American agricultural industry successfully prevents MAHA strategy plan from bashing key pesticides

MAHA's initial report and strategy are found on
the White House website. 

The first report issued by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s "Make America Healthy Again" commission alarmed America's "Big Ag" leaders; however, the agricultural industry's intensely focused response appears to have reduced some of the commission's concerns over pesticides, report Amudalat Ajasa and Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Released in May, the first MAHA report was Kennedy's initial attempt to define the reasons for chronic illness in American children. It didn't completely bash all pesticide use in American farming, but instead it "raised questions about the health effects of two commonly used pesticides, glyphosate and atrazine," the Post reports. "The report’s rhetoric frustrated powerful agriculture groups," such as CropLife America, a trade group for pesticide companies, and the American Soybean Association.

In an effort to influence the commission, the agricultural industry launched lobbying "blitzes" and "coordinated social media campaigns," Ajasa and Roubein explain. "Their efforts seemingly paid off. The Trump administration’s MAHA strategy document, released last month, did not call for restrictions on pesticides."

While big agriculture companies may be relieved at MAHA's softer stance on pesticides, some of Kennedy’s allies "believe it went too far in bowing to the agriculture industry," Ajasa and Roubein write. But supporters of the strategy claim that MAHA's focus on innovative solutions and technology can benefit American health and farmers.

Meanwhile, Kennedy is still tasked with rooting out the causes of chronic childhood diseases. MAHA's strategy report "notably avoids proposing restrictions on commonly used products such as glyphosate and atrazine," the Post reports. "The report pledges that the EPA will work with the food and agriculture industries to ensure the public has 'awareness and confidence' in the agency’s 'robust review procedures.'"

Some MAHA activists remain frustrated by the report's failure to call out pesticide use and the Trump administration's appointments to the Environmental Protection Agency.

USDA extends deadline for grant recipients of a rural energy program to resubmit proposals to align with Trump's goals

Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins (USDA photo)

The Department of Agriculture extended the window for rural energy program grantees to resubmit their revised energy proposals. Although the grantees were already promised $10.8 billion in grants and loan subsidies, they were told to "resubmit their projects to align with President Donald Trump’s energy priorities," reports Julia Tilton of The Daily Yonder.

In late March, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced that REAP, New ERA, and PACE funding would be released to grantees; however, the announcement "also gave recipients 30 days to voluntarily resubmit proposals to refocus their projects on expanding American energy production," Tilton writes. Grantees were told to remove any Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility planning from their proposals before resubmission.

The deadline for resubmission was the end of April, but it was moved to the end of May. Tilton adds, "In the meantime, awardees express uncertainty around the future of their awards. . . .So far, most of the money from PACE, New ERA, and REAP has flowed or been awarded to Republican districts."

For farmers who have already completed their energy projects, resubmitting their proposals and waiting for payment can be particularly onerous. Maine farmer Kevin Leavitt installed "solar panels on his small farm in 2024 as part of a $140,000 project to generate efficient electricity," Tilton writes. "Leavitt was due to receive $48,000 in funding from REAP in January 2025. Leavitt’s check didn’t arrive until April."

Leavitt told Tilton, "Yeah, we got paid, but it cost me four months of talking to 30 different reporters and Congress members to get it to actually come back around." Tilton reports, "Blocking funding for USDA programs that have already been approved and appropriated by Congress is illegal."

Supreme Court blocks Purdue Pharma opioid settlement; agreement 'broke a basic tenet of bankruptcy law'

OxyContin's success made the Sacklers billionaires
and sparked the U.S. opioid crisis. (A.S. photo)

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Purdue Pharma opioid bankruptcy agreement that would have safeguarded Sackler family members from civil liability suits related to the opioid crisis.

"In a 5-to-4 decision, the justices found that the deal, carefully negotiated over years with states, tribes, local governments and individuals, had broken a basic tenet of bankruptcy law by shielding members of the Sackler family from lawsuits without the consent of those who might sue," reports Abbie Van Sickle of the New York Times. Purdue Pharma, which was owned by the Sackler family who developed and marketed the prescription painkiller OxyContin, is "largely considered to have ignited the [opioid] crisis."

Meanwhile, there are more than 100,000 opioid victim families waiting for financial restitution from Purdue Pharma. For some, the ruling is considered a setback. Other family members welcomed the decision. Van Sickle writes, "Although most creditors who voted on the proposed plan supported it, Justice Gorsuch wrote, 'fewer than 20 percent of eligible creditors participated' and 'thousands of opioid victims voted against the plan, too, and many pleaded with the bankruptcy court not to wipe out their claims against the Sacklers without their consent.'"

As Van Sickle reports, the court's majority "homed in on the method the Sacklers used to insulate themselves from opioid-related lawsuits, finding that a third party could not use the bankruptcy system to shield themselves from litigation, binding others without their consent. . . . This approach, Justice Gorsuch wrote, allowed them to win relief 'without securing the consent of those affected or placing anything approaching their total assets on the table for their creditors.'"

The proposed deal would have required the Sacklers to pay up to $6 billion over 18 years, but its building blocks demonstrate the tightrope negotiators are trying to walk between getting family members, states and tribes money now, even if the agreement shielded the Sacklers' personal wealth. "In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, "warned of the consequences for the tens of thousands of families seeking compensation," Van Sickle reports. "Justice Kavanaugh wrote that upending the settlement to prevent the Sacklers from escaping future litigation would only add to the pain of opioid victims and their families."

Within the deal's bankruptcy reorganization, Purdue Pharma "would become a 'public benefit' company with a mission focused on opioid education and abatement," Van Sickle reports. "The company, with the help of the Sacklers’ planned contributions, offered individual victims payments from a base amount of $3,500 up to a ceiling of $48,000." Purdue Pharma has committed to working toward a new settlement deal.

Government officials have 'unqualified access to private land;' hunters sue to change Open Fields doctrine

The Open Fields doctrine has allowed government officials access
to private land. (Photo by Institute for Justice via Farm Journal)

Sometimes private land isn't private, and in states such as Pennsylvania, the question, "How much power does the government claim on private land?" is answered by a court ruling, reports Chris Bennett of Farm Journal. On Sept. 29, a "court ruled against two hunting clubs in their lawsuit accusing the Pennsylvania Game Commission of private property rights violations. . . . In its ruling, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania noted the government's absolute power to 'roam private land without consent, warrants, or probable cause.'"

The hunting clubs, Pitch Pine and Punxsutawney sued PGC "after game wardens consistently entered club lands without permission or warrant, and secretly monitored club members, including photo collection via installation of a hidden game camera," Bennett writes. "The wardens' behavior, the lawsuit asserted, was a direct violation of Pennsylvania's state constitution, which explicitly protects 'persons, houses, papers, and possessions.'"

The Open Fields doctrine allows state and federal officials "unqualified access to private land" without requiring a warrant to "enter or surveil private land," Bennett reports. "The Commonwealth Court detailed the alarming powers and 'unfettered discretion' assumed by the government via Open Fields: To ensure their members' privacy, the Hunting Clubs have posted their properties with no trespassing signs and have installed gates at all entrances to exclude nonmembers and intruders. However, the Entry Statutes empower game wardens with unfettered discretion to enter upon and roam private land without consent, warrants, or probable cause."

"Six states place state constitutional authority above the Open Fields doctrine: Mississippi, Montana, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington," Bennett writes. The Institute for Justice represents Pitch Pine and Punxsutawney is appealing the decision. "Arguments before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court should take place in 2024, with a decision likely in 2025. IJ is litigating similar Open Fields cases in Virginia and Tennessee about warrantless intrusions on private land."

(For more on Open Fields, see How Much Ag Property Is Protected From a Warrantless Search?)

Few Americans know much about the First Amendment; survey shows only 3% can name all 5 protections

In 2006, 22% of polled Americans could name all 5
Simpsons family members. (Image via NCC)

Americans' understanding of the First Amendment is not getting better with time. In 2006, the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum commissioned a poll, which revealed that many Americans knew more about the Simpsons than the First Amendment, reports the National Constitution Center. "The phone survey found that only 28% of Americans could name more than one of the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution's First Amendment, but more than half of Americans could name at least two members of the fictional Simpsons family. In addition, 22% of Americans could name all five Simpsons family members, while just 11% of folks knew that freedom of the press was guaranteed under the First Amendment."

Fast forward 17 years: Americans have a breadth of information at their fingertips that 2006 did not offer. Do we know more about the First Amendment? "Survey says: No," reports Sean Stevens of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. "In a recent AmeriSpeak panel conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, FIRE asked 1,140 Americans if they could name any of the specific rights protected by the First Amendment. . . . Almost a third of Americans could not name a single enumerated right protected by the First Amendment, and another 40% could name only one — usually freedom of speech. Among Americans who named one or more enumerated rights, roughly two-thirds named freedom of speech, about a quarter (26%) named freedom of religion, 20% named the right to assemble, 15% named freedom of the press, and 8% named the right to petition. Only 3% of Americans could name all five and, on average, could name 1.33 First Amendment rights."

Fire's survey also revealed that older Americans and citizens with a bachelor's degree had more First Amendment knowledge. But what can be done to help the rest of the country? "Americans cannot protect, preserve, and exercise their rights if they don't know what those rights are," Stevens writes. "But, there exists a ray of hope, as the Freedom Forum has also consistently found that high school students who have taken classes that include content about the First Amendment are more supportive of free speech rights. This suggests that a culture of free speech can be fostered by increasing knowledge of the First Amendment."

FIRE image

To help support First Amendment learning, FIRE offers a variety of free courses on the First Amendment, including "The History of Free Speech," "Can I Publish This?" and "The Case for Radically Free Speech," Steven reports. "We provide college orientation materials and maintain a syllabus database of courses that focus on freedom of expression. We also provide teaching resources to help K-12 teachers enrich and supplement their existing instruction on the First Amendment. We even send out complementary copies of our comic book, "Finding Your Voice," which shows teens the empowering effects of knowing and using their First Amendment rights."

Feinstein's death raises the question of how vacant Senate seats are filled. The answer depends on where you live.

Dianne Feinstein in 1950
(Photo by Underwood Archives,
Getty Images via Conversation)

The death of California's longtime senator, Dianne Feinstein, left a vacancy in the U.S. Senate and a question in many Americans' minds: How are Senate seats filled when a person dies while in office? The short answer is it depends on where you live because individual states establish their own rules.

The 17th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution outlines the basics: "When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct," explains Gibbs Knotts for The Conversation, a platform for journalism by academics.

That usually means the state's governor will pick the predecessor. In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom has already named his pick, Laphonza Butler, who will remain in office until the 2024 election. However, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island and Wisconsin "do not allow governors to make temporary appointments," Knotts reports. "Those states only fill U.S. Senate vacancies by special election, but laws specify time periods in most states."

How long appointments last also depends on state law. "If a person appointed to the seat by the governor then wins a special election or a contest scheduled alongside statewide elections, they will serve the remainder of the vacating senator's term," Knotts explains. "Otherwise, if someone else wins the special election, they get to serve out the vacating senator's term."

There are rules and processes appointing governors must follow. "In 10 gubernatorial appointment states, U.S. senators must be from the same party as the prior incumbent. Arizona, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maryland, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming have this restriction," Knotts notes. "In Utah, the governor is required to select from a list of three candidates submitted by the party of the U.S. senator being replaced. In the rest of the states, the governor has the power to appoint a successor, regardless of party, including in California."

State legislatures have some say in the process. Knotts adds, "Most notably, legislators establish the appointment procedures and set the general rules about when an election must occur. If they don't like the process, they have the power to change it."

Official guidance on gun-safety law upsets rural politicians; Democrat says bureaucrats don't understand rural America

New gun safety law doesn't fund archery programs.
(Photo by Annie Spratt, Unsplash)

In a case of unintended consequences, the first gun-safety legislation in decades is hitting some bumps. "As the law is implemented, a rift has emerged between the Biden administration and rural-state Democrats. They’re at odds over guidance issued by the Department of Education which states that a pot of federal dollars would be prohibited from going to school archery and hunting programs," reports Jennifer Haberkorn of Politico. "It also has agitated Republicans who helped negotiate the gun safety legislation." Both sides say the Education Department is misinterpreting Congress’ intent and the White House is ignoring the issue.

The conflict further separates Democrats, "now cutting at a longtime intraparty divide between Democrats from states with a long heritage of hunting and the more progressive corners of the party that back strict gun control measures," Haberkorn writes. "Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, one of the most vulnerable Democrats in a red state, has introduced a bipartisan bill to restore the funding, which he hopes will be added to a government spending bill. He said the administration 'has this one flat-out wrong' and chastised 'D.C. bureaucrats who don’t understand rural America.'"

Haberkorn reports, "The Education Department has stressed that the law doesn’t prohibit shooting or archery programs from being supported through other sources of funding. . . .  Several Democrats expressed hope that the Education Department would change its tone once lawmakers clarified what their intention was with the bill."

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), one of the chief negotiators on the gun safety bill, "acknowledged the administration is reading the letter of the text correctly but called it an unintended consequence that should be repaired," Haberkorn adds. "He said he hopes bipartisan legislation to repair the language can be included in an upcoming government funding bill."

Hardrock mining companies pay 'a pittance' for minerals mined from public lands. Some say taxpayers need more.

A copper mine shaft 1,100 feet below the surface near
Superior, Ariz. (Photo by Tamir Kalifa, The New York Times)

Since 1872, mining companies have taken stores of gold and other metals from public lands without paying royalty fees to the federal government. The Biden administration says lawmakers need to "fix the Gold Rush-era General Mining Law so it can better manage the mineral resources buried under millions of acres of public land," reports Lisa Friedman of The New York Times. "A top priority: require companies to pay something in exchange for what they take. Unlike companies that extract oil, gas and coal from federal lands, hardrock miners pay no royalties to the federal government."

Initial plans suggest a 4 to 8 percent fee of the net value of mined materials, which "could translate into as much as $97 million annually and drew sharp opposition from mining operators," Friedman writes. Tommy Beaudreau, the deputy secretary of the Interior Department, told Friedman: "The biggest takeaway from our report is that our 150-year-old-law, the 1872 mining law, needs to be reformed and brought into the 21st century."

Beaudreau heads up a "working group of officials across federal agencies who reviewed policies and regulations for hardrock mining," Friedman explains. "The group found the law did not do enough to steer mineral exploration away from sensitive resources or to promote 'early and meaningful' engagement with tribes or other affected communities. . . . And the law should require mining companies that take resources from public lands to pay something for that privilege. . . .The report stated, [the law] 'fails to provide the American taxpayer with any direct financial compensation for the value of hardrock minerals extracted from most publicly owned lands.'"

While mining operations pay state royalties and taxes, operators on federal land "only pay the U.S. government one-time claim processing fees totaling $60. Many companies also pay an annual $165 maintenance fee per site, according to the report," Friedman writes. Mining companies oppose the change. Rich Nolan, chief executive of the National Mining Association, told Friedman that the changes would "throw additional obstacles in the way of responsible domestic projects and would-be investment, forcing the U.S. to double-down on our already outsized import reliance from countries with questionable labor, safety and environmental practices."

Environmental groups praised the proposed change. Chris Wood, the president of Trout Unlimited, a conservation group, told Friedman, “It’s the only commodity produced off of our public lands where there is no tax or royalty." Friedman reports, "Wood added that money raised from federal royalties could help to clean up an estimated half a million abandoned mines scattered across the American West."

Female farm workers often victims of sexual violence; researchers want legal working age raised, other steps

Graph from The Conversation from Department of Agriculture data

Americans don't usually connect female farm workers with sexual assault, but maybe that should change.

ABC's "American Crime" opened its third season on a tomato farm in North Carolina, "where it showed a young woman being brutally raped in a field by her supervisor. . . . 'People die all the time on that farm. Nobody cares. Women get raped, regular,' another character tells a police interrogator. The show's writers did their research, report Kathleen Sexsmith, Francisco Alfredo Reyes, and Megan A. M. Griffin for The Conversation, a platform for journalism by academics. Studies show that 80% of Mexican and Mexican American women farm workers in the U.S. have experienced some form of sexual harassment at work. "While violence against women in agriculture may seem like an issue mainly experienced in developing countries, the truth is that it also happens all too often to women and girls on farms in the U.S."

Researchers found that most women are abused "by men in positions of power, such as foremen, farm labor contractors, farm owners and co-workers . . . . Immigrant women farm workers are vulnerable because of power imbalances in their male-dominated workplaces. Women represent 28% of the nation's farm workers, making them a minority on many farms. Most are immigrants from Latin America, and many are undocumented. Girls under the age of 18 are particularly vulnerable to sexual harassment and abuse on farms."

Agriculture's unique labor laws may also contribute to abuses. The researchers report: "Children as young as 12 can be hired on farms without a cap on the number of hours they work, as long as they don't miss school. . . . Experts say young girls may be especially vulnerable to sexual harassment and violence on farms because they are less likely to recognize and report abuse. Democrats in Congress have repeatedly introduced versions of the Children's Act for Responsible Employment and Farm Safety Act since 2005. The bill would help address the vulnerability of young girls in farm work by aligning the legal farm working age with other industries."

"As we see it, sexual exploitation perpetrated by men in positions of power instills fear that keeps farm laborers obedient, despite precarious working conditions – and keeps fruits and vegetables cheap," Sexton, Reyes and Griffin write. "We agree with the United Nations that sweeping change is needed to empower women, raise farm productivity and promote human rights in the global food system. As U.S. lawmakers craft the next Farm Bill, they could do enormous good for women around the world by setting an example in American fields and farms."

Based on their research conclusions, Sexton, Reyes and Griffin outline steps to change below:
As a first step, we believe lawmakers should pass the CARE Act, which would raise the legal working age on farms to 14, reducing the number of young girls who are vulnerable to abuse.
Second, legalizing the nation's approximately 283,000 unauthorized farm workers would make those workers less vulnerable to sexual abuse by expanding employment opportunities outside of the agricultural sector.

Third, in our view, efforts to legalize farm workers – most recently through the Farm Workforce Modernization Act – should strengthen labor law enforcement and provide well-funded channels for reporting abuses and changing jobs when abuse occurs.

Abortion clinic opens in Wyoming, where state constitution and 'hands-off conservatism' make it possible, for now

Abortion opponents protest in front of the new Wellspring clinic.
(Photo by Rachel Woolf, The Washington Post)

An abortion clinic in Casper, Wyoming, has opened despite the state's deep-red history and Roe vs. Wade reversal. Wyoming law and Western self-determination beliefs have made Wellspring Health Access' surgical clinic possible, reports Karin Brulliard of The Washington Post. "Most of Wyoming is an abortion desert, and most lawmakers in America's reddest state — having passed laws restricting nearly all abortions as well as the nation's first explicit prohibition on abortion pills. . . . Yet with the state's restrictions tied up in court, Wellspring. . . represents a dramatic abortion standoff and a stark expansion of abortion services in a region of wide-open range and sky." 

Originally scheduled to open in May 2022, the clinic was burned down by an arsonist who "was opposed to abortion," Brulliard writes. The new building opened in spring of 2023. It is a rarity "in what may be the unlikeliest abortion clinic in the country. . . . Wyoming's only other provider, 280 miles away in Jackson, offers just abortion pills. Wellspring's four physicians have already seen patients from South Dakota, Utah and Nebraska, neighboring states with limited or no abortion services. The clinic serves a dozen patients a week on average. Nearly half receive abortions, the rest reproductive health care."

"Wellspring's ability to operate is rooted in the hands-off brand of conservatism that characterized Wyoming politics before hard-liners began gaining influence," Brulliard explains. "In 2011, lawmakers worried about the Affordable Care Act potentially mandating enrollment in an 'Obamacare' plan approved a resolution that put a constitutional amendment to a public vote. It passed, giving adults the right to make their own health-care decisions."

If abortion is health care, the state cannot control an adult's health-care choices. "In court filings, the state has said its policy 'is and has always been to criminalize abortion' and argues that abortion is not health care. . . In March, a state judge in Jackson issued a temporary restraining order on the ban, which makes most abortions a felony punishable by as much as five years in prison. Later this month, she is scheduled to consider a similar order for the medication abortion ban just before it is slated to take effect."

Locations of Wyoming's abortion clinics (Wikpedia, adapted)

The town of 60,000 people on the edge of the Rocky Mountains has tried to keep a level approach, Bruillard reports: "The nonpartisan city council has mostly avoided debate over the clinic, though it has been a flash point." The town's mayor, Bruce Knell, "who describes himself as a 'literal Bibleist,' is not heeding calls for a city resolution condemning abortion." Knell told Bruillard: "They are a legal, law-abiding business, so they have a right to be here. We will allow this to play out in the courts. And I do think the pro-life folks will see a result that they're happy with."

Along party lines, Illinois denies state funding to libraries that restrict or ban books for partisan or doctrinal reasons

Shutterstock photo illustration

As localities across the nation debate book bans, one state has put itself athwart. "Illinois public libraries that restrict or ban materials because of 'partisan or doctrinal' disapproval will be ineligible for state funding as of Jan. 1, 2024," reports Claire Savage of The Associated Press. "The American Library Association in March announced that attempts to censor books in schools and public libraries reached a 20-year high in 2022 — twice as many as 2021, the previous record."

Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom, told Savage: "Illinois legislation responds to disturbing circumstances of censorship and an environment of suspicion." Savage reports, "To be eligible for state funds, Illinois public libraries must adopt the ALA's Library Bill of Rights, which holds that 'materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation,' or subscribe to a similar pledge."

Rep. Anne Stava-Murray (D) sponsored the legislation "after a school board in her district was subject to pressure to ban certain content from school libraries," Savage reports. Stava-Murray told her, "While it's true that kids need guidance and that some ideas can be objectionable, trying to weaponize local government to force one-size-fits-all standards onto the entire community for reasons of bigotry, or as a substitute for active and involved parenting, is wrong."

Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias pointed out to Savage that Illinois taxpayers pay librarians who are experienced and educated to decide "what books should be in circulation," adding, "We are not saying that every book should be in every single library." 

House Minority Leader Tony McCombie (R), who voted against the measure, told Savage, "Our caucus does not believe in banning books, but we do believe that the content of books should be considered in their placement on the shelves." Savage reports, "Despite Giannoulias' assertion that 'this should not be a Democrat or Republican issue,' lawmakers' approval of the bill splintered across party lines, with Republicans in opposition."

'People think that it's just a city problem, while it's not;' death by gunfire is more likely in rural America, study shows

Map by Joe Murphy, NBC News, from Centers for Disease Conrol and Prevention data

It's perhaps an unexpected truth: If you're an urban dweller, you are less likely to die from a gun-inflicted wound than someone living in small-town America. "Gun death rates are consistently higher in rural areas than in big cities, two decades of data show," report Aria Bendix and Joe Murphy of NBC News. "From 2011 to 2020, the most rural counties in the U.S. had a 37% higher rate of gun deaths per capita than the most urban counties, according to research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Surgery. That's up from a 25% difference from 2000 to 2010. . . . Findings are based on an analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors attributed the trend to a rise in gun suicides, which outnumbered gun homicides in 2021 by more than 5,300 and are more likely to occur in rural counties."

Paul Reeping, who conducted the research at Columbia University, told NBC, "Rural areas are sort of ignored when we pass firearm laws because people think that it's just a city problem, while it's not. Suicides were always the highest in rural areas. That hasn't changed. It's just that the gun deaths overall have gone up, including firearm suicides, in those areas." NBC reports, "From 2011 to 2020, the most rural counties had a 46% lower rate of gun homicide deaths than the most urban counties but a 76% higher rate of gun suicide deaths, according to Reeping's analysis."

Gun ownership and the number of firearm deaths rates may trend together. "CDC data suggests firearm death rates tend to be highest in mountain Arizona, Idaho, Nevada and Wyoming. Research from the Rand Corp., a nonpartisan think tank, found a similar trend for gun suicides in 2020." Andrew Morral, a senior behavioral scientist at Rand, told NBC, "These are also states that, not coincidentally, have particularly high firearm ownership rates at the population level. . . . The urban areas have a little bit higher rate of firearm homicides, but it's not huge."

Digging into the data gets sticky, "Because there is no comprehensive national firearm registry and very few state registries, it is difficult to track gun ownership in the U.S., so estimates of gun ownership rely on survey data or measures closely related to gun ownership–such as the number of firearm laws," reports Heather Saunders of the Kaiser Family Foundation. But given the date that's available, "More than twice as many suicides by firearm occur in states with the fewest gun laws, relative to states with the most laws."

More relaxed gun laws, combined with a higher number of gun owners could explain some of the increase. NBC reports, "Researchers suspect that higher rates of firearm ownership in rural counties could drive up gun suicide rates. A 2020 study found that owning a handgun was associated with a greatly elevated risk of firearm suicide among both men and women." Saunders reports, "Firearms are the most lethal method of suicide attempts, and about half of suicide attempts take place within 10 minutes of the current suicide thought, so having access to firearms is a suicide risk factor."

What could lower the number of gun deaths in rural America? "Reeping said safe storage laws — which require guns at home to be unloaded, locked and stored when people who can't legally possess guns are present — might help," NBC reports. "Reeping also noted that doctors at hospitals can assess whether people at risk for suicide have access to firearms, then work with the patient's families to limit that access — a process known as 'lethal means counseling.'. . . Morral, meanwhile, highlighted the effectiveness of red flag laws —which allow state courts to order the temporary removal of firearms from people's possession if they pose significant threats to themselves or others — at preventing both suicides and homicides. . . . He also pointed to a Harvard-led initiative called the Gun Shop Project, which helps gun retailers display and distribute suicide prevention materials and teaches them how to avoid selling or renting firearms to customers at risk of suicide."

Microsoft quietly moves on right to repair in its home state; bill didn't pass but suggests a shift in the issue landscape

So far, New York and Colorado have passed solid legislation to support the right to repair equipment. Now, tech giant Microsoft has moved toward a middle ground that could make a lot of difference in future legislation, reports Maddie Stone of Grist.

