Politics
Ohio House OKs Bill Banning Abortions After 1st Heartbeat
JULIE CARR SMYTH, AP Statehouse Correspondent
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A bill that would ban most abortions after the first detectable fetal heartbeat again cleared the state House on Wednesday following a startlingly emotional floor debate in which a veteran female lawmaker revealed she’d been raped and had an abortion and a male legislator shed tears as he recounted praying his stillborn child would take a breath.
Advocates now have the rest of the two-year session to lobby the bill’s opponents in the Senate.
The Republican-controlled House approved the bill 55-40 in its third vote on it in as many sessions. The legislation met its demise in the Senate two sessions ago and last session made it as far as the House floor and was voted down.
Proponents on Wednesday defended the bill as life-protecting, while opponents called it unconstitutional and heavy-handed.
Sponsoring Rep. Christina Hagan, a Uniontown Republican, set the tone for the debate by revealing in her opening remarks that her heartbeat had stopped repeatedly while she was being delivered and her mother might have given up hope but didn’t.
“This bill is very much about loving women and loving children and providing that expansion of rights to the unborn,” she said.
Rep. Stephanie Howse, a Cleveland Democrat, also had to compose herself while speaking as she urged colleagues to “love thy neighbor,” including women she said make decisions to have abortions “in love.”
For Rep. Teresa Fedor, a Toledo Democrat, the debate was progressing with one important voice missing: that of the rape victim.
Fedor, a champion of legislation against human trafficking, jotted down words such as “judge,” ”God!” ”shame” and “political ambition” from Wednesday’s debate and, when enough of them filled her paper, stood to speak.
“I heard all these stories that just fit your scenario, and I respect that, but you don’t respect my reason — my rape, my abortion,” she said. “And I guarantee you there are other women who should stand up with me and be courageous enough to speak that voice.”
She called the bill “fundamentally inhuman.”
After the vote, Fedor told several reporters she was “very young” when she was raped and had told “probably two people.”
“I’m in this political arena, you know, and you have to make a decision: How far are you willing to go to really represent?” she said. “And then, with something like this (bill), it just was time.”
The Associated Press generally doesn’t identify people who say they’re victims of sexual assaults unless they come forward publicly, as Fedor has done.
Several major anti-abortion groups, including Ohio Right to Life, have failed to support passage of the heartbeat bill, fearing it would prompt a losing challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision that would serve only to expand abortion rights.
Senate President Keith Faber, a Celina Republican, said he shared those concerns but intends to review the latest version of the bill and hold hearings.
“I’m still waiting for that legal scholar to come forward and say, ‘The heartbeat bill is constitutional,'” he said.
___
Associated Press reporter Ann Sanner contributed to this report.
Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Activism
Oakland Post: Week of June 18 – 24, 2025
The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of June 18 – 24, 2025

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.
Activism
OPINION: California’s Legislature Has the Wrong Prescription for the Affordability Crisis — Gov. Newsom’s Plan Hits the Mark
Last month, Gov. Newsom included measures in his budget that would encourage greater transparency, accountability, and affordability across the prescription drug supply chain. His plan would deliver real relief to struggling Californians. It would also help expose the hidden markups and practices by big drug companies that push the prices of prescription drugs higher and higher. The legislature should follow the Governor’s lead and embrace sensible, fair regulations that will not raise the cost of medications.

By Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook
As a pastor and East Bay resident, I see firsthand how my community struggles with the rising cost of everyday living. A fellow pastor in Oakland recently told me he cuts his pills in half to make them last longer because of the crushing costs of drugs.
Meanwhile, community members are contending with skyrocketing grocery prices and a lack of affordable healthcare options, while businesses are being forced to close their doors.
Our community is hurting. Things have to change.
The most pressing issue that demands our leaders’ attention is rising healthcare costs, and particularly the rising cost of medications. Annual prescription drug costs in California have spiked by nearly 50% since 2018, from $9.1 billion to $13.6 billion.
