This endorsement, made via a Facebook post on Sunday, is not just a casual nod; it reflects a significant shift in the narrative. Ghalib, while acknowledging that he and Trump don’t “agree on everything,” still regards the former president as “a man of principles.”

Here’s his post:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let me be clear, so our expectations are realistic.

President Trump and I may not agree on everything, but I know he is a man of principles.

Though it’s looking good, he may or may not win the election and be the 47th president of the United States, but I believe he is the right choice for this critical time. I’ll not regret my decision no matter what the outcome would be, and I’m ready to face the consequences.

For this, and for many other reasons, I announce my support and endorsement for the former, and hopefully, the next president of the United States, Donald Trump.

Now, let the Caravan begin its journey. This is just the starting point.

Amer Ghalib
Hamtramck City Mayor.

Trump, ever the savvy politician, wasted no time in amplifying Ghalib’s message, sharing it on his Truth Social account. This is more than just an endorsement; it’s a strategic alliance that could resonate deeply within the Arab American community.

Ghalib’s endorsement follows a private meeting with Trump in Flint earlier this week, where the two engaged in a candid 20-minute conversation.

Ghalib noted that Trump “knew a lot about me before the meeting,” suggesting a level of preparation that hints at a calculated approach to garnering support from diverse communities.

In his discussions with Trump, Ghalib revealed, “We talked about various topics including the debates, the polls updates, the statistics of votes in Michigan and Wayne County, the Arab American concerns and the Yemeni Americans in particular. We also talked about the situation in Yemen.”

Hamtramck is the only U.S. city governed entirely by Muslims, with more than 40% of the city’s population foreign-born.

Biden currently trails former President Donald Trump by 0.5% in a national head-to-head matchup, according to the RealClearPolling average of polls, with Trump’s lead growing to 1.3% when independent candidates Cornel West and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Green Party candidate Jill Stein are included. Enten singled out Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as states that could be the best chance for Biden to secure reelection.

“This is the road to 270 and it’s Biden’s best path based on the polls and past results, and basically, if you want to look here, it’s these yellow states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and where are the polls right now here?” Enten told “CNN News Central” co-host Sara Sidner, showing figures from an aggregate of polls he selected. “Look how tight they are here: Two-point lead for Trump in Pennsylvania, tied in Michigan, tied in Wisconsin. If he carries all three of these, Biden does, he gets to exactly 270 electoral votes.”

WATCH:

'Look How Tight They Are': CNN's Harry Enten Says Biden's Best Path To Victory Comes Down To Three States pic.twitter.com/vLdgsMLm7t

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) June 20, 2024

Biden won Michigan by 2.8%, Pennsylvania by 1.2% and Wisconsin by 0.7% in the 2020 election, according to Politico.

Trump currently leads Biden by 0.2% in Michigan, 2.3% in Pennsylvania and 0.3% in Wisconsin in head-to-head matchups, according to the RCP average. On June 20, 2020, Biden led by 8.4%, 5.7% and 5.4%, respectively.

When West, Kennedy and Stein are included, Trump leads 0.1% in Michigan, 2.9% in Pennsylvania and 0.3% in Wisconsin, according to RCP.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

The Family Fare store is situated in a retail strip with a sign structure at the top, which is accessible from the roof. The woman was able to use electricity through a power cord plugged into an outlet on the roof, Warren said. It remains unclear how she accessed the roof without a ladder.

“She was homeless,” Officer Brennon Warren of the Midland Police Department said Thursday. “It’s a story that makes you scratch your head, just somebody living up in a sign.”

The woman is employed but apparently does not make enough money in the current economy to afford housing.

SpartanNash, the parent company of Family Fare, commended the store employees for their compassion and professionalism in handling the situation. The company’s spokesperson, Adrienne Chance, emphasized the need for more safe and affordable housing nationwide.

The woman was cooperative and left the premises without any charges being pursued. The Midland Police Department provided her with information about local services.

Saralyn Temple, the director of Midland’s Open Door, a nonprofit that provides food and shelter assistance, highlighted the need for more housing options for low-income residents in the city, which has a population of 42,000. Despite acknowledging the woman’s resourcefulness, Temple stressed the importance of finding better housing solutions for individuals in similar situations.

Article generated from corporate media reports.

