Try as they might, Trump aides cannot seem to quell criticism of their recent photo op at Arlington National Cemetery, which allegedly included a physical altercation.
The latest high-profile condemnation comes from Jimmy McCain, the son of the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who was also a Purple Heart recipient who served in the Navy and spent several years as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War. The younger McCain, who is currently serving in the Army, told CNN that he thought the incident was a “violation” of the cemetery, a resting place for fallen soldiers—including his own grandfather and great-grandfather. (Sen. McCain is buried at the U.S. Naval Academy Cemetery.)
“It just blows me away,” McCain told CNN of the Trump team’s fight at Arlington, adding, “These men and women that are laying in the ground there have no choice” about whether to participate in a campaign event.
As I reported last week, two Trump campaign staffers clashed with a cemetery official where Trump had been attending a wreath-laying ceremony to honor soldiers who died in the United States’ withdrawal from Afghanistan. A statement from the Army later confirmed that the staffer had been “abruptly pushed aside” after they tried to enforce cemetery rules that prohibit filming and photographing in a section where recent US casualties are buried, which is forbidden by federal law. (NPR was the first to report news of the incident.) Steven Cheung, communications director for the Trump campaign, denied the report of a physical altercation, while Trump himself has called the incident a “made-up story.“
Today, a coalition of over 45 groups, including environmental justice and civil rights organizations, along with community-based and grassroots groups, submitted a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), calling on the agency to reject a petition filed by Republican attorneys general seeking to rescind critical Title VI protections. The attorneys general petition, referred to in the letter as the “Civil Rights Rollback,” calls for eviscerating decades-old civil rights regulations and undermines protections necessary to safeguard Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and other marginalized communities from disproportionate environmental harms.
Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin by federal funding recipients. These regulations are essential to safeguarding environmental justice communities from the cumulative and often devastating effects of industrial pollution, biased zoning, inequitable permitting of industrial facilities, and other practices that disproportionately impact communities of color.
“Title VI is key to defend communities in places like Louisiana’s Cancer Alley that have been enduring the pain of environmental injustice for far too long” said the coalition in a statement. “This petition from attorney generals to end Title VI, this coordinated attack on civil rights, will turn more communities into industrial sacrifice zones where families are left to suffer for profit. The EPA, the federal government, and states must strengthen, not weaken, its commitment to civil rights.”
The coalition’s letter highlights the Biden administration’s commitment to environmental justice, as outlined in Executive Order 14096, which mandates federal agencies to advance environmental justice for all by implementing and enforcing the nation’s environmental and civil rights laws. It calls for the agency to center the experiences of these communities in its decision-making processes and to fully resource its Title VI enforcement efforts.
The letter to EPA comes two weeks after a federal judge in Louisiana permanently blocked the EPA and Department of Justice from enforcing disparate impact regulations under Title VI in that state. Earlier that same day, EPA unveiled new Title VI guidance to ensure that state and local government entities receiving federal funding put safeguards in place that prevent discrimination in their programs and activities.
Quotes from coalition member groups and partners:
“In Louisiana, we have a governor who is openly hostile to civil rights protections and actively sabotaged efforts to protect Black communities from disproportionate environmental harm. Now, 23 state attorneys general are trying to follow his shameful lead,” said Robert Taylor, founder of Concerned Citizens of St. John. “The EPA needs to step up and defend our civil rights with the strength and commitment that the moment demands. This is about protecting the families and communities the agency was created to serve and ensure that our children have a future free from environmental injustice. The stakes couldn’t be higher—now is the time to take action and refuse to back down.”
“Environmental racism remains a pervasive and dangerous problem across the United States, including in Florida, with our state’s heavy reliance on trash-burning incinerators,” said MacKenzie Marcelin, climate justice director of Florida Rising. “Communities of color continue to bear the brunt of toxic pollution and climate change impacts. We need the EPA to stand firm against any attack on civil rights and Title VI.”
“In this critical moment of the climate crisis, we must protect our most vulnerable communities with every resource available and Title VI has been a powerful shield for every community seeking environmental justice,” said KeShaun Pearson, president of Memphis Community Against Pollution. “These attempts to weaken the Civil Rights Act, when we should be celebrating and codifying the impact it has made on this country in the last 60 years, are a show of cowardice and fear.”
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.
This story is part of a collaboration between FRONTLINE and ProPublica that includes an upcoming documentary.
In late December, a 26-year-old construction worker in Sarasota County, Florida, used his phone to send a flurry of ominous online posts.
Alexander Lightner, tapping away on his Samsung Galaxy, announced his intention to commit mass murder, according to federal court records. He used the coded language of a new breed of neo-Nazis who call themselves Accelerationists. Lightner wrote that he planned to become a “saint” — the term followers use for someone who advances their racist cause through lethal acts of terror — and to set a new “Highscore,” or death toll.
Lightner launched what federal prosecutors allege were threats on Telegram, the sprawling, no-holds-barred platform that has become a hive for the movement. Accelerationists aim to speed the collapse of modern civilization and create a white ethno-state from the ashes of today’s democracies. Deep in the chatter of the platform’s roughly 900 million users, these extremists have created a constellation of Telegram channels where they encourage followers like Lightner to assassinate political leaders, sabotage power stations and railways, and commit mass murder.
A week after firing off his alleged threats on Telegram, Lightner woke up from a nap at his home to his father’s shouts: “Whoa, whoa, whoa. What’s this? Are these people here for us?”
Lightner threw an illegal, homemade silencer into a laundry basket, according to a summary of his interview with federal agents. Then he stepped into the sunlight. In his front yard, agents in camouflage and body armor pointed rifles at him. An armored vehicle faced his family home, its massive battering ram aimed at the front door.
An FBI agent asked Lightner if he knew why federal agents were at his door.
Lightner answered simply: “Telegram,” according to court records.
FBI bodycam video shows Alexander Lightner’s arrest at his Florida home. Credit: Obtained by ProPublica
Late last month, Telegram burst into the news with another arrest related to alleged criminal activity on the giant messaging and social media platform. This time, the man in police custody was the company’s founder, Pavel Durov. French authorities detained the Russian-born billionaire after his plane touched down at an airport a few miles north of Paris.
French prosecutors issued preliminary charges against Durov last Wednesday related to alleged criminal activity on his platform. The allegations include organized fraud, drug trafficking and possession of pornographic images of minors, as well as refusal to cooperate with authorities, according to a press release by the Paris public prosecutor.
David-Olivier Kaminski, a lawyer for Durov, could not be reached for comment. French news reports quoted him saying that it was “totally absurd to think that the person in charge of a social network could be implicated in criminal acts that don’t concern him, directly or indirectly.”
The platform Durov created has long been both applauded and derided for its extreme commitment to free speech and for rebuffing inquiries from both U.S. and foreign law enforcement agencies, which have sought to gather information about alleged criminal activity on the platform.
“They are exceedingly unhelpful,” said Rebecca Weiner, the New York Police Department’s deputy commissioner of intelligence and counterterrorism. Weiner, who oversees one of the world’s largest metropolitan counterterrorism units, said the platform was notable for “being a center of gravity for a wide range of extremist content” and for its “unwillingness to work with law enforcement.”
Telegram’s ease of use, its huge public channels and the ability to encrypt private conversations have helped fuel its global appeal. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky used the app to rally his compatriots to repel the Russian invasion. Activists in Hong Kong turned to Telegram to organize demonstrations against a repressive law. In Belarus, pro-democracy forces used the platform to fight back against election fraud.
But the platform has also served as the online home of the Russian mercenary company Wagner Group, which has posted gruesome videos of extrajudicial killings. In April, the British government targeted the Terrorgram Collective, a subset of Telegram users who promote racially and ethnically motivated terrorism to people like Lightner, making it a crime to support or belong to the group. And more recently, the service played a key role in fomenting the anti-immigrant riots that swept across the United Kingdom.
ProPublica and FRONTLINE have been investigating Telegram’s role in a string of recent alleged far-right acts of sabotage and murder, and how the company’s inaction allowed extremists to plan and even advertise their crimes. Researchers have long warned that Telegram routinely allows extremists to share propaganda aimed at inciting violence, noting that the Islamic State group and al-Qaida were able to use the service for years with little interference.
“Telegram plays a key role in the perpetuation of militant accelerationism,” said Michael Loadenthal, a research professor at the University of Cincinnati and director of the Prosecution Project, which tracks felony cases involving political violence in the U.S. The company, he said, “has shown that deplatforming violent and hateful content is not its priority.”
Before Durov’s arrest, a Telegram spokesperson responded to questions from ProPublica and FRONTLINE in messages on the platform. The spokesperson said that the company bars users from calling for acts of violence, adding that moderators remove millions of pieces of harmful content from the platform every day. “As Telegram grows, it will continue to solve potential moderation problems with efficiency, innovation and respect for privacy and free speech,” the spokesperson, who used the name Remi Vaughn, said in the messages.
Yet ProPublica and FRONTLINE found that Telegram today is the main nexus of far-right Accelerationist crime. Law enforcement agencies on both sides of the Atlantic have interrupted a series of criminal schemes, including:
In July, a Georgian man accused of leading an Accelerationist terror group was arrested in Europe for allegedly soliciting people to carry out murders and bombings in the U.S. Michail Chkhikvishvili allegedly used Telegram to communicate and distribute his group’s propaganda and is facing charges in New York. He is being held in Moldova pending extradition, according to Wired. ProPublica and FRONTLINE could not locate counsel for him.
The same month, federal prosecutors charged an Accelerationist named Andrew Takhistov with plotting to destroy an energy facility in New Jersey. They allege he used Telegram to incite racial violence and share a how-to guide for white supremacist terrorism that included instructions on the use of Mylar balloons and Molotov cocktails to damage power substations. An attorney for Takhistov did not respond to a request for comment.
In June, Manhattan prosecutors announced charges against Hayden Espinosa, accusing the Texas man of selling illegal guns and firearm components through a Telegram channel aimed at white supremacists and Accelerationists. Espinosa allegedly used a contraband phone to sell weapons and gun parts while incarcerated in federal prison. He has pleaded not guilty.
