Come to our monthly meetings.
We support Chino, Chino Hills, and South Ontario in Assembly Districts 53 and 59, State Senate Districts 22 and 32, and Congressional Districts 35 and 40
Our Facebook for Chino Valley Democrats LINK
LOS ANGELES — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced a lawsuit to immediately halt the enforcement of the Chino Valley Unified School District Board of Education’s (Board) mandatory gender identity disclosure policy. The policy, adopted in July, requires schools to inform parents, with minimal exceptions, whenever a student requests to use a name or pronoun different from that on their birth certificate or official records, even without the student’s permission. The policy also requires notification if a student requests to use facilities or participates in programs that don’t align with their sex on official records. In today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta challenges the policy, which violates the California Constitution and state laws safeguarding civil rights, and has already caused and is threatening to cause LGBTQ+ students with further mental, emotional, psychological and potential physical harm.
“Every student has the right to learn and thrive in a school environment that promotes safety, privacy, and inclusivity – regardless of their gender identity,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We’re in court challenging Chino Valley Unified’s forced outing policy for wrongfully and unconstitutionally discriminating against and violating the privacy rights of LGBTQ+ students. The forced outing policy wrongfully endangers the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of non-conforming students who lack an accepting environment in the classroom and at home. Our message to Chino Valley Unified and all school districts in California is loud and clear: We will never stop fighting for the civil rights of LGBTQ+ students.”
In today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta argues that the policy infringes on several state protections safeguarding students’ civil and constitutional rights, including:
Furthermore, the lawsuit alleges that the Board’s policy has already placed transgender and gender-nonconforming students in danger of imminent, irreparable harm from the consequences of forced disclosures. These students are currently under threat of being outed to their parents against their will, and many fear that the District’s policy will force them to make a choice: either “walk back” their constitutionally and statutorily protected rights to gender identity and gender expression, or face the risk of emotional, physical, and psychological harm. The Board’s policy thus unlawfully discriminates against transgender and gender nonbinary students, subjecting them to disparate treatment and harassment, including mental, emotional, and even physical abuse.
The lawsuit also asserts this the Board’s plain motivations in adopting the policy were to create and harbor animosity, discrimination, and prejudice towards transgender and gender-nonconforming students, without any compelling reason to do so, as evidenced by statements made during the Board’s hearing. In discussing the policy before its passage, board members made a number of statements describing students who are transgender or gender-nonconforming as suffering from a “mental illness” or “perversion”, or as being a threat to the integrity of the nation and the family. The Board President went so far as to state that transgender and gender nonbinary individuals needed “non-affirming” parental actions so that they could “get better.”
Attorney General Bonta has a substantial interest in protecting the legal rights, physical safety, and mental health of children in California schools, and in protecting them from trauma, harassment, bullying, and exposure to violence and threats of violence. Research shows that protecting a transgender student’s ability to make choices about how and when to inform others is critical to their well-being, as transgender students are exposed to high levels of harassment and mistreatment at school and in their communities.
Attorney General Bonta is committed to defending the rights and safety of our LGBTQ+ youth. Prior to filing a lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta announced opening a civil rights investigation into the legality of Chino Valley Unified School District’s adoption of its mandatory gender identity disclosure policy. Prior to opening the investigation, Attorney General Bonta in July sent a letter to Superintendent Norman Enfield and the Board of Education cautioning them of the dangers of adopting its forced outing policy, emphasizing the potential infringements on students’ privacy rights and educational opportunities. Just days ago, Attorney General Bonta issued a statement following Anderson Union High School District, and Temecula and Murrieta Valley Unified School District Boards’ decisions to implement copy-cat mandatory gender identity disclosure policy targeting transgender and gender nonconforming students.
California State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Tony Thurmond is State Superintendent of Public Instruction, responsible for the largest public school system in the nation, with nearly 6 million students and over 10,000 schools. Since taking office in 2019, he has created and championed historic initiatives to close the achievement gap, support student mental health, and improve equity, access, and opportunity for all of California’s public school students. He has integrated new programs and strategies into K-12 public schools, including securing a historic $4.13 billion investment in community schools to ensure an equity-driven approach to public education; supporting teachers through a $1.5 billion investment in professional learning for educators; championing the $2.7 billion Universal Transitional Kindergarten program to expand quality preschool; and fighting to increase Expanded Learning funding to $4 billion ongoing to add opportunities for students throughout the summer. He is a graduate of Temple University, and he holds dual master’s degrees in law and social policy and social work from Bryn Mawr College.
For decades, the U.S. exported jobs and imported products, while other countries surpassed us in critical sectors like infrastructure, clean energy, semiconductors, and biotechnology. Thanks to President Biden’s Investing in America Agenda – including historic legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by President Biden such as the American Rescue Plan, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, CHIPS and Science Act, and Inflation Reduction Act – that is changing.
President Biden’s Investing in America agenda is mobilizing historic levels of private sector investments in the United States, bringing manufacturing back to America after decades of offshoring, and creating new, good-paying jobs, including union jobs and jobs that don’t require a college degree. His Investing in America agenda is rebuilding our roads and bridges using Made in America materials, built by American workers. And it’s transforming our country for the better – reaching communities in every corner of the United States, including those that have too often been left behind. This website provides an interactive map that illustrates the impact of these record-breaking levels of public and private investment across states and territories under the Biden Administration.
Over the past two years, the nation’s school boards have had to grapple with one thorny controversy after another. Local news reports, op-ed pages, and viral social-media posts have featured outraged parents and advocates protesting the presence of armed police officers in schools, the use of entrance exams for selective programs, mask mandates for in-person learning, and allegations that Critical Race Theory was infiltrating the K–12 curriculum.
These displays of activism and acrimony took place at a time when local school officials were tackling two of the weightiest policy questions in recent memory—how to make up learning lost during the most prolonged and widespread instance of school closures in American history and how best to spend an unprecedented infusion of federal relief dollars. The apparent disconnect between the issues that adults seemed most riled about and what was at stake for students did not escape notice. In January 2021, the San Francisco school board voted to remove the names of presidents Lincoln and Washington (among other historical figures) from district schools because of their supposed roles in perpetuating slavery and racism, even as those same buildings remained vacant and students were still learning remotely. San Francisco Mayor London Breed pleaded, “Let’s bring the same urgency and focus on getting our kids back in the classroom, and then we can have that longer conversation about the future of school names.”
The events of the past two years underscore a question that has long been a subject of debate among education-policy researchers and reformers: Is our school-governance model—featuring decentralized control and locally elected school boards—the most effective and efficient approach to educating America’s youth? In a seminal book published 30 years ago, Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools, John Chubb and Terry Moe argued that it is not. Presaging many of the dynamics on display recently, Chubb and Moe warned that institutions of democratic control—meaning locally elected school boards—often fail in carrying out their core missions, instead empowering vocal and well-organized adults at the expense of the educational needs and interests of students, who do not get a vote in local elections.
With three decades of additional evidence and the pandemic still disrupting business as usual in our schools, now is an opportune time to revisit their arguments. Much has changed in the education world over the past 30 years, and new data sources and research methods have revealed the inner workings of local democracy in much greater detail than was possible when the book was written. Nevertheless, Chubb and Moe’s conclusions have aged surprisingly well. Their central thesis—that local democracy fails to incentivize pivotal policymakers to give priority to students’ academic needs—has been confirmed by a growing body of research on school-board elections. Indeed, increasing partisan polarization over educational issues and the changing demographics of American society have only exacerbated these governance challenges. The pandemic served as a worrying stress test of school governance in America, bringing popular attention to many of the issues Chubb and Moe first highlighted in their work.
Satan and the Origins of “Local Control”
Some critics of Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools attacked the book for being “openly antidemocratic.” Presumably, these detractors believed that local democracy is the default or preferred mechanism for running public schools, but in much of the developed world, schools are typically overseen by centralized national agencies. In fact, our model is largely a historical artifact, dating back to the first public-education law adopted in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the mid-1600s. As evident from the law’s title, the Old Deluder Satan Act, it was the moral concerns of adults, rather than a desire to address the holistic educational needs of children, that mainly drove the public-school effort—not unlike some of today’s battles over sex education, intelligent design, and social-studies curricula.
The Massachusetts law, which charged local government with the responsibility for funding and operating local schools so kids would become literate enough to read the Bible, was copied across the country in one of the earliest examples of what political scientists now call policy diffusion. Over the course of the 20th century, this system underwent several important transformations. The shift from single-room schoolhouses to grade-banded schools necessitated consolidation into larger school systems, moving the locus of political control from boards overseeing individual schools to districtwide bodies. At least in theory, the emerging norm of appointing professionally trained superintendents to oversee day-to-day operations limited the influence of elected school-board members. Starting in the 1970s, lawsuits over funding inequities massively increased state-government investment in K–12 education, giving state lawmakers greater say in public-school policy. And over the past three decades, state and federal reforms greatly increased transparency over student outcomes and ratcheted up accountability pressures designed to improve student achievement.
As this history shows, our system of “local democratic control” was not intentionally designed with student academic outcomes in mind and has become less local (and perhaps less democratic) over time. Nevertheless, elected school-board members still occupy a central policymaking role, with final say over teacher contracts, curriculum choices, disciplinary policies, and many other important issues. Recent research shows that who serves in these positions is consequential for students. When voters elect more nonwhite school-board members, districts diversify their staffs, increase investment in facilities, and narrow racial achievement gaps. Similarly, school boards with more Democrats appear to decrease racial segregation, while greater teacher representation on these bodies leads to lower charter-school enrollments and higher teacher salaries.
Student Achievement and School-Board Elections
Although who wins a particular school-board contest can matter a great deal, there’s little indication that voters use elections to hold school boards accountable. A study by Christopher Berry and William Howell found that voters in South Carolina appeared to reward school-board incumbents for improvements in student test scores in 2000, when the scores first became public (see “Accountability Lost,” research, Winter 2008). However, media attention to test scores faded in 2002 and 2004, and so did electoral accountability. In an analysis focused on the introduction of “report cards” for schools in Ohio, which I conducted with Stéphane Lavertu and Zachary Peskowitz, we found little evidence that highly publicized performance indicators affected the outcome of school-board elections in the state. In California, voters do appear to hold school-board incumbents responsible for student learning—but only when school-board elections are held concurrently with presidential contests and turnout is high.
Even in the rare cases where student achievement does matter for school-board elections, the effects have been surprisingly modest, typically increasing or reducing the share of votes won by individual candidates by fewer than 5 percentage points. This differential is far lower than the margin of advantage enjoyed by incumbents in local races, and it appears to be a fraction of the electoral boost conferred by securing the teachers union endorsement. If school boards are asked to choose between a policy that improves student achievement and one that benefits teachers, the pressures of seeking reelection perversely encourage school-board members to prioritize adult employees over the education of students. These dynamics are likely amplified in large, urban districts, where teachers unions tend to enjoy stronger organization and access to greater political resources.
Some might argue that the interests of teachers and students are necessarily aligned, and perhaps this is true in many cases. However, the pandemic provided a clear counterexample. Fortunately, Covid-19 resulted in relatively mild infections for most school-aged children who contracted the disease—on par with seasonal influenza—but it was far more dangerous for school employees. Although few school-board members publicly acknowledged it, the decision about whether to resume in-person instruction in fall 2020 involved a difficult tradeoff between providing the best learning opportunities for students and minimizing the health risks for workers. There is little doubt that in cities including Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., organized opposition from teachers unions delayed the return of students to their classrooms, although it is less clear how much of this was attributable to union political influence rather than the obstruction opportunities built into the collective-bargaining process.
Are Voter and Student Interests Aligned?
Parents account for a larger share of the electorate in even years, when high-profile national races appear on the ballot, which could be why school-board members seem to face more pressure to improve student outcomes in those years. The conventional wisdom is that off-cycle school-board elections—a practice established by Progressive reformers early in the 20th century—increase the influence of school employees and their unions because most other voters stay home. More recent research, which takes advantage of the growing availability of electronic voter-turnout records and big-data methods to link these records to other information (including teacher-licensure databases), suggests that such concern about off-cycle elections may be exaggerated. Even in exceptionally low-turnout elections, school employees account for a relatively small fraction of voters. Of course, unions influence election outcomes through mechanisms other than voting—including endorsements, campaign spending, and neighborhood door knocking. These strategies may well have a greater impact on lower-turnout elections, though there is no compelling empirical evidence that they do. But the research does suggest reasons other than union influence to doubt that the interests of school-board voters and students are likely to be aligned.
In several recent papers examining school-board elections in various large states, my coauthors and I found that voters who turn out in these elections typically do not have kids of their own and are generally much whiter as a group than the students that local schools educate. Indeed, we showed that most of the school districts with majority-nonwhite student bodies in these states were governed by school boards elected by majority-white electorates—in many cases, overwhelmingly white electorates. Particularly in low-turnout elections, elderly white voters without children appear to be the pivotal voting bloc, and there is little reason to believe that these voters are any more motivated to improve student outcomes than school-employee interest groups are.
The experience of the East Ramapo Central School District, which was profiled in an episode of the public-radio series This American Life, illustrates the downsides of a system in which education policy is dictated by voters who do not look like the students that the policies affect. The district is in a racially diverse suburb in New York state. While two thirds of its residents are white, Black and Hispanic students account for 92 percent of school-district enrollment. Orthodox Jews make up much of the population and tend to send their kids to private religious schools—which enroll far more students than the public district does.
According to recent litigation, white voters effectively control the East Ramapo school board, even though few of their kids attend the public schools. District court judge Cathy Seibel found in 2020 that the school district’s at-large election system was essentially “diluting” the Black vote. The district has advantaged the interests of white residents and the private schools their kids attend: keeping property taxes and instructional expenditures to a minimum, generously funding special-education services for private-school students, and selling off public-school buildings to private religious schools. Although this is an extreme example, the underlying representational problems and perverse incentives created by local democratic control in East Ramapo play out in a broad set of school districts—especially those serving mostly students of color—where the interests of voters and public-school students are likely to be out of sync.
Revisiting Chubb and Moe
The worrying findings documented in the research—that school-board members face minimal electoral pressure to improve student outcomes, that they are often cross-pressured by employee interest groups, and that they do not prioritize the interests of minority-student populations—is largely confirmed by school-board members themselves. In one recent survey, nearly 40 percent of incumbent school-board members reported running unopposed in their last election. In other surveys, school-board candidates identified teachers unions as some of the most active and influential actors in school-board elections. Another recent survey, using a clever design meant to elicit honest responses to sensitive questions, asked California school-board members to identify considerations important to voters. Forty percent of respondents said they felt no electoral pressure from their constituents to close racial achievement gaps. One can think of no stronger endorsement for Chubb and Moe’s critique of local democratic control.
In several important respects, the challenges of education governance have evolved over the past three decades. In identifying the mechanisms through which electoral politics can impede the provision of high-quality education, Chubb and Moe focused primarily on entrenched employee interest groups and sclerotic bureaucracies. They put less emphasis on two other factors—partisan polarization and identity politics—that have become much more salient in education-policy debates today.
The late 1990s and early 2000s were a high point of bipartisan consensus on education reform. Elites from both parties supported standardized testing, holding schools and educators accountable for student performance, increasing school-choice opportunities for families, and the need for dramatic turnaround of chronically underperforming schools. This consensus began to unravel during the highly partisan debates over the Common Core standards, and divisions over reform intensified during the Trump years. The impact of this polarization was seen clearly during the pandemic, when local partisanship—rather than Covid case counts or hospitalization rates—emerged as the strongest predictor of whether local schools resumed in-person learning in fall 2020.
Chubb and Moe also arguably underestimated the importance of race in local education politics. Members of minority groups, who have historically faced discrimination in the private labor market, have long relied on government jobs. Especially for Black Americans, such work has provided an important source of upward economic mobility. In cities such as Baltimore and Washington, D.C., local school systems supplied well-paying, middle-class jobs for Black families. Sometimes, well-intentioned school-improvement efforts put these jobs at risk, undermining support for reform among not only the affected school employees but also other prominent Black community leaders, including clergy.
Such dynamics have played out recently in New Orleans, where Hurricane Katrina triggered a state takeover and a wholesale overhaul of local schools that created the nation’s first all-charter district. Rigorous evaluations have shown that these reforms dramatically improved student achievement and substantially increased rates of high-school graduation and college attendance and persistence, with the largest gains in educational attainment for low-income and Black students (see “Good News for New Orleans,” features, Fall 2015). However, the reforms also led to significant job losses for the city’s majority-Black teacher workforce, perhaps explaining why Black residents were ultimately less supportive of changes in school governance and were less likely than white residents to say that schools had improved as a result.
Public-opinion surveys during the pandemic documented similar racial polarization in opinion on schools, with parents of color far more likely to prefer keeping their children learning online and less likely to opt for in-person opportunities when schools did reopen in the largest cities. Although these racial gaps narrowed over time, some interest groups attempted to weaponize the racial disparities in the political battles over the pace and timing of decisions to reopen. When California lawmakers offered districts financial incentives to resume in-person learning, for example, the Los Angeles teachers union called the move “a recipe for propagating structural racism.” Race has also figured prominently in debates on issues related to school discipline, school resource officers, and selective-admissions schools.
On the other hand, Chubb and Moe arguably overestimated the extent to which market-based mechanisms could correct many of the school-governance problems they identified. Since the publication of their book, both private-school vouchers and charter schools have introduced important elements of market forces to the education ecosystems in many states. Particularly in urban areas, charter schools have posted substantial achievement gains, although charters continue to educate a relatively small share of students outside of a few cities such as New Orleans, Detroit, and Washington, D.C. Competition from charter schools and private-school choice has also led to modest improvements among public schools, although competition has hardly proved to be a panacea for most underperforming school systems.
Without Reform, Things Will Only Get Worse
As discouraging as recent trends may seem, the governance challenges are likely to grow worse in the absence of meaningful reform. The decline of local newspapers will further erode watchdog journalism and oversight, perhaps reducing voters’ access to independent information on student performance. The nationalization of local politics will continue, making partisan polarization over local education issues even more intense. The growing diversity of public-school students—a population that became majority nonwhite in 2014—will likely further increase the demographic disconnect between school-board electorates and students. The aging of the general population will bring intergenerational conflict—sometimes described as the coming “gray peril”—over school funding. Finally, the substantial enrollment losses seen during the pandemic will likely accelerate the decline in public-school enrollment, exacerbating local political battles over school closures and distracting attention away from academics.
Fortunately, the pandemic may also help open the door to transformative change. If history is any guide, substantial test-score declines in the coming years will push educational concerns higher on the national policy agenda and help mobilize support for reform. The infusion of federal funding will provide a welcome defense against the oft-repeated argument that lack of resources and disinvestment are the main barriers to boosting student achievement in the most-disadvantaged communities. When the policy window opens, reformers should remain laser focused on improving school governance—to ensure that the reform process prioritizes the interests of kids rather than the demands and political agendas of adults. Such reforms should include holding school-board elections on cycle, when participation among parents is highest; reworking accountability systems to ensure that district-performance ratings emphasize each school’s contribution to student learning rather than the demographic mix of students it serves; and timing the release of school ratings to coincide with school-board election campaigns. Every crisis brings an opportunity, and we cannot afford to let this one go to waste.
Vladimir Kogan is associate professor at The Ohio State University.
This article appeared in the Summer 2022 issue of Education Next. Suggested citation format:
Kogan, V. (2022). Locally Elected School Boards Are Failing: Pandemic stress-tested school governance, revealing many flaws. Education Next, 22(3), 8-13.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives Americans the right to bear arms, and about a third of U.S. adults say they personally own a gun. At the same time, President Joe Biden and other policymakers earlier this year proposed new restrictions on firearm access in an effort to address gun violence ranging from rising murder rates in some major cities to mass shootings.
Here are some key findings about Americans’ attitudes about gun violence, gun policy and other subjects, drawn from recent surveys by Pew Research Center and Gallup.
1 Four-in-ten U.S. adults say they live in a household with a gun, including 30% who say they personally own one, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in June 2021.
2 Personal protection tops the list of reasons why gun owners say they own a firearm.
3 Around half of Americans (48%) see gun violence as a very big problem in the country today, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in April 2021.
4 Attitudes about gun violence differ widely by race, ethnicity, party and community type.
5 Roughly half of Americans (53%) favor stricter gun laws, a decline since 2019, according to the Center’s April 2021 survey.
6 Americans are divided over whether restricting legal gun ownership would lead to fewer mass shootings.
7 There is broad partisan agreement on some gun policy proposals, but most are politically divisive,
8 Gun ownership is closely linked with views on gun policies. This is true even among gun owners and non-owners within the same political party, according to the April 2021 Center survey.
9 Americans in rural areas typically favor more expansive gun access, while Americans in urban places prefer more restrictive policies, according to the April 2021 survey.
Former President Donald Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in connection with a scheme that directed hush money payments to two women before the 2016 presidential election.
The 16-page indictment against Trump was unsealed Tuesday as he became the first former U.S. president ever to be arraigned on criminal charges.
“Not guilty,” Trump said from his seat to Judge Juan Merchan during the hearing in Manhattan Supreme Court.
The indictment says those payments were part of a broader scheme to suppress claims by the women, porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal, that they had sex with Trump, in a bid to keep their stories from affecting Trump’s chances against Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.
Follow CNBC.com’s live coverage of former President Donald Trump’s surrender and arraignment at the Manhattan criminal courthouse.
Prosecutors also said a Trump-friendly publishing company, American Media Inc., paid $30,000 to a former Trump Tower doorman who claimed to have a story about Trump fathering a child out of wedlock.
All three payments were part of an alleged “catch and kill” effort by Trump and others, among them then-AMI chief David Pecker, from August 2015 to December 2017 “to identify, purchase, and bury negative information about him and boost his electoral prospects,” prosecutors said.
During Women’s History Month, we celebrate the countless women who have fought tirelessly and courageously for equality, justice, and opportunity in our Nation. We also reaffirm our commitment to advancing rights and opportunities for women and girls in the United States and around the world. We are mindful that we are building on the legacy of both recognized trailblazers and unsung heroines who have guided the course of American history and continue to shape its future.
The full participation of women is a foundational tenet of democracy. Women — often women of color — have been on the frontlines, fighting for and securing equal rights and opportunity throughout our country’s history as abolitionists, civil rights leaders, suffragists, and labor activists. Women continue to lead as advocates for reproductive rights, champions of racial justice, and LGBTQI+ equality. Throughout history, these women have opened the doors of opportunity for subsequent generations of dreamers and doers. As community leaders, educators, doctors, scientists, child care providers, and more, women power our economy and lead our Nation. As first responders and service members, they stand watch over our lives and liberties. As innovators, entrepreneurs, and essential workers in every industry, they represent the very best of America.
But despite significant progress, women and girls continue to face systemic barriers to full and equal participation in our economy and society. Last year, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, stripping away a constitutional right from the American people and the ability of millions of women to make decisions about their own bodies, putting their health and lives at risk. Disparities persist in economic security, health care, and caregiving responsibilities, especially for women and girls of color. Those who perform critical work, including those who care for our children and our families, are too often overlooked, underpaid, and undervalued.
Ours is the only Nation in the world established upon a profound but simple idea — that all people are created equal. My Administration is committed to upholding that idea and to making its promise real for every American. That is why I created the Gender Policy Council to advance gender equity and equality across the Federal Government. It is why I released the first-ever national gender strategy to promote the rights and opportunities of women at home and abroad, which outlines my Administration’s commitment to equal access to education, economic security for women and families, health care, and freedom from gender-based violence. As we implement the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, we are working to reduce barriers so that women can access new jobs in sectors where they have been historically underrepresented. I have signed historic legislation to ensure equal protection for pregnant women and nursing mothers in the workplace. And I strengthened and reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act, a major milestone in our ongoing efforts to ensure all people can live free from violence. Finally, in December 2022, I was proud to sign the Respect for Marriage Act and defend the rights of LGBTQI+ and interracial couples.
My Administration will continue to defend reproductive freedom to ensure that all Americans — regardless of their gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, or income — have the ability to make the choices that are right for themselves and their families. I have taken executive action to safeguard access to reproductive care, including medication abortion, help ensure women can receive emergency medical care, protect patients’ privacy and access to accurate information about their reproductive rights, and combat discrimination in the health care system. I continue to call on the Congress to pass a Federal law restoring the protections of Roe v. Wade so all women in every State have the right to choose. And my Administration released the first Blueprint for Addressing the Maternal Health Crisis to save lives and address systemic discrimination that many women face every day in our health care system, including women of color, women in rural communities, and women with disabilities.
Leading our efforts is the most diverse group of women at the highest levels of Government in United States history, including Vice President Kamala Harris and a record number of female cabinet secretaries. Together with the most diverse set of judges ever nominated to the Federal bench — including Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson — women are seated at every table where decisions are being made.
