Skip to Content Facebook Feature Image

Kentucky's lieutenant governor leans on her teaching roots in fighting a school choice measure

News

Kentucky's lieutenant governor leans on her teaching roots in fighting a school choice measure
News

News

Kentucky's lieutenant governor leans on her teaching roots in fighting a school choice measure

2024-10-08 06:42 Last Updated At:06:51

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — Democratic Lt. Gov. Jacqueline Coleman was in campaign mode Monday, railing against a ballot measure that would allow Kentucky tax money to go toward students attending private and charter schools.

The issue hits home for Coleman, a former public school teacher and administrator who has taken a lead role campaigning against the proposal on the statewide ballot. If a simple majority of Kentucky voters approve it next month, the measure would remove constitutional barriers that have blocked the state's Republican-dominated Legislature from using public funds to support private school education.

Speaking at a union hall in Kentucky's largest city, Coleman warned of dire consequences for public schools, especially in rural areas, if the measure wins approval.

“We simply don’t have the resources to fund two separate systems of education," Coleman said. "But also we shouldn’t be because public dollars should stay in public schools.”

With no statewide races on the ballot, the school choice measure has turned into the most intensely debated issue of the fall campaign in the Bluegrass State. Both sides have run TV ads, mounted grassroots campaigns and accused each other of spreading disinformation about the issue.

Supporters of the measure, known as Amendment 2, include Republican U.S. Sen. Rand Paul. They say the measure would enable more parents to choose schools best suited for their children — the type of educational freedom they say is available in many other states.

“Every child in every neighborhood, of every color, class and background deserves a school that will help them succeed," Paul said in a statement Monday. "Educational freedom, as proposed by Amendment 2, ensures students are able to learn in the best environment possible and breaks the poverty cycle that far too often keeps children from fulfilling their potential.”

Supporters say the enhanced competition would result in better student performance.

“The dynamics created by choice motivate the public system to improve,” said Jim Waters, president of the Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions, a free-market think tank based in Kentucky. “This is needed in Kentucky’s public education system."

He pointed to results from statewide testing as an example of why he thinks the current system is falling short. More than half of public school students who took the exams failed to achieve proficient or distinguished levels in math, reading and science, he noted.

Supporters said the push to allow public money to be spent on private schools would especially benefit low- and middle-income parents who can’t currently afford to send their kids to such schools. Coleman pushed back against the argument, predicting that vouchers wouldn’t fully cover private school tuition.

“So where does the difference for families that can’t afford to go to private school ... come from? It doesn’t,” she said, predicting most voucher money would go to children already at private schools.

Republican lawmakers put the measure on the ballot. The proposal wouldn't establish policies for how the funds could be diverted. Instead, it would clear the way for the Legislature to consider crafting such policies to support students attending private schools.

Coleman warned Monday that if the measure succeeds, it would give the Legislature a blank check to support private school education, diverting large sums of tax money away from public schools.

“We have to defeat Amendment 2 because Kentucky’s public schools — that serve 90% of our students — deserve nothing but the very best,” she said.

Supporters of the measure point to increased funding for public schools as a clear sign of lawmakers' commitment to public education. The amounts, though, were much less than what Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear proposed.

The school-choice issue is especially sensitive in Republican-leaning rural Kentucky, where public schools are the lifeblood of the community and typically among the largest employers. Coleman, a product of rural Kentucky, aimed her message at small-town voters while speaking in Louisville.

“It is no secret that rural schools stand to suffer the most," the lieutenant governor said. "Many rural communities have no private schools. So the funding that would otherwise go to those communities will instead be centered in private schools in other parts of the state.”

The issue has been debated for years in Kentucky, as Republicans expanded their legislative majorities. Past efforts to expand school choice options were foiled by legal challenges, leading lawmakers to push for the ballot measure to amend the state constitution.

“What they want to do is change the rules, which is exactly what Amendment 2 wants to do,” said Allen Schuler, who represented the Kentucky Retired Teachers Association at the Louisville event. The group opposes the ballot measure.

A GOP-backed initiative to award tax credits for donations supporting private school tuition was struck down by Kentucky's Supreme Court in 2022. Currently, the state constitution only allows taxpayer money to fund “common schools,” which state courts have interpreted as public.

Coleman was twice elected as part of a slate with Beshear, who also strongly opposes the ballot measure. She said Monday that the popular Democratic governor also plans to speak out against the measure leading up to Election Day. Coleman said she'll keep up her campaign efforts.

“I will go anywhere, anytime, any place and speak about the damage that Amendment 2 will do to our kids, our schools and our communities,” she said.