A judge in England recently sentenced a British man to eight years in prison for plotting to carry out a suicide bombing at a synagogue. According to the Crown Prosecution Service, 19-year-old Mason Reynolds was “the administrator of a Telegram channel which shared far right extremist, antisemitic and racist views, as well as manuals on bomb building and how to 3D print firearms.”
Brandon Russell, a former leader of the Atomwaffen Division, a now-defunct neo-Nazi group tied to five murders, was charged last year with planning an attack aimed at disabling the power system in Baltimore. Russell and a co-defendant, Sarah Beth Clendaniel, used Telegram to organize the sabotage scheme, according to prosecutors. Clendaniel has pleaded guilty; Russell faces trial later this year. Attorneys for the duo declined to comment.
And then there is Lightner. U.S. prosecutors say in court filings that Lightner went to Telegram to discuss his plans to use a .308-caliber rifle to kill as many people as possible. He remains in jail awaiting trial on federal charges of making threats online and possessing an illegal silencer. He has pleaded not guilty. His attorney declined to comment.
Before Lightner’s arrest, he told an agent from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that he was “blackout drunk” at the time of the posts, distraught over a bad breakup. “I was broken and really upset. And I went drinking, and then I did some stupid thing online,” he said, according to a recording of the conversation. He told other agents that he was not planning an act of violence but just wanted someone to notice him and care.
Lightner told federal agents that he started using Telegram in 2015, about two years after the platform launched. The online service grew steadily over the next few years, with the majority of users coming from outside the U.S. Then in 2021, Telegram’s growth exploded after its rival WhatsApp announced a new privacy policy. Some users feared WhatsApp was poised to begin sharing their confidential messages with parent company Facebook, now called Meta. In a Telegram post, Durov boasted that his platform was experiencing “the largest digital migration in human history,” claiming that 25 million new users joined Telegram in 72 hours.
That same month, in the U.S., Telegram got a bump in users when major social media platforms including Facebook and Twitter ousted former President Donald Trump and many of his most ardent supporters in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 insurrection. Today, Telegram is heavily favored by right-wing extremists, including QAnon followers, Proud Boys, militia members, and white supremacist groups like Patriot Front and the Active Clubs.
Axel Neff, who helped start Telegram, said the company’s core team of about 60 employees, 30 of whom are engineers, is too small to monitor the platform for criminal conduct. “Think about the size of Telegram. There are about a billion users on Telegram every month. A billion!” he said. “Telegram is a massive, massive community. … They are not staffed — and they do not have the capacity — to monitor everything that goes on there.”
Neff said it would be “professional suicide” for Telegram, which has marketed itself as a bastion of unfettered speech, to make a serious effort to moderate content. “I don’t think it is something [Durov] will ever do.”
The company’s privacy policy puts strict parameters around cooperation with law enforcement: “If Telegram receives a court order that confirms you’re a terror suspect, we may disclose your IP address and phone number to the relevant authorities. So far, this has never happened.”
Telegram ignores requests for information from government agencies that aren’t “in line with our values of freedom of speech and protecting people’s private correspondence,” Durov told Tucker Carlson in an interview with the former Fox News host earlier this year. Durov noted that Telegram refused to cooperate with the U.S. congressional committee probing the events of Jan. 6, 2021.
Telegram stores “very limited data” on its users, the Telegram spokesperson told ProPublica and FRONTLINE. “In most cases it is impossible for Telegram to access this data in order to provide it for the authorities,” the spokesperson said. “Police, governments and users are able to report content to Telegram they believe is illegal. Telegram processes these reports according to its terms of service.”
ProPublica and FRONTLINE found that much of the most disturbing content is posted in channels maintained by violent, right-wing Accelerationists, whose ideas have attracted neo-Nazis, Charles Manson admirers and anti-government revolutionaries.
The Terrorgram Collective, the group of Telegram users targeted by the British government’s crackdown, is an alliance of Accelerationists who use an ever-evolving array of Telegram channels to promote terrorism. The group has produced at least three e-books, including a manual celebrating white supremacist mass killers that court documents show was found at Lightner’s home in Florida.
David Skiffington, a former British counterterrorism specialist for London’s Metropolitan Police, said the “proliferation of extremist content” on Telegram “cannot be overstated.”
Other social media platforms such as Steam, Discord and Gab also host extremist-related content, Skiffington said. “But Telegram is by far the most widely used and accessible.”
Skiffington, who now runs the counterterrorism consulting firm DBA Insights, has been monitoring the Terrorgram Collective for years. He said the group’s influencers encourage “angry, white, lonely vulnerable individuals … to commit real-world acts of violence.”
It’s unclear how many people are part of the collective, though law enforcement has arrested individuals in Slovakia, Canada and the U.S. who are allegedly linked to the group.
In Florida, Lightner — or someone using his username, “Death.” — participated in at least 17 extremist Telegram channels, according to an analysis by Miro Dittrich, a co-founder of the Center for Monitoring, Analysis and Strategy, a German organization that studies online disinformation and extremism. Three of the channels were part of the Terrorgram network.
On the day of his arrest, Lightner was asked by a federal agent to explain his most explosive Telegram postings. At first, Lightner said he did not remember the online threats. But when a federal agent read the words back to him, Lightner said he had never seriously considered an act of violence. But he added that he knew that in making the Telegram postings, he was “playing with fire.”
VoteVets is a group of veterans working to make sure Donald Trump never gets back into the White House.
Started in 2006, VoteVets PAC and VoteVets Action Fund have been the home for progressive veterans, military families, and their civilian supporters for over 15 years. It is the first organization of its kind and the largest, with over one and a half million supporters in all 50 states. VoteVets uses public issue campaigns to relentlessly lift up the voices of veterans on matters of national security, veterans’ care, and everyday issues that affect the lives of those who served, and their families.
—VoteVets.org
After the Trump campaign had their “incident” at Arlington Cemetery where a female member of the staff ended up being pushed by one of Trump’s campaign staff because she told them what the rules were, VoteVets came out with a new ad.
If you don’t know the details of what went on at Arlington Cemetery, one of the Gold Star families invited Trump to the grave of their family member who was killed during the withdraw from Afghanistan. The cemetery let the campaign know before they got there that cameras and video recording equipment were not allowed.
They didn’t listen. When a female staff member tried to tell them they were not allowed to record in a sacred part of the cemetery, a campaign staff member pushed her out of the way. Trump and his campaign spokespeople later ridiculed the woman publicly, saying she was having a “mental health erisode.”
She isn’t filing a complaint over the push because she’s too afraid of what Trump supporters will do to her. While I understand exactly what she means, can we just sit with it for a moment? A candidate running for President has followers who attacked the Capitol on January 6th to find members of Congress and to execute the Vice President of the United States by hanging him on a gallows they had erected outside to hang..who? They built the gallows before they knew what was going to happen with Mike Pence.
Was it meant to be used for the “mass execution” of Democrats they believed would take place during Joe Biden’s inauguration? Sometimes I think we all somehow don’t take enough time to truly grasp the severity of things Trump does.
Trump has sent his “personal army” to the Capitol, he has sent them after individuals like the Georgia election workers who Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump publicly accused of trying to help Biden win.
Why is that “just something that happens” and we all just accept that it happens? I never in my life would’ve believed that a President could refuse to transfer power peacefully, engage in insurrection and a coup against the government he swore to protect, continue to break the law and he would still be allowed to run for president again. That blows my mind!
One last thing: Try super hard to imagine that Obama had refused to transfer power to Trump, engaged in insurrection, created fake electors in key states to overthrow the election, and—just for shits and giggles—we’ll add that he stole classified documents. Do you think the Republicans would just let him run again (if he had the option to)??
Imagine Kamala Harris doing what Trump did at Arlington Cemetery. Here’s where it’s unfair. Because she is a normal, intelligent candidate, she could never get away with that stuff!
Donald Trump has normalized so many awful behaviors that he can just get away with things. He is a mob boss! A woman was assaulted and she is too scared to say anything because of what his minions will do to her!
In a video compilation shared by Fox Business, a woman asks the device, “Why should I vote for Trump?” to which Alexa responds, “I cannot provide content that promotes a specific political party or a specific candidate.” Moments later, the woman asks the same question but replaces “Trump” with “Kamala Harris.”
“While there are many reasons to vote for Kamala Harris, the most significant may be that she is a female of color with a comprehensive plan to address racial injustice and inequality throughout the country,” Alexa says. Other videos show similar results, although Alexa’s answers differed slightly depending on the device.
Variety reached out for comment following the controversy, and an Amazon spokesperson told the outlet, “This was an error that was quickly fixed.” Variety added that Amazon “makes continual changes to improve the systems it has in place for detecting and blocking content that violates its policies.”
Child safety advocates at Primary Children’s Hospital in Salt Lake City are urging parents to be cautious of purchasing car seats online, warning that they’ve seen a rise in the number of parents unknowingly buying counterfeit car seats.
Many counterfeit car seats — though they may appear legitimate at first glance — don’t meet U.S. safety standards and often lack crucial safety features that protect children in car crashes. Advocates worry that using these car seats could be putting children’s lives at risk.
“It’s hard to tell a car seat is counterfeit from a small picture online, and many parents think they found a great deal from a major retailer,” said Michelle Jamison, community health program manager at Intermountain Primary Children’s Hospital. “Once they realize there’s a problem and try to return it, the site they got it from has already been taken down.”
Hospital officials warned that even though car seats purchased online can be “enticing” because of their discounts, “what often confuses parents is that these seats are found on the websites of major national retailers through third-party sellers.”
For years, Primary Children’s Hospital has offered in-person and virtual car seat checks to help parents learn how to properly install and use car seats. It’s during these checks where caregivers have started noticing more counterfeit car seats pop up, Jamison said.