Former Congressman Mike Rogers is a full-blown RINO. He’s a NeoCon. He’s part of the Romney/Cheney wing of the Republican Establishment. And perhaps most importantly, he’s a self-avowed NeverTrumper.

As Senator Rand Paul noted on Twitter, Donald Trump’s endorsement of Rogers for U.S. Senator in the Michigan race is like endorsing John Bolton.

Donald Trump just endorsed the worst Deep State candidate this cycle.

@MikeRogersForMI is a never Trumper, and a card carrying member of the spy state that seeks to destroy Trump.

You have to ask yourself who gives Trump this awful advice?

Who’s next, John Bolton?

Donald Trump just endorsed the worst Deep State candidate this cycle. @MikeRogersForMI is a never Trumper, and a card carrying member of the spy state that seeks to destroy Trump.

You have to ask yourself who gives Trump this awful advice?

Who’s next, John Bolton? pic.twitter.com/TZXRYLtFv6

— Rand Paul (@RandPaul) March 11, 2024

The question is, “Why?” The answer is, sadly, pretty obvious.

Trump the Deal Maker

As much as most Trump supporters want to believe that their preferred candidate is above the petty political fray and that backroom deals with the UniParty Swamp are below him, neither are true. He’s not above the fray. In fact, he generally thrives within the fray and he’s not going to let the RINO v America First Patriot war within the Republican Party slip by without his input.

When it comes to backroom deals, Trump is among the best at getting the upper hand. Unfortunately, that means that he’s willing to do things his base doesn’t like if it means achieving a goal. Right now, the goal is to be President of the United States and he (or at least his team) believes engaging with the UniParty Swamp is the best way to achieve this goal.

I’d argue that the strategy is wrong, but I’m biased. I don’t want any dealings with the UniParty Swamp. I have that luxury since I’m sitting behind a keyboard instead of running for office. Trump does not have that luxury.

But Mike Rogers? Really? This guy makes Dick Cheney seem mild in his warmongering and Deep State shenanigans. As Sundance at The Conservative Treehouse noted:

Mike Rogers together with Democrat Rep Dutch Ruppersberger, were infamous for generating the report that defended the CIA and Deep State during the Benghazi aftermath and protecting Hillary Clinton {GO DEEP}.  CTH took apart the report that was created by Rogers and Ruppersberger without the other members of the intelligence committee participating.

Annoyingly, Rogers has a long history of helping to assist and create the national security “surveillance state.”  SEE HERE and SEE HERE and SEE HERE.  Perhaps he has changed in the decade since he was one of the primary advocates for the Deep State and the creation of the 4th branch of government; however, I doubt it.

I also doubt that President Trump was advised about the nature of Mike Rogers and his ideological outlook toward supporting the National Security state.  Rogers has a life-long history of supporting the very institutional actors who targeted President Trump, so it’s a little hard to see him supporting President Trump in the second term.

The 2014 Rogers/Ruppersberger Report was specifically designed, by wording, to provide political cover to both parties – Republicans and Democrats within the Gang of Eight particularly included and protected.

Endorsements are almost entirely worthless. Trump’s are by far the most important any candidate can receive, which is why it’s discouraging that on multiple occasions over the past eight years he’s made some pretty ugly ones. Katie Britt? Dr. Mehmet Oz? Mitt Romney?!?!?!?!

But there’s an asterisk that needs to be added here. Of the GOP candidates vying for the nomination, the three top candidates are ALL NeverTrumpers. Justin Amash is a Libertarian at heart who hates Trump. Peter Meijer voted to impeach Trump. James Craig was the best candidate but dropped out even when he was polling strong because he ran out of money. Rogers is arguably the least of the NeverTrump evils who have a chance of winning.

So there’s that. But the circumstances don’t take away the sting of knowing that Trump is endorsing someone based on the prodding of the Mitch McConnell clan in the Senate. I’d rather Trump had endorsed an America First candidate who would lose instead of a RINO who is likely going to win.

Sound off about this article on my Substack.

The plant marks a $3.5 billion investment in EV battery production and is estimated to create 2,500 jobs, Ford announced in February. The announced pause on construction precedes President Joe Biden’s scheduled visit to striking members of the United Auto Workers (UAW), whose grievances with Ford and other members of the “Big Three” manufacturers are largely attributable to Biden’s aggressive EV push.

