Connect with us

News

10 States Set to Vote on Abortion Rights Amendments in 2024 Elections

Published

on

10 States Set to Vote on Abortion Rights Amendments in 2024 Elections

After months of collecting signatures, filing petitions, and navigating courts, constitutional amendments to safeguard or extend abortion rights are set to appear on the general election ballots in ten states.

Voters in swing states (Arizona and Nevada), blue-leaning states (Colorado, Maryland, and New York), and red-leaning states (Florida, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, and South Dakota) will be able to personally decide the future of abortion access this fall. Only Arkansas organisers gathered enough signatures to qualify an abortion rights amendment for the ballot this year.

Since the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, these ten efforts will be the most recent attempts to include abortion access in state constitutions.

Here’s what the proposed amendments would do if they passed, as well as how they’d affect the states’ current abortion care legislation.

Arizona

The proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot in this critical southwestern battleground would create a “fundamental right” to abortion up until foetal viability, or around the 24th week of pregnancy. After that, the legislation would prohibit the state from regulating abortion in cases when the pregnant person’s health or life is in danger, according to the treating health care expert.

Abortion is lawful in Arizona until the 15th week of pregnancy, with exceptions for life-saving reasons and no exceptions for rape or incest. If voters accept the proposed ballot initiative in November, it will effectively end the 15-week prohibition. It requires a simple majority of votes to pass.

Colorado

Colorado’s proposed amendment would explicitly recognise the right to abortion and prohibit discrimination against its exercise.

It also specifically specifies that the government may not limit abortion coverage under health insurance plans, including those for public employees and those subsidised by the government. This legislation would effectively repeal a 1984 statute prohibiting people from using their health insurance to pay for abortion care.

The ballot measure in Colorado, where there are no abortion restrictions and no gestational limits for women seeking abortions, is meant to permanently enshrine those rights, which organisers say is critical to preventing lawmakers from undoing them in the future.

To pass in November, the proposition must receive 55% of voter support, not just a simple majority, according to state law.

Florida

The state’s ballot measure prohibits limits on abortion before foetal viability, with exceptions for “the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.”

The proposed amendment would eliminate the state’s six-week abortion restriction, with exceptions for rape, incest, and the woman’s life.

According to Florida law, the proposition needs get 60% of voter approval in November, rather than a simple majority, to pass.

Maryland

Maryland lawmakers, who control the amendment process rather than citizens, voted to place a proposition on the ballot that would include abortion rights in the state constitution.

The proposed phrase would provide the right to “make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one’s own pregnancy.”

Abortion is already authorised in the state until foetal viability, with exceptions when the woman’s life or health is endangered or a foetal anomaly is discovered. A simple majority is required for passage.

Missouri

Missouri’s proposed amendment protects abortion rights until foetal viability, with exceptions for the mother’s life and health.

The amendment expressly states that the government “shall not deny or infringe upon a person’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom,” which the amendment defines as all decisions related to reproductive health care, including “birth control,” “abortion care,” and “miscarriage care” — up until foetal viability. The plan also states that any “denial, interference, delay, or restriction” of such care is “invalid.”

After then, the government may control abortion unless a treating health care expert determines that the mother’s “life, physical, or mental health” is at risk.

The amendment allows lawmakers and state officials to restrict abortion rights if it improves or maintains a person’s health, aligns with clinical standards and evidence-based medicine, and does not interfere with their autonomy.

Missouri now has one of the harshest abortion laws in the United States, with exceptions for the mother’s life and medical emergency. If the amendment were to succeed, it would effectively repeal the statute. A simple majority is required for passage.

Montana

Montana’s ballot issue proposes amending the state constitution to grant the right to “make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion.” likewise “prohibit the government from denying or burdening the right to abortion before foetal viability,” and it will “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.”

Enshrining abortion rights in Montana’s constitution would make it more difficult for lawmakers to repeal present protections, as abortion is now lawful up until foetal viability. A simple majority is required for passage.

Nebraska

In Nebraska, two competing constitutional amendments will be on the November ballot.