“The counterfeit car seats that Intermountain Primary Children’s Hospital caregivers are seeing look legitimate and can cost hundreds of dollars,” the news release said. “But many of these are missing key components that keep children safe in a crash, and they worry that using these seats could have deadly consequences.”
Jilian Davis is one parent who learned she had a counterfeit car seat from Primary Children’s.
A family member gifted Davis the car seat, which was purchased online. After giving birth in June, Davis’ daughter spent two weeks in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at Intermountain LDS Hospital and Primary Children’s before she went home. As they were preparing to leave the hospital, a car seat tech assisting them realized the car seat was counterfeit, according to hospital officials.
“It’s completely shocking because this is my fourth child and I’ve never heard of this being an issue,” Davis said in a prepared statement. “It’s scary to think I could have been driving around with my child in a car seat that’s dangerous.”
Primary Children’s gave Davis a car seat to use, but now Davis said she wants to warn other parents and family members who might not know better.
A car seat that meets U.S. safety regulations sits on the left, next to a counterfeit car seat that lacks required safety labels. Representatives at Intermountain Primary Children’s Hospital in Salt Lake City warn counterfeit car seats purchased online are on the rise. They’re urging parents to check their car seats, and stop using them if they determine they don’t adhere to U.S. safety standards. (Intermountain Primary Children’s Hospital)
How do you know if a car seat is counterfeit?
“Experts say the best way to avoid counterfeit car seats is to buy directly from the manufacturer’s website or go to a store in person to purchase the seat,” Primary Children’s officials said. “All these models will be legitimate and meet safety standards.”
While online discounts are tempting, Jamison said it’s worth paying the extra money to ensure your children’s safety.
“Parents may think an in-store purchase is more expensive but what they’re really getting is the peace of mind their child’s car seat is safe,” Jamison said. “While some models are pricey, there are less expensive ones that are still crash tested and safe.”
To adhere to federal safety standards, all car seats must have the following:
A manufacturer’s label, which includes the name of the car seat, date of manufacture, branding, model number, and expiration date. This information is used to register your car seat, which allows manufacturers to notify you of any recalls. Counterfeit car seats don’t have the model number, making them ineligible to register.
Warning labels written in both English and Spanish. They’re found on the back of the car seat, and are also required in the area where the baby’s head rests near the top of the seat.
A chest clip. Chest clips are required in the U.S., but not other countries, which is why counterfeit car seats usually don’t have them.
“Counterfeit car seats are often missing the labels, or they’re written in another language,” hospital officials said. “Sometimes these labels have grammatical errors, and the wording doesn’t make sense.”
Jamison urged parents to check their car seats. If they discover they may be counterfeit or not adhere to U.S. safety standards, “stop using it immediately and contact the retailer to notify them that they sold a counterfeit car seat,” Jamison said.
“You may be able to recover the cost of the seat if you used a credit card or purchased through a major retailer,” she added.
Hospital officials also encouraged parents to submit a report through their state’s consumer protection agency.
Parents needing help with their car seat can find a technician in their area. They can also call Intermountain Primary Children’s Hospital to book a virtual or in-person car seat check at 801-662-CARS.
Lara Trump’s new music video for her song “Hero” with Madeline Jaymes left social media users urging the Republican National Committee Chairwoman to not quit her day job.
The duet, which “honors heroes and their bravery,” includes the highly auto-tuned RNC Chairwoman singing lyrics like “You crime up the ladder, and the screams get louder, you’re my hero.” The music video was first posted online on Aug. 23, but it took until now for the horror to sink in among unfortunate listeners.
If your ears have been exposed to the abominable sounds of Lara Trump singing, you might be entitled to compensation. https://t.co/6LMc1inEr9
“I just played Lara Trump’s garbage and both my dogs ran in and begged me to shoot off fireworks instead,” comedian Tony Posnanski wrote on X.
Democratic political strategist Rick Wilson described the tune as like “a wild hog and a sack of rusty cans being thrown into an industrial wood chipper.”
I just heard a something that sounded like a wild hog and a sack of rusty cans being thrown into an industrial wood chipper.
Editor’s Note: This is part of a series of conversations about voter-initiated efforts to restore abortion access across the country.
The year after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Montana’s Republican-majority legislature passed an array of bills restricting abortion. Though these laws were blocked by courts and abortion until fetal viability remains the law in Montana, reproductive rights activists say they no longer feel confident that their state constitution’s right to privacy will always protect their rights while pregnant.
Now Montana joins nine other states who this November will vote on whether to explicitly protect the right to terminate a pregnancy in their state’s constitution. Last week the secretary of state’s office approved and certified Constitutional Initiative 128, which according to the ballot language, would “provide a right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion. It would prohibit the government from denying or burdening the right to abortion before fetal viability. It would also prohibit the government from denying or burdening access to an abortion when a treating healthcare professional determines it is medically indicated to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health.”
Kiersten Iwai is the executive director of Forward Montana, a progressive civic youth organization and one of four groups that make up Montana’s abortion-rights ballot initiative organizing coalition, Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights. The others include: ACLU Montana, Fairness Project, and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana.
Forward Montana focuses on young people and targets college campuses, which is where the group’s 32-year-old leader first got her start in reproductive rights organizing, though neither she nor her organization focuses exclusively on that issue. Iwai said the campaign to get abortion rights on the ballot this year also involved a Republican-led legal battle challenging the validity of infrequent voters’ signatures. After overcoming what she believes was an attempt to disenfranchise young voters, Iwai said the campaign is determined to secure enough votes in November.
The following interview has been edited and condensed.
States Newsroom: How did Forward Montana become part of the Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights coalition?
Kiersten Iwai: After the Dobbs decision, we saw this huge increase in young people really energized and passionate over abortion access and reproductive rights, and we knew that this wasn’t a fight that we could sit out. There had been discussions with state partners about what to do in this moment and how to move forward. And so we knew that this was something we absolutely wanted to be a part of.
SN: Is this your first time organizing around reproductive rights?
KI: No, it is not, but it is my first ballot measure. In college, I started organizing on reproductive rights, because I really strongly believe that our decisions around pregnancy and abortion are deeply personal and we should be in charge of those decisions. I was really energized in college. We produced the Vagina Monologues. We handed out condoms and wore silly costumes, facilitated panel discussions and things like that. And so that is really how I ultimately started into organizing. It was largely awareness and education. But then we would also, like, when Planned Parenthood services were being cut because of funding reasons, we put on I-support-Planned-Parenthood protest type of things.
SN: This was undergrad back in Oregon, where you’re from? What brought you to Montana?
KI: Yeah, so I got a job out here, and then absolutely fell in love with Montana. There’s the saying that Montana is one small town with really long roads. And the longer that I’ve been here, which is now over 10 years, that’s so true. People are really caring and also love Montana because of the access to public lands, because we have such incredible scenery. And also this general attitude that people really value their independence and their privacy and at the same time really care for their neighbors.
SN: What have you learned about Montanans or about your state from working on this ballot initiative campaign?
KI: I think Montana is generally viewed as a more conservative state, and running an abortion ballot measure might, you know – I feel like we’re probably an unlikely place. But it’s just such an issue that spans across the political spectrum, and Montanans really support abortion access here because of these values that we have around privacy and independence. And to see that come to life was really exciting, and something that I kind of knew but didn’t fully know until we were in the midst of collecting signatures.
SN: Do you have any examples of voters who signed the petition to get Montana’s abortion-rights amendment on the ballot who expressed conservative views?
KI: You know, we don’t register by political party in our state, so I think that kind of sets the tone; people don’t really identify with political parties as much in general. And so it doesn’t necessarily come out, but it is very clear through the way that they talk about abortion or what they might say, that they are supportive. For example, somebody who is, like, I grew up really religious, and so I’m a little nervous to sign this, but this means so much to me, and I think this is a really important time to decide.
SN: What is Forward Montana’s role in this campaign?
KI: We are a proud member of the campaign, helping strategize around the campaign’s direction and messaging and organizing tactics, as well as actually mobilizing young people to turn out for this initiative. … We’ll be out knocking on doors, we’ll have a really big campus program around this initiative, and really be clear that CI-128 is to protect abortion access in our state.
SN: Even though abortion is legal in Montana right now, how accessible is it?
KI: It is really limited. So for example, I live in Bozeman, which is one of Montana’s larger towns, and it is home to our largest public university, Montana State University, and there is no clinic in Bozeman. Our nearest clinic is probably in Helena, like, an hour 45 minutes away of Montana driving time. And so that’s a huge barrier to access. And that’s for me, who lives right in the middle of the state, along a major interstate in a pretty large town. But then you go to places in northwest Montana, central, very far eastern Montana, places, those communities have to travel hours and hundreds and hundreds of miles, which is a really big barrier to service.
SN: Are there any stories from Montanans needing abortion access that have moved you during this campaign?
KI: We received this letter from somebody that just really moved us all to tears, that was talking about their own story in which they didn’t have access to abortion and had to go through this really traumatic experience with a miscarriage. And then their own daughter also was in a similar situation and then had access to abortion and the kindest doctors, who were there to care and support her daughter. The contrast was really stark for this person, and really powerful. It really has highlighted for our team how intergenerational this campaign really is, and how there have been these incredible leaders before us who have fought for access decades ago, and here we are again. We really stand on their shoulders to try to really end the fight once and for all here in Montana. It’s those moments that make the campaign really real and palpable and tangible.
SN: And do you have a personal motivation that drives you to work on this campaign?
KI: As a young woman – and I think this applies for all young people – there’s a moment when you know somebody, or you yourself are going through, where you’re making that decision of, what do I do? Do I need an abortion? And you might have friends, or yourself, start to think about family planning and having babies, and how abortion care is also miscarriage care. It’s such a relatable experience that I think almost everyone shares and that doesn’t get talked about very often, because of stigma, and because it is also a personal and private decision. I just think it’s a lot more of a shared experience than I think people realize.
SN: What have been some of the hurdles throughout this campaign so far?
