Connect with us

News

Nebraska activists seek to put opposing abortion questions on the ballot

Published

on

Nebraska activists seek to put opposing abortion questions on the ballot

Demonstrators came to the Nebraska Capitol in Lincoln last year to protest plans to revive an abortion ban last year. They were prompted by the sentencing of an 18-year-old woman to 90 days in jail for burning and burying a fetus after she took medication given to her by her mother to end her pregnancy.

Margery Beck/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Margery Beck/AP

OMAHA, Nebraska — At a farmers’ market in midtown Omaha, abortion politics are playing out near the produce stands, flower vendors and a brass band.

Petitioners for two opposing ballot measures have set up folding tables near each other, competing for signatures from registered voters. One initiative would put an amendment in the state’s constitution allowing abortion until fetal viability – usually about 24 weeks. That would replace the current ban on most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy currently in state law.

Samantha Weatherington stopped to sign the fetal viability proposal. To her, the state’s current ban is too restrictive.

Advertisement

“It’s terrifying to think that we can’t even make choices of our own bodies again, it’s like going back to the ‘40s and ’50s,” she said. “I don’t want to see people’s daughters using a coat hanger as a last resort.”

Less than 20 feet away is another table where petitioners solicit signatures for a different ballot question. This would ask voters to put the current 12-week ban into the constitution.

Andrew Shradar planned to sign that petition.

“I believe that it’s a human being at conception,” he said. “Protecting the unborn is what needs to be done no matter what, and for the two petitions that are being held right now, that’s the one I’m going to sign.”

At a farmers’ market in midtown Omaha, Richard Riscol solicits signatures for a petition to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would limit abortion at 12 weeks of pregnancy.

At a farmers’ market in midtown Omaha, Richard Riscol solicits signatures for a petition to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would limit abortion at 12 weeks of pregnancy.

Elizabeth Rembert/Nebraska Public Media

Advertisement


hide caption

toggle caption

Elizabeth Rembert/Nebraska Public Media

Advertisement

Since The Supreme Court overturned the federal right to abortion in 2022, the issue has been fought out state by state. It is already on the ballot in Colorado, Florida, Maryland and South Dakota and there are efforts underway in six more states.

The opposing groups have to get on the ballot and then compete

In several, like Arizona and Missouri, abortion rights supporters are going to the voters to get around Republican-led legislatures that have passed laws restricting abortion.

That’s the case in Nebraska too, but with the added twist of the competing campaigns. Four months after the abortion rights groups got going on the fetal viability proposal, activists opposing abortion started the drive for the 12-week ban.

To get on the ballot, the campaigns have until July 3 to collect signatures from 10% of the state’s registered voters – about 123,000 people. That has to include signatures from 5% of voters in at least 38 of Nebraska’s 93 counties. To pass, the ballot proposals require majority approval, with votes from at least 35% of those casting ballots in the November election.

There’s a chance they could both get on the ballot. “This is where the conflict arises,” said Sec. of State Bob Evnen in an interview. “You have two conflicting initiatives proposing an amendment to the Nebraska constitution. That conflict has to be resolved.”

Advertisement

And while it’s up to the governor – after the vote – to rule officially that two amendments are in conflict, he says he thinks these do. “They are wholly in conflict with each other,” he said. “There’s nothing to reconcile.”

Evnen says that would test for the first time a law established in 1912 that says that if they both pass, then whichever proposal gets more approving votes will be adopted in the state’s constitution.

“It’s possible that one of the proposals could get approved and not be adopted,” Evnen said. “It’ll come down to, whichever one receives the most votes is the one that would go into Nebraska’s constitution.”

Voter education will be key

That could all lead to confusing choices for Nebraska voters. Rachel Rebouché, a reproductive and family law expert and dean of Temple University’s law school, said that twist will make outreach even more important for each campaign.

“Having to choose between 12 weeks and fetal viability is going to slice voters up in different ways,” she said. “Each side has a stable group of supporters. But how are they going to reach people who have abortion ambivalence and convince them that their stance is the best option?”

Advertisement

For now, both campaigns said they’re focusing on getting their proposal onto the November ballot. Once that’s cleared, they said they’ll turn to educating and turning out voters, since a majority might not be enough to win.

“Decisions about pregnancy are personal, and they should be made between medical providers and the patient,” said Allie Berry, campaign manager for Protect Our Rights, which backs the fetal viability amendment. “A lot of people agree with that and are excited to sign.”

Brenna Grasz, treasurer for Protect Women & Children, is confident in the 12-week ban petition drive. “We believe that Nebraska voters are majority pro-life, and the vote in November will reflect that.”

One of her allies, Nebraska Right to Life President Sandy Danek, says she supports the 12-week amendment in part because it will allow for tighter abortion limits in law later. “It does give us an ability to go back to the Nebraska legislature and seek further protections,” she said. “I can’t tell you when the body will be in a place to do that, but this initiative does give us that liberty.”