It is unclear exactly why Ford has opted to pause construction, or whether the decision is in any way related to the ongoing UAW strike. The construction pause will go into effect Monday, Ford spokesman T.R. Reid told the DCNF.

Biden’s electric vehicle push might actually end up benefiting China https://t.co/y0yotHkeM4

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) April 11, 2023

“We’re pausing work and limiting spending on construction on the Marshall project until we’re confident about our ability to competitively operate the plant,” Reid told the DCNF. A “number of considerations” were involved in the company’s decision to halt construction, and there has not been “any final decision about the planned investment,” Reid added.

Ford planned to build technology it had licensed from Chinese battery company CATL at the Marshall plant, and the company is poised to reap considerable subsidies from the state and federal governments for the project.

Despite his pro-labor rhetoric and history, Biden’s multi-billion dollar push to have at least 50% of all new car sales be EVs by 2030 has attributed to the labor dispute, as the union is concerned that the less labor-intensive EVs taking up a much larger share of the market will ultimately disadvantage the workers it represents in the absence of protections in new contracts with the manufacturers.

Ford, like many other American manufacturers, has leaned into the administration’s EV push, taking advantage of Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) incentives, favorable loans and other programs that provide the corporations with billions of dollars to pursue the EV transition over the coming years. The company plans to invest over $50 billion in EVs globally through 2026 in order to develop breakthrough EV technology, and it also aims to manufacture EVs at a rate of 2 million per year by 2026, according to its website.

The White House and the UAW did not respond immediately to requests for comment.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

When we think manufacturing, we think Michigan. As one of America’s leading manufacturing states, it stands in the top third for economic outlook among all the United States, and it’s leading America’s industrial renaissance.

Unfortunately, some Michigan lawmakers are pursuing a series of so-called green legislative efforts that will stop the state’s progress square in its tracks.

The leading culprit is House Bill 4739, which will subject Michigan families and businesses to “a carbon-free energy portfolio of 100%” by 2035, with some minor exclusions. To put it lightly, this would devastate the Michigan economy and provide no environmental benefits.

Let’s first look at the economics.

Michigan gets about 63% of its energy from conventional sources like coal and natural gas (33.4% and 29.4%, respectively). 26% comes from nuclear, while wind and solar provide only around 8%.

This means that two-thirds of Michigan’s most affordable electricity will need to be replaced by more expensive and less reliable renewables.

In other words, higher prices and lower reliability for Michigan residential consumers and businesses.

While the pro-renewable community tries to handwave these problems away, there is enough real-world evidence that shows how harmful a forced transition to renewables actually is—especially to manufacturing-heavy economies.

Take Germany, for instance, where the political class is forcing a transition from conventional fuels to less dense energy sources such as wind and solar. Because of that, industry in the country faces a 40% increase in energy prices.

Many will blame this increase on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, but that’s not the real story.

As an initial matter, the residential retail price for electricity in Germany was already triple that of the U.S. average in 2021. Germany’s reliance on Russia was a result of its push towards renewables (and its shift away from nuclear energy), which left it unable to generate the power it needed to fuel its modern industrial economy. It relied instead on Russian hydrocarbons, and that is what created the vulnerability.

And it’s being felt by German businesses.

The Association of German Chambers of Commerce and Industry recently reported that industry pessimism about the economy is as severe now as it was during the 2008 financial crisis and the initial COVID-19 lockdowns. Seventy-eight percent of businesses surveyed identified rising energy and raw material prices as two of the biggest risks they face, contributing to expectations that their businesses will deteriorate.

Another survey found that nearly 25% of Germany’s small- and medium-sized businesses are considering or actually relocating parts of their operations to other countries. One prominent example is German company BASF’s decision to invest in China rather than Germany (or Michigan).

The great irony of the entire episode is that Putin’s gas and oil, which was backfilling for the deficiency of renewables, is now being backfilled by coal.

There are examples closer to home as well.

Like the Michigan proposal, California has a zero-carbon energy goal, which it plans to reach by 2045. Like Germany, California imports energy to make up for its own policy deficiencies—indeed, California is America’s leading electricity importer. Also, like Germany, electricity prices in California are significantly higher than the U.S. average.

