LANSING, Mich. – The case of disgraced former Michigan State University doctor Larry Nassar has prompted state lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to look at funding, policy and structural changes to address the issue of sexual assault on college campuses.

The Progressive Women's Caucus this week laid out three principles they hope will guide the state's approach to sexual assault: prevention, protection and accountability.

State Rep. Erika Geiss, D-12th Dist. and the group's vice-chair, wants the state to create a Title Nine ombudsman who would protect the victims of sexual assault from retaliation.

"Our society has systematically failed to listen to and believe victims without also assigning shame, blame or invalidation," she says. "It's past time that the state stood with survivors."

The group also is calling for comprehensive K-12 education on the importance of consent, an increase in spending for services for victims of sexual assault, as well as legislation to remove the statute of limitations in assault cases.

Last week, a group of Republican lawmakers introduced a package that would expand mandatory reporters of sexual assault to include coaches and athletic trainers, and to let students confidentially report tips about sexual assaults to law enforcement.

Nationally, one in four women reports having been sexually assaulted or abused by the time they graduate from college, and Geiss, an adjunct professor, says the impact of the trauma can undo a student's future.

"I understand all too well how derailing it can be for a student who is sexually assaulted to then continue with her or his studies uninterrupted," she adds. "I've had students who were otherwise dedicated to their studies suddenly stop attending class, or have their grades affected negatively."

Many of the legislative items laid out have been slowly making their way through the Capitol since the Nassar scandal began to emerge, with lawmakers saying there is bipartisan support for the majority of the proposed changes.


get more stories like this via email

A new report showed how states such as Connecticut are allocating Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative funds.

The report from the nonprofit Acadia Center found the 11 states participating in the initiative are using the funds on a variety of initiatives. Connecticut has allocated up to 80% of its funds for clean energy projects. However, some advocates said there are ways the funds can be put to better use.

Paola Moncada Tamayo, policy analyst for the center, said New Jersey serves as a model for other initiative states.

"They have a plan which they publish and that plan goes through a period of public comment," Tamayo explained. "They go through several iterations of the public comment period. They also publish a dashboard which has all the investments they do."

The report recommended states such as Connecticut consider increasing funding investments in environmental justice, including requiring at least 40% to 50% of initiative funds be invested in environmental justice and other underserved communities. The Connecticut Environmental Justice Mapping Tool showed the highest concentrations are located around larger urban areas such as New Haven, Hartford, Bridgeport and Danbury.

Advocates said the recommendations can better hold states accountable for how their funding is spent. The report found some underreporting occurring, which benefits some states' narratives of how the money is being spent. Tamayo acknowledged implementing the report's recommendations could prove challenging.

"I'll say probably in some states, there has been lack of funding and so they've been trying to fill funding holes from it," Tamayo observed. "Other states might just be that they don't have the manpower to do the level of reporting that we would want them to do."

Tamayo hopes the improvements will be implemented so states such as Connecticut can make better use of their initiative funding. While it has not been front and center, she feels it has been an important tool for helping states decarbonize.

President Joe Biden has entered a "lame-duck" period, prompting a Michigan political science expert to analyze his potential actions before President-elect Donald Trump takes office in January.

Outgoing presidents typically work on a smooth transition while the president-elect fills key positions. As Biden nears the end of his term, he has approved long-range missiles for Ukraine to strike inside Russia, marking a significant shift in U.S. policy.

Jordan Cash, assistant professor of political theory and constitutional democracy at Michigan State University, examined the possible reasons behind Biden's actions.

"He's trying to find some way to push Ukraine and Russia to a certain end point in the war," Cash explained. "Perhaps to get a final foreign policy victory to vindicate his administration at the end, or perhaps because he fears the way President-elect Trump is going to approach the Ukraine war."

Most political experts agree with Congress divided, it is unlikely much will be accomplished before the new session starts in January. However, they said it wouldn't be surprising if Biden takes other bold or controversial actions as he prepares to leave office.

Cash pointed out while lame-duck periods can have advantages, such as settling electoral disputes or confirming votes, they also come with risks. He warned an extended lame-duck phase, which is typical in the United States, can encourage an outgoing president to make partisan decisions, potentially leading to actions driven more by political motivations than the public good.

"Bill Clinton commuted several dozen sentences, including for Mark Rich, who had been convicted of tax fraud but whose wife was a major Democratic donor," Cash recounted. "President-elect Trump commuted a bunch of sentences including pardoning his former adviser Steve Bannon."

The term "lame duck" originally referred to a financial trader on the London Stock Exchange in the 18th century who defaulted on debts. It was later adapted to describe politicians with reduced influence or authority.


get more stories like this via email

House lawmakers have passed a bill advocates said will be harmful to nonprofits in New York and nationwide.

House Resolution 9495 passed with a 219-184 vote after failing to get a two-thirds majority in the chamber last week. The bill gives the Treasury Secretary power to rescind tax-exempt status for nonprofits considered "terrorist supporting organizations." On its first vote, it had strong bipartisan support.

Jeff Ordower, U.S. Lead for the group 350 Action, said President-elect Donald Trump's rhetoric about "the enemy within" makes this bill's return troubling.

"They are trying to consolidate the number of tools in their toolbox," Ordower contended. "So they can move quickly to call some people the enemy within and shut down organizations that are supporting causes that are unpopular, supporting causes that are fighting corporate power, fighting structural racism."

Voting in favor of the bill were 15 Democrats, including Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y. It could be due to its other provision giving tax breaks to Americans wrongfully imprisoned abroad or held hostage by terror groups. Ordower noted it is the result of a push by groups who want Israel and Gaza's status quo before Oct. 7 restored, which aid organizations could jeopardize.

Beyond public concern, some experts feel the bill's primary goal is helping President-elect Trump consolidate power within the Executive Branch. Ordower pointed out it is one of the many battles with the second Trump Administration about what defines a healthy and sustainable democracy.

"What we need in order to really have a good fight that defends civil society, that leads us towards and continues some of the ways that are flourishing democracy is to have lots and lots of groups that are able to push their agendas, and not just groups with particular ideologies or point of views doing that," Ordower stressed.

Ordower is surprised by lawmaker's persistence to pass this bill given wars occurring across the world, as well as ongoing economic, climate and immigration issues at home. Some 150 groups including the ACLU signed a letter to House lawmakers urging them to oppose the measure.