Mediaboss Marketing

In the last 24 hours, the public debate over whether vaccinations for children should be mandatory has been overlaid with partisan politics, with both President Barack Obama and possible 2016 GOP candidate Gov. Chris Christie weighing in with different takes on the issue. In a pre-Superbowl interview with NBC News, Obama urged vaccination skeptics to "know the facts," while Christie had to backpedal after telling reporters he believes parents should have "a measure of choice" in the matter.

While vaccination skeptics don't fit into a single political categorization, a deeper dive into poll data can show us a little bit more about how Americans from both parties look at this issue.

A survey released last week from the Pew Research Center showed that 68 percent of US adults believe that vaccinations of children should be required, while 30 percent say that parents should be able to decide not to vaccinate their kids.

Education level, gender and income don't seem to make too much a difference in how Americans view vaccinations. But age does matter: 41 percent of young adults say that parents should have a choice about vaccinating their kids, while just 20 percent of seniors say the same.

Republicans and independents are more likely than Democrats to advocate against required vaccinations.

Thirty-four percent of Republicans and 33 percent of independents told pollsters that parents should be able to decide about vaccinations, versus just 22 percent of Democrats who said the same.

And, within the past five years or so, Republicans have become LESS likely to say vaccinations should be required, while Democrats are now MORE likely to advocate for the mandatory shots.

In 2009, 71 percent of both Democrats and Republicans said vaccinations should be required. By last August, that number decreased to 65 percent for Republicans, but it's increased to 76 percent for Democrats.

The scientific community falls squarely against the "choice" crowd. Pew's recent survey of scientists connected with the American Association for the Advancement of Science found that 86 percent advocated for required vaccinations.

First published February 2 2015, 10:14 AM

Read this article:
Republicans, Democrats and the Vaccination Debate

Less than halfway through Virginias annual legislative session, many of Democrats top priorities are already dead.

Attempts to regulate gun possession, roll back abortion restrictions, better enforce equal-pay laws and codify gay marriage have failed, most without a vote on either the House or Senate floor.

With Republicans in control of both legislative chambers, the frustration of progressive policies isnt a surprise. The only question is whether, in a year when every lawmaker will face voters in a state growing more liberal, Democrats will win outside the Capitol what they could not win inside by forcing votes on issues some Republicans would just as soon ignore.

Virginia is purple and moving blue for statewide elections, said Democratic Party Chairman Dwight Jones. It appears to me that these are things that play out differently in localities than they do in the General Assembly.

In contrast with past years, Democrats are the ones aggressively pushing these hot-button issues. Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) highlighted all three in his first State of the Commonwealth address, making a particularly forceful push for gun legislation. It was a reminder of the liberal-oriented campaign that brought him to office in 2013.

While conservative Republicans have filed a smattering of bills to expand gun rights, limit abortion, block undocumented students from receiving in-state tuition and allow government employees to refuse to perform gay marriages, the party has done nothing to amplify those ideas.

Weve had a lot of discussion down here that you should really deal with kitchen table issues, said House Majority Leader M. Kirkland Cox (R-Colonial Heights), a conservative who co-sponsored the states 2006 marriage amendment.

Democrats, by contrast, have organized news media conferences and sent reams of news releases highlighting what they call Republican obstruction.

In a memo circulated to members before the session began, House Minority Leader David J. Toscano (D-Charlottesville) encouraged his caucus to create dilemmas for our Republican colleagues, especially those in targeted seats.

Republicans are crying foul, saying the other side is too focused on the elections this fall. Three moderate senators are retiring from seats that will probably have hot competition from both parties, and Democrats are hoping to gain a few seats in the overwhelmingly Republican House.

Originally posted here:
For Virginia Democrats, will short-term losses in Capitol mean long-term gains outside it?

MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- Democrats are speaking out against various parts of Gov. Scott Walker's budget the day before the Republican releases his entire plan to the Legislature.

Democrats on Monday say what is known so far about Walker's plan would not create opportunities for people to succeed in Wisconsin. They say Walker is crafting his budget to appeal nationally as he looks ahead to a possible presidential run.

Democrats are taking particular aim at Walker's call to cut the University of Wisconsin System funding by 13 percent, or $300 million, borrowing more than $1 billion for roads projects and requiring drug tests for public aid recipients.