The result is that businesses and industry can’t leave California fast enough.

Why would anyone in Michigan want to replicate what’s happening in California or Germany? And who is going to backfill Michigan’s energy shortfalls?

From the fur trade to lumber to auto manufacturing, Michigan has seen its fair share of booms and busts.

Yet somehow, manufacturing always fights back.

Between 1979, when there were around 1.2 million manufacturing jobs in Michigan, and 1983, the state lost over 300,000 manufacturing jobs. Eventually, manufacturing largely stabilized at between 800,000 and 900,000 jobs during the 1990s and then steadily dropped during the 2000s before bottoming out at 431,000 jobs during the 2009 financial crisis. It then fought its way back to over 600,000 manufacturing jobs when COVID-19 struck (or more accurately, governments struck down our economy with their COVID-19 policies).

Michigan needs to succeed, and removing energy options is the way to failure, not success. If Michigan’s politicians believe so much in renewables, they should prohibit electricity from being imported from neighboring states that use coal or natural gas to produce it.

Perhaps most importantly, how is Michigan’s manufacturing and industrial renaissance going to survive such a policy?

Some might argue that while the costs could be severe, it’s a price worth paying to save the planet. So, let’s now look at the environmental impact.

The Heritage Foundation’s chief statistician, Kevin Dayaratna, has investigated exactly this impact using the same models used by government agencies. He found that eliminating all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would reduce temperatures by no more than 0.5 degrees Celsius by 2100. (The Daily Signal is the multimedia news and commentary site of The Heritage Foundation.)

If Michigan were to eliminate all of its conventional fuel-based emissions, it would result in the infinitesimal temperature reduction of 0.0042 degrees Celsius by 2100. Michigan needs to ask itself, after all that its industry has been through over the past century, after all the fighting back, as it sits at the precipice of a manufacturing renaissance, is it worth throwing all of that away for 0.0042 degrees over a lifetime?

The answer is no.

Article cross-posted from Daily Signal. Image by swskeptic from USA, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Michigan’s Proposal 3 would establish a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom” in the state constitution. The proposal’s text says this “entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care” (emphasis added).

The state’s Planned Parenthood chapter has disputed the claim that this amendment to the Michigan Constitution would have any impact on what it calls “gender-affirming care for minors.”

Vermont’s Proposal 5, which would add a new Article 22 to the Vermont Constitution, states “that an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.”

Neither measure stipulates that the reproductive “right” in question applies only to adults above age 18, and neither says that it applies only to women or to abortion. Critics argue that the inclusion of sterilization in the Michigan list is deliberate, and that both constitutional amendments would enable courts to declare controversial transgender medical interventions a fundamental “right” for minors, excluding their parents from such decisions.

Michigan

Michigan’s Proposal 3 specifically mentions “sterilization” and says that “every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom.” Supporters have praised the measure for eliminating laws requiring parental notification in a minor’s abortion decisions, and opponents argue that the elimination of parental rights also would extend to transgender issues. One of the organizations that helped craft the measure told The Daily Signal that it would “have no impact” on transgender issues, however.

Organizations that support the amendment, such as the ACLU of Michigan and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan, state explicitly online and in a “Frequently Asked Questions” document that the constitutional amendment would “repeal parental notification of abortion for minors.”

“Proposal 3 is a constitutional amendment that would repeal Michigan’s parental consent laws, allowing children to have abortions and undergo gender hormone treatments without parental consent or knowledge,” Christen Pollo, a spokeswoman for Citizens to Support MI Women & Children, an organization opposing the amendment, told The Daily Signal. She noted the ACLU and Planned Parenthood documents.

“A constitutional right to ‘sterilization’ presumably includes a right to be sterilized to align one’s sex and gender identity,” John Bursch, vice president of appellate advocacy and senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom and a former solicitor general of Michigan, wrote in the Detroit Free Press. “It’s not clear that Michiganders support a constitutional right to cross-sex sterilization. But it’s certain that a majority would not support a 12-year-old girl’s right to sterilization without her parent’s notice and consent.”

“Regardless of what you think about gender reassignment, the notion that children would be able to undergo gender change surgeries or hormones without parental knowledge is an extreme policy that is not supported by good moms and dads in Michigan,” Pollo told The Daily Signal. “Yet that is exactly what Proposal 3 would allow for. And it should be no surprise that Planned Parenthood is pushing for this: they are now the second-largest provider of gender hormone therapy and have ad campaigns targeting children with puberty blockers.”

