Time for a “Strategic Pause” on Corporate Welfare to Profitable Companies by Senator Bernie Sanders (this is the speech Nader refers to –from the OP) part 1

M. President: I look forward to offering two roll call votes on Motions to Instruct Conferees to the so-called “competitiveness” bill based on the assurances given to me by the Majority Leader.

The first motion would instruct the conference committee not to provide $53 billion to the highly profitable micro-chip industry without protections for the American taxpayer.

The second motion would instruct conferees not to provide a $10 billion bailout to Blue Origin – a space company owned by Jeff Bezos, the second wealthiest person in America, who is also the owner of Amazon. Amazon is a company which, in a given year, pays nothing in federal income taxes after making billions in profits. And, by the way, in a given year, Mr. Bezos himself has paid nothing in federal income taxes despite being worth nearly $200 billion.

Let’s be clear. Mr. Bezos has enough money to buy a $500 million yacht – and here it is.

Mr. Bezos has enough money to buy a $23 million mansion with 25 bathrooms in Washington, DC – and here it is.

No. I do not think that tax the taxpayers of this country need to be providing him a $10 billion bailout to Mr. Bezos to fuel his space hobby.

When all is said and done both of these motions touch on an extremely important issue that is rarely discussed in the corporate media or on the floor of the Senate.

And that is how we proceed with industrial policy in this country. Now, let me be clear. I believe in industrial policy. I believe that it makes sense, in certain occasions, for the government and the private sector to work together to address a pressing need in America. Industrial policy to me means cooperation between the government and the private sector. Cooperation. It does not mean the government providing massive amounts of corporate welfare to profitable corporations without getting anything in return.

In other words, will the United States government develop an industrial policy that benefits all of our society, or will we continue to have an industrial policy that benefits the wealthy and the powerful?

In 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said: “The problem is that we all too often have socialism for the rich and rugged free enterprise capitalism for the poor.”

I am afraid what Dr. King said 54 years ago was accurate back then and it is even more accurate today.

We hear a lot of talk around here about the need to create public-private partnerships – and that all sounds very good. But when the government adopts an industrial policy that socializes all of the risk and privatizes all of the profits – whether it’s handing the micro-chip industry a $53 billion blank check or giving Jeff Bezos a $10 billion bailout to fly to the moon – that’s not a partnership. That is the exact opposite of a partnership. That is corporate welfare. That is crony capitalism.

M. President: Each and every day, I have heard my Republican colleagues and some corporate Democrats blame inflation on runaway government spending.

One of my colleagues in the Democratic caucus has even suggested that we need to take a “strategic pause” when it comes to making urgent federal investments in childcare, healthcare, education, affordable housing, paid family and medical leave and home healthcare – policies that would substantially improve the lives of the American people.

Well, you know what I believe, M. President? I believe that, maybe, just maybe, the time has come to take a strategic pause when it comes to providing tens of billions in corporate welfare to some of the most profitable corporations and wealthiest people on the planet.

And M. President, the American people are increasingly sick and tired of corporations making record-breaking profits, while they struggle to pay outrageously higher prices for gas, rent and food.

They are sick and tired of the high cost of prescription drugs, child care, housing and groceries.

They are sick and tired of CEOs making 350 times more than the average worker, while over half of our people live paycheck to paycheck.

They are sick and tired of the wealthiest people and most profitable corporations not paying their fair share of taxes.

And what does this so-called “competitiveness” bill do?

Instead of addressing any of these issues this bill provides $53 billion in corporate welfare to the micro-chip industry with no protections for the American people and a $10 billion bailout to Mr. Bezos to fly to the moon.

Maybe that makes sense to Mr. Bezos and the CEO of Intel, but it makes zero sense to me.

M. President, in terms of the micro-chip industry, the American people should know the truth.

We are talking about an industry that has shut down over 780 manufacturing plants in the United States and eliminated 150,000 American jobs over the last 20 years while moving most of its production overseas.

In other words, in order to make more profits, these companies shut down plants in America and hired cheap labor abroad. And now, believe it or not, these very same companies are in line to receive $53 billion in corporate welfare to undo the damage that they did.

