ReportWire

Tag: Abortion

  • Trump falsely describes Democrats’ abortion support

    Trump falsely describes Democrats’ abortion support

    [ad_1]

    After months if not years of mixed messages, former President Donald Trump shared an abortion position that leaves policy to the states and includes some exceptions, rather than backing a national abortion limit.

    In an April 8 video released on Truth Social, Trump tried to strike a pragmatic tone for a party that has suffered electoral setbacks over abortion, saying he was proud to have nominated three justices to the U.S. Supreme Court who decided to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022. 

    Then he turned the issue back on Democrats, claiming that they were the “radical” party on abortion.

    “They support abortion up to and even beyond the ninth month,” Trump said. “The concept of having an abortion in the later months, and even execution after birth. And that’s exactly what it is. The baby is born, the baby is executed after birth is unacceptable, and almost everyone agrees with that.”

    We have rated similar statements from Trump and other Republican leaders False. Democrats aren’t calling for the killing of infants after birth. Willfully ending a newborn’s life is illegal in every U.S. state.

    Reproductive health experts told us Trump’s claim misleads by equating medical interventions for fetal abnormalities in the third trimester with someone deciding after birth that they no longer want a baby.

    “Using the word ‘execute’ heightens the rhetoric here, but even if he said ‘killing’ it doesn’t matter,” said Lois Shepard, a University of Virginia law and biomedical ethics professor who has authored several books about end of life care. “Abortion providers do not do this, doctors do not do this, no politicians that I know of support this — it’s a made up issue.”

    Trump’s use of “execution” “goes back to a much earlier era, right after Roe, when abortion methods were more primitive,” said Mary Ziegler, an abortion historian and law professor at University of California, Davis. “Occasionally there were live births and doctors would be prosecuted.”

    Trump’s wording describes a position Democrats do not hold. 

    “The language of ‘execution’ is ignorant, deceptive, inappropriate and is being used only to provoke outrage when in fact it is mercy and compassion that drives post-abortion care of horribly malformed children,” said Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at New York University Langone Medical Center. 

    PolitiFact reached out to the Trump campaign but did not hear back. 

    Federal laws require care for newborns

    Democrats prefer wider access to abortion throughout pregnancy. President Joe Biden, for example, pledged to codify Roe v. Wade into federal law before it was overturned; it protected the right to an abortion until the fetus was viable outside of the womb, at about 24 weeks of gestation.

    Lawmakers who have made similar claims have pointed to legislation requiring infants to receive medical care after attempted abortions. 

    Democrats have largely not supported these bills, saying they would be redundant under current law.

    The number of cases these laws might cover is small, and typically involve lethal fetal conditions or anomalies that allow for little or no prospect for long-term survival. 

    Legal experts pointed to specific federal laws that apply to newborns:

    • The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, passed in 1974 and since revised, makes certain types of federal funding for states conditional on their adopting policies to prevent improper withholding of treatment from newborns, including those with disabilities.

    • The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 established that federal legal protections that applied to “persons” also covered children born at any stage of development, including after an attempted abortion.
       

    State laws are the primary source of protection against active or negligent killing of infants born after attempted abortions, legal experts said.

    “People have been looking for evidence for decades of being born alive after abortions and there aren’t any to my knowledge, and that’s not particularly surprising,” Ziegler said. “The procedures most doctors would use later in pregnancy today would make it impossible to result in a live birth.”  

    A 2022 California law aims to protect parents from prosecution when they lose a baby after delivery because of a pregnancy-related complication, including miscarriages and stillbirths. 

    How and why some abortions happen later in pregnancy

    Abortions later in pregnancy, typically in the third trimester, are rare and often happen because of severe fetal anomalies or health risks to the mother. They do not involve doctors wantonly killing babies after birth.

    Some families choose palliative care when they learn during pregnancy that the fetus has a genetic or structural condition that would likely result in the baby surviving only minutes or days after delivery. These problems can sometimes surface by the end of the first trimester, but may not be discovered until halfway through the pregnancy, or later.

    Dr. Nisha Verma, an OB-GYN who provides reproductive health care, including abortions, said patients have sought abortions in the third trimester after receiving a grim fetal diagnosis. She gave an example of a baby who didn’t develop a brain and wouldn’t survive after birth and patients who have been diagnosed with life-threatening medical conditions that require delivery. 

    “In these situations, I counsel my patients about the options, and in many situations, based on my patient’s wishes, proceed with an induction of labor or (cesarean)-section that aims to protect both the patient and the baby,” Verma told us in July

    Palliative care can accompany life-prolonging treatment, but some patients choose not to pursue these treatments because they are often invasive, complex or have uncertain outcomes, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says on its website.

    “Ultimately, the parent or parents, in consultation with their physician, decide which course of perinatal palliative care to pursue,” the organization said. “At no point in the course of delivering a newborn with life-limiting conditions and subsequently providing palliative care does the obstetrician–gynecologist end the life of the newborn receiving palliative care.”

    The vast majority of abortions in the U.S., over 90%, occur in the first trimester, or before 13 weeks. About 1% take place after 21 weeks, and far less than 1% occur in the third trimester.

    Our ruling

    Trump claimed that Democrats support abortion measures that result in the “execution” of babies “after birth.”

    This is grossly inaccurate. Rather than discuss Democratic support for broad abortion access throughout pregnancy, Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric exaggerates by saying the party supports killing an unwanted infant after birth. This would be infanticide and is illegal in every state. 

    Situations resulting in a fetal death in the third trimester are rare, and involve emergencies such as fetal anomalies or life-threatening medical emergencies affecting the mother. Babies that are delivered are not killed.

    We rate this claim False.

    RELATED:  Ron DeSantis’ False claim that some states allow ‘post-birth’ abortions. None do

    RELATED: Fact-checking Donald Trump’s tweet saying Democrats ‘don’t mind executing’ babies after birth

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Gov. Youngkin signs a measure backed by abortion-rights groups but vetoes others – WTOP News

    Gov. Youngkin signs a measure backed by abortion-rights groups but vetoes others – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin signed 88 bills Friday and vetoed 11 others, including legislation that advocates said would help protect women and medical practitioners from potential extraditions related to abortion services that are legal in Virginia.

    RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin signed 88 bills Friday and vetoed 11 others, including legislation that advocates said would have helped protect women and medical practitioners from potential extraditions related to abortion services that are legal in Virginia.

    Youngkin said in a statement that the measures would undermine the nation’s longstanding legal framework for extraditions. But in a move that surprised some observers, the governor signed separate legislation, which is supported by abortion rights groups, that prohibits the issuance of search warrants, subpoenas or court orders for electronic or digital menstrual health data.

    “A mixed message from the Youngkin (administration) tonight,” Tarina Keene, executive director of abortion rights group REPRO Rising Virginia, said on social media.

    Proponents said the legislation would protect women’s privacy and prevent such information — often stored in period-tracking apps — from being weaponized in potential prosecutions.

    Sponsor Sen. Barbara Favola, a Democrat, said during a hearing that the measure is necessary in a post-Roe v. Wade environment as many Republican politicians — Youngkin among them — have sought new restrictions on abortion. Favola said she wasn’t aware of an example where such data had been sought, but she wanted to be proactive.

    Opponents said the measure seemed like a solution in search of a problem.

    Youngkin’s press secretary, Christian Martinez, said in a statement that the governor believes the legislation, which nearly all legislative Republicans opposed, “protects a woman’s personal health data without preventing its voluntary use in law enforcement investigations.” Youngkin also appreciates Favola’s work on the legislation, Martinez said.

    Similar legislation last year died in the GOP-controlled House of Delegates before reaching the governor’s desk, but the administration made clear back then that Youngkin opposed it.

    Some women in states with abortion bans increasingly must travel elsewhere to terminate a pregnancy, a reality that backers of the vetoed anti-extradition measure highlighted in pushing for its passage.

    Youngkin said in a veto statement attached to the bill that the United States’ “cooperative extradition system could collapse if individual states were to carve out crimes for which they would not recognize codified laws because of differing political positions.”

    The governor also vetoed a bill that would have prohibited state regulators from taking disciplinary action against doctors for abortion care that’s legal in Virginia, “regardless of where such abortion care was provided or received.”

    Youngkin said that bill would open the door “to a resurgence of unsafe, risky abortions occurring outside of clinical settings, and it places any unprofessional behavior during an abortion outside the Board’s jurisdiction for disciplinary action.”

    Democrats criticized Youngkin’s vetoes.

    “His veto of a bill that would have protected women who travel to the Commonwealth to get an abortion from being extradited is just another gross example of how Republicans will not stop until women have no options left,” party chairwoman Susan Swecker said in a statement.

    Virginia, the only Southern state that has not enacted new restrictions since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, is increasingly an outlier in the region for its abortion access. Youngkin tried to implement a 15-week ban but was blocked by Democrats, who control the state Legislature.

    Among the other bills he signed Friday were measures reinstating the Virginia Minority Business Commission and expanding a tax credit for secure storage devices for firearms. He vetoed a bill establishing a paid family and medical leave program, noting that some employers already offer such programs and calling the proposal unfair for exempting state government.

    The governor also amended 11 bills, according to his office, including one allowing the city of Petersburg to pursue a referendum on establishing Virginia’s fifth casino.

    Petersburg’s renewed push for a casino comes after voters in Richmond — which had initially received General Assembly approval to hold a referendum — twice rejected the idea. Youngkin’s change would remove from the bill a requirement that the Legislature take it up again next year.

    Youngkin faces a Monday deadline to complete his review of legislation sent to him during the regular session that ended in March.

    Lawmakers convene April 17 in Richmond to take up his proposed amendments and could also attempt to override his vetoes. But Democrats hold narrow majorities in both chambers, short of the required two-thirds threshold.