One ballot initiative, “Protect the Right to Abortion,” would change the state’s constitution to specify that “all persons shall have a fundamental right to abortion until foetal viability, or when needed to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient.”

The other, known as “Protect Women and Children,” prohibits abortions in the second and third trimesters, with the exception of a medical emergency or a pregnancy caused by sexual assault or incest.

Nebraska law now prohibits abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy, with the exception of rape, incest, and preserving the mother’s life. The pro-abortion rights bill would virtually repeal the law, whilst the other would essentially codify it into the state constitution.

To pass in Nebraska, a ballot proposal must get a majority of the vote and at least 35% of the total votes cast in the election in favour. If both amendments pass, the one that receives the most votes wins.

Nevada

In Nevada, abortion is already permitted until the 24th week of pregnancy.To guarantee abortion rights up to foetal viability, reproductive rights campaigners successfully placed a constitutional amendment on the November ballot.

According to state law, even if the initiative succeeds in November, voters must approve it again in 2026 before the Nevada constitution is formally altered.

New York

The amendment process in New York, like in Maryland, is controlled by lawmakers rather than citizens. State legislators voted to place a referendum on the ballot that would include abortion rights in the state constitution.

The Equal Protection of Law Amendment would safeguard a person’s “pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy” by enshrining rights in the state constitution, without specifically mentioning abortion.

Abortion is lawful in New York up until about the 24th week of pregnancy. Passing the plan, which requires only a simple majority, would effectively constitutionalise those projections.

South Dakota

South Dakota’s proposed constitutional amendment would legalise abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. It would permit “regulation” of abortion by the state in the second trimester of pregnancy, although such control “must be reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman.”

The amendment would authorise “regulation or prohibition” by the state in the third trimester, unless a physician determines that the care is required to “preserve the life or health” of the woman.

If passed, the amendment will effectively repeal the state’s near-total abortion restriction, which was reinstated when Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022. The rule, which abortion advocates claim is among the most stringent in the United States, outlaws all abortions except when necessary to save the woman’s life.

Salman Ahmad is a seasoned freelance writer who contributes insightful articles to VORNews. With years of experience in journalism, he possesses a knack for crafting compelling narratives that resonate with readers. Salman's writing style strikes a balance between depth and accessibility, allowing him to tackle complex topics while maintaining clarity.

News

The IRS Will Give a Million People Up To $1,400. Their Identity—And Why Now?

Published

on

(VOR News) – The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will be able to give almost one million people who have already filed their tax returns additional incentives of up to $1,400 during the next several weeks.

Those qualified to get the cash will either be placed straight into their bank accounts or get a physical cheque delivered by mail.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) would refund individual taxpayers who omitted a Recovery Rebate Credit on their tax returns for 2021 around $2.4 billion.

Those qualified for the credit were those who had either not gotten a COVID stimulus payment or one that was less than the whole amount. Conversely, the Internal Revenue Service declared on Friday that it had discovered a considerable percentage of eligible candidates had not.

“After reviewing our internal data, we came to the conclusion that one million taxpayers failed to claim this complicated credit when they were actually eligible,” said Danny Werfel, Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service in his statement.

This taxpayer group may shortly be getting unexpected payments; the accompanying data provides specifics:

Could you kindly inform me about my chances of receiving a check from the IRS?

I’m sorry, but it most likely isn’t precisely that high. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) reports that most qualified taxpayers—originally referred to as Economic Impact Payments—have already gotten their government stimulus money.

Those taxpayers who filed a tax return for the year 2021 but either left the Recovery Rebate Credit data box blank or entered $0 when they were actually eligible for the credit are qualified to get the special reimbursements announced by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

The way this is going to be carried out?

Those eligible taxpayers are not required to perform any chores to be qualified. The funds are expected to be received either by cheque or direct deposit account by the end of January 2025. Automatic distribution of them is set for this month. The Internal Revenue Service will deliver them to either the bank account shown on the taxpayer’s 2023 return or the address the taxpayer keeps on file.

Though there will be several possible payments, the highest amount any one person can pay will be $1,400. The Internal Revenue Service has made available on the internet information on eligibility and the process used to ascertain the payment amount.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will send separate letters to taxpayers qualified for the special payment notifying of the payment.