Last month, Gov. Newsom included measures in his budget that would encourage greater transparency, accountability, and affordability across the prescription drug supply chain. His plan would deliver real relief to struggling Californians. It would also help expose the hidden markups and practices by big drug companies that push the prices of prescription drugs higher and higher. The legislature should follow the Governor’s lead and embrace sensible, fair regulations that will not raise the cost of medications.
Some lawmakers, however, have advanced legislation that would drive up healthcare costs and set communities like mine back further.
I’m particularly concerned with Senate Bill (SB) 41, sponsored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), a carbon copy of a 2024 bill that I strongly opposed and Gov. Newsom rightly vetoed. This bill would impose significant healthcare costs on patients, small businesses, and working families, while allowing big drug companies to increase their profits.
SB 41 would impose a new $10.05 pharmacy fee for every prescription filled in California. This new fee, which would apply to millions of Californians, is roughly five times higher than the current average of $2.
For example, a Bay Area family with five monthly prescriptions would be forced to shoulder about $500 more in annual health costs. If a small business covers 25 employees, each with four prescription fills per month (the national average), that would add nearly $10,000 per year in health care costs.
This bill would also restrict how health plan sponsors — like employers, unions, state plans, Medicare, and Medicaid — partner with pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to negotiate against big drug companies and deliver the lowest possible costs for employees and members. By mandating a flat fee for pharmacy benefit services, this misguided legislation would undercut your health plan’s ability to drive down costs while handing more profits to pharmaceutical manufacturers.
This bill would also endanger patients by eliminating safety requirements for pharmacies that dispense complex and costly specialty medications. Additionally, it would restrict home delivery for prescriptions, a convenient and affordable service that many families rely on.
Instead of repeating the same tired plan laid out in the big pharma-backed playbook, lawmakers should embrace Newsom’s transparency-first approach and prioritize our communities.
Let’s urge our state legislators to reject policies like SB 41 that would make a difficult situation even worse for communities like ours.
About the Author
Rev. Dr. VanHook is the founder and pastor of The Community Church in Oakland and the founder of The Charis House, a re-entry facility for men recovering from alcohol and drug abuse.
Antonio Ray Harvey
Air Quality Board Rejects Two Rules Written to Ban Gas Water Heaters and Furnaces
The proposal would have affected 17 million residents in Southern California, requiring businesses, homeowners, and renters to convert to electric units. “We’ve gone through six months, and we’ve made a decision today,” said SCAQMD board member Carlos Rodriguez. “It’s time to move forward with what’s next on our policy agenda.”

By Antonio Ray Harvey
California Black Media
Two proposed rules to eliminate the usage of gas water heaters and furnaces by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in Southern California were rejected by the Governing Board on June 6.
Energy policy analysts say the board’s decision has broader implications for the state.
With a 7-5 vote, the board decided not to amend Rules 1111 and 1121 at the meeting held in Diamond Bar in L.A. County.
The proposal would have affected 17 million residents in Southern California, requiring businesses, homeowners, and renters to convert to electric units.
“We’ve gone through six months, and we’ve made a decision today,” said SCAQMD board member Carlos Rodriguez. “It’s time to move forward with what’s next on our policy agenda.”
The AQMD governing board is a 13-member body responsible for setting air quality policies and regulations within the South Coast Air Basin, which covers areas in four counties: Riverside County, Orange County, San Bernardino County and parts of Los Angeles County.
The board is made up of representatives from various elected offices within the region, along with members who are appointed by the Governor, Speaker of the Assembly, and Senate Rules Committee.
Holly J. Mitchell, who serves as a County Supervisor for the Second District of Los Angeles County, is a SCAQMD board member. She supported the amendments, but respected the board’s final decision, stating it was a “compromise.”
“In my policymaking experience, if you can come up with amended language that everyone finds some fault with, you’ve probably threaded the needle as best as you can,” Mitchell said before the vote. “What I am not okay with is serving on AQMD is making no decision. Why be here? We have a responsibility to do all that we can to get us on a path to cleaner air.”
