Text SIGN PMNHXA to 50409 — The science is no longer disputed. A UC San Francisco study of 160,000 veterans found those exposed to TCE-contaminated water developed Parkinson’s disease at a 70% higher rate than veterans at clean bases (JAMA Neurology, 2023). TCE has also been classified as a known carcinogen since 2012, linked to kidney cancer, liver damage, and birth defects. The chemical contaminates up to 30% of U.S. drinking water supplies, seeps through soil, and rises as invisible vapor into homes and schools. After decades of mounting evidence, the EPA finally banned most TCE uses in December 2024. That should have been the floor for stronger protections. Instead, the Trump administration froze enforcement within days of taking office. What’s happened since is systematic dismantling. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has delayed TCE ban implementation four times, now pushed to November 2025. The administration delayed PFAS “forever chemical” drinking water standards, proposed lifting mercury limits from power plants, and terminated over $15 million in chemical safety research grants (ProPublica, July 2025). NIH stopped accepting submissions to its environmental health journal. Researchers studying toxic exposure in pregnant women had their funding yanked. The EPA appointed Nancy Beck, a former American Chemistry Council executive, to oversee chemical regulation. Companies now request safety exemptions via email, and the administration grants them freely. Health Secretary Kennedy warns about “environmental toxins” on television while the agencies responsible for stopping them are gutted behind closed doors. Nearly 90,000 Americans are diagnosed with Parkinson’s every year. Cancer rates in children have risen for decades. These aren’t abstractions. They’re fathers who can’t hold a fork, kids undergoing chemotherapy before kindergarten. Every delayed regulation, every terminated grant, every industry insider installed at EPA means more preventable suffering. I urge you to demand full implementation of existing chemical bans, restore research funding, and reject any policy that puts corporate convenience above public health. We need stronger environmental protections, not weaker ones. The evidence demands action. So do we.

Text SIGN PYVUDN to 50409 — It is truly a sad state of affairs when political parties cannot even agree on what constitutes murder. When people who know better throw away their morality and human decency for political fealty. Even if it weren’t against any and all international human rights laws recognized across the world, which governed the US strikes killing two people on Sept 2, only a psychopath would champion killing the defenseless. But yet reporting seems to indicate that even after seeing a video doing just that, some in the GOP seemed to shrug and accept explanations as to why it’s a-ok to do so. The US is not in an armed conflict with any cartel or criminal gang. Domestic criminal law and international human rights law both prohibit these kinds of lethal strikes outside of armed conflict. Such killings are recognized as murder and/or extrajudicial killings. Fact. All 21 strikes against suspected drug trafficking boats, killing 83 people to date, have been unlawful. Fact. Testimony by Adm. Bradley stated the boat was not headed to the US. So Trump’s justification that it threatened the homeland is false. The survivors had no weapons, no radio, and no intent to head to the US. How would the guys who shrug watching a murder video feel about a hostile power killing a downed US airman in a raft? There is no war and no factual basis for a war. If Trump cares so about fentanyl (which does not come from Venezuela) or fentanyl addiction, he would have not slashed funding for addiction treatment from Medicaid. Switching the pretext to cocaine doesn’t fly either. No serious anti-cocaine policy would pardon an infamous cocaine smuggler. Or divert thousands of DEA agents to round up gardeners and construction workers instead of drug dealers. This is all BS pretense to invade Venezuela. A working Congress wouldn’t accept extrajudicial killings, wouldn’t support an illegal and unwanted war, or condone endangering troops. A working Congress would look at the inspector general’s report on the reckless, dangerous Signalgate communications outlining US battle plans and these unlawful killings and demand Pete Hegseth’s resignation. Or at least demand public release of the video in question. Let us decide for ourselves if we want to shrug. President Trump said he would be happy to release it. But then he said the same thing about the Epstein files didn’t he?

Text SIGN PWZBAB to 50409 — I am writing to urge you to oppose the healthcare proposal from Senators Bill Cassidy and Mike Crapo that is scheduled for a vote on Thursday. This bill would trade temporary healthcare subsidies for permanent restrictions on gender-affirming care, and I cannot support using the rights of transgender Americans as a bargaining chip. The proposal offers modest Health Savings Account contributions of $1,000 to $1,500 annually for those with Bronze and Catastrophic ACA plans in exchange for unprecedented restrictions on medically necessary care. Unlike the abortion provision in the bill which includes medical necessity exceptions, transgender Americans would be prohibited from using HSA funds for gender-affirming care even when medically necessary. More concerning is the permanent amendment to the Affordable Care Act that would ban gender-affirming care from being considered an Essential Health Benefit starting in 2027. This means ACA-regulated insurance plans could not cover this care unless individual states mandate it separately and pay the full cost themselves. Currently only California, Colorado, New Mexico, Vermont, and Washington include transgender healthcare in their benchmark plans. The bill also eliminates federal Medicaid and CHIP reimbursements for gender-affirming care, forcing states to bear all costs. This provision was previously removed from the Big, Beautiful Bill in July after Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled it targeted policy rather than spending under the Byrd Rule. If these provisions become permanent law through a healthcare deal, removing them would require 60 Senate votes rather than a simple majority. Meanwhile, the subsidies being offered are temporary. Republicans would have no incentive to extend subsidies in future negotiations once they have achieved permanent restrictions on transgender healthcare. I urge you to reject this proposal and refuse to sacrifice the healthcare rights of transgender Americans for temporary measures. Please vote no on Thursday.

