The House on Tuesday ignored opposition from President Joe Biden and voted to end the public health emergency related to COVID-19, winning some support from House Democrats on a second bill that would end the government’s requirement that federal health care workers must be vaccinated against COVID.

The two bills – the Pandemic is Over Act and the Freedom for Health Care Workers Act – were planned by Republicans last week; and late Monday, the White House announced that it will terminate the national COVID emergency on May 11. The White House also announced its opposition to the two bills up for a vote today.

But Republicans pressed ahead anyway and easily passed both measures despite the GOP’s narrow majority in the House.

The Pandemic is Over Act, which would end the public health emergency, passed 220-210 in a vote that saw every Republican vote for it and every Democrat vote against it. But the Freedom for Health Care Workers Act, which would end the vaccination requirement for federal health care workers, passed 227-203 with help from seven Democrats.

Those Democrat votes came even though Democrat leaders on the House floor argued against both bills. Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., said he opposes the Pandemic is Over Act because it would ‘abruptly and irresponsibly end the COVID-19 public health emergency virtually overnight,’ and Democrats on the floor similarly argued against the bill to end the vaccine requirement.

Support among Democrats for maintaining a high state of emergency related to COVID has waned in the months since President Biden said in an interview that the ‘pandemic is over.’ Late last year, the Democrat-led House and Senate each approved a defense policy bill that required the Pentagon to end its COVID-19 vaccine mandate – that bill passed easily in the House in a 350-80 vote.

Nonetheless, the White House said this week that it opposes the GOP attempt to eliminate the vaccination requirement for health care workers and said Biden would veto the bill if it passed the House and the Senate.

‘While COVID-19 is no longer the disruptive threat that it once was, it makes no sense for Congress to reverse this protection for vulnerable patients, as well as our health care workers who have given so much to protect us,’ the White House said.

But the White House stopped short of saying it would veto the bill to end the public health emergency (PHE), even though it said it opposes that bill.

‘If the PHE were suddenly terminated, it would sow confusion and chaos into this critical wind-down,’ the White House said. ‘Due to this uncertainty, tens of millions of Americans could be at risk of abruptly losing their health insurance, and states could be at risk of losing billions of dollars in funding.’

President Biden was on the road for a second straight day Tuesday highlighting the benefits of the bipartisan infrastructure law, one of the top domestic achievements of his tenure so far in the White House.

‘This law is the most significant investment in rail… since we created Amtrak,’ the president touted at the West Side Rail Yard in New York City Tuesday, as he promoted a project — paid through the infrastructure measure — that’s expected to improve reliability for hundreds of thousands of train passengers per day in the northeast.

‘When the project is complete, trains will be in and out of New York more quickly, more safely, with fewer interruptions,’ Biden emphasized.

But as Biden moves closer towards the likely launch of his 2024 presidential election campaign, his standing in the most important metric of his presidency remains well in negative territory.

The president’s approval/disapproval rating is underwater at 43%-53%, according to an average of the most recent national polls compiled by Real Clear Politics. 

Biden’s approval rating hovered in the low to mid 50s during his first six months in the White House. But the president’s numbers started sagging in August 2021 in the wake of Biden’s much criticized handling of the turbulent U.S. exit from Afghanistan and following a surge in COVID-19 cases that summer among mainly unvaccinated people.

The plunge in the president’s approval was also fueled by soaring inflation, which started spiking in the summer of 2021, and to a lesser degree the surge of migrants trying to cross into the U.S. along the southern border with Mexico. The president’s numbers slightly rebounded last summer and autumn, but remain well in the red.

Biden stands far below where his three most recent two-term predecessors stood at this point in their presidencies, as they successfully ran for re-election.

Democratic President Barack Obama enjoyed a 51%-43% approval rating at the end of January 2011, according to a Real Clear Politics average. Obama’s Republican predecessor, President George W. Bush stood at 59%-35% at the end of January 2003, according to Real Clear Politics. And Democratic President Bill Clinton was above water at 49%-44% at the beginning of February 1995 according to Gallup polling.

The only recent president whose approval ratings were lower than Biden’s current numbers was his most recent predecessor — Donald Trump.

Then-President Trump stood at 41%-55% at the end of January 2019, according to the Real Clear Politics average. Trump was defeated by Biden in his bid for a second term in the White House.

The further polarization of the electorate in recent years is a major factor in both Biden and Trump’s negative numbers, says Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion.

‘There was a time when an incumbent president received a decent share of the opposing party’s support. Now it’s single digits at best,’ Miringoff said. ‘Presidents are getting very little nowadays from across the partisan divide.’

But Biden’s negative numbers weren’t a drag on his party in November’s midterm elections, as the Democrats defied expectations and held onto the Senate, suffered lower-than-expected losses in the House, and made gains in the battle for governorships and state legislatures.

If Biden’s approval ratings remain in the low to mid 40’s into next year amid a likely re-election campaign, he could face problems.

‘If you’re upside down, you want to make it a choice between yourself and your opponent,’ Miringoff emphasized. ‘If it comes to be a referendum on your first term, and people think the country’s headed in the wrong direction and your numbers are mired in the low 40’s, then that becomes a problem.’

But the president next week will have an opportunity to try and boost his standing with Americans as he delivers the annual State of the Union address.

‘If President Biden is looking for an opportunity to alter a mostly static approval rating, the State of the Union, is his next best chance,’ Miringoff said. ‘Biden needs to flip public sentiment about the strength of the union and find middle ground to offset many Americans who view the political parties as extreme.’

Democratic Gov. Janet Mills plans to address a joint session of the Maine Legislature on Valentine’s Day.

The governor will use the address on the evening of Feb. 14 to highlight her budget proposal and outline actions she is taking to strengthen the economy.

‘I strongly believe that if we want to build a stronger, more prosperous state where opportunity is available to all, then we must invest in our greatest asset: the people of Maine. That’s what my budget proposal does,’ she said.

Introduced earlier this month, her proposed budget is undergoing legislative scrutiny. The budget does not raise taxes, and leaves the rainy day fund untouched at more than $900 million.

The governor was invited to deliver her address on Feb. 14 by Senate President Troy Jackson and House Speaker Rachel Talbot Ross, the Legislature’s presiding officers.

What Congress tackles or fails to accomplish often boils down to ‘the math.’

But a potential crisis over the debt ceiling later this year could really be about the math, even more than other things that are about the math on Capitol Hill.

It’s also about the process.

Congress must raise the debt ceiling by early June or the nation may default. A failure to lift the debt limit could prompt the financial markets to spiral out of control, astronomically drive up the price of lending for homes and cars and spur a global economic meltdown.

Such a scenario would make the 2008 fiscal crisis resemble a couple of bounced checks.

The debt ceiling is the amount of red ink the government is statutorily allowed to carry at any one time. The federal government is now about $31.4 trillion in the hole. Congress must pass a bill lifting or suspending the debt ceiling to avert the financial calamities mentioned above.

It sounds simple. But both the House and Senate must pass the same bill. Republicans hold a five-seat majority in the House. Democrats preside over a one-seat majority in the Senate. However, 60 votes are needed to terminate a filibuster in the Senate. A determined group of House Republicans is loath to support any measure that implicitly signals more debt. Even if this is debt the U.S. already accrued.

Around 85% of all federal spending goes toward popular entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — coupled with the Pentagon. Republicans generally support all four of those areas. Republicans insist they will only support a debt ceiling increase that addresses the root of the spending explosion. Yet GOPers don’t want to trim those programs. Thus, it’s hard to see what most House Republicans might support at all.

But not all Republicans are in that camp. Some GOPers are certainly grandstanding about the debt ceiling and excessive spending. But others understand the true financial peril the U.S. could face if Congress fails to act.

So what’s the math?

Two hundred and eighteen.

If all 434 members of the House vote — perhaps 435 following a Virginia special election later this month — the House needs 218 members to pass any bill on the debt ceiling or any other subject. The current breakdown in the House is 222 Republicans and 212 Democrats. This is where a coalition of Democrats and some Republicans may be able to come together and approve a plan to lift the debt ceiling.

Let’s examine the parliamentary possibilities. This spells out a series of avenues the House could take to grapple with the limit — provided they can get the math right.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., finally won the speaker’s election by ceding power to rank-and-file members. That means that lawmakers not named McCarthy are licensed to try to bring up issues that are important to them — not just the speaker. As such, McCarthy promised lawmakers an ‘open amendment process.’ That means members may attempt to put amendments important to them in play on various bills.

So imagine it’s May, and the debt ceiling deadline is looming. McCarthy decides that the House will consider a debt ceiling bill that addresses a significant number of cuts. However, lawmakers are allowed to offer amendments to that bill under McCarthy’s promise. Even amendments with which lawmakers may disagree. So even though most Republicans may not want to raise the debt ceiling, others may feel differently.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The key is designating the amendment to raise the debt ceiling ‘an amendment in the nature of a substitute.’ There are ‘regular’ amendments which just alter a word or two. Or, an amendment may tackle a particular provision in a bill. But a ‘substitute amendment’ is a different parliamentary animal. A substitute amendment yanks out the existing text of a bill and replaces it with brand new language, right down to the comma and semicolon. When the House considers amendments, it stops if it adopts a substitute amendment. That’s because the substitute approved by the House becomes the de facto bill.

It’s possible the House could approve a debt ceiling bill by approving a substitute amendment. But the math requires a combination of some Republicans and lots of Democrats to come together to approve such a plan.

As for Republicans who didn’t want to address the debt ceiling? Remember that the agreement cut with McCarthy was for a more ‘open process’ and more amendments. The House just took a staggering 56 roll call votes on an energy bill last week. That’s what McCarthy’s members wanted. The deal was for a more open process, but not just for a few members.

If the full House adopts a substitute amendment that lifts the debt ceiling, the gig is up.

Another option for the House is to go over the head of McCarthy with a ‘discharge petition.’ A discharge petition requires action if a hard figure of 218 members sign up to put a given measure on the floor — regardless of what committees or the leadership wants to do. In essence, a discharge petition ‘discharges’ a bill from committee and plunks it on the floor.

It’s possible that those concerned about the debt ceiling could craft a bill to address the issue — and utilize a discharge petition to get a vote. A discharge petition would likely require a similar coalition of some Republicans and most Democrats to cross the ‘218’ threshold.

Under current rules, the speaker has two days to bring up a successful discharge petition. The House requires a simple majority to approve the discharge petition and bring the debt ceiling bill to the floor.

But successful discharge petitions are rare. There have only been two successful discharge petitions in the House in the past 21 years — a 2002 campaign finance bill and a 2015 plan to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.

That said, there is a way the House could block a discharge petition. It’s possible the House Rules Committee could craft a provision to modify or preempt how the House considers the discharge on the floor.

Finally, there is a more exotic, ‘gamey’ option to potentially address the debt ceiling in the House. It’s through a provision called ‘ordering the previous question.’

A ‘previous question’ or, ‘PQ,’ as it’s known on Capitol Hill, is essentially a ‘vote to have a vote.’

The House usually conducts a ‘pre-debate’ on most bills that come to the floor. That pre-debate establishes the ground rules for how the House will consider a given bill. This includes how much time the House may devote to a given item or even if amendments are in order. The vote in the House is to ‘order the previsions question’ (e.g. – the vote to have a vote).

However, the House hasn’t defeated a ‘previous question’ vote since the 1980s. If the House rejects the ‘previous question’ (thus, voting against having a subsequent vote), the minority can seize control of the floor for an hour. That’s where a group of Democrats and some Republicans may have an opportunity to offer an amendment to raise the debt ceiling. The House must vote to add that debt limit plan to the package as an amendment.

It’s unclear what the policy proposals may look like to potentially address the debt ceiling. But dealing with the debt ceiling is certainly about the math. And because of GOP opposition to tangling with the debt ceiling, it’s certainly about the process.

Pennsylvania’s Democratic Party has voted to endorse an appellate court judge from Philadelphia, Daniel McCaffery, to be the party’s nominee for an open state Supreme Court seat in this year’s election.

Party committee members voted at their meeting over the weekend in suburban Harrisburg to endorse McCaffery over a fellow appellate court judge, Deborah Kunselman of Beaver County.

The primary is May 16. The deadline to file petitions to get on the ballot is March 7, and candidates can start gathering voter signatures Feb. 14.

Both McCaffery and Kunselman serve on the statewide Superior Court, which handles appeals from county courts in criminal and civil cases.

Republicans will hold their state committee meeting this weekend in Hershey and could vote to endorse. One candidate, Carolyn Carluccio, a Montgomery County judge, has announced her candidacy for the party’s nomination for state Supreme Court.

In addition to Carluccio, two others — Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Paula Patrick and Commonwealth Court Judge Patricia McCullough of Allegheny County — have met with regional Republican Party caucuses that interview candidates before holding endorsement votes. Both McCullough and Patrick lost in the party’s 2021 primary for state Supreme Court.

The seven-seat high court has one opening to be filled in the November election. Justices on the state Supreme Court in Pennsylvania serve 10-year terms and run for subsequent terms in up-or-down retention elections without an opponent.

The court currently has a majority of four justices elected as Democrats and two justices elected as Republicans.

The Virginia House of Delegates advanced a bill on Monday that would ban transgender women and girls from competing in women’s sports at any level in Virginia schools. 

‘The purpose of House Bill 1837 is to protect our girls and young women from being forced to compete against biological males,’ Delegate Karen Greenhalgh (R-Virginia Beach) said. ‘Similarly gifted and trained males will always have the physical advantage over females, which is the reason we have women’s sports.’

A Virginia House of Delegates subcommittee voted along party lines to move House Bill 1387 to the full education committee. The controversial bill, patroned by Greenhalgh, would ban transgender women and girls from competing on any ‘interscholastic, intercollegiate, intramural, or club athletic team’ at any school or college in the state.

‘Even the strongest, fastest girls in Virginia must step up to the starting line and know, ‘I can’t win,” said Greenhalgh. ‘Their goals are gone, their chance at winning and recognition and scholarship, it’s just not fair for women to lose these opportunities.’

The legislation would require transgender athletes in the commonwealth to compete in sports aligned with their biological sex. If passed, the law would apply to all athletes from kindergarten through 12th grade, at public colleges and universities, as well as intercollegiate, interscholastic and club sports.

Under current Virginia High School League (VHSL) regulations, transgender athletes wishing to have their identity recognized for competition must provide documentation of their transition, including lists of medication taken. The decision is then left to a VHSL district committee to be made on a case-by-case basis.

Since these rules were enacted in 2014, 28 transgender students have applied and 25 have been granted the right to play on teams aligning with their gender identities. 

Republicans currently control the Virginia House of Delegates by a 51-47 margin; however, Democrats have a 22-18 majority in the state Senate, making the bill’s fate beyond the Virginia house uncertain. 

On his first day in office, Biden issued an executive order saying students should play on sports teams based on their gender identity. Since the president’s decisive stance on transgender athletes, an onslaught of bills have emerged from over two dozen states.

In 2021, lawmakers in at least 24 states proposed similar legislation to ensure participation in women’s sports is based on female biology, not gender identity. 

Federal legislation in 2021 was also introduced in the House and Senate. The ‘Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act’ (H.R. 426, S. 251) states that schools that allow ‘biological males’ to compete in girls athletics could lose federal funding.

‘Title IX established a fair and equal chance for women and girls to compete, and sports should be no exception,’ Sen. Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga. stated, referring to the section of the Education Amendments of 1972 that prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. ‘As someone who learned invaluable life lessons and built confidence playing sports throughout my life, I’m proud to lead this legislation to ensure girls of all ages can enjoy those same opportunities, this commonsense bill protects women and girls by safeguarding fairness and leveling the athletic field that Title IX guarantees.’

A Democratic lawmaker in Nebraska is being accused of ‘anti-religious bigotry’ by Republicans after she proposed to ban children from attending church youth groups or vacation Bible schools.

State Sen. Megan Hunt says her amendment, which would ban children under 19 years of age from attending a ‘religious indoctrination camp,’ is intended to kill the underlying bill, LB 371, a measure put forward by Republicans to ban minors from attending drag performances. The text of the amendment asserts there is a ‘well-documented history of indoctrination and sexual abuse perpetrated by religious leaders and clergy people upon children.’

It is a tongue-in-cheek response to Republicans who have said children should not be exposed to explicit sexual content at drag shows.

‘This is an amendment that I will use to make a point,’ Hunt told Fox News Digital. ‘This amendment obviously won’t pass, and I would withdraw it if it had the votes to pass. It’s a device to make a point, so there is no need to worry.’

But GOP lawmakers accused Hunt of, at best, not taking her job seriously and, at worst, displaying condemnable intolerance.

‘The bigotry she’s shown in thinking this amendment (and – perhaps – her job?) is a joke is alarming,’ Republican state Sen. Julie Slama told Fox News Digital.   

‘I second Sen. Slama’s remarks,’ said state Sen. Dave Murman, who introduced LB 371. ‘That amendment is a great example of the far left’s repeated attempt to demonize Christian patriots across Nebraska.’

Hunt’s amendment states that ‘abusers within churches and other religious institutions often use events like church or youth-group-sponsored camps and retreats to earn children’s trust and gain unsupervised access to such children in order to commit [sexual] abuse.’ 

It defines a ‘religious indoctrination camp’ as ‘a camp, vacation Bible study, retreat, lock-in, or convention held by a church, youth group, or religious organization for the purpose of indoctrinating children with a specific set of religious beliefs.’

The text mimics the underlying bill, LB 371, which Slama said ‘keeps kids from attending hyper-sexualized events.’

READ THE AMENDMENT. APP USERS: CLICK HERE

LB 371 would prohibit anyone under 19 from attending a drag show and would prevent those under 21 from attending if alcohol is served. The bill defines a drag show as when a performer exhibiting ‘a gender identity that is different than the performer’s gender assigned at birth’ engages in singing, lip-syncing, dancing or otherwise performs before an audience for entertainment. It would make it a misdemeanor to knowingly bring a minor to a drag performance.

Business or nonprofit owners who host drag shows could face a misdemeanor charge if minors are present and could be fined $10,000 for each violation.

‘The goal of LB 371 is to allow our kids to be kids, not collateral damage of the woke agenda,’ Slama said. 

Hunt’s amendment strikes references to drag performances and replaces them with ‘religious indoctrination camp,’ imposing the same penalties on individuals and businesses that permit children to go to youth religious activities. 

Hunt says she’s introduced similar controversial amendments that aren’t meant to pass but rather are intended to illustrate her opposition to ‘harmful and discriminatory bills like LB 371.’

For instance, to oppose a bill that required DNA collection of everyone accused of a crime, Hunt filed an amendment that required DNA collection from anyone who submits an application for a concealed carry permit.

‘They aren’t meant to pass,’ Hunt insisted. ‘They are meant to help kill harmful and discriminatory bills like LB371 which, if we are forced to debate in the full legislature, will truly be a waste of time for Nebraskans and for lawmakers. Part of my job here is to work to pass or block bills that I support or oppose. This is just what happens in the course of that work.’   

LB 371 is co-sponsored by nine Republican lawmakers and has been scheduled for a committee hearing. 

In addition to her amendment, Hunt filed a motion to indefinitely postpone the bill from consideration. 

READ LB 371. APP USERS: CLICK HERE

The ACLU of Nebraska has said the bill is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment right to free speech. 

‘Let’s call this what it is – an unconstitutional censorship attempt rooted in a coordinated national effort to push LGBTQ+ people out of public life,’ said Jane Seu, ACLU of Nebraska legal and policy counsel, in a statement issued after the bill was introduced earlier this month.

‘Drag is a visual expression and creative celebration of LGBTQ+ culture. It has been a part of the creative community for centuries and this bill would have far-reaching implications on the historical tradition of artistic freedom. All-ages shows are protected the same as any other artistic performance,’ Seu added. 

Republicans dispute this claim and say LB 371 mirrors language that keeps minors away from strip clubs. GOP lawmakers in other states like Arkansas have advanced similar bills with similar arguments. 

‘We set laws regarding when kids can drink, attend a club, vote, join the military, drive or consent to a surgical procedure,’ Murman told Fox News Digital. ‘I think a sexualized performance like a drag show is definitely something Nebraska should prevent child attendance at.’