Poll: Most Americans Support Requiring Photo ID, Proof of Citizenship to Vote
Americans—Democrats, Republicans, and independents—support both early voting policies as well as photo ID and proof of citizenship requirements for elections, according to a new poll.
Despite the ongoing divide between elected Republicans and Democrats over requiring photo ID to vote, a whopping 86% of Americans support it.
The poll comes just days from the presidential election with voting underway across the country.
Support varied by political party, with 98% of Republicans, 67% of Democrats, and 84% of independents supporting requiring photo ID to vote.
Another 83% of Americans support “requiring people who are registering to vote for the first time to provide proof of citizenship.” By party, 96% of Republicans, 66% of Democrats, and 84% of independents agree.
Voter ID hits at the intersection of Republican concerns about election integrity and illegal immigration, which has soared in recent years.
Many Republicans argue that illegal immigrant voting is a major issue and that those voters trend toward Democratic candidates.
Some Democrats have pushed back on voter ID efforts, saying they are an attempt to suppress or discourage certain groups from voting and that illegal immigrants are not allowed to vote. Republicans have pushed back saying Democrat officials have found workarounds to not enforce restrictions on illegal immigrants voting.
“Partisans’ views of most of the election law policies are generally stable; however, Democrats’ and Republicans’ opinions have each shifted significantly on one of them,” Gallup said. “Democrats are now 14 points more likely than they were in 2022 to support requiring photo identification to vote, and Republicans’ current 57% support for early voting—while not significantly different from 2022—is down from 74% in a 2016 survey.”
The poll asked about other election policies as well:
“Smaller majorities of Americans—60% each—favor automatic voter registration, whereby citizens are registered when they do business with state agencies such as the Department of Motor Vehicles, and sending absentee ballot applications to all eligible voters,” Gallup said. “In contrast, majorities of Americans oppose removing people from voter registration lists if they haven’t voted in any elections in five years (64%) and limiting the number of drop boxes or locations for returning absentee ballots (58%).”
***********************************************
"Free" Over-the-Counter Birth Control?
The Biden-Harris administration has proposed a rule implementing Obamacare’s controversial contraception mandate—again. Under the proposal announced Monday, certain health insurance plans would be required to cover over-the counter birth control.
The text of the law creating Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, doesn’t explicitly require that plans cover contraceptives, so how did we get here?
What’s the Contraception Mandate?
Obamacare, passed by Congress and signed into law in 2010 by President Barack Obama, requires health insurance companies to cover certain kinds of preventive services with no enrollee cost-sharing. It instructs the Department of Health and Human Services to specify the types of preventive services for women that insurance plans must cover.
In 2011, HHS issued guidelines that insurance plans must include coverage for all contraceptive methods and sterilization procedures approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Plans that already covered millions of women were “grandfathered” and exempted from the requirement to provide preventive services with no cost-sharing. Many of these plans are still in effect today.
The contraception mandate sparked more than a decade of litigation, including famous victories for religious liberty at the Supreme Court for companies such as Hobby Lobby and groups such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Catholic nuns.
Regulations for religious and moral exemptions to HHS’ contraception mandate were strengthened under Obama’s successor, President Donald Trump. Last year, the administration of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris proposed a rule to weaken those exemptions again. That rule has not been finalized yet.
Like the original contraception mandate, this week’s proposal to cover over-the-counter contraception is possible because Congress didn’t actually lay out the nitty-gritty, specific requirements in the text of Obamacare. Policy details were left to the discretion of the executive branch.
Proposed Biden-Harris Change
A press release from the Department of Health and Human Services lays out the gist of the changes.
“[M]ost group health plans and health insurance issuers” must cover over-the-counter methods of birth control such as emergency contraception, condoms, and pills “without cost sharing or requiring a prescription.”
The proposal also requires insurance plans to cover “a broader array” of pills and intrauterine devices, or IUDs, the press release says. Right now, plans must cover only one drug in different categories of contraception methods.
Exactly how this change would be implemented remains to be seen. The Biden-Harris administration is seeking public comment during a 60-day countdown as soon as the proposed rule formally hits the Federal Register. If finalized, the rule would mark another major change for contraception coverage under Obamacare.
Birth Control
The new rule is significant for several reasons. The Food and Drug Administration only recently approved an over-the-counter birth control pill. It’s called OPill and is sold at retailers such as Walgreens, Costco, and Amazon for about $20 per month.
Additional brands will follow suit and seek FDA approval to be sold over the counter. Another brand already has started the process for its drug, Zena.
Not everyone is cheering over-the-counter pills, though.
