Our Administration has proposed freezing fuel efficiency standards after 2021, and they also want to stop letting California set stronger emission standards, because hippie-punching. But get a load of this pile of dung: they claim that if cars get more miles to the gallon, folks will drive more and therefore expose themselves to more danger. By that logic, we should never do anything that helps people live longer, because they'll just "put themselves at more risk" with all that extra life! (The Administration is also wrong that lighter cars necessarily lead to more deaths in crashes, but then they don't appreciate science, or subtlety.) Our laws require they still take public comments on their plan, and Public Citizen, the Sierra Club, and Penn Environment all help you do that. Seriously, paying more for gas and pumping more filth into our air: who looks at that and says, yeah, great program? Only our 46% President and his enablers.
Meanwhile, if you've missed previous opportunities to tell big banks to divest from private prison corporations, then both Moms Rising and the Courage Campaign still helps you do that. You may want to remind big banks like Wells Fargo and JP Morgan Chase that they're making money off putting kids in jail, since private prisons handle most of our government's immigrant detainment functions, and since our President's notorious "zero tolerance" policy has had the side effect (or, possibly, "side effect") of putting a lot of immigrant children in detention. You'll also be reminded, if you read that previous sentence carefully, that letting private corporations handle government functions is a terrible idea -- putting people in prison is our job as a democracy, after all, so our government should handle it on our behalf, not farm it out to some corporation that only cares about enrich its CEOs. So cutting off their money supply would be a good work.
Finally, S. 3225, the Stop Shackling and Detaining Pregnant Women Act, would prevent our government from detaining pregnant immigrant women except under narrow circumstances -- if "credible, reasonable grounds exist to believe that the person presents an immediate and serious threat of hurting herself or others," per Sec. 2(a)(2) -- and would also prevent our government from using restraints on such women, with similar exceptions. S. 3225 would also require detention centers to give pregnant women the health care they need, which right-wingers would like, right, since they're all about caring for babies and such? I mean, if we are the nation that sets an example for the world, then let's be the nation that says "we take care of pregnant immigrants while we're figuring out whether to let them in." Moms Rising helps you tell your Congressfolk to promote our better natures by passing the Stop Shackling and Detaining Pregnant Women Act.