“If Proposal 3 passes, this won’t just be where they are headed—it will be a constitutional right,” she added.

A spokesperson for Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan contested these arguments, however.

“Proposal 3 would affirm the fundamental right to make and carry out decisions without political interference in matters relating to pregnancy,” the spokesperson told The Daily Signal in a statement Friday. “This includes decisions about birth control, abortion, prenatal care, and childbirth. Proposal 3 would have no impact on gender-affirming care for minors.”

“It is telling that Proposal 3 opponents are trying to make this ballot campaign about anything other than the actual purpose of the proposal,” the spokesperson added. “They know that the clear majority of Michiganders want abortion to remain legal and want women to be able to make their own decisions about birth control, pregnancy and childbirth. They know they can’t win on the facts, so they’re spreading disinformation. Proposal 3 would restore the rights Michiganders had under Roe v. Wade. It’s that simple.”

Although the proposal would restore abortion rights in Michigan, it arguably would go beyond Roe, which allowed states to restrict abortion after the point of fetal viability and impose constraints such as parental consent requirements.

“The bill could easily have been written to refer to abortion explicitly and exclusively,” Jay Richards, senior research fellow in religious liberty and civil society at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal in response to the Planned Parenthood spokesperson. (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s multimedia news organization.)

“Instead, it refers to some ill-defined right to reproductive freedom,” Richards said. “The only reason to do that is to use the fight over abortion to expand into other jurisdictions of the social revolution. I would also note that many Planned Parenthood facilities dispense cross-sex hormones, so they have a financial stake in gender-transition procedures.”

Michigan’s Democratic attorney general, Dana Nessel, has endorsed the amendment.

“We have to vote yes on Proposal 3,” Nessel said at an October rally during which she opened up about her own experience.

After trying to get pregnant for a while, Nessel said, she finally conceived—triplets. Yet her doctor advised her that she would have to abort one of the babies to save the other two.

“I took my doctor’s advice. I had a procedure, and now I have two beautiful 19-year-old boys,” she recounted.

Pro-life advocates may counter the idea that Nessel’s procedure constitutes the same kind of abortion they would prefer to outlaw, but the attorney general used her experience as an argument, nonetheless. Neither Nessel nor the ACLU of Michigan responded to The Daily Signal’s request for comment on the transgender implications of the proposed constitutional amendment.

Vermont

Vermont’s Proposal 5 is not technically a ballot initiative but the final step in amending the Vermont Constitution with the addition of Article 22. While the amendment does not include language regarding sterilization, opponents argue that its broad terms open the floodgates for transgender applications.

“I believe the course is clear. Article 22 is meant to purposefully open Pandora’s box and then bar future legislators from doing anything about it,” Matthew Strong, executive director of Vermonters for Good Government, an organization opposing the amendment, told The Daily Signal in an email statement. “Minor/children’s transgender issues is just one of many intended goals with this, and the extreme agendas in the school system are already hard at work on this.”

“The Legislature’s word choice makes the long-term goal very plain,” Strong argued. “By using the word ‘individual’ instead of ‘woman,’ it removes gender and age restrictions on whom this applies to. We allege that this constitutional amendment was written BY Planned Parenthood, FOR Planned Parenthood” (emphasis his).

Strong noted that the speaker of the Vermont House, Jill Krowinski, is a former vice president of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. Neither Krowinski nor the Planned Parenthood affiliate responded to The Daily Signal’s requests for comment.

Strong noted that Article 22 cleared two votes in each of the state’s two legislative chambers and its appearance on the ballot represents the final step of the process.

“It was rushed through during the pandemic and very few Vermonters knew about it,” Strong said.

State Rep. Anne Donahue, R-Washington County, a spokeswoman for Vermonters for Good Government and a critic of the measure, highlighted an exchange that took place as the Legislature considered the amendment.

“Even the proponents have stated that anything in terms of future interpretation will be ‘up to the courts’ —in this case, the Vermont Supreme Court,” Donahue told The Daily Signal.

