Some Pennsylvania patients with long-term chronic illnesses are hoping to make legal headway, allowing them to seek medical aid in dying across state lines.

Andrea Sealy, a patient advocate and cancer patient who has endured a double mastectomy, more than 10 surgeries and multiple rounds of radiation, lives just 10 minutes from New Jersey and would prefer to have choices in death should she need them.

Sealy noted she lives a full a life, but if her health declines, she does not want legal stipulations to get in the way of her quality of life or death.

"I don't want to die, I want to have that free will and option when a situation comes about," Sealy explained. "I would like to avoid any suffering and also to spare my family and loved ones the same. I want to feel free to live until then, as well."

Pennsylvania law does not currently allow for medical aid in dying. State lawmakers introduced the Compassionate Aid in Dying Act earlier this year. If passed, it would allow a person with a terminal illness to get a doctor's prescription to ease their suffering if they choose to use it.

New Jersey has such a law, but Sealy is one of the patients challenging its residency stipulation in U.S. District Court.

Kevin Diaz, chief legal advocacy officer for Compassion & Choices, said medical aid in dying is the only medical treatment barred to nonresidents anywhere in the country. He sees it as unconstitutional and argued everyone should have their rights.

"People really should not have their medical care determined by what ZIP code they live in," Diaz contended. "And if there's medical care that is two miles away from you, or 50 miles away from you, just because it's in another state that you should be able to access it, assuming that you know it's available and lawful and it's something that really is in your best interest."

The lawsuit is the third in the nation to challenge a medical aid-in-dying law's residency requirement. Nationwide, 10 jurisdictions have passed laws with a residency mandate, but two states have removed the requirement following legal challenges by Compassion & Choices.

Civil rights groups are sounding the alarm about potential threats to American democracy posed by Project 2025, a roadmap created by the Heritage Foundation for the next Republican president.

The 900 page document calls for dismantling key protections against discrimination, access to reproductive health care, and more.

Maya Wiley, CEO of the Leadership Council on Civil and Human Rights, said Project 2025 aims to undo gains made 60 years ago with the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

But she said this agenda isn't new.

"And either we're going to stand on the victory of ending slavery, and of understanding the role of a federal government in ensuring that we all have civil rights, or we will not have a democracy," said Wiley. "And this is a blueprint for ending it."

Donald Trump has recently distanced himself from Project 2025, after praising the Heritage Foundation's plans in 2022.

Heritage says the roadmap - which was co-authored by top Trump advisors - does not speak for any single candidate, it just provides recommendations.

Many of those track closely with Trump's priorities, including removing regulations and checks on presidential power.

AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler said Project 2025 also calls for expanding child labor and rolling back workplace protections under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration or "OSHA" - designed to prevent accidents, injury and death.

"Tell that to a woman who lost her son in a grain silo, that could have been prevented, because he was cleaning it without the proper equipment," said Shuler. "That is OSHA. These fines and these laws are there for a reason."

Project 2025 would ban both abortion and in vitro fertilization nationally, and restrict access to contraception.

Patrick Gaspard, CEO of the Center for American Progress, said he believes the roadmap's creators want to take the nation back not to 1964 but to 1864.

"When men made decisions for women," said Gaspard, "when people who looked like me did not have the full agency and franchise of this great American republic, when huge corporations worked folks like farm animals."

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.




get more stories like this via email

Today is Black Women's Equal Pay Day and at 11 a.m. PT, advocates hope to get the topic trending with a "social media storm."

The wage gap is stark. Black women working full-time, year-round make 69 cents for every dollar made by non-Hispanic white men. And the number is 66 cents when you include all full-time, part-time and part-year workers.

Deborah Vagins, national campaign director for the nonprofit civil-rights group Equal Rights Advocates and director of its Equal Pay Today coalition, explained the day is intended to spark debate.

"Black women have to work all the way into July of this year to make what white non-Hispanic men would have made in 2023 alone," Vagins pointed out. "It's an acknowledgment of that pay gap."

Advocates are pressing Congress to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would protect all workers against retaliation for discussing their pay. It would also ban the use of prior salary history when setting wages and require the federal government to collect pay data from employers, making it easier to root out disparities.

Vagins noted the fight for equal pay for equal work is more complex than the battle against racial and gender discrimination.

"It's also the lack of pay transparency in the workplace," Vagins emphasized. "It is setting salaries based on your prior salary history rather than on your qualifications for the job. It's jobs failing to have protections against harassment or pregnancy discrimination."

Vagins also cited the segregation of Black women into poverty-level minimum-wage work, particularly tipped jobs in the restaurant industry using a subminimum wage.


get more stories like this via email

In a blow to free speech and the right to assemble, the U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case involving the rights of protest organizers in Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas.

McKesson v. Doe stemmed from protests over the 2016 police killing of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. A protest organizer faced charges after a police officer was injured by the actions of an unknown protester.

Cicley Gay, board chairwoman of the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, said an opinion by the Fifth Circuit now stands, allowing an organizer to be held liable for the individual actions of others at a protest based on negligence.

"This case without question infringes upon all of our First Amendment rights," Gay contended. "It's incumbent upon us to reject its premise and its intention, which is, frankly, to scare champions of justice and organizers away from mass protest."

The Fifth Circuit covers Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, and Gay noted the First Amendment still protects the right to assembly. Black Lives Matter protests have attracted diverse groups of people and a Harvard study shows 26 million participated in protests in 2020.

Protesting at college campuses across the country has been on the rise, with students complaining law enforcement involvement has made matters worse. Gay argued it is important for Mississippians to remember Martin Luther King Jr. and understand protest is at the core of every successful social movement in this country.

"We want our young people to be able to continue to raise their voices," Gay emphasized. "Oftentimes, protest is not pretty. It is intended to disrupt. And as long as people are doing it peacefully, they should be entitled to do so."

Gay stressed the Fifth Circuit decision essentially eliminates the right to organize a mass protest because organizers could be held financially liable if even one protester commits an illegal act.