    Copyright
    © 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.

    [ad_2]

    WTOP Staff

    Source link

  • 4/2: CBS Evening News

    4/2: CBS Evening News

    [ad_1]

    4/2: CBS Evening News – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Severe storms cut path through Ohio Valley; New York cafe hires and trains people with autism

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Will the Abortion Vote Help Democrats Flip Florida in 2024?

    Will the Abortion Vote Help Democrats Flip Florida in 2024?

    [ad_1]

    Biden could wind up concentrating on Florida more than he did in 2020.
    Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images

    Not very long ago, Florida was considered the ultimate presidential battleground state. It determined the outcome of the 2000 election, and as recently as 2012 it was carried by a Democrat, Barack Obama. But after being won twice by Donald Trump, as Republicans swept every statewide elected office and increased their grip on the state legislature and congressional delegation, Florida is now perceived as decidedly red-tinged. Nevertheless, as Joe Biden’s 2024 campaign ponders a path to 270 electoral votes complicated by poor polling in key 2020 states like Arizona and Georgia, Florida’s 30 electoral votes remain tempting. That’s particularly true after the Florida Supreme Court simultaneously let a six-week abortion ban take effect while clearing the way for a November ballot initiative aimed at overturning it. The very next day, the same court cleared a November ballot initiative to legalize recreational cannabis use as well.

    Florida could theoretically become ground zero for a national Democratic strategy of making popular anger over abortion restrictions the big game-changer for 2024, offsetting economic unhappiness, border-security worries, and concerns about Biden’s age. As my colleague Gabriel Debenedetti has pointed out, ballot measures have become a turnout-booster for Florida Democrats: “In three of the last four election cycles, the party’s turnout appeared to be helped by ballot initiatives — on broadening medical marijuana laws in 2016, on restoring voting rights for felons in 2018, and on raising the minimum wage in 2020.”

    But is Florida likely to be close enough in 2024 to make this issue-driven reach for a win feasible? That’s not entirely clear. Perceptions of Florida’s trajectory are being heavily affected by the 2022 midterm blowout that gave Ron DeSantis a landslide 19-point reelection win. But at the presidential level, the red tide in the Sunshine State has been less dramatic, if still highly significant. Obama carried the state by a mere 0.9 percent in 2012 and then Hillary Clinton lost it by 1.2 percent four years later. Trump’s margin then increased to 3.3 percent in 2020, though the Biden campaign did not really target Florida. Demographically Florida has been a haven for tax-leery white retirees, including the blue-collar folk who have been trending Republican, and it’s also Exhibit A in the much-discussed Latino voter surge toward the GOP (much of it driven by conservative Cuban American and South American immigrants, with some drift among Puerto Ricans as well).

    Public polling of the 2024 general election in Florida has been sparse, but two polls taken in March both show Trump with a solid if not overwhelming lead (six points per St. Pete Polls and seven points according to Redfield & Wilton Strategies).

    There’s no question the twin abortion and cannabis ballot initiatives should be appealing to Democratic constituencies in Florida (especially the crucial youth vote). And the state’s 60 percent requirement for approval of state constitutional amendments means those votes will be tantalizingly close and heavily publicized. It’s also likely that the abortion policy fight will attract serious national money, with some perhaps coming from ultrawealthy Democratic Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker, who is already donating heavily to abortion ballot initiatives in Arizona and Nevada.

    On the other hand, past ballot-measure fights in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade in 2022 have had a debatable effect on partisan-turnout patterns. Pro-choice forces have won them all, but often by attracting pro-choice Republican voters who still support their party’s candidates despite its anti-abortion positioning. The relatively late timing of Florida’s imposition of a near-total abortion ban (it was enacted last year but held up in the courts until this week’s judicial decision) could make the ballot fight in the state especially intense and accordingly dangerous for the Republicans responsible for this denial of basic rights.

    Perhaps the best way to characterize Florida’s status in the presidential race right now is that it’s on the Biden campaign’s watch list and could move near the top if (a) subsequent polling looks promising and (b) other states counted on to win the president an Electoral College majority appear problematic. No Democrat is simply writing off Florida right now, and even if it’s a reach, Team Biden would enjoy making a relatively cash-strapped Trump campaign devote precious resources to defending the 45th president’s home turf.


    See All



    [ad_2]

    By Ed Kilgore

    Source link

  • Florida’s 6-Week Abortion Ban Could Screw Republicans in November

    Florida’s 6-Week Abortion Ban Could Screw Republicans in November

    [ad_1]

    On Monday, the Florida Supreme Court issued a horrifying ruling allowing the state’s six-week abortion ban to go into effect, a move that essentially outlaws the medical procedure there. (To give you an idea of how awful the law is, Donald Trump, who regularly brags about killing Roe v. Wade, called it “a terrible thing and a terrible mistake” last year.) The teeny, tiny silver lining? The court also allowed an amendment that would enshrine abortion rights into the state’s constitution to go on the ballot in November, a turn of events that could tilt the next election in Democrats’ favor.

    “We have a new situation here in Florida,” Jayden D’Onofrio, chairman of Future Leaders of Florida, a Democrat-aligned group, told The Washington Post on Tuesday. “Florida is in play.” Once a swing state, Florida has increasingly been reliably red over the last number of years, with Republicans holding a supermajority in the legislature, Ron DeSantis cruising to a second term by nearly 20 points in 2022, and Trump winning there in the last two presidential elections. But following yesterday’s rulings, Democrats now believe they at last have a shot at pulling off what appeared impossible as of last week. “Make no mistake: Florida is not an easy state to win, but it is a winnable one for President Biden,” Joe Biden’s campaign manager Julie Chávez Rodríguez wrote in a memo in which she noted the state’s “cruel and dangerous abortion ban.” Commenting on the state’s 4.4 million Democrats and the 3.5 million who have no party affiliation, Aubrey Jewett, a political science professor at the University of Central Florida, told the Post: “If they feel strongly about protecting a woman’s right to choose, then at the presidential level, there’s a clear choice there with Biden versus Trump.” (While Trump has criticized the six-week ban—likely because he knows how poorly it will play with voters—he is obviously not a known protector of reproductive rights, having exclusively appointed Supreme Court judges who vowed to overturn Roe, and floating the possibility of a national abortion ban in a second term.)

    Democrats believe the six-week ban will also affect races down the ballot, including former Florida representative Debbie Murcasel-Powell’s effort to win Rick Scott’s Senate seat (particularly because Scott has said he would have signed a six-week ban as governor). After polls conducted last month showed 73% of Floridians support the abortion amendment, which requires 60% to pass, Florida Women’s Freedom Coalition executive director Anna Hochkammer told The New York Times, “Supporters tend to be quite firm in their support, while opponents tend to be quite squishy,” she said. “This polls well across all demographics. It’s motivating to young people and women, too. No one can deny that it will shape the voter universe.”

    Commenting on the abortion ruling on Monday, a Trump campaign adviser told Politico the ex-president “supports preserving life but has also made clear that he supports states’ rights.” He added: “Where President Trump thinks voters should have the last word, Biden and many Democrats want to allow abortion up until the moment of birth and force taxpayers to pay for it.” (Obviously the claim Biden—or anyone for that matter—want abortion to be legal “up until the moment of birth” is not true at all, but hey, it’s a slight improvement on Trump’s favorite claim that Roe allowed doctors to perform abortions after women gave birth.)

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Experts Fear Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Are Laying the Groundwork for a Nationwide Ban on Medication Abortions—And Maybe Even All Abortions

    Experts Fear Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Are Laying the Groundwork for a Nationwide Ban on Medication Abortions—And Maybe Even All Abortions

    [ad_1]

    If you were worried the Supreme Court was going to ban the abortion drug mifepristone—an entirely reasonable concern given the Court’s conservative majority and the fact that it gleefully overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022—you can likely breathe easy: The consensus following Tuesday’s oral arguments is that US Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine will likely be dismissed on standing. Not because the Court’s conservatives love reproductive freedom and respect a pregnant person’s right to choose, but because the case is so embarrassingly meritless. (The plaintiffs are a group of antiabortion medical associations and doctors who don’t prescribe mifepristone themselves but claim that one day they could be put in the horrible position of treating a patient who took the drug and would be irreparably scarred from the experience—the doctors, not the patients.) So, that’s the good news.

    The bad, terrifying news is that archconservatives Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito—the latter of whom, in his opinion overturning Roe, cited a 17th-century jurist who supported marital rape and had women executed—can’t just dismiss the case and move on. Instead, experts fear, they plan to use FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine to lay the groundwork for a future nationwide ban on medication abortions—and possibly even all abortions.

    Per Slate:

    Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas are never ones to let an embarrassment of a lawsuit go to waste. And they were openly eager to embrace the chilling argument at the heart of ADF’s case: the notion that the Comstock Act of 1873 prohibits the distribution of abortion pills and perhaps even equipment used for procedural abortions. Under this theory, abortion is already a criminal offense under federal law, and every abortion provider in the country may be prosecuted and imprisoned immediately. Conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation are already urging Trump to issue an executive order on day one banning medication abortion. Republican lawyers are preparing to use the Comstock Act to prohibit all abortions, not just pills. This reading of the zombie relic is so broad that a Justice Department and judiciary hostile enough to reproductive freedom could contort it to make all abortion care a felony.