She argued that “‘Reproductive autonomy’ is an ever-evolving term, not set in time and certainly not limited to what anyone claims it might mean today. Quite literally anything that is related to reproduction in any way is wide open to inclusion, and anything interpreted as a barrier to access to that right would be open to being found unconstitutional.”

“Courts do look for evidence of legislative intent when language is open to interpretation, and there was direct discussion about keeping it available to future health care interpretation and a specific choice to not place limiting language to specify direct enumerated rights,” Donahue added. “There is also clear intent about access for minors, including without parental consent or even notice. Because minors currently are protected in access to abortion (without parental consent or notice)—with limitations rejected by the Legislature in 2019—that would be used for equivalence to any other reproductive rights, including surgical ones.”

Donahue highlighted an exchange from January, in which state Rep. Carl Rosenquist, R-Franklin County, raised concerns about religious liberty and worries that the proposed constitutional amendment would “compel private health care providers to provide care that violates their moral or religious beliefs.”

State Rep. Ann Pugh, D-Chittenden County, a lead sponsor of the amendment, responded: “My understanding is [that] when rights are in conflict, we go to court. And that is the role of the courts to decide, or a judge.”

Rosenquist was presenting “a conflict of rights,” Pugh said.

An ACLU representative agreed, saying, “Yes, that is the correct response.”

Proposal 5 “encompasses more than just abortion. It protects both women and men,” Vermont Solicitor General Eleanor Spottswood said. “The language of Proposal 5 is actually based on a long line of case law, protecting the rights to choose or refuse contraception, to choose or refuse sterilization, the right to become pregnant and the right to choose abortion.”

Spottswood added that “difficult cases where fundamental rights of different parties are pitted against each other are decided by the courts.”

Pugh defended the constitutional amendment as necessary to provide clarity.

“In this turbulent time, we must have clarity,” Pugh said in October, Vermont Business Magazine reported. “The lack of a definitive enumeration of reproductive liberty in Vermont’s Constitution, the threats to Roe v. Wade being weakened or overturned by a very conservative U.S. Supreme Court, and the cloud of multistate efforts to erode reproductive autonomy all build a strong case for [Proposal] 5.”

The state lawmaker noted that Vermont has “intentionally chosen not to limit or restrict” access to abortion. “We have long recognized that decisions related to reproductive health care and abortion are deeply personal and private, and are best left to a woman and her doctor,” she said.

Neither Pugh nor Spottswood responded to The Daily Signal’s requests for comment. Sen. Becca Balint, D-Windham County, and Sen. Tim Ashe, D-Chittenden County, the lead sponsors of the amendment, also did not respond.

Vermont for Reproductive Liberty, the campaign in support of the constitutional amendment, did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment on the transgender issue.

Vermont Gov. Phil Scott, a Republican, has endorsed the amendment.

“Vermont has a long tradition of supporting a woman’s right to choose,” Scott said in a prepared statement in July about the amendment’s proceeding to the November ballot. “These decisions are deeply personal and belong between a woman and her health care provider, free from government interference.”

“In Vermont, we solidified the right to choose in law, and now Vermonters have the opportunity to further protect that right in our constitution,” Scott said. “It is more important than ever to make sure the women in our state have the right to make their own decisions about their health, bodies, and their futures.”

Scott’s office did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment about transgender fallout from the amendment.

Analysis

Michigan and Vermont aren’t the only states with abortion-related measures on the ballot Tuesday.

Kentuckians will vote on a constitutional amendment expressly stating that there is no right to abortion. Montanans will vote on a measure declaring that infants born alive at any stage of development are legal persons.

Californians, meanwhile, will vote on a constitutional amendment stating that the state can’t “deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions,” including abortion and contraceptives.

Heritage’s Richards told The Daily Signal that the Michigan and Vermont ballot questions allow for expansive interpretation for transgender issues, while the California one does not.

“My sense is that the Vermont bill has precisely the same problems as the Michigan bill, and almost certainly intentionally,” Richards said. “Vermont just talks about ‘reproductive autonomy’ while Michigan talks about ‘reproductive freedom,’ which, as we’ve noted, almost certainly includes everything from taxpayer-funded contraception and surrogacy to gender transition procedures.”

