All News Clips

House Republicans moved forward Wednesday with another attempt to overturn the District of Columbia’s Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act (RHNDA), this time using the budget process. The House Appropriations Committee passed a budget rider sponsored by Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS) that prohibits the use of new funds to enforce the law. The rider passed on a 28-22 vote, with two Republicans joining 20 Democrats to oppose it.

The House Appropriations Committee voted Wednesday to block any funding for the implementation of a D.C. law that is meant to combat discrimination in the workplace. The D.C. city council passed the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act in April, which they say will stop employers from terminating based on reproductive health decisions, but GOP House members think the law could force religiously focused businesses to hire abortion advocates.

The House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday voted to block federal and local funds for a law passed by the Washington, D.C. council that prevents employment discrimination based on reproductive health decisions. Rep. Steven Palazzo’s (R-Miss.) amendment to a bill funding financial services and general government programs was adopted in a 28-22 vote after a highly contentious debate. Palazzo argued the D.C. law, enacted in January, forces employers to violate their religious beliefs.

Congressman Steven Palazzo is in a bit of a dustup with the District of Columbia. According to Palazzo's office, he introduced an amendment during Wednesday's full committee markup on the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill that would prevent funds from being used towards the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act in the district.   DC Vote, a group trying to eliminate such congressional oversight in the only part of America without representation in Congress, isn't happy.

The House Appropriations Committee voted Wednesday to block a District of Columbia law, attempting to finish what House Republicans started a few months ago.

When the D.C. Council and mayor defied Congress last week and appropriated $7 billion in local tax money, it was unclear whether anyone on Capitol Hill would notice the somewhat symbolic revolt. They did. Ahead of a House Appropriations Committee vote Wednesday on the District’s budget — including federal decisions involving the same $7 billion — congressional lawyers inserted a paragraph that makes clear Congress still believes it decides how the local tax revenue is spent, not D.C. lawmakers.

The D.C. Council cast a historic vote today, defying the long-standing grip Congress has held over the city's right to spend locally raised funds in its budget. The Council's decision to move forward with the implementation of its legal budget for the upcoming fiscal year without first submitting it to Congress for approval comes after a big court ruling a few weeks ago. On May 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. granted Mayor Muriel Bowser's motion to dismiss a previous court case between then-Mayor Vince Gray and the D.C. Council.

District lawmakers defied Congress on Wednesday, voting to appropriate over $7 billion in local tax money themselves instead of waiting for Congress to approve the spending as they have for decades through the federal budget process. But it was unlikely that D.C. residents would feel the effects any time soon of the District’s unprecedented challenge to its congressional overseers. The council’s decision to implement a disputed voter referendum appeared headed for a protracted legal fight over whether D.C. can assert fiscal independence to spend money more like states do.

A draft congressional spending bill would again forbid the District from legalizing the sale of marijuana, likely frustrating local efforts to create a regulated system of pot sales for a second year in a row.

The D.C. Council on Wednesday cast a historic second vote on its budget, pushing forward under the assumption that the city is now free from some of the usual strictures imposed by Congress when it comes to spending local funds. But that assumption remains in question, prompting the Council to adopt a two-track process to ensure that it is left with a legal budget for the coming fiscal year.