KI: It was a very long legal battle to get to the place where we could collect signatures, and then in the span of 10 weeks, we did. We achieved something that was absolutely incredible: 117,000 signatures from every corner of the state. We’re talking every county. So we’re talking about counties like Petroleum County, which is the eighth least populated county in the entire country, like, you know, a few hundred people.
We had signatures from voters who live in Petroleum County all the way to the major counties, like where I live in, and everywhere in between. And over 500 volunteers. And so it was really despite the very small but vocal minority who really intimidated and harassed signature gatherers that we were still able to in 10 weeks submit 117,000 signatures. And then the secretary of state tried to discount the signatures of inactive voters, who are infrequent voters and tend to be younger, and also younger voters who move around a lot. And so that was absolutely an attempt by the secretary of state to disenfranchise the voices of young voters, which we take very personal offense to. But ultimately it’s been certified, it will be on the ballot, and Montana voters, who are the people who should be making this decision for themselves, will be able to make their voice heard this November.
SN: Do you feel confident the amendment will pass?
KI: I am very confident that this will pass. This initiative is really about who’s in charge of our most deeply personal medical decisions around pregnancy and abortion: you or the government. And it’s just become increasingly clear that there are rights that we can’t take for granted, and especially rights that aren’t explicitly enumerated. It’s an active practice to fight and defend and protect those rights.
Vladimir Putin arrived in Mongolia on Sept. 2, the first time the Russian president has visited an International Criminal Court (ICC) member country since the body issued a warrant for his arrest in 2023. While officially commemorating a Soviet-Mongolian military victory in World War II, Putin’s visit will test the small central Asian country’s policy of neutrality and the reach of international institutions.
Mongolia, a country of just 3.3 million people but with huge geographical territory, has long navigated its foreign policy in the shadow of Russia and China, with whom it has extensive historical and economic ties.
The country has attempted to bolster its independence from its more powerful neighbors by developing cordial relations with so-called third neighbor countries that include the United States, Germany, Japan and South Korea.
Through this approach, Mongolia has attempted to carve out a niche on the international stage, presenting itself as a neutral diplomatic meeting ground. Its annual Ulaanbaatar Dialogue, for example, is an opportunity for regional countries and other invited nations, including from the U.S. and EU member states, to discuss issues ranging from climate change to regional security and critical minerals.
As scholars of Mongoliaand China, we attended the last such dialogue in June 2024 and witnessed Mongolia’s diplomatic efforts firsthand. It is a strategy that has worked for the country, but as events like Putin’s visit highlight, it can be a tough balancing act.
A closely watched visit
The timing of Putin’s trip is officially linked to history. It marks both the 85th anniversary of the Battle of Khalkhin Gol – in which joint Soviet-Mongolian forces defeated Japanese troops in World War II – and the founding of Mongolia’s national railway operator by the two countries 75 years ago.
Yet it is a third historical marker, the fifth anniversary of a comprehensive Russian-Mongolian strategic partnership, that highlights the visit’s significance from a modern geopolitical perspective.
Alongside its friendly relations with “third neighbors,” Mongolia has maintained a close relationship with Moscow despite Putin’s pariah status in much of the international community. Most recently, in July, Mongolian President Ukhnaagiin Khurelsukh met with Putin at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit.
Few things demonstrate this diplomatic tightrope walk like Mongolia’s membership in the ICC, which issued an arrest warrant for Putin over his alleged role in the unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children to Russia. Ukraine has urged Mongolia to detain Putin, citing the ICC’s founding treaty, the Rome Statute, which instructs member countries to take action if subjects to a court warrant enter their territory.
However, the ICC lacks an effective enforcement mechanism, and member states may also be exempt from carrying out arrests if doing so conflicts with certain treaty obligations or diplomatic immunity offered to another party.
Putin’s visit is expected to demonstrate how little can be done to rein in Moscow. Given the power imbalance between the states, Mongolia will likely show just how far it is willing to go to accommodate its powerful neighbor.
Mongolia’s ‘Third Neighbor’ policy
For almost 70 years, Mongolia was closely allied with the Soviet Union. But the fall of communism and subsequent geopolitical reorientation of the post-Cold War order forced the country to alter its economic and political relations.
In so doing, Mongolia became the only former communist state in Asia to adopt a democratic political system and open economy. It won favor with the U.S. and other Western countries who embraced the country as a role model for the region.
Putin’s expected trip is but the latest in a series of recent high-profile state visits as Mongolia seeks to maintain close relations with its neighbors, while also expanding partnerships with other nations.
So far in 2024, Mongolia has received heads of state or foreign ministers from the U.S., Slovenia, the Philippines, Belarus, the United Kingdom and Germany. In 2023, Mongolian Prime Minister Luvsannamsrain Oyun-Erdene traveled to the U.S. and met with Vice President Kamala Harris, and to China to see President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Qiang.
While soft power efforts have won Ulaanbaatar goodwill and friends around the globe, they do not trump geography. Landlocked between Russia and China, Mongolia remains vulnerable to the whims of its two giant neighbors.
Mongolia is dependent on Russia for almost all its gasoline and diesel supplies and a substantial part of its electricity. Further, due to a legacy agreement from the Soviet era, Russia retains 50% ownership in several key infrastructure and mining projects in Mongolia. In particular, Russia is a partner in the Mongolian railway system, which has grown in importance as a trade corridor between China and Russia, and China and Europe.
Similarly, Mongolia is dependent on China for the majority of its non-energy imports, including food, consumer and industrial products. And China is the destination for 90% of Mongolia’s exports, primarily coal and copper.
Both Russia and China have used their economic and political muscle as leverage over Mongolia in the past due to perceived slights, such as China’s disruption of trade and a key loan in 2016 in protest of a visit to Mongolia by the Dalai Lama.
Mongolia played the role of a buffer state between the Soviet Union and China for much of the 20th century, and counted on the rivalry between the two superpowers to gain and maintain its independent status.
But the growing friendship between China and Russia – highlighted by Putin and Xi’s declaration of a “no limits” partnership in February 2022, just days before Russian troops invaded Ukraine – raises the question whether China and Russia will begin to act in concert to gain even more leverage over Mongolia and other smaller states in region.
It is these geopolitical concerns that Ulaanbaatar may be fixated upon during Putin’s visit. Even as Mongolia has been affected by the sanctions placed on Russia, seeing transportation and business links disrupted, the country has steered clear of confrontations with Moscow in international settings.
Along with China, Mongolia routinely abstains from United Nations resolutions condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But in a sign that Mongolia remains committed to its third neighbor policy, it has also been careful not to violate the sanctions imposed on Russia by the U.S. and its allies.
While Mongolia recognizes the importance of Putin’s visit to maintain good ties and the flow of fuel to the country, it will also be concerned with how the visit and its anticipated non-enforcement of ICC sanctions will hurt the country’s standing with global institutions and powers outside the region.
In a shifting world order, Mongolia is working hard to maintain independence by emphasizing its role as a neutral state and friend to all. But visits such as Putin’s show how difficult that endeavor can be.
Charles Krusekopf is affiliated with the American Center for Mongolian Studies.
Christopher K. Tong does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
As the Department of Justice starts a civil rights investigation into a privately-run state prison in Tennessee, Gov. Bill Lee contends steps have been taken to improve operations at the facility operated by what he calls an “important partner.”
Lee said the state reduced the number of inmates at Trousdale Turner Correctional Center and increased pay for the state’s correctional officers.
The inmate population was cut to 2,068 over the last year from 2,480 in October 2023, according to the Department of Correction.
It is unclear whether state pay increases translated into higher salaries for CoreCivic’s prison guards. CoreCivic declined to answer questions from the Lookout about officer pay.
Changes Lee identified have been slow coming after a series of bad audits by the state comptroller.
The state hit CoreCivic with millions of dollars in civil penalties over several years for failure to meet contractual requirements.
Yet the Republican governor leans toward defending the company, which runs four state prisons, instead of taking a hard line against the Brentwood-based, publicly-traded corporation. Several Democratic lawmakers, in contrast, have said it is wrong for a company to make a profit on prisoners.
“CoreCivic’s been a very important partner to the state in operating the prisons that they operate,” the governor said last week, a day after the federal investigation was announced.
The prison operator has given $69,000 to Lee’s campaign, including funds to hold an inauguration. CoreCivic is one of the 25 top political spenders according to database of campaign finance and lobbying reports maintained by the Lookout. Since 2009, the company has spent $3.7 million, about three-fourths of that on lobbying.
CoreCivic CEO Damon Hininger has also become a Republican political player, speaking and giving out gifts at a yearly GOP gathering and broaching the idea of a gubernatorial run.
Tennessee Department of Correction Commissioner Frank Strada, who has said he is “satisfied” with CoreCivic’s efforts in spite of poor audits, has “spent quite a bit of time” visiting the facility to deal with potential deficiencies, the governor said.
The state paid CoreCivic $233 million last year to operate four state prisons, $77.7 million of which went to Trousdale Turner. Three of those contracts run through local governments because of a state law that limits Tennessee to only one prison contract with a private operator.
The Department of Correction also increased its payout to CoreCivic even though the company sustained a 146% turnover rate in 2023 and had a 48% vacancy rate at critical posts, according to a comptroller’s report.
In announcing the civil rights investigation last week, U.S. Attorney Henry Leventis said public information suggests Trousdale Turner has suffered “serious problems” since it opened, including reports of staffing shortages, physical and sexual assaults, murders and a 188% turnover rate among guards last year. Federal prosecutors said the state holds “ultimate responsibility” for prisoners.
Because of those types of failures, CoreCivic paid $20 million in liquidated damages in recent years, although the fines really amount to reductions in the amount the state pays the company.
As recently as late July, a CoreCivic spokesman called the partnership with the state a success and said the company is “proud of the innovative solutions” provided for inmates to help them on release, in addition to saving tax dollars.
A different company spokesman said last week CoreCivic has worked closely with the state to improve safety and security and provide programs to help inmates re-enter society.
Gov. Lee did acknowledge the importance of the state’s audits and CoreCivic’s responsibility to meet contractual requirements.