Text SIGN PFPQCC to 50409 — I am writing to urge you to press for the removal of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (and any senior HHS officials who echo his stance) because their current approach to public health puts rhetoric and fear above decades of science, data, and proven life‑saving interventions. Recent reporting shows that as of 2025 the rate of parents refusing the newborn vitamin K shot has risen sharply, with one study finding about 5.18 % of infants — up from 2.92 % in 2017 — skipped the injection. Medical experts have long agreed that a single vitamin K injection at birth is the safest and most effective way to prevent life‑threatening bleeding in newborns. Without it, infants are many times more likely to develop Vitamin K Deficiency Bleeding (VKDB), risk brain bleeds, long‑term disability, or death. Alternative oral vitamin K regimens are far less reliable and much harder to manage safely. By sowing doubt and encouraging hesitancy, HHS leadership undermines prevention measures that have protected children for more than six decades. This isn’t about personal belief — it’s about public health and the welfare of children too young to protect themselves. I call on you to demand accountability. We must insist HHS return to evidence‑based policies that protect newborns and not promote dangerous skepticism. Please speak out, investigate this shift in policy, and remove any officials responsible for weakening our nation’s safety standards for babies.

Text SIGN PIWNUI to 50409 — I urge you to support extending the Affordable Care Act premium tax credits before they expire at the end of this year. I understand you may have concerns about the ACA, but the reality is that millions of Americans—including many in our state—now depend on these tax credits for affordable health insurance. Without extension, premiums are projected to increase by 75% starting in January 2026, and the Congressional Budget Office estimates 4.2 million people will lose coverage by 2034. Many of these Americans are small business owners, self-employed workers, early retirees, and families in rural areas who don’t have access to employer-sponsored coverage. These are hardworking people who play by the rules and simply need stable, affordable healthcare options. Allowing these tax credits to expire would create massive uncertainty in the insurance market and hurt the constituents you represent. I also want to express concern about proposals that tie healthcare funding to restrictions on abortion or gender affirming care. While I understand these are important issues to many, holding healthcare funding hostage creates unnecessary suffering and delays critical action. Healthcare access should not be a bargaining chip. Americans need certainty about their insurance costs now—they cannot wait while Congress debates unrelated social policies. A clean extension of ACA premium tax credits is fiscally responsible, provides market stability, and protects families from sudden, devastating cost increases. This is about preserving access to healthcare for millions of Americans who are already enrolled and counting on Congress to act. I urge you to support a straightforward extension of these tax credits without controversial additions that will delay or derail this urgent legislation. Thank you for your consideration and for your service to our state.

Text SIGN PJMNSW to 50409 — I’m writing to urge you to oppose the Department of Homeland Security’s proposal to require nearly all foreign visitors—including travelers coming for the 2026 World Cup—to submit up to five years of social-media history, along with extensive personal data, as a condition of entry to the United States. This policy is being framed as a security measure, but the evidence simply does not support that conclusion. In fact, multiple government and independent reviews indicate the opposite: • DHS’s own Inspector General found that prior social-media-screening pilot programs had no measurable criteria for success and could not demonstrate that such screening helps identify threats. • FOIA-released documents show that social-media vetting of visa applicants has never been proven effective as a national-security tool. • Academic research on digital threat prediction shows extremely high false-positive rates when screening mass populations—meaning innocent travelers would be disproportionately flagged. There is also no public data showing that foreign visitors pose a significant risk of violent crime during international events. Studies more commonly show tourists are victims, not perpetrators. In other words, this proposal targets a population that has not been demonstrated to pose a higher threat. Meanwhile, the costs—constitutional, economic, and diplomatic—are significant: • Chilling effects on free expression: Requiring visitors to disclose years of social-media activity will deter lawful speech and political participation, not only for travelers but for the Americans who communicate with them. • Discriminatory impact: These systems are known to disproportionately misidentify or over-flag individuals based on language, cultural context, or political expression. • Economic harm: The U.S. is co-hosting the World Cup, and this proposal may discourage international travel and tourism at a time when global confidence in American openness is already strained. • Expanded surveillance architecture: Once built for foreign visitors, these systems tend to expand. The American public deserves safeguards before any such infrastructure is put in place. I strongly urge you to oppose DHS’s social-media disclosure proposal and support legislation that: 1. Prohibits bulk, suspicionless social-media screening of travelers; 2. Requires evidence-based evaluation of any security program before implementation; and 3. Protects the free-speech and privacy rights of Americans and visitors alike. Security is important—but surveillance that doesn’t work, that chills speech, and that targets millions of innocent people is not security. Please reject this proposal and work toward policies grounded in evidence, civil liberties, and the welcoming values our nation should represent.