Beyond altering a woman’s menstrual cycle, birth control pills significantly affect a woman’s hormones. They can have mild to severe side effects—both mentally and psychologically—that vary widely from person to person.
Some experts are understandably concerned that medication that could have such drastic effects on the body would be available without consultation with a doctor. It even would be available to minors without their parent’s knowledge or consent.
Emergency Contraception
The HHS mandate also includes coverage for emergency contraception such as Plan B (levonorgestrel) and Ella (ulipristal acetate).
Until 2022, the label on both medications warned that the drug could prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman’s uterus. For those who believe human life begins at fertilization, this means that these drugs could induce an abortion.
In 2022, the FDA modified the Plan B label to remove this warning, but it remains the case for Ella.
Plan B is available over the counter, but Ella requires a prescription. Under current rules, both Plan B and Ella are covered under Obamacare only if the woman has a prescription.
Under the Biden-Harris proposal, Plan B would be covered if a person purchases it over the counter.
**********************************************
Why Trump at McDonald’s Matters
This week, Donald Trump set the political world afire with an appearance at a McDonald’s in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
There, he donned the famous McDonald’s apron, cooked up some fries and served customers at a drive-thru window. All the while, he looked like he was enjoying himself thoroughly—which he certainly was. Trump has the momentum, and he knows it.
But it’s more than that.
Whatever Trump’s other failings, at his root, Trump likes people. And not just people of his class or who share his background. He likes dealing with human beings.
Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to commemorate Oct. 7 with Trump, where he met with the family of an American hostage held by Hamas in Gaza. Trump connected with them on an emotional level. Whether it’s Jewish Americans from New Jersey dealing with the horror and tragedy of having their son held by the world’s most vicious terrorist group or Pennsylvania voters who just want to meet Trump and pick up a Happy Meal, Trump is comfortable with his fellow Americans because he’s unapologetically what he is.
That’s simply not true of Kamala Harris.
Off-script, Harris remains a disaster. Her “60 Minutes” interview with Bill Whitaker was filled with word slaw, spin, and platitudinous drivel. Her Fox News interview with Bret Baier flew completely off the rails, with Harris unable to defend even the most basic decisions by the Biden administration.
She took time off the campaign trail to prepare for an NBC News interview as well as a CNN town hall—events that, for a normal candidate, would require zero prep time in a hotel conference room. Then again, this is the same woman whose staff had to hold a “mock dinner” to prepare her for a dinner with Washington journalists and newsmakers. Axios reported, “Harris aides even considered including wine in the mock prep so Harris could practice with a glass or two.”
What’s more, Harris seems to be a permanent resident of the uncanny valley. She does a mildly credible job of appearing warm and human … but only just. Her interactions always reek of the staged and the manipulated. Every move is calculated—and transparently so. Twelve-time Best Actress nominee Katharine Hepburn once reportedly described Meryl Streep’s acting as too mechanical: “Click, click, click,” she reportedly told biographer Scott Berg, “referring to the wheels turning inside (Streep’s) head.”
That’s Harris with actual, real human beings. And it shows.
Which is why the media have gone apoplectic about Trump’s McDonald’s visit. Trump’s critics pointed out that the McDonald’s was actually formally closed for his visit and claimed that the event was “staged”—a peculiar critique, given that Trump has been the victim of two assassination attempts, and presidential campaigns require places of business to be secured before candidates enter.
The critics even went so far as to attack the local franchise for its health record years ago. The desperation comes from an obvious place: This was a Trump win.
And it was a Trump win because Trump wasn’t pretending. He didn’t don jeans and a T-shirt in order to cosplay as one of the boys, Tim Walz-style. Instead, he showed up in his traditional suit, put on an apron, and started handing out fries and chitchatting with the customers.
It was a moment of authenticity, and it showed as such, compared with the polyester joy presented by the Harris campaign.
Harris can’t shake the fundamental reality that she has been, for decades, a highly stylized political product. Kamala 1.0 was a progressive prosecutor; Kamala 2.0 was a hard-charging prosecutor; Kamala 3.0 was the furthest left member of the U.S. Senate; Kamala 4.0 was a moderate. And Kamala 5.0 is whatever she needs to be at any given moment.
But what she truly needs to be is human. And that’s the problem: She isn’t.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/10/24/why-trump-mcdonalds-matters/
***********************************************China accuses Australia of ‘systemic racism and hate crimes’ as Xi meets Putin in Russia
The Peace of Westphalia ended a long episode of war. It said that governments should not meddle in the internal affairs of other countries. Regrettable that Australia has not followed that
China has accused Australia of “systemic racism and hate crimes” and “hypocrisy” after an Australian diplomat raised international concerns about human rights abuses in Xinjiang and Tibet in the UN.