Kentucky Lt. Gov. Jacqueline Coleman greets people at a union hall in Louisville, Ky., Monday, Oct. 7, 2024. (AP Photo/Bruce Schreiner)

Kentucky Lt. Gov. Jacqueline Coleman greets people at a union hall in Louisville, Ky., Monday, Oct. 7, 2024. (AP Photo/Bruce Schreiner)

Next Article

Supreme Court declines Biden's appeal in Texas emergency abortion case

2024-10-08 06:47 Last Updated At:06:51

WASHINGTON (AP) — A court order that says hospitals cannot federally be required to provide pregnancy terminations when they violate a Texas abortion ban will stay for now, the Supreme Court said Monday.

The decision is another setback for opponents of Texas’ abortion ban, which for two years has withstood multiple legal challenges, including from women who had serious pregnancy complications and have been turned away by doctors.

It left Texas as the only state where the Biden administration is unable to enforce its interpretation of a federal law in an effort to ensure women still have access to emergency abortions when their health or life is at risk.

The justices did not detail their reasoning for keeping in place a lower court order, and there were no publicly noted dissents. Texas had asked the justices to leave the order in place while the Biden administration had asked the justices to throw it out.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called the decision “a major victory.”

The Biden administration argues that a federal law, called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, requires emergency rooms to provide abortions if a pregnant patient’s health or life is at serious risk, even in states where the procedure is banned. The law only applies to emergency rooms that receive Medicare funding, which most hospitals do.

The Supreme Court decision comes weeks before a presidential election in which Democratic nominee Kamala Harris has put abortion at the center of her campaign, attacking Republican challenger Donald Trump for appointing judges to the high court who overturned nationwide abortion rights in 2022.

Texas' abortion ban has been a centerpiece of Democratic U.S. Rep. Colin Allred ’s challenge against Republican U.S. Sen. Ted Cuz for his seat.

At a campaign event over the weekend in Fort Worth, Texas, hundreds of Allred’s supporters broke out in raucous applause when he vowed to protect a woman’s right to an abortion. “When I’m in the Senate, we’re going to restore Roe v. Wade," Allred said.

At a separate event the same day, in a nearby suburb, Cruz outlined a litany of criticisms against Allred, but didn’t bring up the abortion law.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Monday that “all patients — including women experiencing pregnancy loss, and other pregnancy-related emergencies — must be able to access the emergency medical care that they need and that is required by federal law.”

Complaints of pregnant women in medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms in Texas and elsewhere have spiked as hospitals grapple with whether standard care could violate strict state laws against abortion. Several Texas women have lodged complaints against hospitals for not terminating their failing and dangerous pregnancies because of the state's ban. In some cases, women lost reproductive organs.

In asking the Supreme Court to toss out the lower court decision, the administration pointed to a similar case from Idaho earlier this year in which the justices narrowly allowed emergency abortions to resume while a lawsuit continues. At the time the Idaho case began, the state had an exception for the life, but not the health, of a woman.

Texas said its case is different, however, because the law provides some exceptions if a pregnant patient's health is at risk.

Texas pointed to a state Supreme Court ruling that said doctors do not have to wait until a woman’s life is in immediate danger to provide an abortion legally. Doctors, though, have said the Texas law is dangerously vague, and a medical board has refused to list all the conditions that qualify for an exception.

Marc Hearron, an attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said doctors in Texas got no clarity from the Supreme Court on Monday.

“The health care crisis is ongoing,” Hearron said. “Patients are going to continue to suffer.”

Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California at Davis who has written extensively about abortion, said there remains much uncertainty for doctors in Texas, who could risk life in prison for performing abortions.

“I think we’re going to continue to see physicians turning away patients, even patients who could qualify under the state’s exceptions, because the consequences of guessing wrong are so severe and the laws are not that clear,” Ziegler said.

The Texas case started after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, leading to abortion restrictions in many Republican-controlled states. The Biden administration issued guidance saying hospitals still needed to provide abortions in emergency situations under a health care law that requires most hospitals to treat any patients in medical distress.

Texas sued over that guidance, arguing that hospitals cannot be required to provide abortions that would violate its ban. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the state, ruling in January that the administration had overstepped its authority.

Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a post on X, “Reproductive rights are under assault in this country and women’s health and lives remain in danger from the chaos and confusion caused by overturning Roe.”

Stengle contributed to this report from Dallas. AP reporters Amanda Seitz in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Sean Murphy in Oklahoma City and Aamer Madhani in Washington also contributed to this report.

Supreme Court lets stand a decision barring emergency abortions that violate Texas ban

Supreme Court lets stand a decision barring emergency abortions that violate Texas ban

Supreme Court lets stand a decision barring emergency abortions that violate Texas ban

Supreme Court lets stand a decision barring emergency abortions that violate Texas ban

FILE - The Supreme Court building is seen, June 28, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein, File)

FILE - The Supreme Court building is seen, June 28, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein, File)

Recommended Articles