This month, as we continue our work to advance gender equity and equality, let us celebrate the contributions of women throughout our history and honor the stories that have too often gone untold. Let us recognize that fundamental freedoms are interconnected: when opportunities for women are withheld, we all suffer; and when women’s lives are improved, we all gain. Let us strive to create a Nation where every woman and girl knows that her possibilities know no bounds in America.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim March 2023 as Women’s History Month. I call upon all Americans to observe this month and to celebrate International Women’s Day on March 8, 2023, with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities. I also invite all Americans to visit WomensHistoryMonth.gov to learn more about the vital contribution of women to our Nation’s history.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this
twenty-eighth day of February, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-seventh.
JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.
The Republican party can only snipe at this current administration hat is successfully getting America back on track for an amazing future!
When President Biden and Vice President Harris took office, our country faced unprecedented crises – a raging pandemic, economic crisis, climate crisis, and racial injustice. The President and Vice President ran for office on the promise to move quickly to tackle these crises head-on and deliver results for working families. That’s what the Biden-Harris Administration has done.
Click and read more at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/therecord/
As the 2022 midterm election results finalize with the conclusion of the Georgia Senate run-off races, the outcomes are contrasts to the narratives and expectations that carried on throughout the electoral process. Instead of a presupposed widespread failure for Democrats on election night, Republicans are now the party fighting over who’s to blame for their losses.
With the conservative-projected “red wave” failing to materialize, the chambers of congress and Senate still exude a Republican lacking. The Senate is still held by Democrats who gained a seat with Senator John Fetterman’s election victory, a scenario of which last had precedence in 1934, and the House of Representatives gained a slim Republican majority. This conservative underperformance thwarted their hopeful red wave into a disappointing red splash
Their lack of soul-searching and refusal for recourse after the 2020 election plays a significant role in these flopping results.
Looking for a pundit to blame for their election failures, Republicans are in shambles trying to pinpoint their obvious culprit: Donald Trump. Many Republicans outside of Washington are eager to divert from the rails of the Trump train, while those with seats in government, in fear from his wrath, attempt to deflect it.
Trump, who pushed for extreme MAGA candidates across the board, and who was met with initial unyielding support in doing so, is now being ridiculed by moderates and conservatives alike for such efforts after they proved to be futile.
While midterm elections are usually reviewed as referendums on a current president, they rarely mark as one on a former president. However, Trump’s influence is being highlighted and questioned in prominent ways President Biden has not recently. Trump strived to revolve himself around this election, and he in part succeeded, yet not in the way he aimed for.
Aforementioned Republicans in office, however, are forming an opposing narrative. They’re predicting that Trump will still have a grasp on the party as a whole and hold a great deal of power over future primaries, and that denouncing him could cost them their Senate or congressional seats. Their deflection efforts in question have caused some GOP senators to zero on potential figures responsible for their failures, and most recently Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
McConnell, who’s attempts failed vastly to advance his endorsed candidates through primaries, generously backed Trump-endorsed nominees after his disappointment. Yet, Republican Senators like Marco Rubio of Florida and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming are vilifying him nonetheless. Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, like his colleagues, has joined in on the condemnation, claiming that the old Republican party McConnell is familiar with is dead and that it was time to birth something new. Even Trump has made his disfavor for the Senator obvious by endorsing Florida Senator Rick Scott as the next Senate party leader, McConnell’s potential opponent.
Republican leaders denouncing Trump then backing him in little time afterward has a precedent, though. Leading Republicans announced their severed ties with Trump after the January 6th insurrection, yet mended those ties and found their way back to his influence just weeks later.
Even through these postelection dilemmas within the party, two distinct pathways forward are still present: Continue embracing Trump’s leadership in every category of influence, or to overthrow him in hopes of actually gaining significant election victories.
Inter-party factions are equivalently distinct, with those outside the chambers of government voicing differing notions from those within them. Hence, Republican voters are listening to diverging narratives, and what they believe about the former president, whether he’s aiding their party or killing it, will be pivotal in determining the future of Republicanism as a whole. With Trump announcing his next presidential run, we as Americans will know very shortly which path the party is choosing.
Constitutionally Mandated Officers
Political Party Leaders
About Leadership Positions