    Predictably on Tuesday, and with a case built of vapors to work with, Alito and Thomas went full Comstock. Alito scolded the FDA for letting providers mail abortion pills despite the existence of the law. “This is a prominent provision,” the justice told [Solicitor General Elizabeth] Prelogar. “It’s not some obscure subsection of a complicated, obscure law. They knew about it. Everybody in this field knew about it.” Thomas warned attorney [Jessica] Ellsworth that her client, the maker of mifepristone, lacked a “safe harbor” from prosecution over Comstock. “It’s fairly broad, and it specifically covers drugs such as yours,” he told her. (That claim is very much in dispute.) Alito and Thomas know they will likely lose this case, so they’re preparing for the next one. Maybe Trump will win and commence Comstock prosecutions. Maybe [Judge Matthew] Kacsmaryk will issue a new ban on mifepristone at the behest of red states, as he is currently threatening to do. Either way, Comstock is racing toward the Supreme Court. And two justices have already aligned themselves with a sweeping interpretation of its puritanical prohibitions.

    “When you hear the justices asking repeated questions, it’s definitely something that they are interested in,” Leah Litman, a University of Michigan law professor, told The Washington Post, adding that she expects Alito or Thomas to write an opinion centered on Comstock. During an interview with the Post in May, antiabortion activist Mark Lee Dickson said the quiet part out loud, telling the outlet: “If a future president were to enforce these federal statutes, then they could shut down every abortion facility in America.” Donald Trump has not commented on the Comstock Act* but groups like the Heritage Foundation, with its Project 2025, have urged him order the FDA to overturn its approval of mifepristone. While Trump sometimes likes to pretend to be a moderate on abortion, he also brags about killing Roe V. Wade.

    After Tuesday’s oral arguments, Representative Cori Bush called for the repeal of Comstock, writing on X: “The antiabortion movement wants to weaponize the Comstock Act as a quick route to a nationwide medication abortion ban. Not on our watch.”

    *Let’s be honest, there’s a strong possibility he hasn’t heard of it.

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Iowa AG is still working on audit that’s holding up contraception money for rape victims

    Iowa AG is still working on audit that’s holding up contraception money for rape victims

    [ad_1]

    The Iowa attorney general’s office said it is still working on an audit of its victim services that has held up emergency contraception funding for victims of sexual assault despite having a completed draft in hand.

    Attorney General Brenna Bird, a Republican, paused the funding while awaiting the results of the audit to decide whether to continue those payments. Her office said the audit, which Bird announced when she took office 14 months ago, is in its “final stages” and a report would be released soon.

    The policy under her Democratic predecessor, Tom Miller, had been to partially cover the cost of contraception for sexual assault victims. In rare cases, the cost of abortion for sexual assault victims was also covered, Miller’s victim assistance division director, Sandi Tibbetts Murphy, told the Des Moines Register last year.

    “As a part of her top-down, bottom-up audit of victim assistance, Attorney General Bird is carefully evaluating whether this is an appropriate use of public funds,” said Alyssa Brouillet, Bird’s communications director. “Until that review is complete, payment of these pending claims will be delayed.”

    The current status of the audit was first reported by the Register, which filed an open records request in October. After five months, Bird’s office completed the records request but declined to release the document to the Register, citing a section of Iowa Code excluding preliminary documents from public records law.

    Federal and state law requires medical examination costs for victims of sexual assault are covered to ensure forensic evidence is collected readily and properly. In Iowa, costs are covered by the attorney general office’s crime victim compensation program, which is funded by state and federal criminal fines and penalties.

    Materials from Miller’s administration show the costs for victims’ prescriptions for oral contraceptives and the Plan-B morning-after pill, as well as for the prevention or treatment of sexually transmitted infections, were reimbursed at 75%.

    Planned Parenthood Advocates of Iowa said in a statement that the audit is being used to justify the termination of payments.

    “It’s absolutely deplorable that sexual assault survivors in Iowa have gone more than a year without state-covered emergency contraceptives — all because of politics,” said Mazie Stilwell, director of public affairs.

    Bird campaigned to replace the 10-term Miller highlighting her opposition to abortion and her commitment to defending Iowa’s restrictive abortion law, which she will do again during oral arguments before the state Supreme Court in April. The law, currently on hold, would ban most abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy if it is upheld.

    Bird’s office said the crime victim compensation fund is being used to cover costs of sexual assault examinations, as well as rape kits and STI tests.

    [ad_2]

    CBS Minnesota

    Source link

  • Supreme Court hears arguments in abortion pill case

    Supreme Court hears arguments in abortion pill case

    [ad_1]

    Supreme Court hears arguments in abortion pill case – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments in a case that could upend access to a widely used abortion medication. Jan Crawford reports.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How a medication abortion, also known as an ‘abortion pill,’ works | CNN

    How a medication abortion, also known as an ‘abortion pill,’ works | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    While the fate of mifepristone, one of two drugs used for medication abortions, is in the hands of the US Supreme Court, the drug continues to be available in states where abortion is legal.

    “While many women obtain medication abortion from a clinic or their OB-GYN, others obtain the pills on their own to self-induce or self-manage their abortion,” said Dr. Daniel Grossman, a professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco.

    “A growing body of research indicates that self-managed abortion is safe and effective,” he said.

    Mifepristone blocks the hormone progesterone, which is needed for a pregnancy to continue. The drug is approved to end a pregnancy through 10 weeks’ gestation, which is “70 days or less since the first day of the last menstrual period,” according to the FDA.

    In a medication abortion, a second drug, misoprostol, is taken within the next 24 to 48 hours. Misoprostol causes the uterus to contract, creating cramping and bleeding. Approved for use in other conditions, such as preventing stomach ulcers, the drug has been available at pharmacies for decades.

    Together, the two drugs are commonly known as the “abortion pill,” which is now used in more than half of the abortions in the United States, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

    “Some people do this because they cannot access a clinic — particularly in states with legal restrictions on abortion — or because they have a preference for self-care,” said Grossman, who is also the director of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, a research group that evaluates the pros and cons of reproductive health policies and publishes studies on how abortion affects a woman’s health.

    READ MORE: With US Supreme Court abortion drug hearing looming, study shows how self-managed abortion became more common post-Dobbs

    What happens during a medication abortion? To find out, CNN spoke with Grossman. This conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity.

    CNN: What is the difference between a first-trimester medication abortion and a vacuum aspiration in terms of what a woman experiences?

    Dr. Daniel Grossman: A vacuum aspiration is most commonly performed under a combination of local anesthetic and oral pain medications or local anesthetic together with intravenous sedation, or what is called conscious sedation.

    An injection of local anesthetic is given to the area around the cervix, and the cervix is gently dilated or opened up. Once the cervix is opened, a small straw-like tube is inserted into the uterus, and a gentle vacuum is used to remove the pregnancy tissue. Contrary to what some say, if the procedure is done before nine weeks or so, there’s nothing in the tissue that would be recognizable as a part of an embryo.

    The aspiration procedure takes just a couple of minutes. Then the person is observed for one to two hours until any sedation has worn off. We also monitor each patient for very rare complications, such as heavy bleeding.

    A medication abortion is a more prolonged process. After taking the pills, bleeding and cramping can occur over a period of days. Bleeding is typically heaviest when the actual pregnancy is expelled, but that bleeding usually eases within a few hours. On average people continue to have some mild bleeding for about two weeks or so, which is a bit longer than after a vacuum aspiration.

    Nausea, vomiting, fever, chills, diarrhea and headache can occur after using the abortion pill, and everyone who has a successful medication abortion usually reports some pain.

    In fact, the pain of medication abortion can be quite intense. In the studies that have looked at it, the average maximum level of pain that people report is about a seven to eight out of 10, with 10 being the highest. However, people also say that the pain can be brief, peaking just as the pregnancy is being expelled.

    The level of cramping and pain can depend on the length of the pregnancy as well as whether or not someone has given birth before. For example, a medical abortion at six weeks or less gestation typically has less pain and cramping than one performed at nine weeks. People who have given birth generally have less pain.

    CNN: What can be done to help with the pain of a medication abortion?

    Grossman: There are definitely things that can be used to help with the pain. Research has shown that ibuprofen is better than acetaminophen for treating the pain of medication abortion. We typically advise people to take 600 milligrams every six hours or so as needed.

    Some people take tramadol, a narcotic analgesic, or Vicodin, which is a combination of acetaminophen and hydrocodone. Recent research I was involved in found medications like tramadol can be helpful if taken prophylactically before the pain starts.

    Another successful regimen that we studied combined ibuprofen with a nausea medicine called metoclopramide that also helped with pain. Other than ibuprofen, these medications require a prescription.

    Another study found that a TENS device, which stands for transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulator, helps with the pain of medication abortion. It works through pads put on the abdomen that stimulate the nerves through mild electrical shocks, thus interfering with the pain signals. That’s something people could get without a prescription.

    Pain can be an overlooked issue with medication abortion because, quite honestly, as clinicians, we’re not there with patients when they are in their homes going through this. But as we’ve been doing more research on people’s experiences with medication abortion, it’s become quite clear that pain control is really important. I think we need to do a better job of treating the pain and making these options available to patients.

    CNN: Are there health conditions that make the use of a medication abortion unwise?

    Grossman: Undergoing a medication abortion can be dangerous if the pregnancy is ectopic, meaning the embryo is developing outside of the uterus. It’s rare, happening in about two out of every 100 pregnancies — and it appears to be even rarer among people seeking medication abortion.

    People who have undergone previous pelvic, fallopian tube or abdominal surgery are at higher risk of an ectopic pregnancy, as are those with a history of pelvic inflammatory disease. Certain sexually transmitted infections can raise risk, as does smoking, a history of infertility and use of infertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization (IVF).

    If a person is on anticoagulant or blood thinning drugs or has a bleeding disorder, a medication abortion is not advised. The long-term use of steroids is another contraindication for using the abortion pill.

    Anyone using an intrauterine device, or IUD, must have it removed before taking mifepristone because it may be partially expelled during the process, which can be painful.

    People with chronic adrenal failure or who have inherited a rare disorder called porphyria are not good candidates.