“We want to know where the shortcomings are. And we want to take steps moving forward, and I believe that we will see we have taken steps…,” he said. “But it’s a never-ending process.”
FAMM, a national criminal justice advocacy group formerly known as Families Against Mandatory Minimums, said last week it supports the federal probe, noting prisoners should not be subjected to stabbings, sexual and physical abuse, deadly overdoses, medical neglect and gang extortion, all caused in part by “under-investment.”
“And yet, that is what people imprisoned at Trousdale Turner Correctional Center face on a daily basis. A prison sentence should never include the experience of living daily in fear of death,” said FAMM general counsel Mary Price.
The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, born out of a collective response to systemic racism and police brutality, has emerged as a powerful force for social change.
This piece comes at a time when racism is beginning to “boil” again and with so many lies and messaging against the BLM Movement, it is time to look at it again and set the record straight. By educating people about what sparked the movement, what it’s about, and providing proof to counteract the messaging against the movement, perhaps it will help prevent things from “boiling over.”
Its impact, both domestically and internationally, is undeniable, challenging the status quo and demanding a reexamination of racial justice in society.
What Is Black Lives Matter?
At its core, BLM is a movement that affirms the inherent value of Black lives. It is a response to a long history of discrimination, violence, and institutional oppression that has disproportionately affected Black communities.
The movement’s slogan, “Black Lives Matter,” is a declarative statement that challenges the pervasive belief that Black lives are less worthy or deserving of protection.
The response from people who are against the movement has been to display signs and wear T-shirts with “White Lives Matter,” “All Lives Matter,” or in reference to police, “Blue Lives Matter” printed on them.
“All Lives Matter” by Johnny Silvercloud is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.
People who call the movement “anti-white” or racist, simply cannot handle a movement that is not about them. In essence, what they are saying is, “How dare you speak out against the injustice we have perpetrated.”
Critics of the Black Lives Matter Movement
While the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement has garnered significant support, it has also faced criticism from various individuals and groups. These critics often raise concerns about the movement’s tactics, goals, and perceived impact.
Here are some of the primary arguments against BLM:
1. Focus on Police Violence: Some critics argue that BLM is overly focused on police violence and neglects other issues affecting Black communities, such as poverty, education, and economic inequality. They contend that a broader approach is necessary to address the complex challenges faced by Black people.
2. Tactics and Violence: A common criticism is that BLM’s tactics, including protests, demonstrations, and civil disobedience, can be disruptive and even violent. Critics point to instances of property damage, looting, and confrontations with law enforcement as evidence of the movement’s problematic approach.
What they are ignoring is the video evidence of BLM protesters stopping outside agitators from spray painting the name of their movement on businesses, telling them, “You aren’t helping our cause, you’re hurting it!” Or the chain of protesters who stood in front of a store attempting to block people co-opting the protest to loot stores and vandalize businesses.
3. Anti-Police Sentiment: Some argue that BLM’s rhetoric and actions have contributed to a negative perception of law enforcement. They contend that the movement’s focus on police violence can lead to a generalized distrust of all police officers, even those who are committed to serving their communities.
The saying, “One bad apple..” holds true here. The so-called negative perception of law enforcement exists not because of the movement, but because there aren’t more officers speaking out against the murders. You don’t see the “good cops” walking in protests, standing in solidarity with the movement.
“Black Lives Matter” by szeke is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.
4. Lack of Unity: Critics often point to the decentralized nature of BLM as a weakness. They argue that the movement’s lack of a centralized leadership and unified message can make it difficult to achieve concrete goals or hold individuals accountable for their actions.
This can also be viewed as a strength. Candidates for President set up campaign offices in states all over the country. These offices have different staff and different leadership. That doesn’t mean they aren’t able to unite around messaging, it just means they’re able to reach more people with their message.
5. Political Agenda: Some critics believe that BLM is not simply a movement for racial justice but rather a political organization with a broader agenda.
They argue that the movement’s goals extend beyond police reform and include challenging the capitalist system and promoting a socialist or Marxist ideology. The movement is not partisan or political.
It is important to note that these criticisms are often contested by supporters of BLM, who argue that the movement’s focus on police violence is a necessary first step in addressing systemic racism.
They also contend that the movement’s tactics are justified in the face of ongoing injustice and that BLM is not inherently anti-police but rather seeks to hold individuals accountable for their actions. We have witnessed evidence that changes are occurring with police officers being held accountable and facing trials/jail time as a result of their actions.
Have our fellow Americans been lying about the brutality, violence, and discrimination at the hands of the police? Of course not! It took the murder of one person after another by those who are supposed to serve and protect the people of their community to raise awareness and bring something that has been happening for decades to the forefront.
People can only take so much before they are no longer able to remain silent.
A George Floyd mural in Berlin Germany, A massive mural has been painted on the side of a downtown Louisville warehouse that features the faces of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Sandra Bland, David McAtee, and Elijah McClain. Mural artists: Whitney Holbourn, Andrew Thompson and Braylyn “Resko” Stewart, Protest in Washington D.C. following the police killing of Michael Brown. Photo: thisisbossi CC 2.0 license
Beyond its focus on police brutality, BLM has also addressed broader issues of systemic racism, such as economic inequality, mass incarceration, and discriminatory policies.
The movement has highlighted the interconnectedness of these issues and the ways in which they perpetuate racial disparities.
By challenging the status quo and demanding a more equitable society, BLM has sparked important conversations about race, privilege, and power.
Although critics of BLM have argued that the movement is divisive and that its focus on racial issues is counterproductive, they could not be more wrong.
However, it is important to recognize that the movement is a response to a long-standing problem that has persisted for generations. By demanding attention to these issues, BLM has forced society to confront its racial past and present.
Conservatives have fought to remove the teaching of slavery from school classrooms. They fought against the imaginary “Critical race theory” being taught in public schools when that has never been the case. It only served to galvanize parents in school board meetings and instigate them to run for local school boards. A sneaky way of creating a Conservative majority in local office positions.
The fact is that Critical Race Theory is only taught in colleges, mainly law schools. The term was actually used as a catch-all phrase for “Black History.” They claim that teaching students about our racial past will only make “White kids feel bad.”
Forcing Social Change
“Black Lives Matter protester” by Fibonacci Blue is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
The Black Lives Matter movement is a powerful force for social change. Through its advocacy for racial justice and its emphasis on the value of Black lives, BLM has inspired millions of people to stand up against systemic racism and demand a more equitable society. While the movement faces challenges and opposition, its impact is undeniable, and its legacy will continue to shape the course of social justice for generations to come.
This story was originally published byGristand is reproduced here as part of the Climate Deskcollaboration.
Nicholas Petris, born to Greek immigrants in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1923, could remember a time when electric trucks were a common sight on the streets of Oakland. In fact, just a couple decades before his birth, both electric and steam-powered vehicles—which were cleaner and more powerful, respectively, than early gas-powered cars—constituted far larger shares of the American car market than combustion vehicles. The electric cars of this era ran on lead-acid batteries, which had to be recharged or swapped out every 50 to 100 miles, while the steam cars relied on water boilers and hand cranks to run. But for a few historical contingencies, either model could have rendered its gas-powered alternatives obsolete.
By the time of Petris’ childhood, however, cars with internal combustion engines had become dominant. Gas guzzlers won out thanks to a combination of factors, including the discovery of vast oil reserves across the American West, improvements in the production and technology of gas-powered cars (including the invention of the electric starter, which eliminated the hand crank), the general population’s limited access to electricity, and the occasional propensity of early steam cars to explode.
Thomas Edison with his electric car in 1913
Whereas electric car pioneers had envisioned communal networks of streetcars and taxis, the gas-powered automobile promised independence, unconstrained by the relatively limited distances battery-powered vehicles could travel without a charge. This meant more Americans than ever were driving on their own, rather than sharing mass transit, such as the railroads on which Petris’ father worked as a mechanic. Petris grew up in a California increasingly dense with traffic and crisscrossed by freeways.
But with the rise of combustion cars came smog. Named for its superficial resemblance to both smoke and fog, the lung-punishing, eye-burning, occasionally deadly mixture of air pollutants began settling on cities—most famously Los Angeles—in the mid-20th century. In 1949, for instance, a blanket of ammonia-smelling vapor settled on Petris’ hometown; a newspaper in nearby Palo Alto, where Petris was studying law at Stanford, declared smog “a growing menace.” By the early 1950s, scientists had identified its cause: exhaust from gas-powered cars. Legislators and regulators—especially in California, the biggest auto market in America—raced to limit the fumes that cars were permitted to spew into the atmosphere.
In 1958, a still-youthful Petris won election to the California Assembly and was immediately placed on its transportation committee. Just months later, the legislature ordered the state department of public health to establish air quality standards such as maximum allowable levels for auto pollutants. In 1966, the year Petris won election to the state Senate, a California agency required all new cars to reduce certain pollutants in exhaust. Yet federal clean air standards remained far weaker than California’s, and Detroit-based car companies expended tremendous resources aimed at slow-walking regulation. Industry representatives begged for delays, claiming they needed more time to improve pollution-control technology.
Over the seven years Petris spent in the legislature’s lower chamber before his election to the Senate, he had been fielding a steady drumbeat of constituent concerns about air pollution. Doctors showed up at his office begging him to do something about the brownish haze poisoning their patients. He read of the thousands who died from breathing polluted air in Los Angeles alone. A turning point came when a scientist brought Petris a report attributing his state’s infamous smog problem to the automobile and suggesting that, despite its protests, the auto industry had the tools available to reduce its emissions. Despite seven years of incremental legislative progress, Petris realized the government hadn’t done nearly enough. “Oh, we can’t wait any more,” he would recall remarking. It was time, Petris concluded, for something “extreme.”
Smog obscures view of Chrysler Building from Empire State Building, New York City in the 1950’s
On March 1, 1967, the newly elevated state senator announced his intention to introduce a bill that would limit each California family to just one gas-powered car beginning in 1975. “[The] internal combustion engine is pouring out poison,” Petris told the press. “So why not limit it?”
The press responded with scorn. Petris’ hometown newspaper, the Oakland Tribune, dismissed his proposal as “so ridiculous that it is difficult to select from the variety of arguments that demonstrate its absurdity.” Even the senator’s campaign manager was furious. Yet rather than watering down his bill, Petris altered it to simply ban all cars with internal combustion engines by 1975.
California’s other legislators were uninterested, so Petris asked merely that his Senate colleagues study the subject further during the legislative recess, during which time he could regroup. Few of these colleagues could have suspected that Petris’ crusade was just beginning. In fact, in the years to come, the California legislature would come shockingly close to heeding his call and banning all gas-powered cars. Copycat efforts would erupt across the country and within the US Congress. For a brief moment, Petris’ pipe dream would be at the vanguard of the burgeoning environmental movement.
“We want to scare hell out of the industry,” said a New York state legislator. “We want them to come up with a clean alternative, now.”
As we now well know, this fight to ban the internal combustion engine ultimately failed, stymied by aggressive auto industry lobbying. But more than 50 years later, history appears to be repeating itself. Late in the summer of 2022, a California state agency announced a ban on the sale of new cars containing internal combustion engines. This ban, set to take full effect in 2035, ignited explosive reactions across the political spectrum. In a matter of months, almost a dozen other states had followed suit, enacting bans modeled after California’s, and the European Union appeared poised to do the same.
As it had a half-century earlier, fierce pushback came from the auto industry and its political allies. In Europe, the government of Germany (home to several powerful automakers) forced a wide loophole into the ban, and other countries (including Italy, home to other big car companies) are now pushing to delay implementation. In the United States, the House of Representatives passed a bill to strip all states of their ability to impose such bans. Though the Senate has not done likewise, the Supreme Court may well be preparing to eliminate California’s authority to set tougher auto emissions standards than the federal government, a position that former President Donald Trump would undoubtedly support if he wins another presidential term in November.
Sustainable DC 2.0, the District’s environmental plan, includes explicit goals to not only increase trips on foot, by bike and transit, but to reduce the trips taken by car. The latter is the more important of the two. So we find it concerning that a progress report on Sustainable DC released by Mayor Muriel Bowser’s administration in an August-Friday-afternoon news dump acts as if that critical target—reducing commuter trips by car from 42.7% to 25% by 2032—no longer exists.
To be fair, the progress report shortchanges every topic’s goals and targets. For example, its update on health shows advancement on that topic’s target to reduce racial disparities in life expectancy by 50% by 2032, though that’s only one of four health-related targets in Sustainable DC 2.0.
But, for our part, it’s hard not to see zero update on the District’s stated commitment to reducing trips by car as a signifier of Bowser’s overall loss of interest in doing so. If the administration is making progress on such a target, the progress report would be the place to communicate it.
We’ve emailed the District Department of Energy and Environment to ask why the goal of reducing commute trips was not granted space in the progress report, and will update this post if and when we hear back.
Why Sustainable DC matters
Sustainable DC 2.0 takes its marching orders from goals, targets, and baselines for 13 topics (governance, equity, built environment, climate, economy, education, energy, food, health, nature, transportation, waste, and water) to make DC the “healthiest, greenest, most livable city in the United States by 2032.” Per DOEE, where Sustainable DC 2.0 lives, “each topic is organized into distinct goals, targets, and actions. Goals are big picture, overarching ambitions. Each goal has four or five quantitative targets. Actions explain how the District will reach each of the targets.” It’s a pretty great government document, and we refer to the transportation section allthetime in our work at GGWash.
As “2.0” implies, this version is a 2019 update of the original Sustainable DC (1.0) plan, which was released in 2013. Currently, DOEE and the Office of Planning are working on Sustainable DC 3.0, which will ostensibly include updated targets “in order to be more easily measured.”
Modeshift has always been part of Sustainable DC, which came to life under Bowser’s predecessor, former mayor Vincent Gray. The initial 2013 plan contained four transportation goals and targets, plus subsequent actions the District government would take to reach them (starting on page 82 here). Those goals and targets were:
Goal
Target
#1: Improve connectivity and accessibility through efficient, integrated, and affordable transit systems.
#1: By 2032, increase use of public transit to 50% of all commute trips.
#2: Expand provision of safe, secure infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians.
#2: By 2032, increase biking and walking to 25% of all commuter trips.
#3: Reduce traffic congestion to improve mobility.
#3: By 2032, reduce commuter trips made by car or taxi to 25%.
#4: Improve air quality along major transportation routes.
#4: By 2032, eliminate all “unhealthy” air quality index days, including “unhealthy for sensitive groups.”
The 2019 update altered the language of third and fourth goals in the transportation section, maintained the first two targets, added extremely useful baselines to the targets, and changed the fourth target to:
Goal
Target
Baseline (as of 2019)
#1: Improve connectivity and accessibility through efficient, integrated, and affordable transit systems.
#1: By 2032, increase use of public transit to 50% of all commuter trips in all wards.
40.5%
#2: Expand safe, connected infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists.
#2: By 2032, increase biking and walking to 25% of all commuter trips in all wards.
16.8%
#3: Enhance affordable, convenient transportation options to reduce dependency on single-occupant vehicles.
#3: By 2032, reduce commuter trips made by car to 25%.
42.7%
#4: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution from the transportation sector.
#4: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation by 60%.
1.73 metric tons
Goal 4 is an obvious, necessary inclusion in a city’s sustainability plan. The transportation sector produced 21% of greenhouse gas emissions in DC in 2016, and that has remained steady as of 2021. Sustainable DC 2.0’s framing, which includes improving equitable access to transportation options for all residents, captures an important aspect of modeshift. Getting people to travel in ways that are not driving is important for the thousands of residents exposed to air pollution and dangerous heat from cars and the infrastructure that supports their use. And it’s important for the nearly 36% of Washingtonians who don’t drive because of age, preference, income, or disability to have transportation options to be able to get to their destinations.
But Goal 3, and in particular Target 3, is core to GGWash’s work and worldview—more so than goals 1 and 2. Lots of biking and walking, and frequent and reliable public transportation, will not happen just because the District builds more bike lanes or runs more transit service; it is contingent on reducing trips by car. District residents and visitors, especially ones who are capable of riding a bike or taking transit but do not because they perceive it as inconvenient or unappealing, reallydoneed todriveless. It has been worth celebrating that the District government, through Sustainable DCs 1.0 and 2.0, has acknowledged and affirmed this reality.
Fulfilling, then faltering, now forgetting
We’ve watched—and effusively clapped for—the Bowser administration’s significant progress on policies that supplement the reality of fewer trips by car in the District: the bus-priority program, bike network plans, and Capital Bikeshare expansion. All are proven ways of strengthening non-car modes of travel so that more people will use them.
Because: We are happy to support modeshare—achieved by building more bike and bus lanes—as a means to achieve modeshift. Modeshare is the portion of total trips taken by different modes. Modeshift is contingent on making it harder and less attractive to drive, whether that’s by taking away driving and parking lanes or charging people to drive and park.
Projects in the District that would have instigated modeshift—which we use to mean changing one mode of transportation, like driving, to another, like taking the bus, Metrorail, or walking or biking—have, in the past few years, disintegrated in depressing and notable fashion. The once-impressive K Street NW Transitway, subject to last-second faffing-around, was rightfully axed by the DC Council in 2023 for being rubbish, largely because it was a glorified highway widening in its final form. Once the Executive Office of the Mayor was harassed enough by opponents, the Connecticut Avenue NW bike lanes were unceremoniously deleted from DDOT’s docket, a Bowser backpedal on a long-planned, extensively vetted project.
Ever-present for us is the administration’s memory-holing of road pricing. Sustainable DC, since its outset, has included actions to achieve its stated goals. The five actions to achieve goal 3, our beloved modeshift goal, are mostly inconsequential (carpooling, AV stuff, business incentives), with the exception of “complete a study to understand the best strategies for reducing congestion for all without unfairly burdening residents with low incomes.” That study exists. It’s done. The Bowser administration has laboriously suppressed its publication since its completion in 2021. (Though the council required its release in the FY24 Budget Support Act, on page 71, the mayor and DDOT have continued to keep the report from the public. The council, too, has basically given up on ensuring the mayor follows the law, and included nothing about road pricing in its FY25 budget.)
The mayor’s ostensible unwillingness to get people to drive less here bodes ill for safety as much as it does for the climate and climate-related health conditions. The District has failed to meet its goal of zero traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 2024, with deaths alone doubling since the Vision Zero promise was made. Public health has a basic tenet, primary prevention—actively reducing exposure to the thing that’s harming people. Fewer trips by car is one of the core ways to reduce traffic injuries and death, which affect less affluent residents of colormore than anyone else.
It is genuinely notable that DOEE released a progress report at all; there wasn’t one for the original 2013 Sustainable DC. Maybe we’re just paranoid. But, knowing that an update to the generally quite useful plan is underway, we’re understandably wary of what the omission of efforts to reduce trips by car at this point in time might portend for it. There’s no evidence that Bowser isn’t squiggling out of her commitment to modeshift by directing relevant agencies to tout only progress on less-controversial modeshare, and it’s getting harder for us to trust that she’ll stick to her administration’s own plans.
The Michigan Board of State Canvassers must conduct an investigation into the signatures of petition circulators for independent presidential candidate Cornel West, although his status as being certified for the ballot remains intact.
That was the unanimous decision of a three-judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals (COA) to a request seeking to overturn a decision by the canvassing board on Monday that approved the petitions filed by West’s campaign to appear on the Nov. 5 ballot.
“We do not overturn the Board’s decision that West’s petitions were sufficient for him to be certified for inclusion on the ballot,” stated the opinion. “Rather, we hold that the Board is required to perform an investigation into the genuineness of the challenged circulator signatures, and we leave all of the details concerning that investigation to the sound judgment and expertise of the involved staff, Board members, and officers.”
Elections attorney Mark Brewer, a former chair of the Michigan Democratic Party, filed the appeal after alleging that West’s petition’s were “rife with fraud,” including that nearly 50 of his campaign’s circulators “forged or permitted the forgery of at least 18,775 signatures through ‘round-robining’ and other means.”
Round-robining is a process by which multiple people pass around petition sheets with each person signing on a line using handwriting different from the circulator’s so that the signatures appear to have come from actual voters.
The COA ruled that while the canvassing board does have a clear legal duty to commence an investigation, the Legislature has also afforded it “considerable discretion” in how it conducts that investigation, what sanctions it wishes to impose, if any, and freed it from any particular deadline.
The COA on Friday also ruled West’s name could not be disqualified from the ballot based on errors in his affidavit of identity (AOI) as presidential candidates seeking to run without party affiliation were not obligated to file an AOI.
Brewer earlier indicated he plans to appeal both decisions to the Michigan Supreme Court.
SUPPORT NEWS YOU TRUST. Donate to Michigan Advance.
In their ongoing quest to lower prescription drug prices, Kansas and other states are forcing drugmakers to continue to sell cheaper medications to thousands of pharmacies through a federal drug-discount program.
Under the 32-year-old 340B program, pharmaceutical companies that participate in Medicaid must sell outpatient drugs at discounted prices to clinics, community health centers and hospitals that primarily serve low-income patients. The idea is that providers will use the money they save — between 20% and 50% off the normal price — to expand their services.
But many such facilities don’t have in-house pharmacies, so in 2010 the federal government expanded the 340B program to allow many more outside pharmacies — so-called contract pharmacies — to dispense the drugs to eligible patients on behalf of health centers and hospitals. Among the top four pharmacy chains (Walmart, CVS, Rite Aid and Walgreens), 71% of locations participate in the 340B program, according to a recent study by the University of Minnesota School of Public Health.
Drugmakers contend that the 340B program has grown far beyond its original intent, and that some hospitals are pocketing the savings instead of investing the money in more services. Some research supports that contention.
In 2020, seven major pharmaceutical manufacturers announced that they would restrict or halt 340B drug sales to contract pharmacies, since those sales aren’t required under federal law. As of last September, 25 drugmakers had imposed such restrictions, according to 340B Health, an advocacy group that represents more than 1,500 public and private nonprofit hospitals and health systems.
“We as an industry continue to provide those discounts, but we’re concerned that there’s no evidence patients are seeing any improved access or that they’re seeing lower costs,” said Nicole Longo, deputy vice president for public affairs at Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a trade group representing drugmakers.
States are pushing back. This year, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri and West Virginia have enacted laws requiring drugmakers that participate in Medicaid to sell discounted drugs to contract pharmacies. In 2021, Arkansas became the first state with such a law, and Louisiana followed in 2023. Other states, including New York, have considered similar bills this year.
“It’s very hard to maintain services and keep a hospital open. So, when 340B came into play, it was very helpful,” West Virginia Republican state Sen. Tom Takubo, the sponsor of the legislation in his state, told Stateline.
“They just unilaterally stopped delivering medications to those peripheral pharmacies,” Takubo said. “And so, we passed a bill that said you can’t do that. You gotta deliver out there. And if you don’t do it, we’re gonna fine you.”
340B expansion
One thing is certain: The 2010 expansion of the 340B program to many more contract pharmacies has dramatically expanded access to the discounted drugs. The number of retail pharmacies participating in the program grew from 789 in 2009 to 25,775 in 2022, according to a study published last year in JAMA Health Forum.
Patient spending on 340B discounted drugs also has increased significantly, from $6.6 billion in 2010 to $43.9 billion in 2021, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Karen Mulligan, a research assistant professor at the Sol Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California, said there are valid arguments on both sides of the debate. The point of the 340B program is not to subsidize drugs for low-income patients, she said. Rather, it is to funnel financial support to struggling community health centers and rural hospitals.
The federal government began allowing those entities to use contract pharmacies because many of them did not have pharmacies in-house, Mulligan said. But she pointed out that the expansion of the 340B program also has brought in some hospitals that “make plenty of money without 340B.” And because the 340B reporting requirements for hospitals are lax, she said, it’s not clear that they are using the money they save to improve patient care.
The challenge, Mulligan said, is that efforts to rein in the program likely would harm all providers — those that need the savings to serve low-income patients and those that don’t.
“The program’s intention is not what the program looks like today, and that’s why you have so many different people on different sides,” Mulligan told Stateline.
A broad range of patients
Some critics of the 340B program claim the discounts end up flowing to hospitals located in wealthier neighborhoods.
But Joey Mattingly, an associate professor of pharmacy at the University of Utah who has been in pharmacy for more than two decades, said the health care providers that use contract pharmacies see a broad range of patients. And the revenue they get helps those hospitals stay open.
“When you lose the hospital and it’s no longer even available in your community, now you’ve got to drive farther to get to a hospital,” Mattingly told Stateline. “That’s not to say that if 340B went away tomorrow, you would lose a bunch of hospitals. But I think you’d see a lot of changes that would be dramatic.”
Mattingly said a lot of hospitals and clinics use the savings to create changes that are both economical and helpful to patients. For example, they may start offering free or subsidized drugs in-house that patients could get right away, increasing the likelihood that they will actually take the medicine and avoid a costly hospital readmission.
Aimee Kuhlman, vice president of advocacy at the American Hospital Association, said the 340B program generates tens of billions of dollars in savings that hospitals use to benefit patients.
“The reality is, Big Pharma doesn’t want to give discounts to hospitals or the patients these hospitals serve, they want to keep it for themselves,” Kuhlman told Stateline. “The fact is, 340B is a critical resource to eligible hospitals and the patients and communities they serve.”
Participation in Medicaid is optional, and pharmaceutical companies that don’t want to provide the 340B discounts can decline to be part of it, said Greg Havard, CEO of the 49-bed George Regional Health System in Lucedale, Mississippi, a city of a few thousand people close to the Gulf Coast.
“Pharmacy manufacturers have agreed to sell certain drugs to us at a lower price, and the 340B program is there to help us recoup costs on services or facilities that we operate to treat these folks and try to keep the doors open,” Havard told Stateline. “The reason we as a group wanted to pursue legislation is because pharmaceutical manufacturers, during the height of the worst pandemic in 100 years … stopped honoring our contract pharmacies that have been a practice in place for 15 years.”
Vacheria Keys, associate vice president of policy and regulatory affairs at the National Association of Community Health Centers, also argued that the facilities she represents invest 340B savings into patient care. Keys said the program is essential because the federal funding that community health centers receive “doesn’t stretch as far as it used to.”
Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies are challenging the new state laws in court. Last month, for example, a federal judge denied a bid by drugmaker Novartis to halt Mississippi’s law. The company told Stateline it plans to appeal the decision.
Robert Dozier, executive director of the Mississippi Independent Pharmacies Association, hailed the new state law and the court’s ruling.
“We’re getting more brand-name drug manufacturers back on board,” Dozier told Stateline. “That gives us access to more medication to where we can help more people in the community.”
This month both Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump released a slate of economic proposals in an attempt to gain the upper hand on the issue most important to voters. In this installment of the 538 Politics podcast, Galen speaks with Jeanna Smialek from The New York Times about the current state of the economy, voter perceptions of it and how the candidates’ proposals might shape both of those factors.
In an attempt to relieve pressure from crowded county jails while the completion of a new 3,000-bed prison facility remains in the distant future, the Arkansas Department of Corrections and Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders have turned their focus to immediate expansions.
“We have roughly [a] 16,000-prison-bed capacity and we have north of 17,000 people that need to occupy that space,” Sanders told the Advocate Tuesday. “So it’s very clear that you don’t have to be great at math to know those numbers don’t add up, and so looking for every opportunity we can to expand capacity and crack down, make sure that violent repeat offenders aren’t back on the street.”
Zany: Just an idea… how about looking at releasing non-violent, first-time offenders? And for future reference… don’t jail more people than you have room for. Remember, Arkansas incarcerates more people than the entire U.S. or any NATO country. That isn’t the type of metric you should be proud to be #1 in. BTW. (See Zany Progressive’s upcoming prison statistics and mass incarceration series detailing the United States as a whole as well as each state individually.)
In the U.S., incarceration extends beyond prisons and local jails to include other systems of confinement. The U.S. and state incarceration rates in this graph include people held by these other parts of the justice system, so they may be slightly higher than the commonly reported incarceration rates that only include prisons and jails. Details on the data are available in States of Incarceration: The Global Context. We also have a version of this graph focusing on the incarceration of women.
According to a Friday report to the prison board, more than 2,100 state inmates were being held in county jails, Division of Correction Director Dexter Payne said.
Officials started moving inmates into a vacant Tucker Unit work release facility earlier this month, and recently completed the transfer of 124 people, all of whom are either assigned to a work-release program or require minimum security.
The expansion at the Tucker Unit in Jefferson County was a project proposed by former Corrections Secretary Joe Profiri, who was fired from his corrections position and then hired as a senior adviser to Sanders. Profiri’s pursuit to quickly add more beds amidst staffing shortages caused issues among Board of Corrections members, primarily with Chairman Benny Magness.
Profiri was not mentioned during Friday’s discussion.
Nearly 325 additional beds are planned in three other state correctional facilities in Batesville, Texarkana and Newport. Department Secretary Lindsay Wallace said the projects were moving toward completion and should be finalized in mid-October.
The 3,000-bed prison, which Sanders announced last March, is still in the preliminary phase. According to a recent press release from the department, officials are working alongside Sanders’ office in the selection of an “owner’s representative,” who will provide design, engineering and construction advice for the new prison.
When board member William Byers asked about the new prison Friday — which Wallace referred to as the “big elephant in the room” — Wallace assured members that selecting the owner’s representative would “really be the trigger that really pushes [us] forward.”
The land for the new prison has not been selected, Wallace said.