The rules proposed by AQMD, Rule 1111 and Rule 1121, aim to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from natural gas-fired furnaces and water heaters.
Rule 1111 and Rule 1121 were designed to control air pollution, particularly emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx).
Two days before the Governing Board’s vote, gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa asked SCAQMD to reject the two rules.
Villaraigosa expressed his concerns during a Zoom call with the Cost of Living Council, a Southern California organization that also opposes the rules. Villaraigosa said the regulations are difficult to understand.
“Let me be clear, I’ve been a big supporter of AQMD over the decades. I have been a believer and a fighter on the issue of climate change my entire life,” Villaraigosa said. “But there is no question that what is going on now just doesn’t make sense. We are engaging in regulations that are put on the backs of working families, small businesses, and the middle class, and we don’t have the grid for all this.”
Rules 1111 and 1121 would also establish manufacturer requirements for the sale of space and water heating units that meet low-NOx and zero-NOx emission standards that change over time, according to SCAQMD.
The requirements also include a mitigation fee for NOx-emitting units, with an option to pay a higher mitigation fee if manufacturers sell more low-NOx water heating and space units.
Proponents of the proposed rules say the fees are designed to incentivize actions that reduce emissions.
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of May 21 – 27, 2025
-
#NNPA BlackPress2 weeks ago
It Just Got Even Better 2026 Toyota RAV4 AWD GR Sport Walkaround
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of May 28 – June 30, 2025
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Remembering George Floyd
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
Hate and Chaos Rise in Trump’s America
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
House GOP Passes Budget Bill That Prompts Largest Cuts to Health Care in History
-
#NNPA BlackPress3 weeks ago
WATCH: Five Years After George Floyd: Full Panel Discussion | Tracey’s Keepin’ It Real | Live Podcast Event
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
OP-ED: Oregon Bill Threatens the Future of Black Owned Newspapers and Community Journalism
Politics
Ohio House OKs Bill Banning Abortions After 1st Heartbeat
JULIE CARR SMYTH, AP Statehouse Correspondent
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A bill that would ban most abortions after the first detectable fetal heartbeat again cleared the state House on Wednesday following a startlingly emotional floor debate in which a veteran female lawmaker revealed she’d been raped and had an abortion and a male legislator shed tears as he recounted praying his stillborn child would take a breath.
Advocates now have the rest of the two-year session to lobby the bill’s opponents in the Senate.
The Republican-controlled House approved the bill 55-40 in its third vote on it in as many sessions. The legislation met its demise in the Senate two sessions ago and last session made it as far as the House floor and was voted down.
Proponents on Wednesday defended the bill as life-protecting, while opponents called it unconstitutional and heavy-handed.
Sponsoring Rep. Christina Hagan, a Uniontown Republican, set the tone for the debate by revealing in her opening remarks that her heartbeat had stopped repeatedly while she was being delivered and her mother might have given up hope but didn’t.
“This bill is very much about loving women and loving children and providing that expansion of rights to the unborn,” she said.
Rep. Stephanie Howse, a Cleveland Democrat, also had to compose herself while speaking as she urged colleagues to “love thy neighbor,” including women she said make decisions to have abortions “in love.”
For Rep. Teresa Fedor, a Toledo Democrat, the debate was progressing with one important voice missing: that of the rape victim.
Fedor, a champion of legislation against human trafficking, jotted down words such as “judge,” ”God!” ”shame” and “political ambition” from Wednesday’s debate and, when enough of them filled her paper, stood to speak.
“I heard all these stories that just fit your scenario, and I respect that, but you don’t respect my reason — my rape, my abortion,” she said. “And I guarantee you there are other women who should stand up with me and be courageous enough to speak that voice.”
She called the bill “fundamentally inhuman.”
After the vote, Fedor told several reporters she was “very young” when she was raped and had told “probably two people.”
“I’m in this political arena, you know, and you have to make a decision: How far are you willing to go to really represent?” she said. “And then, with something like this (bill), it just was time.”
The Associated Press generally doesn’t identify people who say they’re victims of sexual assaults unless they come forward publicly, as Fedor has done.
Several major anti-abortion groups, including Ohio Right to Life, have failed to support passage of the heartbeat bill, fearing it would prompt a losing challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision that would serve only to expand abortion rights.
Senate President Keith Faber, a Celina Republican, said he shared those concerns but intends to review the latest version of the bill and hold hearings.
“I’m still waiting for that legal scholar to come forward and say, ‘The heartbeat bill is constitutional,'” he said.
___
Associated Press reporter Ann Sanner contributed to this report.
Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Activism
Oakland Post: Week of June 18 – 24, 2025
The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of June 18 – 24, 2025

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.
Activism
OPINION: California’s Legislature Has the Wrong Prescription for the Affordability Crisis — Gov. Newsom’s Plan Hits the Mark
Last month, Gov. Newsom included measures in his budget that would encourage greater transparency, accountability, and affordability across the prescription drug supply chain. His plan would deliver real relief to struggling Californians. It would also help expose the hidden markups and practices by big drug companies that push the prices of prescription drugs higher and higher. The legislature should follow the Governor’s lead and embrace sensible, fair regulations that will not raise the cost of medications.

By Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook
As a pastor and East Bay resident, I see firsthand how my community struggles with the rising cost of everyday living. A fellow pastor in Oakland recently told me he cuts his pills in half to make them last longer because of the crushing costs of drugs.
Meanwhile, community members are contending with skyrocketing grocery prices and a lack of affordable healthcare options, while businesses are being forced to close their doors.
Our community is hurting. Things have to change.
The most pressing issue that demands our leaders’ attention is rising healthcare costs, and particularly the rising cost of medications. Annual prescription drug costs in California have spiked by nearly 50% since 2018, from $9.1 billion to $13.6 billion.
Last month, Gov. Newsom included measures in his budget that would encourage greater transparency, accountability, and affordability across the prescription drug supply chain. His plan would deliver real relief to struggling Californians. It would also help expose the hidden markups and practices by big drug companies that push the prices of prescription drugs higher and higher. The legislature should follow the Governor’s lead and embrace sensible, fair regulations that will not raise the cost of medications.
Some lawmakers, however, have advanced legislation that would drive up healthcare costs and set communities like mine back further.
I’m particularly concerned with Senate Bill (SB) 41, sponsored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), a carbon copy of a 2024 bill that I strongly opposed and Gov. Newsom rightly vetoed. This bill would impose significant healthcare costs on patients, small businesses, and working families, while allowing big drug companies to increase their profits.
SB 41 would impose a new $10.05 pharmacy fee for every prescription filled in California. This new fee, which would apply to millions of Californians, is roughly five times higher than the current average of $2.
For example, a Bay Area family with five monthly prescriptions would be forced to shoulder about $500 more in annual health costs. If a small business covers 25 employees, each with four prescription fills per month (the national average), that would add nearly $10,000 per year in health care costs.
This bill would also restrict how health plan sponsors — like employers, unions, state plans, Medicare, and Medicaid — partner with pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to negotiate against big drug companies and deliver the lowest possible costs for employees and members. By mandating a flat fee for pharmacy benefit services, this misguided legislation would undercut your health plan’s ability to drive down costs while handing more profits to pharmaceutical manufacturers.
This bill would also endanger patients by eliminating safety requirements for pharmacies that dispense complex and costly specialty medications. Additionally, it would restrict home delivery for prescriptions, a convenient and affordable service that many families rely on.
Instead of repeating the same tired plan laid out in the big pharma-backed playbook, lawmakers should embrace Newsom’s transparency-first approach and prioritize our communities.
Let’s urge our state legislators to reject policies like SB 41 that would make a difficult situation even worse for communities like ours.
