Communication researcher and social psychologist studying how stories change minds (narrative persuasion).
Personal account.
news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/...
The average ACA benefit per month is up to $550 a person.
People want us to hold the line for a reason. This is not a matter of appealing to a base. It’s about people’s lives.
And working people want leaders whose word means something to them.
Reposted by Melanie C. Green
Reposted by Melanie C. Green
Reposted by Melanie C. Green, David R. Miller
That's not something you've won in negotiations. That's just the letter of the law. You don't get to claim that as a win.
We are in a health care emergency. A simple one-year extension of these tax credits would cost less than Donald Trump’s $40 billion bailout for Argentina.
A vote for this bill is a mistake.
Reposted by Melanie C. Green
Trump and his Republican Congress are making healthcare more expensive for the middle class and ending it for working families.
Time for Democrats to stand tall for affordable healthcare. www.politico.com/news/2025/11...
Reposted by Rosemary A. Joyce, Melanie C. Green, Dana R. Fisher
Reposted by Melanie C. Green
www.chicagotribune.com/2025/11/09/c...
Reposted by Melanie C. Green, Michael W. Kraus
Hold the line. Save health care. I’m a NO on anything that doesn’t extend ACA subsidies.
Reposted by Lisa W. Fazio, Melanie C. Green
"ICE turned it into a scary and what felt like an unsafe environment for us to be out with these kids"
chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/...
Reposted by Melanie C. Green, Virginia Sapiro
Reposted by Melanie C. Green
First, the obvious: Higher costs → either lower profits or higher prices.
Second, more subtle (perhaps bigger): We’ve signaled we’re an unreliable partner, so allies are reorganizing supply chains to avoid us. That's hard to unwind.
Reposted by Melanie C. Green, Kate Starbird
Making calls shouldn't undermine trust! www.kuow.org/stories/kuow...
Reposted by Melanie C. Green
Reposted by Melanie C. Green
He’s spending tax payer dollars going back to court to try and avoid giving folks money they are legally owed.
He’s starving 42 million people because to him they are leverage.
It’s enraging.
www.cnn.com/2025/11/06/u...
Reposted by Melanie C. Green
Folks can’t pay these rates. This family is in TX, but it’s happening everywhere. Congress MUST extend the ACA tax credits.
Reposted by Melanie C. Green
![TRUMP v. ORR
JACKSON, J., dissenting
identity. From 1992 to 2010, passport applicants who
wished to obtain passports with sex markers that were dif-
ferent from the sex assigned to them at birth had to submit
evidence of surgical reassignment. In 2010, the State De-
partment began allowing passport applicants to submit a
doctor’s certification avowing that they had undergone clin-
ical treatment for gender transition. Beginning in 2021, the
State Department allowed applicants to self-select the sex
marker that matched their gender identity.
Through it all, the indisputable point of a passport re-
mained: to “attes[t] to the identity and nationality of the
bearer.” 22 CFR §51.1 (2024). The State Department’s sex-
marker policies have thus long demonstrated that what is
important for identification purposes is the bearer’s gender
identity today.
No matter. On January 22, 2025, the agency overhauled
the rules for sex markers on passports, reverting to its pre-
1992 practices. Its Passport Policy now requires that all
new passports reflect the holders’ sex assigned at birth.
Why? Because two days earlier, on January 20, President
Trump issued Executive Order No. 14168, characterizing
transgender identity as “false” and “corrosive” to American
society. 90 Fed. Reg. 8615 (2025). The order asserted that
“the policy of the United States” is “to recognize two sexes,
male and female,” which it defined based on the sex as-
signed “at conception.” Ibid. And the order directed the
Secretary of State to require that any new government-is-
sued identification documents reflect the holder’s “biologi-
cal” sex. Id., at 8615–8616. The State Department re-
sponded by rescinding its prior sex-identification policies
moving forward; transgender Americans who had previ-
ously obtained passports with sex markers reflecting their
gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth
could continue to use those documents until they expire.
Several transgender Americans w](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:bpna2qi2e44fafbhhtqjak3x/bafkreicresi6xxujemrcbyyzfqfcavyd5idtu4efzxklgzojcbdx7dydim@jpeg)
www.thefire.org/news/victory...
![This case concerns an Executive Branch policy requiring
all new passports to display an individual’s biological sex at
birth. The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts preliminarily enjoined the Government
from enforcing the policy, and the First Circuit declined to
stay the injunction pending appeal. The Government then
filed this stay application. Applying our familiar stay fac-
tors at this preliminary stage, we grant the application.
Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends
equal protection principles than displaying their country of
birth—in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to
a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential
treatment. And on this record, respondents have failed to
establish that the Government’s choice to display biological
sex “lack[s] any purpose other than a bare . . . desire to
harm a politically unpopular group.” Trump v. Hawaii, 585
U. S. 667, 705 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Nor are respondents likely to prevail in arguing that the
State Department acted arbitrarily and capriciously by de-
clining to depart from Presidential rules that Congress ex-
pressly required it to follow. See 22 U. S. C. §211a.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6h7b2i6ttw3l4t7pvbvxdith/bafkreiacrtgoecxjy5y7ojz7xzbun4c4nwutjcvqn4qb4p25ldpt6va5lu@jpeg)
Reposted by Melanie C. Green