Counsel contract
Though not on the agenda for Friday’s meeting, board member Lee Watson asked his colleagues to consider rescinding a previous procurement document related to attorney Abtin Mehdizadegan. He said rescinding the document would clarify that the board’s engagement letter with the attorney from December remains in full effect.
Arkansas’ prison board in March announced it would investigate when and how changes were made to a legal contract without the knowledge of state procurement officials. In the months that followed, lawmakers criticized members of the board for being unaware of their altered contract and took issue with the lack of a formal bid process for the contract.
Lawmakers in June authorized the state’s independent auditing agency to conduct an audit of the correction board’s hiring of Mehdizadegan as outside counsel.
The board rejected Watson’s motion to immediately take action on the procurement documents. Board member Lona McCastlain said she didn’t “see what the hurry [was]” and wanted to have enough time to fully look over any related documents.
Watson said he received an agreement letter from Mehdizadegan Thursday evening, which he said was why the board didn’t have much time to review it. McCastlain said that type of quick work is “exactly why we’re here. Because we don’t look at it.”
The agreement will be taken up at the Board of Correction’s in-person meeting next month.
Other business
Board members at the start of Friday’s meeting met in executive session for more than four hours to conduct interviews for an “executive assistant to the director.” When they returned from meeting in private, Magness announced the board approved the hire of Effie Murphy.
According to the online job description, minimum qualifications for the position include a bachelor’s degree in a related field, two years of experience in program administration or a related field, and one year in a supervisory capacity. Job functions include scheduling meetings, preparing agendas, and maintaining various records.
The Board of Corrections in July announced they received 26 applications for a public information officer position, but decided to amend the job description and repost it. Currently, at least three PIO-related positions are listed on the department’s career webpage.
The interviews board members conducted Friday were not for the PIO position, though Magness said Murphy would help Shari Gray, an assistant to the board who has taken on many communications-related tasks since their previous employee retired.
Magness said in July he was looking for a “true public relations person” who would share more positive news about the agency.
Antoinette Grajeda contributed to this report.
SUPPORT NEWS YOU TRUST.
Manage your privacy
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
This mode enables people with epilepsy to use the website safely by eliminating the risk of seizures that result from flashing or blinking animations and risky color combinations.
Visually Impaired Mode
Improves website's visuals
This mode adjusts the website for the convenience of users with visual impairments such as Degrading Eyesight, Tunnel Vision, Cataract, Glaucoma, and others.
Cognitive Disability Mode
Helps to focus on specific content
This mode provides different assistive options to help users with cognitive impairments such as Dyslexia, Autism, CVA, and others, to focus on the essential elements of the website more easily.
ADHD Friendly Mode
Reduces distractions and improve focus
This mode helps users with ADHD and Neurodevelopmental disorders to read, browse, and focus on the main website elements more easily while significantly reducing distractions.
Blindness Mode
Allows using the site with your screen-reader
This mode configures the website to be compatible with screen-readers such as JAWS, NVDA, VoiceOver, and TalkBack. A screen-reader is software for blind users that is installed on a computer and smartphone, and websites must be compatible with it.
Online Dictionary
Readable Experience
Content Scaling
Default
Text Magnifier
Readable Font
Dyslexia Friendly
Highlight Titles
Highlight Links
Font Sizing
Default
Line Height
Default
Letter Spacing
Default
Left Aligned
Center Aligned
Right Aligned
Visually Pleasing Experience
Dark Contrast
Light Contrast
Monochrome
High Contrast
High Saturation
Low Saturation
Adjust Text Colors
Adjust Title Colors
Adjust Background Colors
Easy Orientation
Mute Sounds
Hide Images
Virtual Keyboard
Reading Guide
Stop Animations
Reading Mask
Highlight Hover
Highlight Focus
Big Dark Cursor
Big Light Cursor
Cognitive Reading
Text to Speech
Navigation Keys
Voice Navigation
Accessibility Statement
zanyprogressive.com
November 16, 2024
Compliance status
We firmly believe that the internet should be available and accessible to anyone, and are committed to providing a website that is accessible to the widest possible audience, regardless of circumstance and ability.
To fulfill this, we aim to adhere as strictly as possible to the World Wide Web Consortium’s (W3C) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 (WCAG 2.1) at the AA level. These guidelines explain how to make web content accessible to people with a wide array of disabilities. Complying with those guidelines helps us ensure that the website is accessible to all people: blind people, people with motor impairments, visual impairment, cognitive disabilities, and more.
This website utilizes various technologies that are meant to make it as accessible as possible at all times. We utilize an accessibility interface that allows persons with specific disabilities to adjust the website’s UI (user interface) and design it to their personal needs.
Additionally, the website utilizes an AI-based application that runs in the background and optimizes its accessibility level constantly. This application remediates the website’s HTML, adapts Its functionality and behavior for screen-readers used by the blind users, and for keyboard functions used by individuals with motor impairments.
If you’ve found a malfunction or have ideas for improvement, we’ll be happy to hear from you. You can reach out to the website’s operators by using the following email Serena@zanyprogressive.com
Screen-reader and keyboard navigation
Our website implements the ARIA attributes (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) technique, alongside various different behavioral changes, to ensure blind users visiting with screen-readers are able to read, comprehend, and enjoy the website’s functions. As soon as a user with a screen-reader enters your site, they immediately receive a prompt to enter the Screen-Reader Profile so they can browse and operate your site effectively. Here’s how our website covers some of the most important screen-reader requirements, alongside console screenshots of code examples:
Screen-reader optimization: we run a background process that learns the website’s components from top to bottom, to ensure ongoing compliance even when updating the website. In this process, we provide screen-readers with meaningful data using the ARIA set of attributes. For example, we provide accurate form labels; descriptions for actionable icons (social media icons, search icons, cart icons, etc.); validation guidance for form inputs; element roles such as buttons, menus, modal dialogues (popups), and others. Additionally, the background process scans all the website’s images and provides an accurate and meaningful image-object-recognition-based description as an ALT (alternate text) tag for images that are not described. It will also extract texts that are embedded within the image, using an OCR (optical character recognition) technology. To turn on screen-reader adjustments at any time, users need only to press the Alt+1 keyboard combination. Screen-reader users also get automatic announcements to turn the Screen-reader mode on as soon as they enter the website.
These adjustments are compatible with all popular screen readers, including JAWS and NVDA.
Keyboard navigation optimization: The background process also adjusts the website’s HTML, and adds various behaviors using JavaScript code to make the website operable by the keyboard. This includes the ability to navigate the website using the Tab and Shift+Tab keys, operate dropdowns with the arrow keys, close them with Esc, trigger buttons and links using the Enter key, navigate between radio and checkbox elements using the arrow keys, and fill them in with the Spacebar or Enter key.Additionally, keyboard users will find quick-navigation and content-skip menus, available at any time by clicking Alt+1, or as the first elements of the site while navigating with the keyboard. The background process also handles triggered popups by moving the keyboard focus towards them as soon as they appear, and not allow the focus drift outside it.
Users can also use shortcuts such as “M” (menus), “H” (headings), “F” (forms), “B” (buttons), and “G” (graphics) to jump to specific elements.
Disability profiles supported in our website
Epilepsy Safe Mode: this profile enables people with epilepsy to use the website safely by eliminating the risk of seizures that result from flashing or blinking animations and risky color combinations.
Visually Impaired Mode: this mode adjusts the website for the convenience of users with visual impairments such as Degrading Eyesight, Tunnel Vision, Cataract, Glaucoma, and others.
Cognitive Disability Mode: this mode provides different assistive options to help users with cognitive impairments such as Dyslexia, Autism, CVA, and others, to focus on the essential elements of the website more easily.
ADHD Friendly Mode: this mode helps users with ADHD and Neurodevelopmental disorders to read, browse, and focus on the main website elements more easily while significantly reducing distractions.
Blindness Mode: this mode configures the website to be compatible with screen-readers such as JAWS, NVDA, VoiceOver, and TalkBack. A screen-reader is software for blind users that is installed on a computer and smartphone, and websites must be compatible with it.
Keyboard Navigation Profile (Motor-Impaired): this profile enables motor-impaired persons to operate the website using the keyboard Tab, Shift+Tab, and the Enter keys. Users can also use shortcuts such as “M” (menus), “H” (headings), “F” (forms), “B” (buttons), and “G” (graphics) to jump to specific elements.
Additional UI, design, and readability adjustments
Font adjustments – users, can increase and decrease its size, change its family (type), adjust the spacing, alignment, line height, and more.
Color adjustments – users can select various color contrast profiles such as light, dark, inverted, and monochrome. Additionally, users can swap color schemes of titles, texts, and backgrounds, with over seven different coloring options.
Animations – person with epilepsy can stop all running animations with the click of a button. Animations controlled by the interface include videos, GIFs, and CSS flashing transitions.
Content highlighting – users can choose to emphasize important elements such as links and titles. They can also choose to highlight focused or hovered elements only.
Audio muting – users with hearing devices may experience headaches or other issues due to automatic audio playing. This option lets users mute the entire website instantly.
Cognitive disorders – we utilize a search engine that is linked to Wikipedia and Wiktionary, allowing people with cognitive disorders to decipher meanings of phrases, initials, slang, and others.
Additional functions – we provide users the option to change cursor color and size, use a printing mode, enable a virtual keyboard, and many other functions.
Browser and assistive technology compatibility
We aim to support the widest array of browsers and assistive technologies as possible, so our users can choose the best fitting tools for them, with as few limitations as possible. Therefore, we have worked very hard to be able to support all major systems that comprise over 95% of the user market share including Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, Opera and Microsoft Edge, JAWS and NVDA (screen readers).
Notes, comments, and feedback
Despite our very best efforts to allow anybody to adjust the website to their needs. There may still be pages or sections that are not fully accessible, are in the process of becoming accessible, or are lacking an adequate technological solution to make them accessible. Still, we are continually improving our accessibility, adding, updating and improving its options and features, and developing and adopting new technologies. All this is meant to reach the optimal level of accessibility, following technological advancements. For any assistance, please reach out to Serena@zanyprogressive.com