Text SIGN PLBVXB to 50409 — I'm writing to demand that you oppose any legislative provision that blocks state-level regulation of AI. Congress should be working to protect our safety and privacy from the unknown risks of AI, not prioritizing the self-serving needs of big tech corporations and billionaires.

Text SIGN PKFEFB to 50409 — The mass deportation of legal immigrants from their citizenship swearing in ceremony is horrible and bigoted. These are people who have been vetted, paid all the money, cleared so many obstacles, and are done with “doing the right thing”. Stripping this earned accomplishment is cruel, performative, and the act of a person who is not mentally well. Do something. Speak up.

Text SIGN PFEKXI to 50409 — President Donald Trump was in a self-congratulatory mood as his administration announced a $12 billion aid package to help bail out struggling American farmers. “Now we’re once again in a position where a president is able to put farmers first,” Trump crowed during a roundtable of farmers and lawmakers Monday at the White House. “Unfortunately, I’m the only president that does that.” “This money would not be possible without the tariffs,” Trump told the group. “The tariffs are taking in, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars, and we’re giving some up to the farmers because they were mistreated by other countries, for maybe the right reasons, maybe wrong reasons.” It’s a remarkable statement for three reasons. First, in contrast to what the president said, the subsidies to farmers are not actually being funded by the tariffs Trump has championed since returning to office. And the only reason a bailout was needed was because of the effect of the tariffs Trump imposed in April. (The least consequential but funniest reason is the implication that American farmers were being mistreated by foreign countries but maybe the other countries’ hearts were in the right place.) The Agriculture Department’s Farmer Bridge Assistance program will distribute some $11 billion to row crop farmers who produce corn, soybeans, rice, wheat and other staple crops. According to a USDA press release, the program is meant to “address market disruptions, elevated input costs, persistent inflation, and market losses from foreign competitors engaging in unfair trade practices that impede exports.” An additional $1 billion is set aside for potential help to farmers of commodities such as sugar and other specialty crops that don’t normally qualify for the assistance program. The bulk of the funds will be released by the end of February to farmers who apply for the aid. Crucially, despite Trump's statements, as the New York Times reports the "bridge payments" to farmers "are not being funded directly by tariff income." But those tariffs have dealt a massive blow to the farmers who are turning to the USDA for financial aid. The increased cost of "agricultural inputs," which include seeds, fertilizer, pesticides and mechanical equipment, has cost farmers $33 billion this year, according to North Dakota State University's Agricultural Trade Monitor. I'm not a mathematician, but that is quite a bit more than the $12 billion the government is about to dole out.

Text SIGN PNMGYI to 50409 — I write as a concerned citizen to demand full transparency and public accountability regarding the September 2, 2025 U.S. military strike on a boat suspected of drug smuggling — especially the follow-up strike that reportedly targeted survivors of the first attack. Recent reporting indicates that survivors who were clinging to the wreckage after the initial strike were nevertheless killed by a second missile strike. Such an action — particularly in a context where the United States is not formally at war — raises grave questions under both U.S. and international law. The public, whose tax dollars fund these operations, and whose democratic values demand accountability, deserves to see the unedited video of what transpired. As noted by the advocacy group Win Without War, the evidence “the public deserves to see” is being withheld because Pentagon leadership “knows support for their lawless campaign is already on the rocks.” Transparency is not an optional virtue; it is a foundational requirement for a democracy that holds power to account. Releasing the full, unredacted video — along with the orders authorizing the strikes — will allow the American people to judge for themselves whether lawful force was used, or whether this constitutes an extrajudicial killing that utterly violates U.S. values and international norms. I therefore urge you to: 1. Immediately release the full, unedited video footage of the strike and follow-up strike. 2. Provide to Congress, and make public, the authorizing orders, legal justification, documentation of target identity, and any assessments made before and after the strike. 3. Commit to reviewing the rules and oversight regarding military strikes on vessels, especially when U.S. forces act outside a formally declared war, to ensure compliance with the law of armed conflict and human rights standards. If U.S. leaders expect the American people to trust that our government only uses lethal force when absolutely necessary, this trust must be earned with candor — not secrecy.

Text SIGN PGRXYM to 50409 — Trump’s halt on processing citizenship applications from 19 targeted countries has trapped thousands of lawful immigrants in sudden legal limbo, including those already approved for their oath ceremony. At Boston’s Faneuil Hall, immigrants were pulled from the naturalization line moments before becoming citizens. I ask you to demand immediate reinstatement of processing, speak out against discriminatory nationality-based freezes, and ensure fairness through oversight and legislation. Protect Immigrants Who Completed Every Step Of The Citizenship Process USCIS has placed a blanket hold on all immigration benefits for nationals of the 19 countries listed in the June 2025 travel ban. Naturalization, green cards, asylum cases, work permits, and even oath ceremonies have been frozen regardless of an applicant’s record, background checks, or years of compliance. People who have lived and worked here for years, passed every interview, and cleared every security screening are being denied the final step of becoming American through no fault of their own. No democracy, particularly our American democracy, should cancel citizenship approvals based solely on nationality-based criteria. Hold Immediate Hearings And Enact Reforms To Protect Due Process Please use your voice and authority to demand the release of data on how many people are affected, the legal basis for this freeze, and all internal memos directing officers to halt cases from the 19 countries. Oversight hearings are urgently needed to uncover the scope of this policy, its discriminatory impact, and the administration’s claimed justification. Congress should enact reforms that prohibit blanket nationality-based holds, require individualized assessments, and guarantee prompt judicial review. No administration should have unchecked power to shut down citizenship processing by memo. Uphold America’s Promise To All Who Earn Citizenship Through Lawful Means Citizenship is a solemn commitment shared by people who have already undergone some of the most rigorous vetting in the world. Protecting the naturalization process strengthens national security and reinforces trust in our democratic institutions. I urge you to restore processing, shield applicants from retaliation, and ensure that our nation keeps its promise to those who have earned citizenship with honesty, patience, and service.

Text SIGN PMAEVY to 50409 — I am writing to urge you to oppose President Trump's newly released National Security Strategy and to advocate for continued robust support for Ukraine, NATO, and American global leadership. This 33-page document represents a dangerous departure from decades of bipartisan U.S. foreign policy and contradicts the clear will of the American people. The Reagan National Defense Survey, conducted from October 23 to November 3, 2025, among 2,507 adults, reveals a stark disconnect between Trump's security doctrine and public opinion. Sixty-two percent of Americans want Ukraine to prevail over Russia, with support for sending weapons to Ukraine rising to 64 percent, nine points higher than the previous year. Yet the Trump administration is pressuring Kyiv to concede territory, with Trump's envoy claiming a peace deal is "really close." This approach ignores a critical reality: 70 percent of Americans do not believe Russia would honor a peace agreement with Ukraine, including 61 percent of Republicans and 77 percent of Democrats. Forcing Ukraine into territorial concessions rewards Russian aggression and sets a dangerous precedent for authoritarian expansion worldwide. Support for NATO has surged to 68 percent, the highest level since the survey began in 2018, and 76 percent of Americans support responding with military force if a NATO ally is attacked under Article V. Trump's Strategy signals an intention to halt NATO expansion and delivers a scathing critique of Europe, our closest partner, while calling for "strategic stability" with Russia without mentioning Moscow's aggression. Furthermore, 64 percent of Americans believe Washington should be more engaged in global affairs and take the lead internationally, including 79 percent of Trump's own MAGA movement supporters. The Strategy's declaration that "the days of the United States propping up the entire world order like Atlas are over" contradicts this overwhelming public mandate. I urge you to publicly oppose this Strategy, support continued military aid to Ukraine without territorial preconditions, reaffirm our NATO commitments, and champion America's essential leadership role in defending democracy and deterring authoritarian aggression.

Text SIGN PPAGNG to 50409 — I am writing to express my concerns regarding the implications of surveillance pricing and its effects on consumer rights and market fairness. As detailed in a recent article from Investopedia, surveillance pricing is the practice where companies set prices based on an extensive analysis of consumer behaviors and tendencies, enabled by advanced data collection technologies. This pricing strategy often leverages personal data without adequate transparency or consent, leading to significant ethical concerns. The reliance on customer data can result in differential pricing practices that may disadvantage certain consumer segments, effectively creating a marketplace that favors businesses at the expense of informed consumer choice. I urge our legislature to consider the following points: • Consumer Privacy: Increased surveillance pricing practices can threaten individual privacy. As companies collect vast amounts of personal data, the potential for misuse or unauthorized access grows. Stronger regulations are necessary to ensure that consumer data is handled ethically and transparently. • Market Inequality: Surveillance pricing can foster inequality within the market, as it often leads businesses to charge higher prices to certain consumers based on their perceived capacity or willingness to pay. This practice undermines the fundamental principles of fairness and competition. • Need for Regulation: Implementing regulations that govern the use of consumer data in pricing strategies is imperative. There should be clear guidelines on how data is collected, analyzed, and utilized to prevent exploitation and ensure that all consumers can access fair pricing. In light of these points, I strongly encourage our legislature to take proactive steps in establishing robust consumer protections related to surveillance pricing. Ensuring a fair marketplace where all consumers can thrive must be a priority. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. I look forward to your response.

Text SIGN PDIBZX to 50409 — The fact that you don’t call out his gross misogyny tells me what you think about Hoosier women. You are supposed to be representing us, too. Speak up.

Text SIGN PSMNEE to 50409 — I respectfully urge you to support impeachment proceedings against President Trump. Credible reports describe a multi-week maritime campaign he directed or authorized that has killed roughly 80 people. It appears to involve conduct that may constitute war crimes and/or murder. This pattern of destroying small vessels and killing their occupants raises the gravest concerns under U.S. and international law. Impeachment Is Required Article II, Section 4 permits impeachment of civil officers, including the President, for high crimes and misdemeanors. Investigations show that for weeks U.S. forces have carried out repeated strikes on small boats in the Caribbean, causing dozens of deaths across multiple incidents. The scale and continuity of this campaign suggest a deliberate pattern that demands immediate congressional action. One incident on September 2, 2025 has drawn particular scrutiny: after an initial strike left two survivors in the water, a second strike was ordered or approved that killed them. While alarming, this is only one example of a broader lethal approach that has characterized the campaign. These Actions Likely Constitute War Crimes or Murder International humanitarian law protects people who are shipwrecked or otherwise hors de combat and forbids intentionally killing individuals who pose no imminent threat. If entire boats were destroyed and their occupants killed without lawful justification, the campaign itself likely constitutes a war crime or a series of unlawful killings. A statement issued on November 29, 2025 by the Former JAGs Working Group – former senior U.S. military lawyers – declared that the alleged “no quarter” orders and associated strikes, if accurate, “constitute war crimes, murder, or both.” This statement appears at: https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/former-jag-working-group-no-quarter-statement.pdf Equally troubling is that no legal opinions have been publicly released by the administration to justify this campaign. The absence of any stated legal basis reinforces concerns that these lethal actions were carried out outside established legal boundaries. American Legal and Moral Leadership Is at Risk The continuing nature of the campaign and its significant death toll magnify its legal and moral implications. If dozens of people have been killed without a disclosed legal rationale or demonstrated compliance with the laws of armed conflict, it raises serious questions about whether the United States has engaged in unlawful and extrajudicial killing. Congressional inaction could be interpreted as condoning a lethal maritime operation conducted without transparency or legal justification. Congress Must Act Now I urge you to support the initiation of impeachment proceedings without delay. Congress should investigate the entire maritime campaign, the destruction of small vessels, the targeting decisions, the absence of legal opinions, and whether President Trump approved or directed unlawful lethal force. Congress should obtain all relevant documents, hear from independent experts in military and international law, and determine whether the President’s actions warrant removal from office.

Text SIGN PASWQB to 50409 — It is long past time to confront a truth that has been treated as politically inconvenient: the United States military is one of the single largest drivers of planetary destruction, and you have allowed it to operate with virtually no environmental oversight, no meaningful emissions reporting, and no accountability. The new documentary Earth’s Greatest Enemy lays out what researchers, veterans, and frontline communities have been saying for decades — and what Congress has consistently refused to act on: the U.S. military is the world’s biggest institutional polluter, and its environmental footprint poses a direct threat to human life, national security, and global stability. The numbers are staggering. The Department of Defense reports roughly 55 million metric tons of CO₂-equivalent emissions per year — a figure that alone would make it one of the largest emitting institutions on Earth. But that number is only a fraction of the truth. Independent analyses that include the full supply chain, weapons manufacturing, logistics, and contractor emissions consistently estimate 160–340 million metric tons per year — a climate footprint approaching 1% of total global emissions, coming from a single institution. And this still excludes uncounted emissions from war itself: the fires, toxic rubble, destroyed infrastructure, lost carbon sinks, and reconstruction that follow U.S. military campaigns. Globally, militaries account for at least 5.5% of greenhouse gas emissions, a conservative floor that excludes the climate damage of conflict. The United States — with over 37% of global military spending — is the largest contributor to that planetary burden. Meanwhile, the U.S. maintains 800+ military bases worldwide, each using massive quantities of fuel, generating hazardous waste, leaching toxic chemicals, and contaminating local water and soil. Communities from Okinawa to Diego Garcia to Vieques to Guam have endured poisoned aquifers, PFAS exposure, unexploded ordnance, radiation hazards, and ecological devastation — all without meaningful repair or accountability. Here at home, Camp Lejeune, Kirtland AFB, and countless other installations have left communities with cancer clusters, birth defects, and contaminated drinking water. No private corporation in America would be permitted to pollute on this scale. Yet the Pentagon is treated as untouchable. Your refusal to regulate the Department of Defense on climate grounds is indefensible. “National security” is not a justification — especially when the science is clear that unchecked U.S. militarism is itself a driver of insecurity, destabilizing global climate systems, fueling environmental injustice, and diverting resources from the real threats facing Americans: extreme weather, infrastructure collapse, food and water insecurity, and accelerating ecological breakdown. Reducing global U.S. military presence is not a liability; it is a direct benefit to our country, our communities, and countless populations worldwide who have endured generations of environmental harm for the sake of American militarism. The path forward is not mysterious. It requires political courage — not another study, not another nonbinding “strategy,” but legislation: 1. Mandate deep, immediate reductions in U.S. militarism, beginning with the closure of the vast majority of U.S. overseas bases. 2. Impose binding emissions caps, fuel-use regulations, and climate accountability requirements on the Department of Defense, including full-scope carbon reporting (Scopes 1, 2, and 3). 3. Ban the Pentagon’s most toxic practices, including the routine use of burn pits, toxic munitions, PFAS-containing firefighting foams, and unregulated waste disposal. 4. Establish environmental-impact constraints on all military operations, including naval exercises, weapons testing, and joint training that damage marine and terrestrial ecosystems. 5. Redirect a meaningful portion of the military budget toward climate mitigation, environmental restoration, and public health — the domains that actually safeguard American lives. Congress cannot continue pretending that U.S. militarism is compatible with a livable planet. It is not. The climate crisis is accelerating, and the U.S. military — the institution you fund more lavishly than any other — is actively undermining our chances of survival. Closing bases, reducing operations, and imposing environmental oversight on the Pentagon would immediately reduce global emissions, protect vulnerable communities, and strengthen true national security. You are out of excuses. Act now.

Text SIGN PTJABZ to 50409 — I’m writing to urge you to reject the current online-safety legislative package under consideration in the House Energy & Commerce Committee, including the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA, S.1409 / H.R. 7891) and related bills addressing minors’ access, online harms, and content restrictions. While these proposals are framed as protection, they pose serious risks to free expression, political transparency, and the well-being of the young people they claim to defend. Censorship is not care. It is a substitute for the investments that actually keep children safe. 1. Content regulation ignores the root causes of youth distress. Decades of research—including the U.S. Surgeon General’s 2023 Advisory on Youth Mental Health and CDC YRBS longitudinal data—show that youth mental-health challenges stem from systemic issues: poverty, trauma, isolation, discrimination, and a lack of accessible care. No bill in this package (including H.R. 5251, H.R. 3149, H.R. 6259, or other minors’ content-control proposals) addresses these root causes. Regulating speech cannot fix structural problems. 2. Restricting content creates predictable and dangerous harms. Bills with broad “harm” standards—especially KOSA (S.1409 / H.R. 7891) and proposals to filter or age-gate content—will inevitably suppress political reporting, human-rights documentation, and journalism containing disturbing but essential imagery. Platforms will over-remove content to avoid liability, undermining public understanding and democratic oversight. 3. These laws give unprecedented power to politicians, state attorneys general, and large corporations. Vague enforcement language across this legislative package allows government officials to decide what minors can see, inviting ideological censorship of LGBTQ+ resources, sexual-health information, racial-justice content, or coverage of violence and war. At the same time, compliance requirements consolidate power among the largest tech platforms, making them de facto arbiters of online speech. 4. Vulnerable youth are harmed the most. Research from the APA, the Trevor Project, and multiple peer-reviewed studies shows that LGBTQ+ youth, rural youth, low-income youth, and youth in unsafe households rely on online communities for identity support, medical information, and crisis help. Cutting off access does not make them safer—it makes them more isolated. 5. Evidence shows what actually works: investment in public health and education. National Academies reports, developmental psychology meta-analyses, and decades of public-health data all point to the same solution: strengthen youth resilience through accessible mental-health services, well-funded schools with trained counselors, trauma-informed education, stable housing, food security, and media-literacy programs. Countries with the best youth outcomes rely on care, not censorship. Congress can protect children—but not by shrinking their world. Please reject censorship-based legislation, including KOSA (S.1409 / H.R. 7891) and related content-restriction bills, and instead invest in the proven path: public health, education, and accessible mental-health care. Young people deserve care—not a controlled internet.

Text SIGN PVZSPR to 50409 — I am writing to urge you to reject any restrictions on transgender healthcare that may be included in ongoing healthcare negotiations, particularly those proposed by Senate Republicans Mike Crapo and Bill Cassidy in their recent ACA plan. The Republican proposal contains three sweeping restrictions that would devastate access to medically necessary care: barring Health Savings Accounts from treating gender-affirming care as medically necessary, preventing ACA plans from classifying gender-affirming care as an essential health benefit, and banning Medicaid from covering transgender healthcare entirely. While this specific proposal may lack a clear path to passage, its introduction establishes transgender healthcare restrictions as a Republican negotiating position for future legislative discussions. These restrictions would have catastrophic consequences for transgender Americans who rely on insurance coverage for essential medical care. While some transition-related medications are generic and affordable, required lab work and surgeries become prohibitively expensive without insurance coverage. Loss of healthcare access directly correlates with increased suicidality and mental health crises in the transgender community. I am asking you to firmly oppose any compromise that includes restrictions on transgender healthcare. This is not a bargaining chip. Recent elections demonstrate that voters are exhausted by anti-trans messaging. Abigail Spanberger in Virginia and Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey both won their races despite heavy Republican spending on anti-trans advertising, showing this issue does not resonate with voters as Republicans hoped. Democrats have successfully blocked similar provisions in the House, the big beautiful bill, continuing resolutions, and the NDAA. I need you to continue this strong defense of transgender rights and reject any attempt to use healthcare access as a negotiating tool. Transgender people deserve the same access to medically necessary care as all Americans, and I expect you to stand firm on this principle in all upcoming healthcare negotiations.