About the Author
Rev. Dr. VanHook is the founder and pastor of The Community Church in Oakland and the founder of The Charis House, a re-entry facility for men recovering from alcohol and drug abuse.
Antonio Ray Harvey
Air Quality Board Rejects Two Rules Written to Ban Gas Water Heaters and Furnaces
The proposal would have affected 17 million residents in Southern California, requiring businesses, homeowners, and renters to convert to electric units. “We’ve gone through six months, and we’ve made a decision today,” said SCAQMD board member Carlos Rodriguez. “It’s time to move forward with what’s next on our policy agenda.”

By Antonio Ray Harvey
California Black Media
Two proposed rules to eliminate the usage of gas water heaters and furnaces by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in Southern California were rejected by the Governing Board on June 6.
Energy policy analysts say the board’s decision has broader implications for the state.
With a 7-5 vote, the board decided not to amend Rules 1111 and 1121 at the meeting held in Diamond Bar in L.A. County.
The proposal would have affected 17 million residents in Southern California, requiring businesses, homeowners, and renters to convert to electric units.
“We’ve gone through six months, and we’ve made a decision today,” said SCAQMD board member Carlos Rodriguez. “It’s time to move forward with what’s next on our policy agenda.”
The AQMD governing board is a 13-member body responsible for setting air quality policies and regulations within the South Coast Air Basin, which covers areas in four counties: Riverside County, Orange County, San Bernardino County and parts of Los Angeles County.
The board is made up of representatives from various elected offices within the region, along with members who are appointed by the Governor, Speaker of the Assembly, and Senate Rules Committee.
Holly J. Mitchell, who serves as a County Supervisor for the Second District of Los Angeles County, is a SCAQMD board member. She supported the amendments, but respected the board’s final decision, stating it was a “compromise.”
“In my policymaking experience, if you can come up with amended language that everyone finds some fault with, you’ve probably threaded the needle as best as you can,” Mitchell said before the vote. “What I am not okay with is serving on AQMD is making no decision. Why be here? We have a responsibility to do all that we can to get us on a path to cleaner air.”
The rules proposed by AQMD, Rule 1111 and Rule 1121, aim to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from natural gas-fired furnaces and water heaters.
Rule 1111 and Rule 1121 were designed to control air pollution, particularly emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx).
Two days before the Governing Board’s vote, gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa asked SCAQMD to reject the two rules.
Villaraigosa expressed his concerns during a Zoom call with the Cost of Living Council, a Southern California organization that also opposes the rules. Villaraigosa said the regulations are difficult to understand.
“Let me be clear, I’ve been a big supporter of AQMD over the decades. I have been a believer and a fighter on the issue of climate change my entire life,” Villaraigosa said. “But there is no question that what is going on now just doesn’t make sense. We are engaging in regulations that are put on the backs of working families, small businesses, and the middle class, and we don’t have the grid for all this.”
Rules 1111 and 1121 would also establish manufacturer requirements for the sale of space and water heating units that meet low-NOx and zero-NOx emission standards that change over time, according to SCAQMD.
The requirements also include a mitigation fee for NOx-emitting units, with an option to pay a higher mitigation fee if manufacturers sell more low-NOx water heating and space units.
Proponents of the proposed rules say the fees are designed to incentivize actions that reduce emissions.
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of May 21 – 27, 2025
-
#NNPA BlackPress2 weeks ago
It Just Got Even Better 2026 Toyota RAV4 AWD GR Sport Walkaround
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of May 28 – June 30, 2025
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Remembering George Floyd
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
Hate and Chaos Rise in Trump’s America
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
House GOP Passes Budget Bill That Prompts Largest Cuts to Health Care in History
-
#NNPA BlackPress3 weeks ago
WATCH: Five Years After George Floyd: Full Panel Discussion | Tracey’s Keepin’ It Real | Live Podcast Event
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
OP-ED: Oregon Bill Threatens the Future of Black Owned Newspapers and Community Journalism
Leave a Reply