In some of the sharpest comments launched at Canberra by Beijing during the “stabilisation” era, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Li Jian on Wednesday evening denounced Australia for criticising China publicly.
“Out of their ideological bias, Australia, the US and a handful of other Western countries stoked confrontation at multilateral platforms for their selfish political interest,” said the Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, in response to an apparent dorothy dixer by China’s national broadcaster CCTV.
“Australia, long plagued by systemic racism and hate crimes, have severely violated the rights of refugees and immigrants, and left Indigenous people with vulnerable living conditions,” the Chinese government spokesman continued.
“Australian soldiers have committed abhorrent crimes in Afghanistan and other countries during their military operations overseas.
“These Western countries turn a blind eye to their severe human rights issues at home but in the meantime point their fingers at other countries. This says a lot about their hypocrisy on human rights,” he said.
Anthony Albanese said Australia had been “clear and consistent” with China in its concerns over Beijing’s human rights abuses.
“We, of course, will always stand up for Australia’s interests. And when it comes to China, we’ve said we’ll cooperate where we can, we’ll disagree where we must, and we’ll engage in our national interest” Mr Albanese said at a press conference in Samoa on Thursday.
“And we’ve raised issues of human rights with China. We’ve done that in a consistent and clear way,” the PM said.
Opposition foreign Affairs spokesman Simon Birmingham said Australia’s ambassador to the UN had been “factual, balanced and considered”.
“Australia has acknowledged that none of us is perfect on human rights, yet that is what China pretends,” senator Birmingham said.
But he said the government’s words underscored that Foreign Minister Penny Wong had fallen “a long way short of delivering on the tough talk of sanctions” she made before the last election.
The diplomatic tussle comes as President Xi meets with Vladimir Putin at the BRICS summit in the Russian city of Kazan, a key plank in their shared efforts to increase China and Russia’s voices in the international system and reduce the clout of America and its allies.
The group’s original members include countries with strategic ties with America, such as India, and countries that are openly hostile to Washington, such as Russia.
Chinese state media has hailed the grouping, which it argues is reshaping the international system to give more clout to marginalised non-Western countries.
China’s official newsagency Xinhua noted that Xi had compared the five original members of the BRICS group, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, to the fingers of one hand.
“They are short and long if extended, but form a powerful fist if clenched together,” Xi reportedly said.
China’s fresh diplomatic fight with Australia — redolent of the near daily tirades it launched at the Morrison government for much of 2020 and 2021 — demonstrates the intense struggle that continues below the surface of “stabilisation”, the Albanese government’s euphemism for its modest expectations for relations with Beijing in the Xi era.
China’s president has ordered his diplomats to show “fighting spirit” when their country is criticised.
Earlier this week, Australia’s UN Ambassador James Larsen told the UN General Assembly’s human rights committee that Canberra, on behalf of its partners, had urged Beijing to implement all the recommendations made by a UN report into human rights abuses in Xinjiang, home to most of China’s Muslim Uighur population.
The Australian Ambassador noted that rather than meaningfully address the UN’s “well-founded concerns”, China had instead labelled the UN assessment “illegal and void”.
Mr Larsen called on Beijing to allow “unfettered and meaningful” access to Xinjiang and Tibet for independent observers, including from the UN, to evaluate the human rights situation.
“No country has a perfect human rights record, but no country is above fair scrutiny of its human rights obligations,” the Australian diplomat said.
“It is incumbent on all of us not to undermine international human rights commitments that benefit us all, and for which all states are accountable,” he said.
Chinese diplomats were able to blunt the criticism by rounding up countries — almost entirely members of its Belt and Road Initiative — to support its position or withhold support for the Australian motion.
Pakistan, a huge recipient of Chinese financial support, delivered a joint counter statement on behalf of 80 countries that said any issues related to Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Tibet were internal matters for China.
Australia’s joint statement was supported by Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Japan, Lithuania, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, and the US.
Benjamin Herscovitch, an expert on the bilateral relationship, at Australian National University, said despite the “diplomatic sparring”, both the Australian and Chinese governments would keep prioritising their respective trade and investment agendas.
“This is sharper rhetoric than we usually see from either Canberra or Beijing in the recent stabilisation era. But it’s unlikely to cause serious turbulence in bilateral ties.
“Disagreements over human rights are baked into the Australia-China relationship,” Dr Herscovitch told The Australian.
**************************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment