Politics
In Congress, a Push for Proxy Voting for New Parents Draws Bipartisan Support
Representative Brittany Pettersen, a second-term Colorado Democrat, was not planning to have a second child at the age of 43.
“As if our life wasn’t complicated enough!” she said with a laugh as she arranged herself on a couch in her office on Capitol Hill earlier this week, staring down at her pregnant belly just weeks from her due date. She blamed the “mistake” on the confusion of working in two time zones. “It can make things hard with consistent birth control,” she said. “It was not part of the plan.”
Congress has existed for 236 years, but somehow Ms. Pettersen is about to become only the 13th voting member to give birth while in office, and the first from her home state. As Ms. Pettersen tries to plan the next phase of her life, the reality is setting in that this job was not created with someone like her in mind.
There is no maternity leave for members of Congress. While they can take time away from the office without sacrificing their pay, they cannot vote if they are not present at the Capitol. So Ms. Pettersen has taken a lead role in a new push by a bipartisan group of younger lawmakers and new parents in Congress to change the rules to allow them to vote remotely while they take up to 12 weeks of parental leave.
“This job is not made for young women, for working families, and it’s definitely not made for regular people,” said Ms. Pettersen. “It’s historically been wealthy individuals who are not of childbearing age who do this work.”
Before boarding her plane on Thursday to return to Lakewood, Colo., where she planned to remain until after she gives birth, Ms. Pettersen introduced the “Proxy Voting for New Parents Resolution.” It would change House rules to allow new mothers and fathers in Congress to stay away from Washington immediately after the birth of a child and designate a colleague to cast votes on their behalf.
“I feel really torn,” Ms. Pettersen said, “because I’m going to choose to be home to make sure that my newborn is taken care of, but I feel that it’s unfair that I’m unable to have my constituents represented at that time.”
The resolution, she said, “is common sense. It’s about modernizing Congress.”
The idea has been percolating on Capitol Hill for some time, but has become all the more pressing for the new Congress, its proponents argue, because the House is now so closely divided, with Republicans holding the majority by just one vote.
Republicans savaged former Speaker Nancy Pelosi for breaking with centuries of history and House rules by instituting proxy voting during the coronavirus pandemic. Former Representative Kevin McCarthy, as the minority leader, filed a lawsuit arguing that allowing a member of Congress to deputize a colleague to cast a vote on their behalf when they were not present was unconstitutional.
House Republicans also argued that allowing proxy voting would have a negative effect on member “collegiality.” Ms. Luna’s resolution never came to the floor for a vote.
Now, the bipartisan group is trying again. Ms. Pettersen’s resolution was one of the first introduced in the opening days of the 119th Congress. It is slightly broader than Ms. Luna’s original proposal, written to include proxy voting for new fathers.
“I’m not in favor of proxy voting; I think it should be very rare,” said Representative Mike Lawler, a New York Republican who welcomed his second child eight days before the election. “But I don’t think any member should be precluded from doing the job they were elected to do simply because they become a parent.”
Mr. Lawler, a leader of the new effort whose baby is 2 months old, cannot afford to be away from the Capitol while his party holds a one-seat majority.
“I understand the impact when you are given a choice between being home or coming and doing your job,” he said. “It’s not a great choice.”
Mr. Lawler dismissed concerns from House leaders about creating a bad precedent, saying the existing protocols no longer fit the Congress of the modern era.
“You have younger people getting elected to public office at a much higher rate than when these rules were established,” he said. “If we talk about being pro-family, you have to at least recognize that giving birth to a child or becoming a parent should not be an impediment to doing your job.”
Ms. Pettersen said she had considered having her baby in Washington so she could continue voting, but ultimately decided against it.
“It’s unfair to my family and unfair to my newborn if we’re not at home where all of our support and my doctor and support system is,” she said.
Ms. Pettersen is still relatively new to Washington and to motherhood — her son is still in prekindergarten — but the disconnect between her situation and the job of an elected official has been painfully obvious to her ever since she was pregnant with her first child and serving in the Colorado legislature.
Back then, she was the first member of that body ever to go on maternity leave. The only way to get paid while on leave was to categorize her situation as a “chronic illness.”
When she returned, Ms. Petterson successfully pressed to change the law to ensure that future state lawmakers would be given up to 12 weeks of paid parental leave.
Even before she walked the halls of Congress as the rare pregnant member, Ms. Pettersen said she felt like an odd fit for the Capitol.
When she was 6 years old, her mother was prescribed opioids after hurting her back and became addicted to heroine and then fentanyl. She overdosed more than 20 times. Growing up, Ms. Pettersen said, nobody even kept track of whether or not she came home at night.
“I saw Phish shows when I was 12 years old in Kansas and other places,” she said. “Still got straight A’s, though.”
(Her mother recently celebrated her 70th birthday and seven years in recovery.)
Because her parents were behind on taxes, she didn’t qualify for student loans, so Ms. Pettersen paid her way through school in cash, waiting tables, cleaning houses and working various odd jobs. She was the first person in her family to graduate from high school or college.
Beating the odds has made Ms. Pettersen even more determined to try to change her current workplace to make it feasible for more people like her.
“Being pregnant and being a member of Congress, people ask, ‘How are you doing this with your family?’ — all these questions I know my male colleagues don’t get,” she said. “It’s such a double standard.”
Politics
Muslim groups, other leaders demand Abbott rescind CAIR’s ‘terrorist’ designation: ‘Defamatory’
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A group of Muslim and interfaith leaders are urging Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, to reverse his proclamation designating the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as a “foreign terrorist organization.”
Texas’s designation is state-level only. It does not carry the legal force of a federal Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) listing, which only the U.S. State Department can issue. Abbott’s proclamation, therefore, does not trigger federal terrorism penalties or authorities.
The leaders of several Muslim groups held a news conference on Tuesday to denounce the governor’s proclamation, which also labeled CAIR as a “a transnational criminal organization.”
The groups called on the governor to retract his labeling of the civil rights group, calling it defamatory, destructive and dangerous, according to Fox 4.
MUSLIM CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP CAIR SUES TEXAS OVER ABBOTT’S ‘TERRORIST’ DESIGNATION
Muslim and interfaith leaders are urging Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to reverse his proclamation designating CAIR as a terrorist organization. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)
This comes after CAIR filed a lawsuit against Texas over the governor’s declaration, arguing that it violates both the U.S. Constitution and state law.
CAIR argues the order violates its First Amendment rights and due-process protections, and that Texas overstepped its authority because terrorism designations fall under federal, not state, jurisdiction.
“The governor is attempting to punish the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization simply because he disagrees with its protected First Amendment rights to criticize a foreign state that is conducting genocide. This is not only contrary to the United States Constitution, but finds no support in any Texas law,” Mustaffa Carroll, the executive director for CAIR Dallas Fort Worth, said at the news conference on Tuesday.
“You know that CAIR has condemned Hamas attacks. You know that CAIR has spent 31 years fighting terrorism and bigotry. You know that the terrorism boogeyman you invoke is nothing more than a tired, formulated playbook to stoke fear of Muslims,” Marium Uddin of the Muslim Legal Defense Fund said on Tuesday.
CAIR filed a lawsuit against Texas over the governor’s declaration, arguing that it violates both the U.S. Constitution and state law. (Ron Jenkins/Getty Images)
Leaders from other faiths, including Jewish voices, also spoke out against Abbott’s label.
“We stand steadfast in solidarity with our comrades in CAIR and in unwavering support in their lawsuit against Abbott’s false and unconstitutional proclamation,” Jewish Voice for Peace’s Deborah Armintor said.
State Rep. Terry Meza, a Democrat, added that the governor’s words “are not just wrong, they’re dangerous. Making comments like this is dangerous to our Muslim community.”
TEXAS GOV ABBOTT DECLARES CAIR, MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AS TERRORIST GROUPS, PREVENTING LAND PURCHASES
The Muslim groups called on the governor to retract his labeling of CAIR, calling it defamatory, destructive and dangerous. (Antranik Tavitian/Reuters)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The lawsuit is ongoing, and it remains unclear whether a court will uphold Abbott’s order or strike it down as exceeding state authority.
The governor’s decree bars CAIR from buying land in the Lone Star State under a new statute aimed at curbing purchases tied to “foreign adversaries.”
Abbott’s order also extended the “terrorist” label to the Muslim Brotherhood, despite the federal government never classifying either group that way.
Politics
Sinclair Broadcast Group makes bid for Scripps TV stations
Sinclair Broadcast Group has made an unsolicited bid to buy rival station owner E.W. Scripps just a week after disclosing it had acquired shares of the company’s stock.
Sinclair filed a statement Monday with the Securities and Exchange Commission saying it will offer Scripps $7 per share, consisting of $2.72 in cash and $4.28 in combined company common stock. The price is a 200% premium over the 30-day average for Scripps shares as of Nov. 6.
Sinclair revealed on Nov. 17 that it gained a stake in Scripps through the acquisition of publicly traded shares. Scripps, which operates 61 TV stations and owns the ION network, is valued at around $393 million.
The Cincinnati-based Scripps said in a statement saying the company’s board of directors “will carefully review and evaluate any proposals, including the unsolicited Sinclair offer.”
The statement added that the board will “act in the business interest of the company, all of its shareholders as well as its employees and the many communities it serves across the United States.”
The company’s stock was up around 7.5% on the news of the Sinclair offer, closing at $4.43 a share Monday afternoon.
A takeover of Scripps would be culturally jarring for the local newsrooms at its stations. The company was founded in 1878 with a chain of daily newspapers that defined itself through journalistic independence. The company’s longtime motto is “Give light.”
The Baltimore-area Sinclair is known for the conservative politics of its owners, led by David D. Smith, who have had their views amplified through the company’s local TV news coverage over the years.
Sinclair most recently tried to flex its muscle when it pulled “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” off its ABC-affiliated stations in September after the late-night host made comments about the political affiliation of the man accused of killing right-wing political activist Charlie Kirk.
Sinclair demanded that Kimmel make “a meaningful donation” to Kirk’s organization Turning Point USA in addition to an apology. None was offered, and after a week, Sinclair put the program back on its air with zero concessions from ABC.
Regardless of political leanings, all major TV station ownership groups have urged the Federal Communications Commission to lift the limit on how much of the country their outlets can cover.
TV station owners are limited to reaching 39% of the country, which companies say puts them at a disadvantage in competing against tech giants that have no such restriction in their media endeavors.
While consumer advocates believe consolidation will reduce the diversity of voices in communities, TV executives have argued that it’s no longer economically viable to have multiple station owners in a single market, often covering the same major stories.
Consolidation would also give TV station owners more clout in their negotiations for carriage fees they receive from cable and satellite providers. Such fees are vital as TV stations have struggled to maintain ad revenues due to a decline in ratings and more consumers turning to streaming video platforms.
Sinclair’s attempt to buy Scripps comes after its failed effort to acquire Tegna Inc., which agreed to a $6.2-billion deal to merge with Nexstar Media Group. The deal will require regulatory approval as it would give Nexstar’s stations the ability to reach 80% of the U.S.
Station owners calling for consolidation have been hopeful they had an ally in Trump-appointed FCC Chairman Brendan Carr.
But a social media post suggested that President Trump may be wary of consolidation, saying it could give greater influence to broadcast networks NBC and ABC. The president has been highly critical of the news coverage of both networks, even threatening to go after their TV station licenses.
Politics
Video: Judge Dismisses Cases Against James Comey and Letitia James
new video loaded: Judge Dismisses Cases Against James Comey and Letitia James
transcript
transcript
Judge Dismisses Cases Against James Comey and Letitia James
A federal judge threw out criminal charges against the former F.B.I. director James Comey and New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, on Monday.
-
“I’m grateful that the court ended the case against me. The president of the United States cannot use the Department of Justice to target his political enemies.” “We’ll be taking all available legal action….” “We are filing a lawsuit against Donald Trump…”
By Shawn Paik
November 25, 2025
-
Business1 week ago
Fire survivors can use this new portal to rebuild faster and save money
-
World1 week agoFrance and Germany support simplification push for digital rules
-
News1 week agoCourt documents shed light on Indiana shooting that sparked stand-your-ground debate
-
World1 week agoSinclair Snaps Up 8% Stake in Scripps in Advance of Potential Merger
-
Science4 days agoWashington state resident dies of new H5N5 form of bird flu
-
World1 week agoCalls for answers grow over Canada’s interrogation of Israel critic
-
Politics1 week agoDuckworth fires staffer who claimed to be attorney for detained illegal immigrant with criminal history
-
Technology1 week agoFake flight cancellation texts target travelers