Some of my colleagues make the point that the microchip industry is enormously important for our economy and that we must become less dependent on foreign nations for micro-chips. I agree. There is no argument about that. But we can and must accomplish that goal without simply throwing money at these companies while the taxpayer gets nothing in return.

M. President, I suspect 5 major semi-conductor companies will likely receive the lion’s share of this taxpayer handout: Intel, Texas Instruments, Micron Technology, Global Foundries, and Samsung.

These 5 companies made over $75 billion in profits last year.

The company that will likely benefit the most from this taxpayer assistance is Intel. I have nothing against Intel. I wish them well. But, let’s be clear. Intel is not a poor company. It is not going broke.

In 2021, Intel made nearly $20 billion in profits.

We’re talking about a company that had enough money to spend $14.2 billion during the pandemic, not on research and development, but on buying back its own stock to reward its executives and wealthy shareholders.

We’re talking about a company that could afford to give its CEO, Pat Gelsinger, a $116 million compensation package last year.

We’re talking about a company that could afford to spend over $100 million on lobbying and campaign contributions over the past 20 years.

Does it sound like this company, and the others, really need corporate welfare?

Another company that will receive taxpayer assistance under this legislation is Texas Instruments.

Last year, Texas Instruments made $7.8 billion in profits. In 2020, this company spent $2.5 billion buying back its own stock while it has outsourced thousands of good-paying American jobs to low-wage countries and spent more than $40 million on lobbying over the past 20 years.

And on and on it goes.

The first amendment that I would like a vote on would instruct the conference committee to prevent microchip companies from receiving taxpayer assistance unless they agree to issue warrants or equity stakes to the Federal Government.

If private companies are going to benefit from over $53 billion in taxpayer subsidies, the financial gains made by these companies must be shared with the American people, not just wealthy shareholders. In other words, all this amendment says is that if these investments turn out to be profitable as a direct result of these federal grants, the taxpayers of this country have a right to get a return on that investment.

M. President. This is not a radical idea. These exact conditions were imposed on corporations that received taxpayer assistance in the bipartisan CARES Act, which passed the Senate 96 to 0.

In other words, every Member of the U.S. Senate has already voted for the conditions that are in this amendment.

In addition, this amendment would also instruct the conference committee to require these highly profitable companies not to buy back their own stock, not to outsource American jobs, not to repeal existing collective bargaining agreements and to remain neutral in any union organizing effort.

Again this is not a radical idea. All of these conditions were imposed on companies that received funding from the CARES Act and passed the Senate by a vote of 96-0.

The second motion that I have introduced touches on an issue that we have rarely discussed on the floor of the Senate.

Unbelievably, the so-called “competition bill” would provide some $10 billion in taxpayer money to Jeff Bezos, the second wealthiest person in America, for his space race with Elon Musk, the wealthiest person in America. This is beyond laughable.

You know, when we were younger and Neil Armstrong made it to the moon, there was incredible joy and pride in this country that the United States of America did something that people forever had thought was impossible.

We sent a man to the moon, an extraordinary accomplishment. And the entire world watched that event with bated breath. It was just an extraordinary accomplishment for all of humanity, not just the United States, but we, of course, took special pride because that was an American project.

M. President, I worry very much that what we are seeing now is not a space race between the United States and other countries as to which nation will return to the moon and perhaps get to Mars, but a space race between Mr. Musk and Mr. Bezos, the two wealthiest people in America, as to who will gain control over NASA and future space explorations. In other words, if we are able to accomplish the extraordinary goal of sending a person to Mars I want the flag that will be flying on that planet to be the flag of the United States, not the flag of Space X or Blue Origin.

And, M. President, let’s be clear. The $10 billion in this bill for Jeff Bezos and his space company Blue Origin is just the tip of the iceberg.

The reality is that the space economy – which today mostly consists of private companies using NASA facilities free of charge to launch satellites into orbit – is already very profitable and could become even more so in the future.

Bank of America predicts that by 2030 the space economy will triple in size to $1.4 trillion – that’s trillion with a “t.”

https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/04/08/time-for-a-strategic-pause-on-corporate-welfare-to-profitable-companies/

This 900-Mile Crude Oil Pipeline Is a Bad Deal for My Country — and the World

KAMPALA, Uganda — This week, the panel of climate experts convened by the United Nations delivered a clear message: To stand a chance of curbing dangerous climate change, we can’t afford to build more fossil fuel infrastructure. We must also rapidly phase out the fossil fuels we’re using.

In moments like this, the media rarely focuses on African countries like mine, Uganda. When it does, it covers the impacts — the devastation we are already experiencing and the catastrophes that loom. They are right to: Mozambique has been battered in recent years by cyclones intensified by climate change. Drought in Kenya linked to climate change has left millions hungry. In Uganda, we are now more frequently hit by extreme flash floods that destroy lives and livelihoods.

But this latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, on how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prevent more of these impacts, has implications for Africa’s energy systems, too. Africa isn’t only a victim of the climate crisis, but also a place where infrastructure decisions made in the coming years will shape how it unfolds.

TotalEnergies, a French energy company, this year announced a $10 billion investment decision, which involves a nearly 900-mile oil pipeline from Kabaale, Uganda, to a peninsula near Tanga, Tanzania. From there, the oil would be exported to the international market.

Despite local opposition, TotalEnergies and a partner, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation, have pushed ahead. The project might have a difficult time securing additional financing, as many banks have already ruled out the project. The multinational insurance company Munich Re has also vowed not to insure it, at least in part because of the harm it would do to the climate.

Burning the oil that the pipeline will transport could emit as much as 36 million tons of carbon dioxide per year, according to one estimate. That is roughly seven times the total annual emissions of Uganda.

More immediately, the East African Crude Oil Pipeline will have terrible consequences for people in Uganda and Tanzania. An estimated 14,000 households will lose land, according to Oxfam International, with thousands of people set to be economically or physically displaced. There are reports that compensation payments offered to some communities are completely insufficient. The pipeline will also disturb wildlife habitats. The climate writer and activist Bill McKibben said that it looks almost as if the route had been “drawn to endanger as many animals as possible.” An oil spill would be even more catastrophic for habitats and our freshwater supplies. (TotalEnergies and the China National Offshore Oil Corporation previously said they are working to avoid causing damage to the countries.)

Our maps, developed with experts, show where extreme heat is causing the most deaths in the U.S.
Oil pipelines have become a symbol around the world of the fight for climate justice. In 2021 the Biden administration halted the Keystone XL pipeline in the United States after a decade-long fight led by Indigenous groups, climate activists and farmers. In East Africa the Stop EACOP campaign is a similar alliance that has emerged to fight fossil fuel infrastructure. Over a million people have signed a petition calling on TotalEnergies and the pipeline’s other backers to stop the project.

However, the Ugandan government remains largely in favor of the pipeline. Politicians have seemingly bet their political futures on the promise of revenues it could generate. Understandably, many people in Uganda not directly affected by the pipeline also think the oil could be a door to wealth. Our country has low levels of formal employment, and many people struggle to feed their families. Oil was discovered in the Lake Albert basin in 2006, when I was in primary school, and I remember my teacher proudly announcing to the class that Uganda had found “black gold.”

But the discovery of oil in Nigeria, Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo has not brought widespread prosperity. Instead, it has brought poverty, violence and the loss of traditional lands and cultures. Much of the profits have gone to foreign multinationals and investors and to the pockets of corrupt local officials. TotalEnergies and the China National Offshore Oil Corporation will own 70 percent of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline, with Uganda and Tanzania sharing the remaining 30 percent. This pipeline is not an investment for the people.

It is also not an investment for the long term. The International Energy Agency projects that growth in renewable energy will accelerate in the next four years. Fossil fuel projects like EACOP could lead to short-term gains but eventually huge losses — and might end up among the estimated $1.3 trillion of stranded oil and gas assets by around 2050.

Research presented by the International Renewable Energy Agency found that sub-Saharan Africa can meet almost 70 percent of its electricity needs from local renewable energy by 2030, which would provide up to two million additional green jobs in the region by 2050. Africa possesses 39 percent of the world’s potential for renewable energy, according to Carbon Tracker, but along with the Middle East, receives only 2 percent of annual investment. Africa needs the climate financing it has been promised by rich countries, as well as from private institutions, to develop clean energy.

There is a huge appetite for clean energy alternatives here. I have seen it through my work to install solar panels and clean stoves in rural schools. These efforts sometimes feel hopeless when money floods in from foreign banks and governments for fossil fuels. But Africa is where critical investments should go in our fight for a stable climate in the coming years. Financial institutions must reject the East African Crude Oil Pipeline and fossil fuel projects like it, in favor of clean energy. The science is clear. So is the case for investment.

The Quiet Revolution in the San Francisco Public Library

Libraries reflect and validate the cross cultural character and personality of the towns and cities where they’re located. This is as true for San Francisco, where I live, as it is for other places which I have known, whether Oaxaca, Mexico, London, England, Saint-Sulpice sur Tarn in France, and Huntington, Long Island where I was born and raised. In my hometown, books with titles such as Labor’s Untold Story (1955) by Herbert Morris and Richard O. Boyer, were removed from the shelves in the days of the Red Scare. My father, who was a civil rights and civil liberties lawyer, saved Labor’s Untold Story from a bonfire that would have made it unavailable in Huntington.

Lefty books matter, and so do books by Latin, Asian, African, Black and LQBTQ writers. Theirs is one of literature’s untold stories over the past half-century. Libraries have changed because readers have signed petitions, marched, demonstrated and demanded books that weren’t on the shelves. Too often libraries purge old books to make room for new books especially in the US where the new is king, queen, jack and ace. Store them, don’t get rid of them.

Granted, while libraries aren’t at the forefront of revolutionary movements and institutions today, they can play important roles in what I think of as a quiet revolution that’s often waged book-by-book and event-by-event. I’m told that first responders are the true heroes of today, and, while they certainly have helped all of us immensely in California during fires and floods, they’re not the only heroes. Behind the scenes, forward-looking librarians wage peaceful cultural warfare.

From the outside, San Francisco’s nineteen branch libraries, from Anza to the Western Addition, look like fortresses that have changed very little over the years. After all, they’re made of durable building materials and sit in the same locations where they have sat for decades. But walk inside a branch, browse the bookshelves and look at the events and programs that are offered and it’s clear that big changes have taken place ever since the new improved main library opened 26 years ago in 1996. In another state, say Texas or Florida, right-wing politicians might want to burn books, and padlock the doors so no one had access to the “subversive” information inside. Bigots and reactionaries also exist in California, but in San Francisco they’re less visible and less outspoken than in other states, at least for the time being.

At their best, librarians spread and circulate ideas that are regarded as subversive. I’m reminded of James Madison who noted 300 or so years ago that “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both.” Sad to say, we live in a country where citizens don’t have free and open access to information, facts and the truth, which has become increasingly elusive because of corporate media, leaders Trump and Putin and politicians who want to keep the public in the dark.

Libraries don’t guarantee popular information and popular governments, but they help make those two things possible. It’s also up to readers and citizens to keep libraries honest, serve the needs of diverse communities, and move with the times.

In San Francisco, the eight-page April newsletter, “At the Library,” describes dozens of conversations, presentations, films and more that feature queer and trans writers, as well as women and people of color, including Natalie Diaz, the author of Postcolonial Love Poem, the 2021 Pulitzer Prize winner in poetry, and Michelle Cruz Gonzales, who has written what’s described as “a satirical novel about a near-future California that secedes from the US and forces intermarriage between whites and Mexicans for the purpose of creating a race of beautiful, intelligent, hard working people.”

Times have changed dramatically in the world of book publishing ever since Lawrence Ferlinghetti first opened City Lights in the early 1950s and tended to publish books by white men. Also, in that not too distant past, San Francisco libraries promoted novelists and poets who were very often white and male. They weren’t Confederate generals or out-and-out racists, but their names reflect a literary past that was patriarchal and that tended to emphasize English and East coast American writers.

The evidence is out in the open for all to see. At the Sunset branch on 18th Avenue, which is near my apartment, sixteen names are etched into the outer walls. Some, such as Poe, Emerson and Whitman, I recognize. Others, including Halleck and Stedman, mean nothing to me. Not even the librarians knew anything about them, though one librarian told me “they’re writers.” Duh!

At the Mission branch on Bartlett Street, 31 names are etched into the outer walls. Not a single one belongs to a person of color and there’s only one woman, identified as “Geo Eliot.” George Eliot is the pen name of Mary Ann Evans, the author of The Mill on the Floss, once required reading in public schools, and Middlemarch, a masterpiece about English provincial life. Fifteen of the authors are English, from Chaucer and Shakespeare to Wordsworth and Tennyson. Tolstoy is the only Russian, Robert Burns the only Scottish author, Homer the only Greek. Surprisingly, there’s no Charles Dickens and no Herman Melville, either, though there’s Nathaniel Hawthorne, Melville’s buddy.

Why these names were chosen no one seems to know, not even Susan Goldstein, the City Archivist, though she said, “they’re typical of the time.” The names on the walls reflect the authors who were popular back in the day and who had the sanction of academia. (The Sunset Branch opened during World War I.)

It’s a good thing for readers, authors, libraries and the culture of the city that there are far more books by, and events with, writers of color and women than there were when Ferlinghgetti arrived in North Beach and opened the first all-paperback bookstore in the US. These days the topics at the public library reflect current political, social and environmental concerns. April is “Climate Action Month.” Not surprisingly, Greta Thunberg’s I am Greta (2020) is available. What’s surprising is that it’s in Chinese. There are also two compelling exhibits: “Sustainability in Times of Scarcity” and “Wild Forest,” by Christopher E. Korman, one of the few men who is represented. Emily Dickinson and Walt Whitman would want to attend.

The main branch has aimed to bring the world of letters up-to-date. The names of more than one hundred celebrated authors, including women and people of color, are listed inside the building on the “Constellation” above the main floor. Some are local, like the feminist, Susan Griffin, plus Armistead Maupin, famous for Tales of the City, and the feisty, muckraking author Jessica Mitford who upended the American funeral industry. Others are world renowned novelists and poets such as Virginia Woolf, Vladimir Nabokov and Jorge Luis Borges. Dashiell Hammett, the author of the San Francisco classic, The Maltese Falcon, joins the crowd.

After reading and taking pictures of the outer walls of the Mission and the Sunset branches, I thought about the names I’d want the library to add: Emily Dickinson, Richard Wright, Toni Morrison, Gertrude Stein, Lu Hsun, the brilliant 20th century Chinese writer, and the socialist author, Jack London, because he was born in San Francisco in 1876 and wrote about the city in his best novel, Martin Eden. There are so many outstanding South American writers that it’s challenging to pick out just one or two. I’d like books by Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Elena Poniatowska, 90, the French-born Mexican author who wrote about the slaughter of students by Mexican soldiers that took place in 1968 in the Mexican capital.

The San Francisco library might reach out to the public more than it has so far and invite suggestions for writers to include. It might also offer talks, workshops and discussions about some of the writers from the past who were once famous and who are now largely forgotten. Anyone care to sign up for a talk on Poe or Whitman who seem to be as widely read and as beloved as ever?

I can’t help but wonder which writers who are popular now, will fall by the wayside and join Booth Tarkington, once all the rage and now mostly a ghost who haunts the pages of literary history. The library has some of Tarkington’s books, including The Magnificent Ambersons, which Orson Wells made into a masterful movie. One of the great things about San Francisco’s public libraries is that for the most part they haven’t canceled cultures, not recently. Rather they keep the literary past alive.

Idaho Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Six-Week Abortion Ban

The Idaho Supreme Court on Friday temporarily blocked a new state law that would ban abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy and allow it to be enforced through lawsuits.

Idaho last month had become the first state to enact a law modeled after the Texas statute banning abortions after about six weeks. The ruling from Idaho’s high court in a lawsuit brought by Planned Parenthood means the new law won’t go into effect as planned on April 22.

Republican Gov. Brad Little signed into law the measure that would’ve allowed people who would have been family members to sue a doctor who performs an abortion after cardiac activity is detected in an embryo. But when he signed it, Little said he had concerns about whether the law was constitutional.

The law would allow the father, grandparents, siblings, aunts and uncles of a “preborn child” to each sue an abortion provider for a minimum of $20,000 in damages within four years after the abortion. Rapists can’t file a lawsuit under the law, but a rapist’s relatives could.

Planned Parenthood of Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana and Kentucky had called the law unconstitutional.

The law was modeled after a Texas law that the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed to remain in place until a court challenge is decided on its merits. The Texas law allows people to enforce the law in place of state officials who normally would do so. The Texas law authorizes lawsuits against clinics, doctors and anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion that is not permitted by law.

LGBTQ apartheid continues in the South

Alabama Governor Signs Law Banning Transgender Medication

Ninth grader Harleigh Walker, 15, spends her time after school like many girls her age: doing homework, listening to Taylor Swift, collecting records and hanging out with friends.

But this year, her spring break also included trying to persuade members of the state House and Senate to reject legislation banning gender-affirming medications for transgender kids like her under 19. She was unsuccessful. On Thursday, Alabama lawmakers passed the measure, and Gov. Kay Ivey signed it into law on Friday, meaning that Harleigh will no longer be able to take testosterone-blocking drugs.

“Honestly, I’m a little scared now,” she said Thursday after learning the bill had passed. ”But we’re still going to fight no matter what.”

Harleigh said she is holding out hope the bill will be be blocked by a court.

Alabama is among multiple states with Republican-controlled legislatures that have advanced bills not only to block medical treatment but to ban transgender children from using school restrooms or playing on sports teams that don’t correspond with their sex at birth. The Alabama medication bill is one of the most far-reaching: It would put doctors in prison for up to 10 years for prescribing puberty blockers or hormonal treatment to trans kids under 19.

“In one breathtakingly cruel and cowardly day, the Alabama legislature passed the single most anti- transgender legislative package in history,” said Cathryn Oakley, state legislative director and senior counsel for the Human Rights Campaign, a national advocacy group for the LGBTQ community.

Conservative lawmakers say the measures are needed to protect children and parental rights.

“We regulate all kinds of things that are harmful for minors — alcohol, cigarette smoke, vaping, tattoos — because their minds aren’t ready to make those decisions about things that can affect them long term,” said Rep. Wes Allen, the sponsor of the House version of the Alabama legislation. Allen cited public hearing testimony from a woman who said she regretted taking hormone therapy to try to transition to being male.

“With these powerful medications that have detrimental effects on their body long term, we just want to put a pause on it … give them a chance to develop and grow out of that,” Allen said.

But opponents say transgender health is being used as a deliberate political wedge issue to motivate a voting base — in the same way they say bills about critical race theory have been employed. Critical race theory is a way of thinking about America’s history through the lens of racism. Numerous Republican-controlled legislatures have proposed bills to block its teaching in public schools.

The measures involving trans youth have prompted swift backlash from medical experts, Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration, the U.S. Department of Justice and the families of trans youth. Last month, the Justice department sent a letter to all 50 state attorneys general, warning them that blocking transgender and nonbinary youth from receiving gender-affirming care could be an infringement of federal constitutional protections.

“My child is not a political tool. This is not a fair fight to pick on vulnerable children,” said Vanessa Finney Tate, the mother of a 13-year-old trans boy in Birmingham, Alabama, after testifying at a public legislative hearing on bill that would block students from using bathrooms corresponding to their gender.

Jeff Walker and his daughter Harleigh visited the White House on March 31 for Transgender Day of Visibility.

Harleigh’s father, Jeff Walker notes that many of the same Alabama lawmakers who supported the ban on gender-affirming medical treatment recently argued, ‘It’s your body and your choice’ regarding coronavirus vaccinations. He said the family is now scrambling to find another state where it can continue Harleigh’s medical care.

“We just don’t want people meddling in our medical care,” he said.

Medical groups including The American Academy of Pediatrics have publicly opposed efforts to outlaw gender-affirming care.

“Gender-affirming care benefits the health and psychological functioning of transgender and gender-diverse youth,” the Endocrine Society said in a statement. “When an individual’s gender identity is not respected and they cannot access medical care, it can result in higher psychological problem scores and can raise the person’s risk of committing suicide or other acts of self-harm.”

The organization notes that only reversible puberty blockers are recommended for younger adolescents, while older adolescents might qualify for hormone therapy.

Harleigh received the medication — which stops her from going through male puberty — only after consulting with a team of doctors for years. She said it’s “weird” to see lawmakers with no medical experience call her medication “child abuse,” when six doctors have agreed she should have it.

Angus, a 16-year-old trans teen who requested that his last name not be used because of the bullying he has received in his north Alabama town, said he knew at puberty that the mirror reflected “a body that wasn’t my own.”

After coming out to his mother, he began slowly testing the waters: dressing as a man, changing his name. Only after years of talking to a team of doctors, was he able to recently get medications to stop his periods. The next step, which he is eager to start, would be a small dose of testosterone.

“I have been waiting for seven years to finally become a man, the man that I’ve always known I am,” Angus said.

He said bills to block such treatments are harming, not protecting trans youth.

“The government is saying, ‘Oh, parents are abusing their children by letting them transition,’” he said. “Actually, it’s more child abuse to not let them transition if they come out. What these bills really are doing is putting trans youth lives at risk because these suicide rates will spike exponentially. And a lot of families will lose their children.”

Similar bans are moving forward in other states.

In Texas, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has ordered the state’s child welfare agency to investigate as abuse reports of gender-confirming care for kids. And a law in Arkansas bans gender-affirming medications. That law has been blocked by a court, however.

Trans youth in many red states say they feel attacked, angry, betrayed and scared by the wave of legislation aimed at them.

“It feels like a back-stab,” Harleigh said. “I’ve lived in this state my whole life. For them to just say, ‘Well, you know what, this is an issue that’s really popular on my side of the aisle so I’m just going to raise it up and support it because it’ll help me win my election’ — It just hurts to see them do that.”

Sanders stands in solidarity with UVM Medical Center workers fighting to unionize

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) this week sent a letter(link is external) to interns, residents and fellows of the University of Vermont Medical Center (UVMMC) in support of their efforts to form a union. Sanders recently met with UVMMC residents who shared with him how organizing a union would lead not only to decent wages and better working conditions, but also to improved care for their patients.

“Many Vermonters understand, as patients, that our health care system is broken in many ways.” wrote Sanders in the letter of support. “But what they might not see is that the system is broken for residents as well…Patients want and deserve physicians who treat them to be rested, not unduly stressed and adequately compensated for their difficult and vitally important work. That really is not too much to ask.”

Sanders continued, “Interns, residents and fellows should not have to work 80 hours a week because the old system of medicine allowed for it. They should not have to give up everything in their lives, take no days off, hold off on having children, and take on debilitating debt – all to be good doctors. They should not be forced to live on salaries that are so low that many of them struggle to pay for basic needs like housing and child care. We can do better than that and your advocacy and your persistence is what will inevitably change our system.”

With the third year of the coronavirus pandemic and the specter of a new sub-variant, health care workers continue to risk their lives to keep communities healthy and safe. Today, more than 330 residents work at UVMMC, making up the majority of the physician workforce caring for patients at the facility. Together with their nurse colleagues, who first formed a union in 2002, these organized health care providers will be better positioned to negotiate for policies that prioritize patient care over executives’ salaries.

“There is no one that I would trust more to advocate for our health care system in Vermont than the frontline health care workers who risked their lives to care for us during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Sanders wrote. “Your efforts to unionize will only ensure we are better prepared for the next years of recovery and for the quality health care that all Vermonters deserve.”