Conversely, what would happen should I not yet have my 2021 tax return turned in?

You still might be able to turn around the money. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) claims, however, that individuals must file a tax return and claim the Recovery Rebate Credit before April 15, 2025.

This is still the case whether or not a job, business, or any other source of income earned had any bearing on it.

How many financing rounds did the COVID stimulus program have?

Households impacted by the epidemic alone received compensation totaling $814 billion overall; this was divided across three rounds of payments. These figures were calculated by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) considering the taxpayer’s income, tax filing status, and the count of dependents or children entitled for the tax deduction.

The CARES Act, which became operative in March of 2020, makes qualified persons eligible for a maximum of $1,200 per income tax filer and $500 each child.

Those qualified could get up to $600 for each child and $600 for each individual who submitted their income tax return according to the Consolidated Appropriations Act in December of 2020.

Those qualified under the American Rescue Plan Act received a maximum of $1,400 per child and $1,400 per person who paid their income taxes during the month of March in 2021. very

SOURCE: YF

SEE ALSO:

Cases Of The US Flu Season Are Rising, While Vaccinations Are Behind Schedule.

Social Security Change Approved By Senate Despite Fiscal Concerns

 

Continue Reading

News

Cases Of The US Flu Season Are Rising, While Vaccinations Are Behind Schedule.

Published

on

(AP Photo/Nam Y. Huh, File)

(VOR News) – The U.S. flu season has begun, according to health experts, who also noted a sharp rise in cases countrywide on Friday.

Significant increases were noted by the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention in a number of indicators, such as laboratory tests and ED visits. “For the past few weeks, it has been increasing steadily.” “Yes, we are in flu season right now,” CDC’s Alicia Budd said.

Last week, flu-like sickness was reported at elevated or very elevated levels in 13 states, roughly twice as many as the week before. Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University, says Tennessee is seeing a spike in sickness in the Nashville area.

Schaffner said, “Influenza cases have been increasing, but they have increased significantly in the last week.” He noted that up to 25% of patients in a nearby clinic, which is a gauge of illness trends, have flu-like symptoms.

An early focal point was Louisiana.

Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Centre, the largest private hospital in the state, in Baton Rouge, has infectious diseases specialist Dr. Catherine O’Neal, who said, “This week is a significant turning point as individuals are affected by the flu.” “Parents frequently say, ‘I have the flu and can’t go to work,’ and ‘Where can I get a flu test?'”

Fever, cough, sore throat, and other influenza-like symptoms are caused by a variety of viruses. COVID-19 is one of them. Another flu season common disease that causes cold-like symptoms but poses serious hazards to infants and the elderly is respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

Recent CDC numbers indicate a decline in COVID-19 hospitalisations since the summer. According to CDC wastewater data, COVID-19 activity is modest nationwide but elevated in the Midwest.

Although RSV hospitalisations are still marginally more common than flu admissions, they started to rise before flu season cases and currently show signs of perhaps stabilising. RSV activity is low nationwide, but wastewater data shows that it is high in the South.

Based on a number of indicators, such as laboratory results from hospitalised patients and outpatient clinics, as well as the percentage of ED visits that resulted in an influenza diagnosis at discharge, the CDC declared the start of the flu season.

According to Budd, it is too early in the season to determine the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine, and no type of virus seems to be more common.

The flu season last winter was classified as “moderate” overall, but it continued for 21 weeks, and the CDC estimates that 28,000 people died from the virus. With 205 paediatric deaths reported, the situation was particularly dangerous for kids. It was the largest number ever recorded for a conventional influenza season.

The prolonged flu season was probably one of the reasons, Budd added.

The lack of influenza vaccinations was one of the contributing factors. The CDC reports that 80% of children who passed away and had verified vaccination status and were of the right age for flu shots were not completely immunised.

Children’s immunisation rates are drastically lower this year. About 41% of people had a flu shot as of December 7, which is similar to the percentage at the same time last year. For youngsters, the figure is steady, although it is lower than in the previous year, when 44% received an influenza vaccination, according to CDC data.

About 21% of adults and 11% of children are fully vaccinated against COVID-19, which is still a poor vaccination rate.

Influenza experts advise everyone to get vaccinated, especially as people get ready for holiday gatherings where respiratory diseases could spread widely.

“This virus also has the potential to spread from person to person at all those happy, pleasant, and heartwarming events,” Schaffner said. “flu season Vaccination remains a viable option.”

However, Louisiana’s health department announced on Friday that it was rescinding its COVID-19 and flu vaccination recommendations. According to an official, the department’s current position is that people should speak with their doctors about whether the immunisations are suitable for their situation.

The department’s spokesperson, Emma Herrock, did not respond to follow-up questions regarding the policy. Dr. Ralph Abraham, the state’s surgeon general, has expressed concerns in the past regarding the COVID-19 vaccine’s effectiveness and safety.

SOURCE: AP

SEE ALSO:

Social Security Change Approved By Senate Despite Fiscal Concerns

King Charles Could Millions Annually from Renting His Properties

Continue Reading

News

Social Security Change Approved By Senate Despite Fiscal Concerns

Published

on

(VOR News) – On Saturday, the U.S. Congress passed a plan to increase Social Security retirement payouts for some retirees who receive public pensions, a move that critics say will further erode the program’s financial stability. Among these pensioners are former firefighters and police officers.

The Social Security Fairness Act was passed by the Senate on a bipartisan vote of 76-20 just after midnight. The act may lower payments for those receiving pensions and aims to repeal provisions that have existed for 20 years.

The House of Representatives passed the bill last month by a vote of 327-75, meaning that if the Senate also approves it, it would be delivered to Democratic President Joe Biden to become law.

The White House dodged enquiries regarding Social Security’s objectives.

In order to limit government benefits for certain higher-paid employees who are also getting pensions, the measure will reverse a long-standing change to the program. It has become increasingly common in recent years for municipal employees, such as postal workers and firefighters, to face pay limitations.

The vast majority of Americans do not take part in pension plans that provide a fixed return on investment, instead relying on their own savings and Social Security. According to data from the Department of Labour, only 10% of private sector employees in the US are covered by pension plans.

The new rules apply to about 3 percent of Social Security users, or more than 2.5 million people in the United States. Legislators are heavily influenced by the workers and retirees impacted by these rules, and the powerful advocacy organisations that speak for them have been using the legislative process to push for a legislative cure.

According to retirement experts, some retirees may be able to earn hundreds of dollars more in government benefits each month as a result of the move.

According to a Congressional Budget Office analysis, the bill is expected to cost approximately $196 billion over the next 10 years. As a result, federal budget experts are worried that the change could negatively affect the program’s already fragile financial status.

In an interview with the Bipartisan Policy Centre, Emerson Sprick, associate director of economic policy, said he was frustrated by “the overwhelming support in Congress for the contrary of what policy researchers concur on is quite frustrating.”

Instead of eliminating current formulas, we could improve them.

Among these changes is the Social Security Administration’s increased disclosure of the anticipated monetary benefits for these public sector workers.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan fiscal think tank, has voiced concerns that the additional cost will impact the program’s ability to continue.

Maya MacGuineas, the organization’s leader, made the declaration, saying, “We are hastening towards our own fiscal ruin.”

“It is noteworthy that lawmakers are in a position to shorten the timeframe by six months, as there are just nine years left before the trust fund for the biggest program in the country runs out.”

Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican, said on the Senate floor on Wednesday that the bill in its current form would “throw granny over the cliff.”

According to what he stated, “every senator who votes to impose a burden of $200 billion on the Social Security Trust Fund is opting to put the interests of senior citizens who have contributed to Social Security and earned those benefits in jeopardy.”

Those who favoured the legislation said that the question of what would happen to Social Security could be settled later.

“Those are significantly longer-term concerns that we must collaboratively address,” a supporter of the idea Senator Michael Bennett told Reuters when asked if the move would affect the government’s capacity to be viable.

SOURCE: BR

SEE ALSO:

King Charles Could Millions Annually from Renting His Properties

Man Creates Candy Cane Car to Spread Christmas Cheer

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version