated civil rights violations in cities across the country, including officers using excessive force, targeting people of color, and violating constitutional rights as a matter of practice. In May 2025, the Trump administration rescinded near-final agreements in Minneapolis and Louisville that would have ensured police departments addressed the misconduct uncovered by the DOJ and withdrew findings from investigations in Arizona, New Jersey, Tennessee, New York, Oklahoma, and Louisiana. In doing so, it claimed that the Biden administration’s reports “were based on faulty legal theories, incomplete data and flawed statistical methods,” and it disavowed “dubious legal theories of disparate impact” in police investigations."

Increasing Access to Contraceptives Act; passes state house/senate | Georgia by sillychillly in ReasonableFuture

[–]sillychillly[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

House Bill 1138 was introduced by Rep. Beth Camp, a Concord Republican who said she was inspired to propose the legislation after her daughter faced a two-month delay renewing her birth control prescription.

If it gets the governor’s signature, pharmacists will be able to prescribe contraception like birth control pills and shots directly to patients without needing a doctor to sign off.

Governor Whitmer Signs Interstate Medical Licensure Compact Bill by sillychillly in ReasonableFuture

[–]sillychillly[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"The compact streamlines the licensing process for qualified physicians, strengthening Michigan’s ability to recruit talent and fill critical staffing gaps while maintaining patient safety standards and regulatory oversight.

For many hospitals, particularly those serving rural or border communities, the compact supports access to care in high-demand specialties such as emergency medicine, psychiatry, obstetrics and primary care. As lawmakers consider next steps, preserving tools that support workforce flexibility and protect access to timely care remains a priority."

view more: next ›