"In March, Irene Plenefisch, a senior director of government affairs at Microsoft, sent an email to the eight members of the Washington state Senate's Environment, Energy, and Technology Committee, which was about to hold a hearing to discuss a bill intended to facilitate the repair of consumer electronics," Stone writes. "Typically, when consumer-tech companies reach out to lawmakers concerning right-to-repair bills — which seek to make it easier for people to fix their devices, thus saving money and reducing electronic waste — it's because they want them killed. Plenefisch, however, wanted the committee to know that Microsoft, which is headquartered in Redmond, Wash., was on board with this one, which had already passed the Washington House. . . . Plenefisch wrote to the committee. 'This bill fairly balances the interests of manufacturers, customers, and independent repair shops and in doing so will provide more options for consumer device repair.'"

Nathan Proctor, who heads the U.S. Public Research Interest Group's right-to-repair campaign, told Stone, "We are in the middle of more conversations with manufacturers being way more cooperative than before. And I think Microsoft's leadership and willingness to be first created that opportunity." Stone reports, "Like other consumer tech giants, Microsoft has historically fought right-to-repair bills while restricting access and repair documentation to its network of 'authorized' repair partners. But in recent years the company has started changing. . . . In 2021, following pressure from shareholders, Microsoft agreed to take steps to facilitate the repair of its devices — a first for a U.S. company. . . . Microsoft followed through on the agreement by expanding access to spare parts and service tools, including through a partnership with the repair guide site iFixit."

Stone writes, "Microsoft's engagement appears to have shifted the tone . . . . other manufacturers became aware that the company was sitting down with lawmakers and repair advocates, 'they realized they couldn't just ignore us,' Proctor said. His organization has since held meetings about proposed right-to-repair legislation in Minnesota with the Consumer Technology Association and TechNet, two large trade associations that frequently lobby against right-to-repair bills and rarely sit down with advocates. . . . 'A lot of conversations have been quite productive' around a Minnesota right-to-repair bill, Proctor said."

Despite Microsoft's quiet support, the bill did not pass. "Senator Drew MacEwen, one of the Republicans on the Energy, Environment, and Technology Committee who opposed the bill, said that Microsoft called his office to tell him the company supported the Fair Repair Act," Stone reports. MacEwen told her, "I asked why after years of opposition, and they said it was based on customer feedback." Stone adds, "But that wasn't enough to convince MacEwen. He said, "Ultimately, I do believe there is a compromise path that can be reached but will take a lot more work."

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Mia Gregerson, "wonders if Microsoft could have had a greater impact by testifying publicly in support of the bill," Stone writes. "While Gregerson credits the company with helping right-to-repair get further than ever in her state this year, Microsoft's support was entirely behind the scenes. Gregerson told Stone, "They did a lot of meetings, but if you're going to be first in the nation on this, you've got to do more."

Colorado becomes first state to pass 'right to repair' law for farmers; several other states are considering similar bills

Photo from Universal Images Group via Getty Images

In July 2021, President Biden issued an executive order supporting farmers' rights to repair their tractors. Twenty-one months later, one state has passed right-to-repair legislation for farmers.

"Colorado farmers will be able to legally fix their own equipment next year, with manufacturers, including Deere & Co. and CNH Industrial, obliged to provide them with manuals for diagnostic software and other aids, under a measure passed by legislators in the first U.S. state to approve such a law," reports Bianca Flowers of Reuters. "The Consumer Right to Repair Agriculture Equipment Act garnered bipartisan support as farmers grew increasingly frustrated with costly repairs and inflated input prices denting their profits."

The new law means that farmers or independent technicians can use manufacture's tools to repair equipment such as combines and tractors without waiting for an "authorized dealer representative," Flowers reports. A Deere spokesperson said the company supports "right to repair" but thinks the law will have unintended consequences. "Equipment makers worry the legislation may allow farmers to override certain safety systems or emissions controls, said Eric Wareham, a North American Equipment Dealers Association vice president."

The bill passed after "lawmakers amended the bill to include language that farmers and repair shops will not be authorized 'to make modifications' to functions related to security or emissions," Flowers notes. "Rep. Brianna Titone, a Democrat who sponsored the legislation, predicted other states will follow suit." She told Flowers, "If there are no lawsuits or collapse of the industry, it demonstrates that the law is not going to cause chaos like many opponents think it will." Titone sponsored and passed Colorado's first right to repair law, which gave wheelchair owners the right to access tools and technology to fix their own chairs.

Deere and CNH tried to head off such laws applying to farmers with a memorandum of understanding with the American Farm Bureau Federation that allows farmers to fix their equipment or go to a third party, notes Leland Glenna, writing in The Conversation, a platform for journalism by academics: "At its most basic level, right-to-repair legislation seeks to protect the end users of a product from anti-competitive activities by large companies. New York passed the first broad right-to-repair law in 2022, and nearly two dozen states have active legislation – about half of them targeting farm equipment."