    CNN: Are there any signs of trouble a woman should watch for after undergoing a medication abortion?

    Grossman: It can be common to have a low-grade fever in the first few hours after taking misoprostol, the second drug in a medication abortion. If someone has a low-grade fever — 100.4 degrees to 101 degrees Fahrenheit — that lasts more than four hours, or has a high fever of over 101 degrees Fahrenheit after taking the medications, they do need to be evaluated by a health care provider.

    Heavy bleeding, which would be soaking two or more thick full-size pads an hour for two consecutive hours, or a foul-smelling vaginal discharge should be evaluated as well.

    One of the warning signs of an ectopic pregnancy is severe pelvic pain, particularly on one side of the abdomen. The pain can also radiate to the back. Another sign is getting dizzy or fainting, which could indicate internal bleeding. These are all very rare complications, but it’s wise to be on the lookout.

    We usually recommend that someone having a medication abortion have someone with them during the first 24 hours after taking misoprostol or until the pregnancy has passed. Many people specifically choose to have a medication abortion because they can be surrounded by a partner, family or friends.

    Most people know that the abortion is complete because they stop feeling pregnant, and symptoms such as nausea and breast tenderness disappear, usually within a week of passing the pregnancy. A home urine pregnancy test may remain positive even four to five weeks after a successful medication abortion, just because it takes that long for the pregnancy hormone to disappear from the bloodstream.

    If someone still feels pregnant, isn’t sure if the pregnancy fully passed or has a positive pregnancy test five weeks after taking mifepristone, they need to be evaluated by a clinician.

    People should know that they can ovulate as soon as two weeks after a medication abortion. Most birth control options can be started immediately after a medication abortion.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 3/24: CBS Weekend News

    3/24: CBS Weekend News

    [ad_1]

    3/24: CBS Weekend News – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Deadline for Trump’s bond approaching; Man turns Easter egg order mishap into charity opportunity

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘Connect the dots’: Abortion at heart of 2024 elections in Arizona

    ‘Connect the dots’: Abortion at heart of 2024 elections in Arizona

    [ad_1]

    It may come as a surprise to many Arizonans that conservative Republicans played a role in creating one of the state’s first birth control clinics, which later merged with Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of reproductive health care and abortions in the U.S. Mother’s Health Clinic, the first birth control clinic in Phoenix, was opened in 1937 thanks to the work of a group of activist women that included Peggy Goldwater. Over time, a network of clinics developed and became Planned Parenthood of Arizona, providing contraception and abortion services to all women after doing so became legal in 1973…

    [ad_2]

    TJ L’Heureux

    Source link

  • Planned Parenthood endorses five Senate candidates

    Planned Parenthood endorses five Senate candidates

    [ad_1]

    The political arm of the reproductive rights group Planned Parenthood on Wednesday announced its endorsement of five House Democrats looking to secure seats in the upper chamber of Congress in November’s election. 

    In a press release, Planned Parenthood Action Fund announced it is backing 2024 U.S. Senate candidates Reps. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., Colin Allred, D-Texas, Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz.,  Lisa Blunt Rochester, D-Del., and Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich. 


    What You Need To Know

    • The political arm of the reproductive rights group Planned Parenthood on Wednesday announced its endorsement of five House Democrats looking to secure seats in the upper chamber in November’s election 
    • Planned Parenthood Action Fund is backing 2024 Senate candidates Reps. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., Colin Allred, D-Texas, Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz.,  Lisa Blunt Rochester, D-Del., and Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich. 
    • The group has already endorsed Democratic incumbents Sens. Jon Tester, Jacky Rosen, Sherrod Brown and Tammy Baldwin in the battleground states of Montana, Nevada, Ohio and Wisconsin as well as President Joe Biden for another four years in the White House
    • Democratic candidates across the country have sought to hone in on the issue of abortion access and reproductive rights following the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade in June 2022

    In deep-blue California, Schiff is looking to defeat a challenge from former Los Angeles Dodgers player Republican Steve Garvey to fill the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s seat. He beat out two other House Democrats in the primary contest earlier this month to advance to November’s general race. 

    In Texas, Allred, a civil rights lawyer and former NFL player, is seeking to oust Republican Sen. Ted Cruz. 

    In Delaware and battleground Michigan, Blunt Rochester and Slotkin are hoping to fill the seats of retiring Democratic Sens. Tom Carper and Debbie Stabenow, respectively.

    Meanwhile, in one of the west’s biggest swing states, Gallego is aiming to defeat Republican Kari Lake to take over for Democratic-turned-Independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema. Sinema announced earlier this month that she would not seek reelection after leaving the Democratic party to become an independent following the 2022 midterms. Lake narrowly lost her race for governor of Arizona to Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs in 2022. 

    “We don’t have time to waste while our freedom to control our own bodies hangs in the balance,” Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Action Fund said in a statement. “We know that if anti-abortion rights politicians gain control of the Senate, they will exploit their power to push through a national abortion ban.”

    “That is why this slate of unflappable reproductive rights champions must be elected to the Senate,” McGill continued. 

    The group has already endorsed Democratic incumbents Sens. Jon Tester, Jacky Rosen, Sherrod Brown and Tammy Baldwin in the battleground states of Montana, Nevada, Ohio and Wisconsin. It has also thrown its support behind Democratic incumbent Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a staunch supporter of reproductive rights, in New York. 

    Democratic candidates across the country have sought to hone in on the issue of abortion access and reproductive rights following the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade in June 2022. The ruling sparked tight restrictions or bans on abortion in states around the country. 

    The issue has proved electorally fruitful for Democrats, who credit it for helping the party pull off a better-than-expected showing in the 2022 midterms and notch key victories in the 2023 off-year elections. 

    When the issue has appeared directly on the ballot, voters – even in red states like Kansas and Ohio – choose to keep abortion more widely accessible. 

    And Democrats are signaling they have no plans to take a step back on the issue in the first presidential election since Roe was overturned.

    “When reproductive freedom was on the ballot, the American people spoke in 2022,” President Joe Biden said at a reception at the White House on Monday in which he signed an executive order seeking to boost research on women’s health. He then pointed to Vice President Kamala Harris and declared that “with the leadership of this woman to my left here, they are going to speak out again in 2024.” 

    The Biden campaign’s first rally of the election year that featured both the president and vice president together was focused on restoring Roe v. Wade. 

    Last week, Harris became the first vice president or president to visit a facility that performs abortions when she toured a Planned Parenthood clinic in Minnesota. 

    Planned Parenthood Action Fund, along with two other major reproductive rights groups NARAL Pro-Choice America and Emily’s List, endorsed the Biden-Harris ticket for another four years in the White House back in June.

    [ad_2]

    Maddie Gannon

    Source link

  • Planned Parenthood endorses five Senate candidates

    Planned Parenthood endorses five Senate candidates

    [ad_1]

    The political arm of the reproductive rights group Planned Parenthood on Wednesday announced its endorsement of five House Democrats looking to secure seats in the upper chamber of Congress in November’s election. 

    In a press release, Planned Parenthood Action Fund announced it is backing 2024 U.S. Senate candidates Reps. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., Colin Allred, D-Texas, Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz.,  Lisa Blunt Rochester, D-Del., and Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich. 


    What You Need To Know

    • The political arm of the reproductive rights group Planned Parenthood on Wednesday announced its endorsement of five House Democrats looking to secure seats in the upper chamber in November’s election 
    • Planned Parenthood Action Fund is backing 2024 Senate candidates Reps. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., Colin Allred, D-Texas, Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz.,  Lisa Blunt Rochester, D-Del., and Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich. 
    • The group has already endorsed Democratic incumbents Sens. Jon Tester, Jacky Rosen, Sherrod Brown and Tammy Baldwin in the battleground states of Montana, Nevada, Ohio and Wisconsin as well as President Joe Biden for another four years in the White House
    • Democratic candidates across the country have sought to hone in on the issue of abortion access and reproductive rights following the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade in June 2022

    In deep-blue California, Schiff is looking to defeat a challenge from former Los Angeles Dodgers player Republican Steve Garvey to fill the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s seat. He beat out two other House Democrats in the primary contest earlier this month to advance to November’s general race. 

    In Texas, Allred, a civil rights lawyer and former NFL player, is seeking to oust Republican Sen. Ted Cruz. 

    In Delaware and battleground Michigan, Blunt Rochester and Slotkin are hoping to fill the seats of retiring Democratic Sens. Tom Carper and Debbie Stabenow, respectively.

    Meanwhile, in one of the west’s biggest swing states, Gallego is aiming to defeat Republican Kari Lake to take over for Democratic-turned-Independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema. Sinema announced earlier this month that she would not seek reelection after leaving the Democratic party to become an independent following the 2022 midterms. Lake narrowly lost her race for governor of Arizona to Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs in 2022. 

    “We don’t have time to waste while our freedom to control our own bodies hangs in the balance,” Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Action Fund said in a statement. “We know that if anti-abortion rights politicians gain control of the Senate, they will exploit their power to push through a national abortion ban.”

    “That is why this slate of unflappable reproductive rights champions must be elected to the Senate,” McGill continued. 

    The group has already endorsed Democratic incumbents Sens. Jon Tester, Jacky Rosen, Sherrod Brown and Tammy Baldwin in the battleground states of Montana, Nevada, Ohio and Wisconsin. It has also thrown its support behind Democratic incumbent Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a staunch supporter of reproductive rights, in New York. 

    Democratic candidates across the country have sought to hone in on the issue of abortion access and reproductive rights following the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade in June 2022. The ruling sparked tight restrictions or bans on abortion in states around the country. 

    The issue has proved electorally fruitful for Democrats, who credit it for helping the party pull off a better-than-expected showing in the 2022 midterms and notch key victories in the 2023 off-year elections. 