Democrats are calling for raising the minimum wage, accepting federal Medicaid money and restoring cuts Walker and Republicans made to public schools.

Walker releases his budget Tuesday.

More:
Democrats blast Walker on eve of budget release

Scammers in one the largest immigrant hubs in the U.S. will now face stiffer penalties for defrauding people who are seeking legal assistance with immigration matters. New York states Immigration Assistance Service Enforcement Act, which went into effect on Monday, establishes new protections and rights for immigrants who use the services of a notario pblico, which are generally individuals or businesses that falsely represent themselves as qualified legal advisers for new arrivals and other citizenship issues. The law makes it a felony to defraud people seeking assistance of more than $1,000.

The effort by immigration reform advocates is designed to protect immigrants from becoming victims of fraud. President Barack Obama in 2012 began taking executive action on immigration, deferring deportation actions against undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children and later offering work permits to millions of other people who came into the country illegally, which caused an uptick in reported frauds against immigrants.

Notarios, which traditionally take advantage of cultural differences, are not permitted to give legal advice nor are they licensed to represent cases that are pending in immigration courts or the Department of Labor. They also may not threaten to report undocumented immigrants to authorities over complaints about bad service. In Latin American countries, notario pblico is an attorney or trusted member of the community who is authorized to give legal advice.

All 50 U.S. states and several U.S. territories have some form of protection against this costly fraud, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Last year, the Federal Trade Commissionwon a $616,000 judgment againsta Maryland couple over deceptive immigration services. The agency said it registered 891 complaints of immigration services fraud in 2013.

New Yorks law is unique in that it is the only one to establish permanentlythe state Office of New Americans, which is dedicated to promoting and enhancing the welfare of immigrant communities, according to the New York Immigration Coalition. The Immigration Assistance Service EnforcementAct, for which state Sen. Rubn Daz and Assemblyman Marcos Crespo advocated, was signed into law by Gov. Andrew Cuomo last August.

Read more:
Immigration Reform 2015: Law Against Citizenship Scams In New York State Goes Into Effect

Story highlights Supreme Court term opened by deflecting big cases But that quickly as the Court is poised to decide major issues

How things have changed.

By November, the Court accepted yet another challenge to the Affordable Care Actthe signature legislative achievement of the Obama administration. In a matter of weeks, the justices heard arguments concerning pregnancy discrimination in the workplace and the First Amendment implications of threats made on Facebook.

In January, they decided to take up a challenge to gay marriage, and for good measure, also agreed to hear a case regarding Oklahoma's lethal injection protocol.

"The term went from being one of the more uneventful terms in recent years to potentially one of the biggest ones in a generation" says Supreme Court expert Amy Howe who is the Editor of Scotusblog.com.

Here's a glimpse of some of what has been decided, what has been heard and what is to come:

WHAT HAS BEEN DECIDED

Religious freedom in prison: A unanimous Court ruled in favor of the religious freedom claims of Gregory Holt, an Arkansas inmate who wanted to grow a beard in accordance with his Muslim faith, but was blocked by the Department of Corrections' policy that forbid beards except for diagnosed dermatological problems. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion holding that the prison policy violated a federal law designed to protect the religious exercise of prisoners. The Becket Fund for Religious Freedom proclaimed the decision a "huge win for religious freedom" for all Americans. But in a very brief concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, distanced the case from last year's Hobby Lobby decision.

WHAT HAS BEEN HEARD

Separation of powers: A 12 year old American boy, born in Jerusalem, is caught in the middle of a significant dispute between Congress and the executive branch. The disagreement began in 2002 when the parents of Menachem Zivotofsky sought to have "Israel" recorded in his passport as the place of his birth pursuant to a federal law passed in 2002. Sounds simple right? Not according to the State Department, which refuses to implement the law. The executive branch says that because Israeli and Palestinian leaders have long been engaged in a dispute over the status of Jerusalem, it avoids any official act that might be perceived as taking sides. The current policy is to list "Jerusalem" as the place of birth instead of "Israel." The Zivotofskys seek to compel the State Department to follow the law. They argue that Congress has broad power over passports, and that this case is about the identify of a passport holder. A lower court disagreed holding that the law "impermissibly intrudes" on the president's authority to decide whether and on what terms to recognize foreign nations.

Read the rest here:
Why this court term matters