Text SIGN PJTTVP to 50409 — I am your constituent and I am fed up with the anti vaccination stance of RFK Jr., and his pro-eugenics mob at HHS and the CDC. This latest effort to keep infants from being vaccinated for Hepatitis B will cause children to die. Just as encouraging people to not get a measles or whooping cough vaccine will cause illness and death. Are you aware that there were 25,000 cases of whooping cough and at least 3 deaths this year and there were 1800 measles infections and 3 deaths in 2025. ALL PREVENTABLE WITH VACCINATION. I demand that you take all steps necessary to return HHS and the CDC to their core mission of protecting the health of Americans. I demand that you cancel all funding for anti vaccination research, restore funding for research into new life saving vaccines and impeach and remove Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his anti vaccination appointees. I am sure you don’t want the children of your constituents to die needlessly when you could have taken action.

Text SIGN PGITIM to 50409 — I am writing to urge you to take immediate action against the Department of Health and Human Services investigation announced this week by Office for Civil Rights director Paula M. Stannard. This investigation, framed as protecting religious freedom, is actually designed to restrict access to medically necessary health care for transgender people by targeting state licensing requirements for behavioral health providers. This is the fifth conscience rights investigation announced during Trump's second term, and it represents a dangerous escalation in using federal civil rights enforcement as a political weapon. The investigation examines whether state requirements for providers to participate in or refer patients for what HHS calls "sex-rejecting procedures" violate federal protections for religious objections. By grouping gender-affirming care with female genital mutilation in its language, HHS conflates evidence-based medical treatment with criminal acts. The consequences for transgender people are severe and immediate. Behavioral health professionals serve as the gateway to care for gender dysphoria, depression, and anxiety, conditions that disproportionately affect trans youth and adults. Former HHS deputy assistant secretary for health policy Adrian Shanker, who served under President Biden, explains that public announcements of federal enforcement actions create fear across the medical system, resulting in "compliance in advance" where hospitals and clinics quietly scale back or abandon services before any formal penalties are imposed. Some states strengthened provider requirements after patients were turned away from necessary care, often requiring objecting providers to offer timely referrals. Treating these patient protection measures as unlawful coercion will leave vulnerable people without access to lifesaving treatment during a national shortage of behavioral health providers. I urge you to publicly oppose this investigation and work with colleagues to protect access to gender-affirming care. Transgender constituents deserve the same access to medically necessary health care as everyone else. This investigation prioritizes ideology over patient welfare and must be stopped.

Text SIGN PWWTHI to 50409 — I write because I believe public schools should support every child’s right to safety, dignity, and opportunity; not privilege certain political clubs at the expense of marginalized youth. Research shows that when schools host Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) or similar LGBTQ‑inclusive student clubs, those schools report significantly lower rates of bullying, harassment, absenteeism and suicide attempts among both LGBTQ and non‑LGBTQ students. Students attending schools with GSAs are more likely to feel supported by classmates and teachers and to stay engaged in school. GSAs also foster healthier school climates overall. In studies, their presence correlated with improved mental health outcomes, stronger sense of belonging, and reduced victim‑fear among vulnerable students. Denying LGBTQ‑focused clubs to some students but allowing politically aligned groups undermines equal treatment and risks harming youth who already face stigma and isolation. By contrast, the expansion of Turning Point USA (TPUSA) in Texas schools introduces a politically charged external influence that has drawn widespread criticism. Civil rights advocates and watchdog organizations have documented a pattern of racist, sexist, homophobic, and Islamophobic statements linked to members and alumni of the organization. Schools are meant to foster learning, not function as recruitment centers for partisan activism or platforms for divisive rhetoric. In several districts and college campuses, administrators, students, and faculty have opposed TPUSA chapters precisely because the group stokes fear, targets minority communities, and undermines trust. No community benefits when public funds or authority are used to promote one ideology while suppressing others. What we teach children — whether acceptance, respect, debate, or division — matters. I urge you to reconsider any policy that endorses selective club approval for political causes while denying safe, inclusive spaces to marginalized youth. Let schools serve all students. Prioritize fairness, health, and genuine opportunity over partisan agendas.