Elizabeth Rembert reports for Nebraska Public Media.

Advertisement

News

Trump Says Israel and Lebanon Agree to Extend Cease-Fire by Three Weeks

Published

on

Trump Says Israel and Lebanon Agree to Extend Cease-Fire by Three Weeks

President Trump announced a three-week extension of a cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon that had been set to expire in a few days, after hosting a meeting between Israeli and Lebanese diplomats at the White House on Thursday.

Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group that has been attacking Israel from southern Lebanon, did not have representatives at the meeting and did not immediately comment on the announcement. The prime minister of Israel and the president of Lebanon also did not comment.

A successful peace agreement would hinge upon Hezbollah halting attacks, which Lebanon’s government has little power to enforce because it does not control the militia. Lebanon’s military has mostly stayed out of the fighting and is not at war with Israel.

The cease-fire, which was scheduled to end on April 26, would last until May 17 if it takes effect as Mr. Trump described it. Before the cease-fire was brokered last week, nearly 2,300 people were killed in Lebanon and 13 in Israel. Since then, the number of Israeli airstrikes and Hezbollah attacks have been dramatically reduced, though the two sides have continued exchanging fire.

The Lebanese Ambassador to the United States, Nada Hamadeh, credited Mr. Trump for extending the cease-fire, saying that “with your help and support, we can make Lebanon great again.” Mr. Trump replied, “I like that phrase, it’s a good phrase.”

Advertisement

Asked about the potential of a lasting peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon, Mr. Trump said that “I think there’s a great chance. They are friends about the same things and they are enemies on the same things.”

But Lebanon and Israel have periodically been at war since Israel’s founding in 1948. Israel has invaded Lebanon for the fifth time since 1978, incursions that have destabilized the country and the delicate balance of power between Muslim, Christian and Druze communities.

In the hours before the president’s announcement on social media, Israel and Hezbollah were trading attacks in southern Lebanon, testing the existing cease-fire.

Mr. Trump said the meeting at the White House had been attended by high-ranking U.S. officials, including Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the U.S. ambassadors to Israel and Lebanon.

Earlier on Thursday, an Israeli strike near the southern Lebanese city of Nabatieh killed three people, according to Lebanon’s health ministry. Hezbollah claimed three separate attacks on Israeli troops who are occupying southern Lebanon, though none were wounded or killed.

Advertisement

Hezbollah set off the latest round of fighting last month by attacking Israel soon after the start of the U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign in Iran. Israel responded to Hezbollah’s attacks by launching airstrikes across Lebanon and widening a ground invasion of the country’s south.

Continue Reading

News

U.S. soldier charged with suspected Polymarket insider trading over Maduro raid

Published

on

U.S. soldier charged with suspected Polymarket insider trading over Maduro raid

Smoke rises from Port of La Guaira in Venezuela on Jan. 3, 2026 after U.S. forces seized the country’s president, Nicolas Maduro and his wife.

Jesus Vargas/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jesus Vargas/Getty Images

Federal prosecutors on Thursday unsealed an indictment against a U.S. Army soldier, accusing him of using his insider knowledge of the clandestine military operation to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in January to reap more than $400,000 in profits on the popular prediction market site Polymarket.

The Justice Department says Gannon Ken Van Dyke, 38, who was stationed at Fort Bragg, in North Carolina, was part of the team that planned and carried out the predawn raid in Caracas earlier this year that resulted in the apprehension of Maduro.

The Department of Justice and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed the actions against Van Dyke, the first time U.S. officials have leveled criminal charges against someone over prediction market wagers.

Advertisement

According to the indictment, Van Dyke now faces counts of wire fraud, commodities fraud, misusing non-public government information and other charges.

Trading under numerous usernames including “Burdensome-Mix,” Van Dyke allegedly traded about $32,000 on the arrest of Maduro, resulting in profits exceeding $400,000.

“Prediction markets are not a haven for using misappropriated confidential or classified information for personal gain,” said U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton for the Southern District of New York. “Those entrusted to safeguard our nation’s secrets have a duty to protect them and our armed service members, and not to use that information for personal financial gain.”

Van Dyke’s defense lawyer is not yet publicly known. Polymarket did not return a request for comment.

The charges against Van Dyke come at a sensitive time for the prediction market industry, which has been growing exponentially, despite calls in Washington and among state leaders for the sites to be reined in.

Advertisement

Van Dyke is the first to be charged in the U.S. for suspected Polymarket insider trading, but Israeli authorities in February arrested several people and charged two on suspicion of using classified information to place bets about military operations in Iran on Polymarket.

Continue Reading

News

Senate Adopts GOP Budget, Laying the Groundwork to Fund ICE and Reopen DHS

Published

on

Senate Adopts GOP Budget, Laying the Groundwork to Fund ICE and Reopen DHS

The Senate early Thursday morning adopted a Republican budget blueprint that would pave the way for a $70 billion increase for immigration enforcement and the eventual reopening of the Department of Homeland Security.

Republicans pushed through the plan on a nearly party-line vote of 50 to 48. It came after an overnight marathon of rapid-fire votes, known as a vote-a-rama, in which the G.O.P. beat back a series of Democratic proposals aimed at addressing the high cost of health care, housing, food and energy. The debate put the two parties’ dueling messages on vivid display six months before the midterm elections.

Republicans, who are using the budget plan to lay the groundwork to eventually push through a filibuster-proof bill providing a multiyear funding stream for President Trump’s immigration crackdown, used the all-night session to highlight their hard-line stance on border security, seeking to portray Democrats as unwilling to safeguard the country.

Democrats tried and failed to add a series of changes aimed at addressing cost-of-living issues, seizing the opportunity to hammer Republicans as out of touch with and unwilling to act on the concerns of everyday Americans.

Here’s what to know about the budget plan and the nocturnal ritual senators engaged in before adopting it.

Advertisement

The budget blueprint is a crucial piece of Republicans’ plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security and end a shutdown that has lasted for more than two months. After Democrats refused to fund immigration enforcement without new restrictions on agents’ tactics and conduct, the G.O.P. struck a deal with them to pass a spending bill that would fund everything but ICE and the Border Patrol. Republicans said they would fund those agencies through a special budget bill that Democrats could not block.

“We can fix this with Republican votes, and we will,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and the Budget Committee chairman. “Every Democrat has opposed money for the Border Patrol and ICE at a time of great peril.”

In resorting to a new budget blueprint, Republicans laid the groundwork to deny Democrats a chance to stop the immigration enforcement funding. But they also submitted themselves to a vote-a-rama, in which any senator can propose unlimited changes to such a measure before it is adopted.

The budget measure now goes to the House, which must adopt it before lawmakers in both chambers can draft the legislation funding immigration enforcement. That bill will provide yet another opportunity for a vote-a-rama even closer to the November election.

Democrats took to the floor to criticize Republicans for supercharging funding for federal immigration enforcement rather than moving legislation that would address Americans’ concerns over affordability.

Advertisement

“This is what Republicans are fighting for,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the Democratic leader. “To maintain two unchecked rogue agencies that are dreaded in all corners of this country instead of reducing your health care costs, your housing costs, your grocery costs, your gas costs.”

Democrats offered a host of amendments along those lines, all of which were defeated by Republicans — and that was the point. The proposals were meant to put the G.O.P. in a tough political spot, showcasing their opposition to helping Americans afford high living costs. Fewer than a handful of G.O.P. senators crossed party lines to support them.

The G.O.P. thwarted an effort by Mr. Schumer to require that the budget measure lower out-of-pocket health care costs for Americans. Two Republicans who are up for re-election this year, Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Dan Sullivan of Alaska, voted with Democrats, but the proposal was still defeated.

Republicans also squelched a move by Senator Ben Ray Lujan, Democrat of New Mexico, to create a fund that would lower grocery costs and reverse cuts to food aid programs that Republicans enacted last year. Ms. Collins and Mr. Sullivan again joined Democrats.

Also defeated by the G.O.P.: a proposal by Senator John Hickenlooper, Democrat of Colorado, to address rising consumer prices brought on by Mr. Trump’s tariffs and the war in Iran; one by Senator Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, to require the budget measure to address rising electricity prices, and another by Mr. Markey to create a fund to bring down housing costs.

Advertisement

Senator Jon Ossoff, a Democrat who is up for re-election in Georgia, also sought to add language requiring the budget plan to address health insurance companies denying or delaying access to care, but that, too was blocked by Republicans.

While Republicans had fewer proposals for changes to their own budget plan, they also sought to offer measures that would underscore their aggressive stance on immigration enforcement and dare Democrats to vote against them.

Mr. Graham offered an amendment to allocate funds toward a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the apprehension and deportation of adult immigrants convicted of rape, murder, or sexual abuse of a minor after illegally entering the United States. It passed unanimously.

Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, sought to bar Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood, which provides abortion and other services, and criticized the organization for providing transgender care to minors. Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, also attempted to tack on the G.O.P. voter identification bill, known as the SAVE America Act. Both proposals were blocked when Democrats, joined by a few Republicans, voted to strike them as unrelated to the budget plan.

The Republicans who crossed party lines to oppose their own party’s proposals for new voting requirements were Ms. Collins along with Senators Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

Advertisement

Ms. Collins and Ms. Murkowski also opposed the effort to block payments to Planned Parenthood.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending