2 stories credited to Daily Citizen
Latest story Apr 10, 2026 · on ChamberLight since Apr 2026
A story can appear as several articles (copies of the same piece), so counts of stories and of articles differ.
Scores for Daily Citizen
Writing quality not enough rated stories yet: 2 of 10. How it is measured
Scores last checked Sep 25, 2026.
Stories ChamberLight collected, by month
Stories credited to Daily Citizen, by publication date. ChamberLight collects articles that mention the officials it tracks, so this shows its own coverage of this source, not how much the source publishes.
- Stories from Daily Citizen
- Shaded: ChamberLight collected no stories, or almost none, from any outlet (a gap in its collection, not in the outlet’s publishing)
Show as a table
| Month | Stories | All outlets |
|---|---|---|
| April 2026 | 2 | 4,161 |
| May 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| June 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| July 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| August 2026 | 0 | 1 (collection gap) |
| September 2026 | 0 | 1,320 |
Top topics
Share of this source’s stories tagged with each topic. A story can carry several topics, so the shares do not add up to 100%.
- Ethics/Corruption2
100% of 2 stories · 58% across all outlets
- Abortion/Reproductive Rights1
50% of 2 stories · 1% across all outlets
- Healthcare1
50% of 2 stories · 8% across all outlets
- Immigration1
50% of 2 stories · 13% across all outlets
- Voting Rights1
50% of 2 stories · 19% across all outlets
The thin mark on each bar is the topic’s share across all outlets.
Who they cover
Party of the officials these stories are mainly about, across all 3 officials named. A story counts once for each official it is mainly about, so the split is over 3 story–official pairs, from 2 stories.
- Republican100% · 3 pairs
Most covered
Stories mainly about each official, and their share of the source’s 2 stories.
Article tone
ChamberLight’s article analysis assigns each story a tone toward the official it covers. It describes the coverage of that official, not Daily Citizen’s stance, and reader votes do not change it. 2 stories.
- Good Look
- 1 (50%)
- Mixed
- 1 (50%)
- Informational
- 0 (0%)
- Bad Look
- 0 (0%)
Challenges to these scores
No one has challenged a score on this page yet. Anyone can; editors publish every outcome here.
Articles served from dailycitizen.focusonthefamily.com
3
Only Citizens Should Vote: Why Federal Voting Rights May Need a Constitutional Amendment
Last month, Rep. Laurel Lee (R-FL) introduced “House Joint Resolution 152” — a constitutional amendment requiring anyone voting for a president, a senator or a member of the House of Representatives, to be a United States citizen. If you’re wondering why we need an amendment to codify that which everyone has long seemed to know to be law, you wouldn’t be alone. But writing in this week’s Wall Street Journal, Bradley A. Smith, a former member of the Federal Election Commission, warns about the growing ambiguity surrounding the debate: When it comes to congressional and presidential elections, Article I of the Constitution grants Congress power to regulate the time, place and manner of holding elections but not who is eligible to vote. The Supreme Court affirmed this in Arizona v. Inter-Tribal Council (2013). And the Constitution is clear: Under Article I and the 17th Amendment, any person who is allowed to vote in a state legislative election is automatically also allowed to vote for members of Congress. A federal statute can’t trump the Constitution’s explicit, exclusive grant of power to each state to determine who is eligible to vote. Because federal law can be changed or repealed by a future Congress, Rep. Lee and several of her colleagues are pushing for the amendment. “It’s simple: only Americans should vote in American elections,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH). Congresswoman Lee’s amendment is a commonsense proposal that creates a uniform, nationwide standard that will protect federal elections permanently.” Not too long ago, the idea of limiting voting to only U.S. citizens was a bipartisan principle. President Clinton signed the “Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA),” into law that year. It was passed in the Senate by a vote of 97-3. “We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws,” said President Clinton. “It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws that we have seen in recent years.” He added: “Today’s legislation strengthens the rule of law by cracking down on illegal immigration.” Rep. Lee’s attempt to clarify and codify this long-supported principle is a much-needed effort, especially given that non-citizens are already voting in some local elections (school board and mayoral elections, etc.) in such places as Washington, D.C., California, Illinois, and Vermont. “Relying on statute alone leaves this principle subject to future changes that could undermine this long-standing principle,” Rep. Lee declared. “This amendment ensures that no matter what happens in Washington or at the state level, federal elections will remain reserved for United States citizens.” Constitutional amendments face a difficult and uphill climb, of course. Rep. Lee’s resolution will need to pass by a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate before heading to the states for ratification by three-fourths or 38 states. The post Only Citizens Should Vote: Why Federal Voting Rights May Need a Constitutional Amendment appeared first on Daily Citizen.
Only Citizens Should Vote: Why Federal Voting Rights May Need a Constitutional Amendment
Last month, Rep. Laurel Lee (R-FL) introduced “House Joint Resolution 152” — a constitutional amendment requiring anyone voting for a president, a senator or a member of the House of Representatives, to be a United States citizen. If you’re wondering why we need an amendment to codify that which everyone has long seemed to know to be law, you wouldn’t be alone. But writing in this week’s Wall Street Journal, Bradley A. Smith, a former member of the Federal Election Commission, warns about the growing ambiguity surrounding the debate: When it comes to congressional and presidential elections, Article I of the Constitution grants Congress power to regulate the time, place and manner of holding elections but not who is eligible to vote. The Supreme Court affirmed this in Arizona v. Inter-Tribal Council (2013). And the Constitution is clear: Under Article I and the 17th Amendment, any person who is allowed to vote in a state legislative election is automatically also allowed to vote for members of Congress. A federal statute can’t trump the Constitution’s explicit, exclusive grant of power to each state to determine who is eligible to vote. Because federal law can be changed or repealed by a future Congress, Rep. Lee and several of her colleagues are pushing for the amendment. “It’s simple: only Americans should vote in American elections,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH). Congresswoman Lee’s amendment is a commonsense proposal that creates a uniform, nationwide standard that will protect federal elections permanently.” Not too long ago, the idea of limiting voting to only U.S. citizens was a bipartisan principle. President Clinton signed the “Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA),” into law that year. It was passed in the Senate by a vote of 97-3. “We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws,” said President Clinton. “It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws that we have seen in recent years.” He added: “Today’s legislation strengthens the rule of law by cracking down on illegal immigration.” Rep. Lee’s attempt to clarify and codify this long-supported principle is a much-needed effort, especially given that non-citizens are already voting in some local elections (school board and mayoral elections, etc.) in such places as Washington, D.C., California, Illinois, and Vermont. “Relying on statute alone leaves this principle subject to future changes that could undermine this long-standing principle,” Rep. Lee declared. “This amendment ensures that no matter what happens in Washington or at the state level, federal elections will remain reserved for United States citizens.” Constitutional amendments face a difficult and uphill climb, of course. Rep. Lee’s resolution will need to pass by a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate before heading to the states for ratification by three-fourths or 38 states. The post Only Citizens Should Vote: Why Federal Voting Rights May Need a Constitutional Amendment appeared first on Daily Citizen.
New Poll: 70% of Americans Support Medical Oversight for Abortion Pills
New polling data reveals most Americans agree there should be more oversight of the distribution and consumption of chemical abortion pills like mifepristone. According to polling conducted by CRC Research for The 85 Fund, as reported by The Daily Wire and Susan B Anthony Pro-life America, approximately 70% of Americans support requiring an in person medical evaluation before and after taking the abortion pill. A closely related question found that 67% of voters support requiring an in-person doctor’s visit in order to obtain the abortion pill. This policy was previously upheld by the FDA but abandoned by the previous pro-abortion administration. Source: The Daily Wire What makes this data so interesting and newsworthy is how it breaks down across political lines. Support for medical oversight was not limited to a single party. In fact, 72% of Republicans, 68% of Independents and 63% of Democrats all supported reinstating in-person doctor visits before accessing abortion pills. The data shows a clear majority of Americans in every major political party support some form of in-person medical attention before abortion pills are dispensed. Concerns over medical oversight are reinforced by research from the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), which raised questions about the safety of women using mifepristone last year. As reported by the Daily Citizen in May, the EPPC released a study revealing nearly 11% of women who take the abortion pill experienced serious adverse effects within 40 days, including sepsis, hemorrhaging, infection and emergency room visits. Those numbers are 22 times higher than the FDA’s current label, which suggests the rate of adverse effects is only 0.5%. Following the release of the report, Senator Josh Hawley questioned HHS Secretary Kennedy at a committee hearing. The secretary committed to a complete review of the chemical abortion pill by the FDA. Instead of cracking down on the abortion pill, the FDA has made abortion pills even more available by approving a generic abortion pill alternative. Several pro-life organizations and advocates have accused HHS and the White House of intentionally slow-walking the review. They argue that recent findings demonstrate the need for stronger safeguards and removing in-person visits and medical oversight allows for serious complications to go untreated. Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America is calling on the Trump administration to revisit current FDA protocols and reinstate requirements that were previously in place, including in-person dispensing and physician oversight. They argue basic medical standards should apply to abortion. Recently, Senator Josh Hawley recently introduced a senate bill to ban the abortion pill and give women the right to sue manufacturers for damages. Congresswoman Diana Harshbarger, a pharmacist, introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives. When abortion policy is often sharply divided, broad bipartisan support from a majority of Americans for medical oversight of the abortion pill should not be ignored. HHS and the FDA should use their authority to restore in-person medical oversight for abortion pill use. The post New Poll: 70% of Americans Support Medical Oversight for Abortion Pills appeared first on Daily Citizen.