Jimmy Carter was the 'first global leader to recognize climate change.' Some lessons from our last rural president.

President Carter addressing a town meeting. (Getty Images photo)

Looking back 40 years, climate change was not a popular topic; however, that doesn't mean Americans weren't warned. "Jimmy Carter was the first global leader to recognize the problem of climate change," Jonathan Alter writes for Inside Climate News. "In 1977, he commissioned the Global 2000 Report to the President, an ambitious effort to explore environmental challenges and the prospects of 'sustainable development' over the next 20 years. . . . The White House Council on Environmental Quality issued three reports contending with global warming, the last of which—issued the week before Carter left office—was devoted entirely to the long-term threat of what a handful of scientists then called 'carbon dioxide pollution.'”

One of the CEQ's reports "urged 'immediate action' and included calculations on CO2 emissions in the next decades that proved surprisingly accurate," Atler reports. "A CEQ report suggested trying to limit global average temperature to 2°C above pre-industrial levels — precisely the standard agreed to by the nations of the world 38 years later in the Paris climate accord. . . . With those facts in hand, Reagan’s landslide victory over Carter in the 1980 election takes on a tragic dimension: Carter had acted on every other CEQ report issued in the previous four years with aggressive legislation and executive orders. He almost certainly would have done so on this one, too, had he been reelected. . . . Gains made under Carter’s presidential leadership in the early 1980s might have bought the planet precious time."

Jimmy Carter was a different kind of politician. "He had been a nuclear engineer in the Navy and—while other politicians played golf—he spent his spare time reading scientific publications," Alter writes. During his time in office, "Carter signed 14 major pieces of environmental legislation, including the first fuel economy standards and important new laws to fight air, water and other forms of pollution. He also protected 100 million acres in the Alaska Lands bill, which doubled the size of the National Park Service."

Alter reports, "There are lessons here for the present. Carter was a political failure . . . . but he was a substantive and visionary success.. . It took a while for public opinion to catch up to him. After being burned in effigy in Alaska, he received only 26 percent of the statewide vote in the 1980 presidential election. But by 2000, a billion-dollar tourism industry had blossomed there, and polls showed residents favored Carter’s landmark achievement. . . . When he visited that year, his speech was interrupted five times for standing ovations."

The East Palestine train: How did it travel through towns without a warning label that it was highly hazardous?

How could a train with at least 20 cars of potentially explosive material not have a warning label? "In a press conference following the catastrophic derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, Gov. Mike DeWine expressed difficulty grasping one particular aspect of federal rail regulations," reports Reid Frazier of The Allegheny Front. DeWine said, “This train … was not considered high-hazardous material train. Frankly, if this is true – and I’m told it’s true – this is absurd, and we need to look at this.”

The reason for the accident is being looked at first. "The National Transportation Safety Board – the federal agency investigating the crash – says it is looking at a damaged wheel bearing on one of the cars in the Norfolk Southern train as a possible cause for the Feb. 3 crash," Frazier writes. "The derailment, which released toxic chemicals into the streams and air around East Palestine, [has left] many wondering how the country’s regulations around rail traffic could have allowed a train with 20 cars of hazardous material not to be considered a 'high hazard.' And could stronger regulations have prevented it from happening? . . .  All four U.S. senators from Ohio and Pennsylvania say they’ll push for new rules to prevent a similar disaster in the future."

"The rules federal regulators wrote a few years ago regarding hazardous train cargo will likely need to be revisited, experts say. These rules were written during a period of high-profile rail accidents involving crude oil trains, including the Lac-Mégantic, Quebec disaster in 2013 that killed 47," Frazier reports. "The final rules, published in 2015, mandated tighter regulations for 'high-hazard flammable trains.' But the government defined these as trains carrying crude oil and other liquid fuels. Flammable gases like vinyl chloride were excluded from the regulations, against the recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board. . . . Regulators allowed exemptions in the rules that the Norfolk Southern train was operating under when it derailed," Frazier writes. A 2015 regulation defines high-hazard train as one "comprised of 20 or more loaded tank cars of a Class 3 flammable liquid in a continuous block or 35 or more loaded tank cars of a Class 3 flammable liquid across the entire train."

Frazier reports, "The NTSB also recommended these trains have electronically controlled pneumatic braking systems, which studies have shown are better than the kinds of air brakes that were on the Norfolk Southern train. The rules originally mandated that these trains have electronic brakes. But after lobbying by the rail industry, the Trump administration rescinded those rules. So far, the Biden administration has not yet signaled an appetite to revisit them."