    When the issue has appeared directly on the ballot, voters – even in red states like Kansas and Ohio – choose to keep abortion more widely accessible. 

    And Democrats are signaling they have no plans to take a step back on the issue in the first presidential election since Roe was overturned.

    “When reproductive freedom was on the ballot, the American people spoke in 2022,” President Joe Biden said at a reception at the White House on Monday in which he signed an executive order seeking to boost research on women’s health. He then pointed to Vice President Kamala Harris and declared that “with the leadership of this woman to my left here, they are going to speak out again in 2024.” 

    The Biden campaign’s first rally of the election year that featured both the president and vice president together was focused on restoring Roe v. Wade. 

    Last week, Harris became the first vice president or president to visit a facility that performs abortions when she toured a Planned Parenthood clinic in Minnesota. 

    Planned Parenthood Action Fund, along with two other major reproductive rights groups NARAL Pro-Choice America and Emily’s List, endorsed the Biden-Harris ticket for another four years in the White House back in June.

    [ad_2]

    Maddie Gannon

    Source link

  • Arizona and Nevada make up 3% of the U.S. population — and are vital to picking a president

    Arizona and Nevada make up 3% of the U.S. population — and are vital to picking a president

    [ad_1]

    When President Biden flies into Nevada on Monday and to Arizona the following day, he’s likely to compliment the West’s natural beauty, pay homage to the unmatched political power of the Culinary Workers Union and nod to local Democratic elected officials.

    Another truth about his visit to the two Southwestern states may remain unspoken: Though together they are home to only about 3% of the U.S. population, Arizona and Nevada are expected to have an outsize influence on the outcome of the 2024 presidential race.

    With Arizona’s 11 electoral votes and Nevada’s six, the states collectively hold more voting power than Georgia, another closely contested state that both Democrats and Republicans believe they can win — as Biden and former President Trump engage in the first rematch of presidential contenders in nearly 70 years.

    Having secured enough delegates last week to become their parties’ presumptive nominees, the two oldest major-party candidates in American history are facing off in a presidential rematch that most people saw coming and many hoped to avoid.

    The race pits a president languishing in the polls against a challenger facing multiple criminal indictments. It gives citizens asking for change a chance to vote for more of the same, unless they opt for a long-shot third-party candidate.

    Many Americans have said they don’t like it. They wish the stress of a country that feels perpetually at odds would just stop.

    “Everything is kind of haywire and crazy,” Trevean Rhodes, a security guard at a Las Vegas supermarket, said last week. “Normalcy is a thing of the past.”

    Nevada has gone to the Democrats in four straight presidential elections, but by thin margins. Biden won Arizona in 2020, though Republicans prevailed in all but two of the last 12 presidential cycles there.

    Recent public polling in both battleground states shows Biden trailing Trump, but both sides have said they expect close contests. And both states have already received substantial attention, especially from the Democrats.

    Vice President Kamala Harris visited Phoenix recently to talk about abortion, and in late January stopped in Las Vegas, where she called Trump a threat to democracy. Biden’s trip this week will take him to Reno, Las Vegas and Phoenix.

    His events in Arizona are expected to focus on Latino voter engagement, sources familiar with his travel told The Times. The trip comes amid a $30-million advertising barrage from Biden’s campaign across all of the battleground states. (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are the others.)

    Former President Trump, in Las Vegas for the Nevada GOP’s caucuses last month, blasted his rival’s handling of migrants entering the U.S. from Mexico.

    (Mark J. Terrill / Associated Press)

    Trump, stopping in Las Vegas before Nevada’s GOP caucuses in early February, slammed Biden’s handling of the mounting number of people crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, and called human trafficking of migrants “a weapon of mass destruction” against the U.S.

    Even as the candidates gear up for their marathon to election day with more than seven months to go, interviews with more than two dozen voters, elected officials and political consultants in Arizona and Nevada revealed a collective ennui about Biden vs. Trump 2.0.

    “There’s a voter fatigue, I think,” said Arizona House Minority Whip Nancy Gutierrez, a Democrat. “People are just sick of being bombarded, with no bipartisanship and no working together on many of the same issues.”

    Democrats say Biden must do more to highlight what they claim as his accomplishments, including job creation tied in part to an infrastructure law that brought public works to Nevada and Arizona, and passage of a bipartisan gun control measure that increases background checks for younger firearm buyers.

    They also cite the president’s efforts to protect access to abortion and contraception via executive orders after the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe vs. Wade, and his support for a robust U.S. presence internationally, including through aid to Ukraine in its war with Russia.

    Republicans plan to rely on what they contend was America’s stronger standing during Trump’s four-year tenure in Washington, citing high levels of employment and lower inflation as hallmarks of his administration.

    Donald Trump, framed by blurred heads in a crowd, standing and pointing

    Trump, working to stay connected to his base in Arizona after his failed efforts to overturn his 2020 defeat, appears at a right-wing gathering in Phoenix in 2021.

    (Ross D. Franklin / Associated Press)

    Trump also claims credit for building up the wall dividing the U.S. and Mexico to reduce illegal crossings, as well as for pushing through $3.2 trillion in tax cuts, appointing Supreme Court justices who rejected the nationwide right to abortion, pulling the U.S. out of trade agreements he said hurt American workers, and clearing the way for the U.S. to become the world’s top producer of oil and natural gas.

    The state of the economy, a perennial centerpiece of presidential electioneering, is cited more than any other issue as the top concern in Nevada, which saw its unemployment rate spike to more than 30% during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Unemployment in the state is just over 5% now, still the highest in the country. But even some with jobs express concern that high inflation has made it harder for them to pay their bills.

    At a supermarket on the east side of Las Vegas last week, two men demonstrated the breadth of the disagreement about how the economy is doing.

    Alberto Cardona said he didn’t care about all of the economists saying inflation had tapered off.

    The electrician said they were “lying,” and he saw proof, literally, in the pudding. He said he paid 99 cents for a carton of pudding at the supermarket when Trump was president. Now it costs $1.47. He blamed Biden and other Democrats for the upswing, saying they supercharged inflation by overspending “and printing money that they don’t have.”

    “Everything’s terrible right now. I’m living paycheck to paycheck, trying to support my family,” said Cardona, 50. He said he would vote for Trump.

    A few minutes later, Fernando Alcazar pronounced himself ready to vote for Biden.

    “Look at what he’s done and where the country is headed,” said the 52-year-old gambling industry consultant. “The economy is good, and we’re going in the right direction.”

    Though inflation has climbed much higher in earlier eras, the low inflation of the last two decades or so has made the recent upswing feel disabling, especially to younger people, said Stephen Miller, research director at the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

    But he said people’s views of the economy could be reshaped in the coming months.

    “Between now and early fall, if grocery prices come down and gasoline prices come down, the mood will change,” Miller said. “We’ll see.”

    Rep. Steven Horsford, a Democrat who represents Clark County in the U.S. House and chairs the Congressional Black Caucus, said that’s why it’s key for Biden to remain on point.

    “You can’t only focus on the accomplishments, of which there are many,” Horsford said. “You’ve also got to talk about what you plan to do going forward.”

    President Biden, surrounded by supporters, smiles for those taking selfies with him in the background

    Biden smiles for supporters’ selfies at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, last week after speaking on improving healthcare and lowering prescription drug prices.

    (John Locher / Associated Press)

    In both Nevada and Arizona, Democrats say access to abortion should be a winning issue for Biden. They described a wave of anger among their voters that followed the reversal of Roe.

    Organizers hope to put measures supporting abortion access on the ballot in both states. Though a Nevada law protects access to abortion there, a political action committee is gathering signatures to qualify a measure that would enshrine abortion access into the state Constitution. The measure would apply for pregnancies of up to 24 weeks. Activists in Arizona are charting a similar course.

    Republicans have a ballot measure of their own in Nevada: one that would require voters to present identification when they go to the polls.

    The proposal responds to belief among conservatives that elections have seen widespread tainting by ineligible voters casting ballots. Though claims of such voter fraud have seldom been substantiated, they are accepted as a matter of faith, and are therefore highly motivating, to many in the GOP.

    Several people, many in plastic raincoats, next to a barbed-wire-topped wall, a few pacing as others huddle around a campfire

    Immigration is a major campaign issue again. Here, migrants from Colombia wait at the southern border for U.S. officials to transport them to apply for asylum.

    (Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

    With migrant crossings from Mexico to the U.S. hitting a high in recent months, even Democrats in cities well north of the border have expressed concern about the burden newcomers put on infrastructure and public services.

    Republicans plan to focus intensely on the issue.

    Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb, who is running for U.S. Senate in Arizona’s Republican primary this summer, said Biden’s policies supporting migrants underscore an inherent unfairness in the minds of voters he’s met. Along with the economy, Lamb said, nothing angers his constituents more than the sense of disorder at ports of entry and in communities where migrants enter the country.

    “They’re very angry with the misappropriation of tax funds used to put these people up in hotel rooms, to give them transportation on airplanes and to give them, in some cases, gift cards, while we have American veterans and we have Americans who are homeless and are struggling,” Lamb said.

    Democrats like Alcazar, the gambling industry consultant in Vegas, said it’s unfair and inaccurate to blame Biden for the surge of migrants. He noted that the White House had hammered out an immigration overhaul deal with congressional Republicans that included increased border security, only to have the GOP back away when Trump signaled his opposition.

    “It was their chance to step up and do something about the issue,” Alcazar said. “But they didn’t follow through. Instead, they wanted Trump politics.”

    President Biden speaking at a lectern with a presidential seal as Arizona's flag is displayed on a large screen

    In a nod to Arizona’s many Republican voters, Biden honored the late Sen. John McCain last fall in remarks on democracy in Tempe, Ariz. The two served across the Senate aisle from each other for over two decades.

    (Evan Vucci / Associated Press)

    As the oldest president at 81, Biden has faced repeated questions about his mental acuity and fitness to serve.

    Robert Bailey, a political independent, said he has voted for candidates of both parties in the past, but wouldn’t consider Biden this time.

    “He can’t remember things he needs to remember,” said Bailey, 57, a street performer in Las Vegas. “People just help him stay in office and get his job done.”

    Some say Trump, 77, also shows signs of aging.

    But more challenging critiques grow out of the dozens of criminal charges he faces — on allegations of illegality related to his attempts to reverse his 2020 election loss in Georgia and his stashing of classified government documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort and of obstruction of justice; of having a role in the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in an attempt to prevent Congress’ certification of Biden’s victory; and of falsifying records related to hush money allegedly paid to porn star Stormy Daniels.

    “We understand that Trump wants to take us backwards,” said Tucson Mayor Regina Romero, a Democrat. “You have Donald Trump running a campaign of creating doomsday scenarios and seeking retribution against his political opponents.”

    Romero said Biden has a list of accomplishments that her constituents will feel the benefits of for decades. She cited the nearly $100 million that’s flowed to her city from the infrastructure and inflation-reduction measures he’s championed.

    In Nevada, meanwhile, the Biden campaign will remind 12,000 residents about the student loan relief they got from the administration, and tell 22,000 seniors not to forget how Democrats capped the price of their insulin prescriptions.

    Diane Farajian, 65, said that Trump was slow to respond to the coronavirus surge, and that he makes her uneasy. The retired Las Vegas blackjack dealer plans to vote for Biden, though she said she usually supports Republicans for the White House.

    “We need good people in there,” Farajian said. “There was just so much trouble when Trump was in office.”

    [ad_2]

    Benjamin Oreskes, James Rainey

    Source link

  • Kamala Harris Tours Abortion Clinic

    Kamala Harris Tours Abortion Clinic

    [ad_1]

    Kamala Harris toured a Planned Parenthood that offers abortion services, the first vice president to do so, where she delivered a speech defending reproductive rights. What do you think?

    “Probably good for her to have feelers out for other jobs.”

    Sid Barrera, Trinket Designer

    “So that’s why there were a bunch of reporters at my abortion.”

    Mari Mahoney, Fantasy Historian

    “It was pretty cool of her to sign my fetus.”

    Becky Murillo, Word Approver

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 3/14: CBS Evening News

    3/14: CBS Evening News

    [ad_1]

    3/14: CBS Evening News – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Powerful storms cause damage in Midwest; Graduation ceremony held for hundreds of FDNY recruits

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • University of Central Florida students advocate for free emergency contraception on campus

    University of Central Florida students advocate for free emergency contraception on campus

    [ad_1]

    click to enlarge

    Courtesy of YDSA

    UCF students organize for free and accessible emergency contraception on campus.

    Access to abortion care in Florida and across the country remains precarious, and in some states, is no longer accessible at all. Students at the University of Central Florida, eyeing this issue with concern, are advocating for ways to help young people prevent unwanted pregnancy — and no, it’s not through the failed strategy of promoting abstinence only.

    Student organizers at UCF, the state’s largest university by enrollment based in Orlando, have joined young adults on other college campuses in advocating for expanded access to emergency contraception — specifically, what’s known as the “morning after” pill. This can be taken up to five days after having unprotected sex to help prevent pregnancy, although it’s most effective when taken the morning after or within three days.

    The effort to expand access to emergency contraception is being spearheaded by student members of the Young Democratic Socialists of America, the student arm of a national political organization that advocates for social and economic justice.

    Reana Sinani, a recent graduate of UCF and co-chair of UCF’s YDSA chapter, told Orlando Weekly that the group began gathering digital petitions on-campus earlier this semester, with the ultimate goal of making Plan B free and accessible for all students.

    “We got like, I want to say 600 signatures or something in three days, which was really, really cool,” said Sinani, 22, a psychology major.

    The group organized tabling events, where they shared information about emergency contraception and offered free Plan B supplied by groups like Orlando’s Stand With Abortion Now and Emergency Contraception 4 Every Campus, a national project of the American Society for Emergency Contraception.

    Then, in February, students reached a milestone.

    After meeting with the university’s chief public health officer on two separate occasions to discuss the issue, UCF’s Student Health Services switched to a lower-cost supplier of levonorgestrel, the generic version of Plan B, moving the price from $20 down to $6 on the university’s main campus in late February.

    Chief public health officer Dr. Michael Deichen, who also serves as associate vice president of UCF’s Student Health Services, declined an interview with Orlando Weekly, but confirmed the price drop in an emailed statement.

    After YDSA met with the university’s chief public health officer on two separate occasions to discuss the issue, UCF Student Health Services lowered the price of generic Plan B.

    tweet this

    “Medications are sold at a reduced markup in keeping with ongoing efforts to provide affordable and quality care to students,” Deichen shared, somewhat downplaying the students’ involvement in the decision. “Among the items available is generic emergency contraception, now priced lower due to a new vendor’s reduced purchase cost.”

    A spokesperson for the pharmacy emphasized that brand-name Plan B, the functional equivalent of the generic version, will remain priced at $40 through UCF’s pharmacy.

    It’s only the generic version — available over the counter at the student pharmacy — that is now priced at $5.98.

    Student organizers nonetheless celebrated the decision on social media (and confirmed they were aware it was the generic, not brand-name Plan B, that was now priced at a lower cost).

    click to enlarge An Instagram post from UCF YDSA celebrates the university's plan to reduce the cost of generic Plan B on-campus. - Instagram

    Instagram

    An Instagram post from UCF YDSA celebrates the university’s plan to reduce the cost of generic Plan B on-campus.

    “This is only the start of our campaign as we will continue to look for venues to make Plan B FREE and ACCESSIBLE for all UCF students!” the group wrote in an Instagram post.

    According to Sinani, the group had collected roughly 1,600 petitions in support of the initiative as of March. Most came from students, in addition to some staff and faculty.

    The goal of their campaign, she added, isn’t just to reduce the cost of emergency contraception, but also to make it more accessible through additional pickup locations across campus.

    Currently, emergency contraceptives are only available at the university’s pharmacy through Student Health Services. Not everyone knows where that is, said Sinani, unless they have another prescription to pick up.

    But they’re considering ways to make it easier for people to access. One idea that’s picked up steam across the country is the installation of vending machines on college campuses that distribute emergency contraceptives and other personal or sexual health products. 

    According to Emergency Contraception 4 Every Campus, student activists have successfully advocated for the placement of these vending machines on roughly 60 campuses nationwide, including three in Florida.

    The University of Florida, Florida Gulf Coast University and the University of South Florida all have vending machines that distribute contraceptives and other personal healthcare products on-campus, according to EC4EC.

    So do universities in other states coast to coast, from New York to North Carolina, Ohio, Washington and California.

    “Our campaign slogan is free and accessible Plan B for all students, and that’s truly like what we’re pushing for.”

    tweet this

    Kelly Cleland, executive director of the American Society for Emergency Contraception, told Orlando Weekly there’s no law that currently prohibits the sale of EC in vending machines in any state. “So that puts student leaders in a great position,” Cleland said.

    Some of the benefits of these vending machines, she said, include product affordability, timely access and privacy — with no questions asked at the pharmacy counter, and the ability for a student to pick up the item when they need it, on their own terms.

    The ideal placement for these machines, advocates say, is in centrally located buildings that are open for extended hours or, better, 24/7. They could also be placed in gender-neutral bathrooms, libraries (like at the University of South Florida in Tampa) or other easily accessible spaces.

    “Unprotected sex doesn’t only happen during business hours!” Cleland pointed out. “And many students experience stigma or embarrassment about needing EC and may not want to have to answer questions about their purchase, so vending machines can provide that anonymity and privacy.”

    click to enlarge UCF students organize for free and accessible emergency contraception on campus. - Courtesy of YDSA

    Courtesy of YDSA

    UCF students organize for free and accessible emergency contraception on campus.

    At the University of Central Florida, Sinani said most people they’ve talked to on the ground about making EC more accessible have been receptive to the idea — even students who self-identified as conservative or anti-abortion.

    “I’ve gotten comments like, ‘Oh, this would decrease abortions, so I will sign it,’” said Sinani, who herself supports abortion access.

    Organizing around abortion access was actually a launching pad for the EC initiative. Before kicking off their Plan B campaign, students with YDSA first began gathering petitions last year for a proposed abortion-rights ballot initiative, spearheaded by the political committee Floridians Protecting Freedom.

    The proposed constitutional amendment, if approved by Florida voters, would guarantee a right to abortion up to roughly 24 weeks of pregnancy.

    After gathering the necessary number of signatures, advocates are now waiting to see whether the initiative will get final Supreme Court approval for placement on the November ballot. Florida’s self-described “pro-choice” State Attorney General Ashley Moody has argued the language of their proposal is too vague and would “hoodwink” voters.

    Since the U.S. Supreme Court effectively overturned the constitutional right to abortion in 2022, a number of states have become statewide abortion deserts, where abortion care is banned and completely inaccessible.

    This is not true for Florida, which is — for now — the most accessible state for abortion care in the U.S. South, despite a 15-week limit on abortion that opponents have challenged in the courts. A six-week ban, approved by the state Legislature’s Republican majority in 2023, is currently on hold pending a state Supreme Court decision.

    As Vox has reported, curtailing access to emergency contraception is still considered a “fringe” view, even among those opposed to abortion — although some anti-abortion activists have reportedly been laying the groundwork for such an initiative for decades.

    One of the most memorable moments Orlando Weekly had in 2021 at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), held in Orlando that year, was a conversation about abortion with a young woman holding a sizable “Babies Lives Matter” flag.

    The young woman, originally from Venezuela, and her boyfriend said they were anti-abortion, but agreed that access to birth control was important. (They were less decisive on whether birth control should be cost-free — because, yes, we did ask.)

    One advantage the “fringe” anti-abortion activists have is that many Americans don’t understand what EC is, and how it differs from procedures to terminate a pregnancy.

    A 2023 poll by KFF found 93% of U.S. adults were aware of Plan B or “morning-after” pills, but only 62% were aware it was not the same as the abortion pill. Nearly three-quarters (73%) incorrectly believed that emergency contraception is capable of ending a pregnancy in its early stages.

    Students at UCF, organizing around emergency contraception access, also encountered this misinformation or other misunderstandings about how EC works.

    Sinani said their campaign has been an “informative” experience, and it’s been fulfilling to be able to offer informational resources to other young people. To her, accessibility is what’s most important.

    College students aren’t the most financially stable, she said. They may be between jobs. Not everyone can afford to drop $40 on Plan B if they have unprotected sex or are assaulted. “Our campaign slogan is ‘free and accessible Plan B for all students,’ and that’s truly what we’re pushing for.”

    Cleland, with the American Society for Emergency Contraception, stressed that EC isn’t just for people who are sexually active. There are a number of reasons that a person might seek it out, including cases of sexual assault and a lack of access to non-emergency contraception.

    “Making EC accessible and affordable helps keep students achieve their goals and have autonomy over their bodies and futures,” she said.

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | or sign up for our RSS Feed

    [ad_2]

    McKenna Schueler

    Source link

  • Notable US Supreme Court Decisions Fast Facts | CNN

    Notable US Supreme Court Decisions Fast Facts | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at some of the most important cases decided by the US Supreme Court since 1789.

    1803Marbury v. Madison
    This decision established the system of checks and balances and the power of the Supreme Court within the federal government.

    Situation: Federalist William Marbury and many others were appointed to positions by outgoing President John Adams. The appointments were not finalized before the new Secretary of State James Madison took office, and Madison chose not to honor them. Marbury and the others invoked an Act of Congress and sued to get their appointed positions.

    The Court decided against Marbury 6-0.

    Historical significance: Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, “An act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.” It was the first time the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a law that had been passed by Congress.

    1857 – Dred Scott v. Sandford
    This decision established that slaves were not citizens of the United States and were not protected under the US Constitution.

    Situation: Dred Scott and his wife Harriet sued for their freedom in Missouri, a slave state, after having lived with their owner, an Army surgeon, in the free Territory of Wisconsin.

    The Court decided against Scott 7-2.

    Historical significance: The decision overturned the Missouri Compromise, where Congress had prohibited slavery in the territories. The Dred Scott decision was overturned later with the adoption of the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery in 1865 and the 14th Amendment in 1868, granting citizenship to all born in the United States.

    1896 – Plessy v. Ferguson
    This decision established the rule of segregation, separate but equal.

    Situation: While attempting to test the constitutionality of the Separate Car Law in Louisiana, Homer Plessy, a man of 1/8 African descent, sat in the train car for whites instead of the blacks-only train car and was arrested.

    The Court decided against Plessy 7-1.

    Historical significance: Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote, “The argument also assumes that social prejudice may be overcome by legislation and that equal rights cannot be secured except by an enforced commingling of the two races… if the civil and political rights of both races be equal, one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane.” The Court gave merit to the “Jim Crow” system. Plessy was overturned by the Brown v. Board of Education decision. In January 2022 Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards granted a posthumous pardon to Homer Plessy. The pardon comes after the Louisiana Board of Pardons voted unanimously in November 2021 in favor of a pardon for Plessy, who died in his 60s in 1925.

    1954 – Brown v. Board of Education
    This decision overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and granted equal protection under the law.

    Situation: Segregation of the public school systems in the United States was addressed when cases in Kansas, South Carolina, Delaware and Virginia were all decided together under Brown v. Board of Education. Third-grader Linda Brown was denied admission to the white school a few blocks from her home and was forced to attend the blacks-only school a mile away.

    The Court decided in favor of Brown unanimously.

    Historical significance: Racial segregation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

    1963 – Gideon v. Wainwright
    This decision guarantees the right to counsel.

    Situation: Clarence Earl Gideon was forced to defend himself when he requested a lawyer from a Florida court and was refused. He was convicted and sentenced to five years for breaking and entering.

    The Court decided in favor of Gideon unanimously.

    Historical significance: Ensures the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee to counsel is applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.

    1964New York Times v. Sullivan
    This decision upheld the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

    Situation: The New York Times and four African-American ministers were sued for libel by Montgomery, Alabama, police commissioner L.B. Sullivan. Sullivan claimed a full-page ad in the Times discussing the arrest of Martin Luther King Jr., and his efforts toward voter registration and integration in Montgomery were defamatory against him. Alabama’s libel law did not require Sullivan to prove harm since the ad did contain factual errors. He was awarded $500,000.

    The Court decided against Sullivan unanimously.

    Historical significance: The First Amendment protects free speech and publication of all statements about public officials made without actual malice.

    1966Miranda v. Arizona
    The decision established the rights of suspects against self-incrimination.

    Situation: Ernesto Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping after he confessed, while in police custody, without benefit of counsel or knowledge of his constitutional right to remain silent.

    The court decided in favor of Miranda 5-4.

    Historical significance: Upon arrest and/or questioning, all suspects are given some form of their constitutional rights – “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?”

    1973 – Roe v. Wade
    This decision expanded privacy rights to include a woman’s right to choose pregnancy or abortion.

    Situation: “Jane Roe” (Norma McCorvey), single and living in Texas, did not want to continue her third pregnancy. Under Texas law, she could not legally obtain an abortion.

    The Court decided in favor of Roe 7-2.

    Historical significance: Abortion is legal in all 50 states. Women have the right to choose between pregnancy and abortion.

    1974 – United States v. Nixon
    This decision established that executive privilege is neither absolute nor unqualified.

    Situation: President Richard Nixon’s taped conversations from 1971 onward were the object of subpoenas by both the special prosecutor and those under indictment in the Watergate scandal. The president claimed immunity from subpoena under executive privilege.

    The Court decided against Nixon 8-0.

    Historical significance: The president is not above the law. After the Court ruled on July 24, 1974, Richard Nixon resigned on August 8.

    1978 – Regents of the U. of California v. Bakke
    This decision ruled that race cannot be the only factor in college admissions.

    Situation: Allan Bakke had twice applied for and was denied admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. Bakke was white, male and 35 years old. He claimed under California’s affirmative action plan, minorities with lower grades and test scores were admitted to the medical school when he was not, therefore his denial of admission was based solely on race.

    The Court decided in Bakke’s favor, 5-4.

    Historical significance: Affirmative action is approved by the Court and schools may use race as an admissions factor. However, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment works both ways in the case of affirmative action; race cannot be the only factor in the admissions process.

    2012 – National Federation of Independent Business et al v. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services et al

    Situation: The constitutionality of the sweeping health care reform law championed by President Barack Obama.

    The Court voted 5-4 in favor of upholding the Affordable Care Act.

    Historical significance: The ruling upholds the law’s central provision – a requirement that all people have health insurance or pay a penalty.

    2013 – United States v. Windsor
    This decision ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined the term “marriage” under federal law as a “legal union between one man and one woman” deprived same-sex couples who are legally married under state laws of their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection under federal law.

    Situation: Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were married in Toronto in 2007. Their marriage was recognized by New York state, where they lived. Upon Spyer’s death in 2009, Windsor was forced to pay $363,000 in estate taxes, because their marriage was not recognized by federal law.

    The court voted 5-4 in favor of Windsor.

    Historical significance: The court strikes down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, ruling that legally married same-sex couples are entitled to federal benefits.

    2015 – King et al, v. Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al

    Situation: This case was about determining whether or not the portion of the Affordable Care Act which says subsidies would be available only to those who purchase insurance on exchanges “established by the state” referred to the individual states.

    The Court ruled 6-3 in favor of upholding the Affordable Care Act subsidies.

    Historical significance: The court rules that the Affordable Care Act federal tax credits for eligible Americans are available in all 50 states, regardless of whether the states have their own health care exchanges.

    2015 – Obergefell et al, v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al.

    Situation: Multiple lower courts had struck down state same-sex marriage bans. There were 37 states allowing gay marriage before the issue went to the Supreme Court.

    The Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Obergefell et al.

    Historical significance: The court rules that states cannot ban same-sex marriage and must recognize lawful marriages performed out of state.

    2016 – Fisher v. University of Texas

    Situation: Abigail Fisher sued the University of Texas after her admission application was rejected in 2008. She claimed it was because she is white and that she was being treated differently than some less-qualified minority students who were accepted. In 2013 the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower courts for further review.

    The Court ruled 4-3 in favor of the University of Texas. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because she dealt with it in her previous job as solicitor general.

    Historical Significance: The court rules that taking race into consideration as one factor of admission is constitutional.

    2020 – Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia

    Situation: Gerald Bostock filed a lawsuit against Clayton County for discrimination based on his sexual orientation after he was terminated for “conduct unbecoming of its employees,” shortly after he began participating in a gay softball league. Two other consolidated cases were also argued on the same day.

    The 6-3 opinion in favor of the plaintiff, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, states that being fired “merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII” of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    Historical Significance: Federal anti-bias law now protects people who face job loss and/or discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

    2022 – Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

    Situation: Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act, passed in 2018 and which greatly restricts abortion after 15 weeks, is blocked by two federal courts, holding that it is in direct violation of Supreme Court precedent legalizing abortion nationwide prior to viability, which can occur at around 23-24 weeks of pregnancy, and that in an “unbroken line dating to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s abortion cases have established (and affirmed and re-affirmed) a woman’s right to choose an abortion before viability.” The court said states may “regulate abortion procedures prior to viability” so long as they do not ban abortion. “The law at issue is a ban,” the court held. 

    Mississippi appeals the decision to the Supreme Court.

    The 6-3 opinion in favor of the plaintiff, written by Justice Samuel Alito states that “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start…Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.”

    In a joint dissenting opinion, Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan heavily criticized the majority, closing: “With sorrow – for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection – we dissent.”

    Historical Significance: The ruling overturns Roe v. Wade and there is no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion, leaving abortion rights to be determined by states.

    1944 – Korematsu v. United States – The Court ruled Executive Order 9066, internment of Japanese citizens during World War II, is legal, 6-3 for the United States.

    1961 – Mapp v. Ohio – “Fruit of the poisonous tree,” evidence obtained through an illegal search, cannot be used at trial, 6-3 for Mapp.

    1967 – Loving v. Virginia – Prohibition against interracial marriage was ruled unconstitutional, 9-0 for Loving.

    1968 – Terry v. Ohio – Stop and frisk, under certain circumstances, does not violate the Constitution. The Court upholds Terry’s conviction and rules 8-1 that it is not unconstitutional for police to stop and frisk individuals without probable cause for an arrest if they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to occur.

    2008 – District of Columbia v. Heller – The Second Amendment does protect the individual’s right to bear arms, 5-4 for Heller.

    2010 – Citizens United v. FEC – The Court rules corporations can contribute to PACs under the First Amendment’s right to free speech, 5-4 for Citizens United.

    2023 – Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard together with Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina – Colleges and universities can no longer take race into consideration as a specific basis in admissions. The majority opinion, written by Justice John Roberts, claims the court is not expressly overturning prior cases authorizing race-based affirmative action and suggests that how race has affected an applicant’s life can still be part of how their application is considered.

    2024 – Donald J. Trump v. Norma Anderson, et al – The Court rules former President Donald Trump should appear on the ballot in Colorado in a decision that follows months of debate over whether Trump violated the “insurrectionist clause” included in the 14th Amendment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Female representation remains low in US statehouses, particularly Democrats in the South

    Female representation remains low in US statehouses, particularly Democrats in the South

    [ad_1]

    CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Democrat Kayla Young and Republican Patricia Rucker frequently clash on abortion rights and just about everything else in West Virginia’s Legislature, but they agree on one thing: Too few of their colleagues are women, and it’s hurting the state.

    “There are exceptions to every single rule, but I think in general, men do kind of see this as their field,” said Rucker, part of the GOP’s Senate supermajority that passed one of the nation’s strictest abortion bans while Young — the lone Democratic woman elected to the House — opposed it.

    Nearly 130 years since the first three women were elected to state legislative offices in the U.S., women remain massively underrepresented in state legislatures.

    In 10 states, women make up less than 25% of their state legislatures, according to Rutgers’ Center for American Women in Politics. West Virginia is at the very bottom of that list, having just 16 women in its 134-member Legislature, or just under 12%. That’s compared with Nevada, where women occupy just over 60% of state legislative seats. Similar low numbers can be found in the nearby southern states of Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee and Louisiana.

    “It’s absolutely wild to know that more than 50 percent of the population of West Virginia are women, and sometimes I’m the only woman that’s on a committee, period,” said Young, currently the only woman on the House Artificial Intelligence Committee and was one of just two on the House Judiciary Committee when it greenlighted the state’s near total abortion ban.

    The numbers of women filling legislative seats across the U.S. have remained low despite women registering and voting at higher rates than men in every presidential election since 1980 — and across virtually every demographic, including race, education level and socioeconomic status.

    For the last three decades, voters have demonstrated a willingness to cast ballots for women. But they didn’t have the opportunity to do so because women weren’t running, said Jennifer Lawless, chair of the politics department at the University of Virginia.

    “The gender gap in political ambition is just as large now as it was then,” said Lawless, adding that women are much less likely to get recruited to run for office or think they’re qualified to run in what they perceive as a hostile political environment.

    And those running in southern, conservative states — still mostly Democratic women, data show — aren’t winning as those states continue to overwhelmingly elect Republicans.

    In 2022, 39 women ran as their party’s nominee for state legislative seats in West Virginia, and 26 were Democrats. Only two of the Democratic candidates won, compared to 11 out of 13 of the Republicans.

    Debbie Walsh, director of Rutgers’ Center for American Women in Politics, said there’s more money, infrastructure and support for recruiting and running Democratic female candidates. The Republican Party often shies away from talking about what is labeled or dismissed as “identity politics,’” she said.

    “It’s a belief in a kind of meritocracy and, ‘the best candidate will rise. And if it’s a woman, great.’ They don’t say, ‘We don’t want women, but if it’s a man, that’s fine, too,’” she said. “There’s no sort of value in and of itself seen in the diversity.”

    Larissa Martinez, founder and president of Women’s Public Leadership Network, one of only a few right-leaning U.S. organizations solely supporting female candidates, said identity politics within the GOP is a big hurdle to her work. Part of her organization’s slogan is, “we are pro-women without being anti-man.”

    In 2020, small-town public school teacher Amy Grady pulled off a huge political upset when she defeated then-Senate President Mitch Carmichael in West Virginia’s Republican primary, following back-to-back years of strikes in which school employees packed into the state Capitol.

    Carmichael took in more than $127,000 in contributions compared to Grady’s self-funded war chest of just over $2,000. Still, Grady won by fewer than 1,000 votes.

    “It’s just you’re told constantly, ‘You can’t, you can’t, you can’t do it,’” said Grady, who has now risen through the ranks to become chair of the Senate Education Committee. “And it’s just like, why give it a shot?”

    Tennessee state Sen. Charlane Oliver says she didn’t have many resources when she first raised her hand to run for political office. She had to rely on grassroots activism and organizing to win her 2022 election.

    Yet securing the seat was just part of the battle. Oliver, a 41-year-old Black Democratic woman, is frequently tasked with providing the only outside perspective inside for the Republican supermajority Legislature.

    “They don’t have any incentive to listen to me, but I view my seat as disruption and give you a perspective that you may not have heard before,” she said.

    Many male-dominant statehouses have enacted strict abortion bans in GOP-controlled states since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. For many female lawmakers, this trend has meant sharing deeply personal stories surrounding abortion and childbirth.

    In South Carolina, the abortion debate resulted in an unlikely coalition of women banding together to filibuster a near-total abortion ban. The five female senators — three Republicans, two Democrats and one independent — quickly became known as the “sister senators” as they took turns describing pregnancy complications, the dangers surrounding limited access to contraceptives and the reproductive system.

    Their actions were met with praise from national leaders, but at home, the consequences have been swift. The Republican women received censures and promises of primary challenges in this year’s elections.

    Women also have championed gun policy, education, health care, and housing proposals.

    Recently, some states have allowed candidates to make childcare an allowable expense for campaign finance purposes. Young was the sponsor of her state’s law — one of her priorities her first session in the Capitol in the minority party.

    During Young’s first term in office, she relied on a family member who would care for her two young children while he was at the state Capitol. But she was left without a solution last year when that caregiver passed away unexpectedly days before the session. Her husband, who works in television production, had to stay home and didn’t work for two months, meaning the family lost out on his income.

    Young’s bill won the vote of Rucker, the first Hispanic woman elected to the West Virginia Senate. She too has had to juggle the challenges of being a working mom. She left her job as a teacher to homeschool her five children, and the family relied on her husband’s salary as a pediatric nurse to make ends meet.

    “I ran for office because I feel like having that voice is actually really important — someone who lives paycheck to paycheck,” said Rucker, a first-generation U.S. citizen who made the difficult decision to pull her kids. “I’m not here because of a title, I’m not here because of a position, I’m here to do my job, and I want to do the best I can.”

    —-

    Kruesi reported from Nashville, Tenn. Associated Press journalist James Pollard in Columbia, South Carolina, contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • North Carolina lawmakers react to President Biden’s State of the Union address

    North Carolina lawmakers react to President Biden’s State of the Union address

    [ad_1]

    RALEIGH, N.C. (WTVD) — Following President Joe Biden’s ‘State of the Union’ address, we are hearing reactions from both sides of the North Carolina congressional delegation Friday morning.

    During his address on Thursday, Biden unveiled his plan to take on some of the biggest issues at home and abroad, including immigration, abortion and Gaza.

    In a statement, Democratic congresswoman Deborah Ross said:

    “President Biden is right: we face two competing visions for the future of our country. Confronted by those who relentlessly seek to move our country backward, we must fight every single day for progress and possibility.”

    Democratic congresswoman Valerie Foushee also weighed in. In a statement, she said:

    “Though much progress has been made, President Biden made it clear that our work remains unfinished. It is critical that we put the American people first and prioritize delivering real, bipartisan solutions that address the pressing needs of the people.”

    On the other side, many Republicans are calling it a campaign speech rather than a ‘State of the Union’.

    Republican senator Thom Tillis released a statement overnight.

    He said: “The one question that everyone should be asking themselves following this speech is: Are you better off than where you were three years ago? The resounding answer I hear from North Carolinians is no.”

    Republican congressman Robert Hudson also said in a statement:

    “Under Joe Biden, the State of the Union is in crisis. The President can try to convince the American people his policies are working, but they aren’t buying it. From the catastrophic open border, to skyrocketing prices fueled by inflation, to weakness on the world stage, Joe Biden has made our country less prosperous and less safe.

    Copyright © 2024 WTVD-TV. All Rights Reserved.

    [ad_2]

    WTVD

    Source link