Meanwhile, he noted, “California’s seems to be focused mainly on abortion and contraceptives. But there’s a reason that California can be more specific: The state has already passed a law making the state a magnet for teens seeking cross-sex hormones and gender-reassignment surgery. So the California Left has no need to sneak that in with vague wording in a bill presumably about abortion.”

Controversial ‘Treatments’

Transgender medical interventions for children have become a divisive political issue. Although transgender activists argue that children are more likely to commit suicide if schools and parents don’t encourage their transgender identities, it remains unclear whether affirmation and controversial medical interventions actually help students with gender dysphoria.

Medical interventions can have dangerous lifelong effects, even those that do not involve the surgical removal of healthy sex organs. So-called puberty blockers, for example, actually introduce a disease into a patient’s body, according to Dr. Michael Laidlaw, an endocrinologist in Rocklin, California. Hypogonadotropic hypogonadism occurs when the brain fails to send the right signal to the gonads to make the hormones necessary for development.

“An endocrinologist might treat a condition where a female’s testosterone levels are going to be outside the normal range,” Laidlaw told PJ Media. “We’ll treat that, and we’re aware of metabolic problems. At the same time, an endocrinologist may be giving high levels of testosterone to a female to ‘transition’ her.”

Cross-sex hormones also can have serious, long-term side effects, increasing the risk of osteoporosis and cardiovascular events.

The idea that minors, who can’t drink, vote, or serve in the military, can nonetheless consent to interventions that may leave them scarred, stunted, and infertile is rightly controversial. These proposed constitutional amendments may involve instituting broad rights that include minors’ access to such “treatments,” opponents argue.

Article cross-posted from Daily Signal.

According to Daily Wire:

A University of Michigan assistant football coach collapsed on the sidelines during a college football game Saturday and had to be carted off the field and transported to a hospital. 

Running backs coach Mike Hart fell to the ground during the first half of the Michigan Wolverines game against the Indiana Hoosiers at Memorial Stadium in Bloomington, Indiana, and was taken away for medical evaluation. 

The 36-year-old coach was taken to a hospital, the team told a staff writer for The Athletic. Hart gave two thumbs up as he was taken out on cart. He had reportedly suffered a seizure just after a Hoosier touchdown. 

Scary situation in Bloomington to see Mike Hart collapse on the sideline. pic.twitter.com/i6h3Be7KoX

— Bryan Fischer (@BryanDFischer) October 8, 2022

Seizures are known as possible adverse reactions to the Covid jabs. But nobody’s supposed to mention that in media. Even many in alternative media have made it a habit to avoid such stories. The reason is clear. Both Google and Facebook will blacklist sites that connect vaccine adverse reactions to public events or individuals. Google is by far the best revenue generator for most news sites and Facebook is the biggest traffic-driver.

This is just another reason to get your news from The Liberty Daily. Soon, I will be launching Discern.tv for the same reason.

For the record, she’s a woman even if she doesn’t know what one is.

According to Fox News:

Whitmer made the comments after being asked a question about a proposed amendment to the Michigan state constitution protecting access to abortion for its citizens should the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade.

The proposal’s initiative is being led by a group called Reproductive Freedom For All, and it will only appear on the ballot if a minimum number of petition signatures required by state law are obtained and certified by the board of state canvassers by July 11.

“What should we expect — this is a scary one —what should we expect if the reproductive freedom proposal fails? Are you able to protect reproductive rights without that proposal passing if Roe v. Wade fails? What can voters do to help preserve our freedom of choice?” asked Erica Peresman, the Michigan Democratic Party’s voter protection director.

“So we saw where we thought Dobbs was going to be headed, and this was prior to the draft opinion coming out publicly,” Whitmer responded. “So we looked at all the tools that I have as governor and determined a couple of unique things I can do.”

“Number one: I have the constitutional ability to bring a lawsuit to protect constitutional rights of people of Michigan. So I brought a lawsuit on behalf of all the menstruating people in Michigan — 2.2 million. And another tool I have is to go straight to our state Supreme Court,” she added.

Whitmer’s comments appeared to be an attempt to further use of language many have criticized as “woke,” such as when Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., was sharply criticized for referring to a woman as a “menstruating person” last year.

This is the type of leftist lunacy that should drive sane Democrat voters to the brink of being red-pilled. A woman is a woman is a woman is a woman. No radical shift in language changes what has been commonly known for millennia.