Text SIGN POGOGZ to 50409 — ICE is tearing communities apart, speading fear, violating the law, holding the people they detain-- only a tiny percentage of whom are criminals--in degrading dangerous conditions. Amnesty international has documented torture at two detention sites in Florida. This type of immigration enforcement looks like Hitler's Gestapo. But directed against brown people and Latinos. Habeas corpus is denied, members of Congress prevented from carrying out their constitutional role of oversight. I ask you to use your power as governor to rein in the abuses of ICE in Maine. Please do not block LD 1971, the "Act to Protect Workers in the State by Clarifying the Relationship of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies with Federal Immigration Authorities." This law would ensure that state and local law enforcement won't be able to stop people solely for immigration enforcement; officers would need to inform individuals of their rights before an immigration authority interviews them. Immigrants can, of course, still be arrested for crimes. You have already shown you can stand up to Trump. Will you stand up for human decency and the rule of law by doing all you can to keep Maine safe from illegal brutalising ICE tactics? Or will you be remembered as an enabler of Trump's Gestapo?

Text SIGN PQTUSZ to 50409 — 6-year-old Yuanxin was kidnapped by ICE on November 26, 2025. Yuanxin was separated from his father, Fei Zhang, and his father still does not know Yuanxin’s whereabouts. The cruelty, terror, and trauma that ICE is enacting on families and children is absolutely despicable. I urge you to demand further investigation into this kidnapping and place pressure on ICE to reunite this parent and child. ICE continues to violate basic civic rights and wreak havoc on communities and families. I urge you demand an end to this absolute cruelty and dehumanization.

Text SIGN PUISIR to 50409 — Today I take pen in hand to write and urge you to oppose the Department of Homeland Security's recent expansion of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, and the changes that threaten to disenfranchise eligible American voters based on flawed and incomplete data. The SAVE program, as you know, was originally designed to verify citizenship for government benefits applications, not for voter verification. Recent changes implemented in May have dramatically expanded its scope. Working originally with DOGE, DHS now allows state and local election officials to search for hundreds of thousands of voters simultaneously using only social security numbers, names, and dates of birth. This represents a dangerous departure from the program's original purpose and capabilities. The reason I oppose this change is that the data underlying SAVE is fundamentally unreliable for voter verification. A 2018 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report found that SAVE is not a comprehensive list of U.S. citizens, and isn’t updated to include all naturalized citizens, and doesn’t include all derivative citizens born to U.S. parents outside the country. The Social Security Administration's Numident database, which SAVE now accesses, lacks comprehensive citizenship information for Americans born before 1978. Naturalized citizens may not have updated citizenship information if they didn't notify the agency of their naturalization. These flaws in the data create serious risks. As on example, in 2024, several state election officials falsely claimed they had identified large numbers of potential noncitizens on voter rolls, sweeping up thousands of eligible American citizens in the process. Twenty-one million American citizens do not have easy access to common citizenship documents like passports or birth certificates, making it difficult for wrongly flagged voters to prove their eligibility. The rules expansion also raises significant privacy concerns and may violate the Privacy Act and Administrative Procedure Act. The administration has provided no new system of records notice as required by law. Oversight has been further compromised by shutting down the USCIS ombudsman and the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties casting aside approximately 600 civil rights investigations. Voter fraud, including noncitizen voting, is extremely rare. Congress authorized SAVE to help states ensure eligibility for public benefits applications, NOT to block American citizens from voting. I urge you to demand that DHS reverse these changes and restore proper safeguards against voter disenfranchisement. Thank you.

Text SIGN PZQJRP to 50409 — I am writing to urge you to take immediate action to end the separation of migrant families and the detention of children in immigration facilities. Recent reports indicate that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is under investigation by a federal judge for potential contempt charges related to flights carrying migrants to El Salvador, highlighting the ongoing chaos and lack of accountability in our immigration enforcement system. The practice of detaining children in facilities that lack adequate oversight, medical care, and educational resources violates basic human rights standards. These are not abstract policy debates. Children are being held in conditions that mental health experts have documented cause lasting psychological trauma, including anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Family separation as a deterrence strategy has been condemned by the American Academy of Pediatrics and numerous child welfare organizations as harmful to child development. I understand immigration policy involves complex considerations about border security and resource allocation. However, there are proven alternatives to detention that are both more humane and more cost-effective. Community-based case management programs have shown compliance rates exceeding 95 percent at a fraction of the cost of detention facilities. These programs allow families to remain together while their cases are processed, protecting children from harm while maintaining immigration enforcement. I am asking you to publicly oppose family separation policies and support legislation that prohibits the detention of children in immigration facilities. Additionally, please advocate for increased funding for community-based alternatives to detention and ensure robust oversight of all immigration enforcement activities involving minors. Our immigration system should reflect our values as a nation. We can enforce our laws without inflicting trauma on children. I look forward to your response on where you stand on protecting migrant children from detention and family separation.