ReportWire

Tag: Abortion

  • Democrats falsely claim Ashlee Adams ‘campaigned for Mark Robinson and his radical agenda’

    Democrats falsely claim Ashlee Adams ‘campaigned for Mark Robinson and his radical agenda’

    [ad_1]

    An advertisement for a North Carolina Democrat’s campaign tries to tie his Republican opponent to Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, the state’s Republican gubernatorial nominee who has called for more abortion restrictions.

    State Rep. Terence Everitt, D-Wake Forest, who paid for the ad, is hoping to represent his region in the state Senate. He’s running against Republican political newcomer Ashlee Adams, a businesswoman and the ad’s target.

    “Ashlee Adams is working with Mark Robinson to take abortion rights away,” a narrator in Everitt’s ad says. The narrator goes on to say Adams “campaigned for Mark Robinson and his radical agenda.”

    The ad then plays a clip of Robinson saying: “You could pass a bill saying you can’t have an abortion in North Carolina for any reason.”

    Political analysts believe the race for the open Senate seat will be one of the closest in the state — and Adams’ stance on abortion could be a key factor in the race. The district she’s competing for includes parts of populous Wake County, which is among the state’s most liberal  counties. But the district is considered a toss-up since it also contains all of conservative Granville County.

    Everitt’s ad didn’t list any citations to support its claims about Adams campaigning for Robinson or his agenda. Also, the clip of Robinson is ambiguous and may not fully represent Robinson’s stance on the issue.

    So, we contacted Everitt’s campaign and the North Carolina Democratic Party. Neither produced evidence that Adams ever campaigned for Robinson or endorsed his agenda.

    Adams on Robinson

    Asked for evidence that Adams campaigned for Robinson, an Everitt spokesperson said the Adams campaign posted a voter’s guide on its Facebook Aug. 25 that listed Robinson as the Republican gubernatorial candidate. The voter’s guide was assembled by the Republican Women’s Club of Granville County.

    The post doesn’t appear on Adams’ Facebook page. An Aug. 25 post on the Adams campaign Facebook page does show a Republican voter’s guide — but one that doesn’t include Robinson’s name.

    The Everitt campaign and the state Democratic Party believe Adams’ campaign posted a guide that included Robinson’s name but later took it down. The state Democratic Party provided an image that it claims is a screenshot of the original post. 

    “Ashlee Adams distributed a voter guide featuring her and Mark Robinson; that post, which encourages folks to vote for Mark Robinson, has since been deleted,” said Tommy Mattocks, a spokesperson for the state Democratic Party.

    In a telephone interview, Adams told PolitiFact NC that she doesn’t recall posting anything about Robinson or deleting any Facebook post about his candidacy.

    This is Adams’ first run for office. She said she never endorsed Robinson, campaigned with him, or worked with him in any capacity.

    “I met him for about six seconds for one event in Wake Forest at a restaurant called Patronies,” Adams said of a Republican candidate forum on Aug. 6. 

    “He was walking out of the door and I was walking into the door to give my speech,” she said. “That was it.”

    PolitiFact NC found no evidence of Adams endorsing Robinson or campaigning for him. 

    Adams and Robinson on abortion

    Everitt’s campaign ad uses a quote from Robinson that may not accurately reflect his stance on abortion. Robinson’s position on abortion has been a moving target. 

    He once referred to abortion as murder and has called for tightening North Carolina’s abortion laws. He previously said he opposes exceptions to to the law for issues such as rape or incest.

    In November 2023, Robinson’s campaign spokesperson, Michael Lonergan, said the lieutenant governor would support what’s known as a heartbeat bill and exemptions “for extreme situations like rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger.” A heartbeat bill typically bans abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy.

    Then, in August, Robinson’s campaign released an ad that said he supports the state’s current law, which limits most abortions after the 12th week of pregnancy while allowing for some exceptions. The ad didn’t say whether Robinson would sign or veto a bill that called for more restrictions if elected governor. 

    Asked about Robinson’s abortion comments, Adams said “I have never approved or endorsed anything like that.”

    Mattocks, the state Democratic party spokesperson, noted that Adams has had numerous opportunities to disavow Robinson and his views — on her own websites and on candidate questionnaires — but hasn’t. 

    Adams says she hasn’t disavowed Robinson because she never endorsed him in the first place, and Robinson hasn’t endorsed her either. On Oct. 10, Adams’ campaign launched a television ad rebutting the claims about her in Everitt’s ad.

    “I will never vote for an extreme abortion ban and I fully support common sense exceptions and your right to IVF treatment,” she said, referring to fertility treatment. “These ads from Terence Everitt — they are lies from a desperate politician.”

    Adams told PolitiFact NC that she supports North Carolina’s current abortion law. Adams previously worked as a trauma nurse at WakeMed Raleigh, and said the experience influenced her views on the issue.

    “I’ve held the hand of a woman as she passed away from a back alley abortion,” Adams said. 

    PolitiFact NC asked Adams whether she would support any additional abortion restrictions. 

    “Until I get into office and see a bill that’s in front of me, I can’t answer that,” Adams said. “I can’t imagine right now that I would” vote for any additional restrictions, she said.

    Our ruling

    Everitt’s campaign ad claims Adams “campaigned for Mark Robinson and his radical agenda.”

    Neither Everitt’s campaign nor the state Democratic Party produced any hard evidence — such as photos or video — showing that Adams ever campaigned with Robinson. Nor did they cite any news stories or recordings of Adams endorsing Robinson or his abortion views. 

    We rate this claim False.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Examining top issues for voters in Arizona, a key battleground state in 2024

    Examining top issues for voters in Arizona, a key battleground state in 2024

    [ad_1]

    Examining top issues for voters in Arizona, a key battleground state in 2024 – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Arizona is one of the seven battleground states that will help determine the result of the 2024 presidential election. The state’s Senate race could also determine the balance of power in Congress and a ballot measure will decide the state’s abortion laws. Arizona Republic national political reporter Ron Hansen joins CBS News to discuss Arizonans’ top issues.

    Be the first to know

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


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Maryland candidates debate abortion rights in widely watched US Senate race

    Maryland candidates debate abortion rights in widely watched US Senate race

    [ad_1]

    OWINGS MILLS, Md. — Democrat Angela Alsobrooks highlighted former Gov. Larry Hogan’s actions in office as evidence he isn’t as supportive of abortion rights as he now claims to be, while Hogan challenged the criticism during a debate in a widely watched Senate race in Maryland.

    Alsobrooks, in the hourlong debate on Maryland Public Television, criticized Hogan’s veto of a bill in 2022 to expand abortion rights by ending a restriction that only physicians can provide abortions in the state. The Legislature overrode the veto, and the law enables nurse practitioners, nurse midwives and physician assistants to provide care.

    “The Republican Party has declared war on women’s reproductive freedoms,” Alsobrooks said. “We recognize that this party of chaos and division that is led by (former President) Donald Trump is one that cannot lead our country and also has severe consequences for Marylanders.”

    Hogan emphasized that he supports abortion rights, and said Alsobrooks’ criticism of him didn’t reflect his position. He said he would cosponsor legislation to codify Roe v. Wade, which was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2022. The former governor said his veto was due to concern about allowing health care providers who aren’t doctors perform abortions.

    “It was allowing non-medical professionals, and for you to lie about something as important as this issue, it really is insulting,” Hogan said.

    The former governor also said he would be an independent voice who will stand up to partisanship in the Senate and do what he believes is best for the nation.

    “You’re going to hear nothing but red vs. blue,” Hogan said. “I care more — a lot more — about the red, white and blue.”

    The race is getting national attention because it is unusually competitive this year in a deeply blue state where its outcome could determine whether Democrats or Republicans get control of the Senate.

    Democrats currently hold a 51-49 Senate advantage, including independent senators who caucus with Democrats. And Democrats have to defend 23 seats out of the 33 Senate seats on the ballot around the country this November.

    If elected, Alsobrooks would be Maryland’s first Black U.S. senator.

    While a Republican has not won a Senate race in Maryland in more than 40 years, Hogan has wide name recognition. In the last two U.S. Senate races in Maryland, the Democratic candidate won by more than 30 percentage points against candidates who were not well-known. But Hogan, who once considered running for president and has often appeared on national news programs, is the most formidable Republican candidate in years.

    In a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by 2-1, the popular two-term former governor won over enough Democratic voters to win two statewide races in 2014 and 2018.

    Still, Hogan has a difficult needle to thread. This election was the first time Hogan is running on the same ballot as Trump, who is deeply unpopular in Maryland. Hogan has been one of the GOP’s fiercest Trump critics, which has helped him win support from some Democrats, but also risked turning off some Republican voters.

    After the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade in 2022, abortion rights have become a major campaign issue around the country. Maryland voters will be deciding whether to pass a constitutional amendment in November to enshrine the right to abortion in the state’s constitution. Maryland is one of nine states where abortion rights on the ballot this year.

    Since 2018, Alsobrooks has served as the county executive of Prince George’s County, Maryland’s second most populous jurisdiction in the suburbs of the nation’s capital. Before that, she served as the county’s top prosecutor since 2011.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fact-checking the Rogers-Slotkin Michigan Senate debate

    Fact-checking the Rogers-Slotkin Michigan Senate debate

    [ad_1]

    Former Republican Rep. Mike Rogers and Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin met Oct. 8 in their first debate, trading attacks over national security, immigration and the cost of living. 

    The two are competing for Michigan’s U.S. Senate seat held by outgoing Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow.

    Slotkin argued that Rogers’ record on topics like abortion and Medicare while in Congress was unpopular. Rogers accused Slotkin and Democrats of backing policies that drove costs for groceries and gasoline higher.

    The pair will participate in a second debate Oct. 14. We fact-checked a few of their statements:

    Abortion

    Slotkin: Mike Rogers “voted and sponsored bills that would make it impossible to have IVF and contraception.”

    We rated a similar claim Half True.

    Rogers has supported strict abortion bans in the past, and throughout his 14-year career in Congress he voted for and co-sponsored abortion restrictions. He supported “life at conception” laws that would define personhood as starting at conception. 

    These laws, which would give embryos constitutional rights, would present legal challenges to in vitro fertilization, known as IVF, and some forms of birth control, experts told us. 

    Although it may be possible for IVF to continue under a personhood law, such a law would present practical challenges and open providers to liability. 

    Some forms of birth control that work by blocking fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus could also be restricted under such a law. But most hormonal birth control methods, such as the birth control pill, work by preventing an egg from being fertilized. Based on that understanding, legislation that grants legal rights at contraception should not affect these forms of birth control. 

    China and national security

    Slotkin: Rogers “was the chief security officer of AT&T when they were actively working to get Chinese companies into our telecoms.”

    We checked a similar claim in August and rated it False

    After leaving Congress in 2015, Rogers worked in cybersecurity consulting for several businesses and nonprofit groups. He was a sales consultant for AT&T’s managed cybersecurity unit in 2016 and 2017, a company spokesperson told us. 

    Although some biographical blurbs connected to 2017 and 2019 conferences Rogers attended described Rogers as “chief security adviser” for AT&T, a spokesperson for the telecommunications company described Rogers’ role as a sales consultant and told us he had “no role in business or purchasing decisions with the company.” 

    During Rogers’ consultancy with AT&T, the company was in talks with Chinese tech company Huawei on a deal to sell its phones in the U.S. The company had also begun selling devices made by ZTE, another Chinese tech company. We found no evidence that Rogers was involved in these deals. 

    U.S. security experts have long had security concerns related to Huawei’s ties to the Chinese government. As House Intelligence Committee chair in 2012, Rogers oversaw an investigation that led to the committee labeling Huawei and ZTE as national security threats.

    Rogers: Slotkin “signed a nondisclosure agreement to facilitate a Chinese Communist Party company going up near Big Rapids.” 

    This lacks evidence. Local news outlets have reported extensively on lawmakers’ discussions about a plant that Gotion, a China-linked electric vehicle battery company, plans to build near Grand Rapids. Rogers and other Republican candidates and activists have criticized the company, and Slotkin has called for more national security vetting of the project. 

    In 2022, Slotkin signed a nondisclosure agreement with the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, a public-private partnership that encourages business development in Michigan. The agreement precluded her from publicly discussing certain projects the organization was considering. 

    The nondisclosure agreement initially dealt with two projects referred to only by code names. But neither of them was the Gotion plant, according to Detroit News’ reporting. Slotkin’s agreement was later amended to include “any potential Development Project identified as confidential,” which Slotkin’s opponents have argued covers the Gotion plant. However, that amendment was added in December 2022, two months after Gov. Gretchen Whitmer publicly announced the Gotion development. 

    The Detroit News reported in September “there’s no evidence currently available” that Slotkin’s nondisclosure agreement named Gotion. 

    We can’t know for certain what was discussed under the amended agreement, but there’s no evidence Slotkin’s signature helped facilitate the Gotion deal, as Rogers said. Rogers’ campaign pointed us to a Foreign Agents Registration Act filing by Gotion that showed it had conversations with the Michigan Economic Development Corporation after the deal was publicly announced; the filing did not name Slotkin. 

    Immigration

    Rogers: “FEMA spent almost $700 million on housing illegals, and now just told North Carolina they don’t have enough money to take care of American citizens who are in desperate need in the middle of a disaster.”

    This is misleading.

    Congress in 2023 appropriated $650 million to FEMA’s new Shelter and Services Program. Customs and Border Patrol funds the program; FEMA administers it. The program gives money to state and local governments and nonprofit organizations that temporarily shelter, feed and transport migrants.

    None of that money came from FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund, which is a separate program that Congress funds each year. 

    Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said this month that the agency does not have the funding to make it through the hurricane season and the department has requested more funding from Congress, but Mayorkas did not say FEMA does not have the money to care for current hurricane victims. He said FEMA is “meeting the immediate needs with the money that we have.”

    Health care

    Slotkin: “Mike Rogers voted five times against allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices.”

    This is generally accurate. Rogers opposed allowing Medicare to negotiate the price of drugs when he was in Congress, and he has opposed the policy while campaigning for Senate this year. 

    Rogers supported the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, which created the Medicare Part D drug benefit and expressly prohibited Medicare from negotiating drug prices. 

    He also voted against the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007, which would have changed the Part D program and allowed Medicare to negotiate drug prices, and against multiple amendments offered in the House to do the same thing. 

    Medicare was allowed to negotiate drug prices for the first time because of the Inflation Reduction Act, which Democrats passed and President Joe Biden signed in 2022. Rogers has said on the campaign trail he does not believe Medicare should be negotiating drug prices, arguing it will raise the costs of Medicare Part D premiums.

    Slotkin: Mike Rogers “voted to raise the retirement age.”

    This is misleading. 

    People born after 1960 can start to receive Social Security retirement benefits at 62, with full retirement benefits starting at age 67. Rogers never voted to raise that age. Congress last changed the retirement age in 1983, when it was gradually increased from 65 to 67. 

    Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., proposed broadly overhauling Medicare when he House Budget Committee chair from 2011 to 2015, and a Congressional Budget Office analysis in 2011 said his “Path to Prosperity” plan called for raising the age for Medicare eligibility, not Social Security, from 65 to 67 over several years.

    Based on that plan, Rogers voted in favor of fiscal year 2013, 2014 and 2015 budget proposals. The legislation covered broad statements of priorities rather than specific policy details, though, and the bills voted on in the House did not set a specific Medicare eligibility age. 

    President Barack Obama didn’t sign the Republican budgets into law, and the final budgets Congress approved those years did not include raising the age for receiving Medicare benefits. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Are national politics influencing voters in the Maryland senate race? A new poll suggests it’s possible – WTOP News

    Are national politics influencing voters in the Maryland senate race? A new poll suggests it’s possible – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    Despite strong favorability ratings and stronger name recognition, a new poll out from the UMBC Institute of Politics finds Democrat Angela Alsobrooks leads Republican Larry Hogan.

    Sign up for WTOP’s Election Desk weekly newsletter to stay up-to-date through Election Day 2024 with the latest developments in this historic presidential election cycle.

    It’s the most expensive U.S. Senate campaign the state of Maryland has ever seen, but a new poll suggests efforts to flip a seat from Democratic control may come up short.

    Despite strong favorability ratings and stronger name recognition, Democratic candidate and Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks leads Republican candidate and former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan by a 48-39 margin, according to a new poll released Wednesday by the University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC) Institute of Politics.

    “Both candidates are viewed favorably — more favorably than unfavorably,” said Mileah Kromer, the director of the UMBC Institute of Politics. “Forty-nine percent of Maryland likely voters have a favorable view of Angela Alsobrooks, 53% have a favorable view of former Gov. Larry Hogan.”

    But Kromer said only 4% of voters don’t know how they feel about Hogan, while 19% are still unsure about Alsobrooks.

    “I think that, in combination with the 20% of folks who said they could change their mind and the very small number now who are fully undecided, there is some room for fluctuation,” said Kromer. “But our poll does show that Angela Alsobrooks is up, and up outside of the margin of error.”

    A Republican hasn’t represented Maryland in the U.S. Senate since the 1980s, and the voter registration in Maryland is roughly 2-1 in favor of Democrats. That appears to be playing a big role in the outcome. During the survey, after voters expressed a preference for one or the other, they were asked why they felt that way.

    For Alsobrooks, 46% of voters backing the county executive “said something about how they liked her, or they had a positive view toward the Democratic Party or some of the Democratic policies,” said Kromer.

    But 26% of her support comes by the nature of having the letter “D” next to her name on the ballot.

    “They’re voting for Angela Alsobrooks because they do not want Republicans to take control of the U.S. Senate,” said Kromer.

    On the flip side, most Hogan voters are backing him because they like him so much, or because they have positive views of the GOP.

    “It is not an unusual thing that people vote based on party identification, because party does tell you a lot of things about what an individual candidate would do in office, or what they would care about, or what the issues they would advance and support,” said Kromer.

    “The big takeaway message is how important the control the Senate has become as an issue in this campaign,” she added.

    The poll also finds Hogan is only running about 4 points better than former President Donald Trump, who trails Vice President Kamala Harris by a 57-35 point margin in Maryland. Another 5% said they’re voting for a third party, and 3% are undecided.

    Also in November, Maryland voters will vote on whether to enshrine abortion rights into the state constitution. The UMBC survey found voters support “Question 1” rather broadly, by a 69-21 percent margin in Maryland.

    More than half (57%) of Maryland likely voters said abortion was a “critical issue” for them, Kromer said.

    “While ‘Question 1,’ perhaps as a stand-alone, hasn’t gotten that much attention, the issue of reproductive rights and the issue of abortion certainly has,” Kromer said.

    Most voters said the issue that mattered the most to them was the cost of everyday goods and services. Crime and public safety, as well as taxes and government spending, also rated high as issues voters cared about.

    The institute polled 863 likely voters over the final full week of September. The margin of error is +/- 3.3%.

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2024 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    [ad_2]

    John Domen

    Source link

  • This couple’s divided on politics, but bound together by love

    This couple’s divided on politics, but bound together by love

    [ad_1]

    They were arguing about abortion.

    It was on Interstate 74, driving past the endless cornfields of rural Illinois, when Lesley Dzik realized she’d been raising her voice at her husband, Matt. She stopped, and suggested they drop the topic. He agreed, and quiet settled into the cabin of the pickup truck.

    “I love you,” they told each other, and the hands that had been gesturing to articulate their opposing views collapsed into each other on the center console.

    The Dziks have navigated issues common to so many marriages, from parenting to money.

    But politics? That’s complicated.

    Lesley, 56, is a Republican. Matt, 68, is a Democrat. She is anti-abortion. Matt believes women should have the choice. She refused to be vaccinated during the pandemic. He got the shots.

    When they started dating, all it took was the sight of Democratic lawn signs outside his house ahead of the 2020 election to make her question if their relationship could work.

    But they both wanted it to work. Lesley read books by other politically divided couples for inspiration and eventually came across Braver Angels, a nonprofit started by a therapist after former President Donald Trump’s 2016 election to help people bridge the political divide. They found a community there that is both red and blue.

    “It gave me enough hope,” said Lesley. “I felt safe, I’m not alone.”

    Image

    Lesley Dzik looks out her kitchen window, in Champaign, Ill., Sept. 21, 2024. (AP Photo/David Goldman)

    Image

    Lesley Dzik, left, helps her husband, Matt, place a sheet of plywood at a renovation job he’s doing for a fellow church member in Urbana, Ill., Sept. 21, 2024. (AP Photo/David Goldman)

    They seem, in so many ways, the ideal couple. Matt, who is retired, routinely brings flowers home for her. She helps him with handy-man jobs he does for people who can’t afford professionals. He drives her to the library at the University of Illinois where she works. They volunteer together at a local theater so they can see shows for free.

    Lesley is deeply Christian. Matt, an Army veteran, was raised Catholic, but now sees himself as more spiritual than religious.

    Image

    A sign encouraging voting sits behind Lesley Dzik, left, and her husband, Matt, in the lobby of The Station Theatre as they volunteer as ushers during a performance of “POTUS: Or, Behind Every Great Dumbass Are Seven Women Trying to Keep Him Alive,” in Urbana, Ill., Sept. 21, 2024. (AP Photo/David Goldman)

    Image

    Lesley, left, and Matt Dzik, stand in their backyard in Champaign, Ill., Sept. 20, 2024. (AP Photo/David Goldman)

    I get worried with Matt because I believe the Bible is truth and Matt is iffy about that, I wonder what I got myself into.”

    But they attend church regularly and when they pray, they hold each other.

    Acts of kindness bring them together, whether helping a man who uses a wheelchair get to church or caring for a nonverbal boy so his parents can go out and his mother can work. But their political differences seem to worsen before presidential elections.

    At times, things get so heated, they don’t speak for days.

    A suggestion from their therapist that has helped them navigate their insecurities hangs on the refrigerator door. “Can I give you a hug?” it reads. “If no, then say, ‘I love you. You don’t suck. I’ll come back in ten minutes.’”

    At Braver Angel workshops they’ve learned some techniques to keep political talk civil. Speak to understand, one rule says, don’t speak to win.

    Their need for one another is too great to avoid the discomforts of their many disagreements.

    “We share the same heart,” said Lesley.

    Image

    A chart and clothespins with their names hangs on the refrigerator of Lesley and Matt Dzik as a communication tool to help express their feelings, in Champaign, Ill., Sept. 21, 2024. (AP Photo/David Goldman)

    Image

    Lesley Dzik pulls up an online workshop by Braver Angels, a non-profit that helps people bridge the political divide, to show her husband, Matt, at their home in Champaign, Ill., Sept. 22, 2024. (AP Photo/David Goldman)

    Image

    Matt, left, and Lesley Dzik transport Richard Wellbank to services at The Vineyard Church in Urbana, Ill., Sept. 22, 2024. (AP Photo/David Goldman)

    Image

    A message decorates the wall behind Lesley, left, and Matt Dzik, as they read the Bible at their home in Champaign, Ill., Sunday, Sept. 22, 2024. (AP Photo/David Goldman)

    I love looking in her eyes and seeing her smile, why would I want to lose that?

    – Matt Dzik

    They’ve found things they can agree on, like putting up a flagpole in their front yard and flying the American flag.

    “It’s much more inspiring than any yard sign will ever be for me,” she said. “It’s more enduring.”

    The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    This story has been amended to clarify that the mother of a non-verbal boy is not a single mother.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Five takeaways from the testy U.S. Senate debate between Schiff and Garvey

    Five takeaways from the testy U.S. Senate debate between Schiff and Garvey

    [ad_1]

    The only head-to-head debate in California’s high-stakes U.S. Senate race between Rep. Adam B. Schiff and former Dodger Steve Garvey was dominated Tuesday by contentious exchanges on a host of national political issues — from immigration to the economy, expanding conflict in the Middle East, reproductive healthcare and global warming.

    The sharpest exchanges, however, related to the two candidates’ vastly different stances on former President Trump.

    Schiff, a Burbank Democrat with more than 20 years of experience in the House and a commanding lead in the polls, cast Garvey as an inexperienced Trump backer who would push conservative rather than Californian values in Washington.

    Californians, Schiff quipped, are “not looking for some MAGA mini-me in a baseball uniform.”

    Garvey, a Palm Desert Republican with no political experience but high name recognition from his days as a Major League Baseball star, suggested Schiff was too caught up in party politics and his vendetta against Trump to focus on the issues most important to California voters.

    “How can you think about one man every day and focus on that when you’ve got millions of people in California to take care of?” Garvey said. “I think it’s unconscionable.”

    The debate was testy from the start. When Schiff in his first remarks accused Garvey of turning a blind eye to the worst impulses of Trump — who Schiff said wants to “be a dictator on Day One” — Garvey replied, borrowing a famous Ronald Reagan line used in a 1980 presidential debate, “There you go again.”

    During a separate exchange on immigration, in which Schiff accused Garvey of supporting Trump’s plan for mass deportations, Garvey said, “One of the two of us is honest and straightforward.”

    “I would agree with that,” Schiff shot back.

    The debate offered a final chance for the two candidates to square off in public before voters decide between them in the November election. Californians will be asked to vote twice in the Senate race: First, to choose Schiff or Garvey to serve out the remainder of the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s final term, which ends in early January, and, separately, who should serve a subsequent six-year Senate term.

    Tuesday’s debate was the first since Garvey and Schiff won the two highest totals of votes in a more crowded primary field, in which Schiff bested Democratic rivals Reps. Katie Porter of Irvine and Barbara Lee of Oakland. Polls show Schiff with a substantial lead over Garvey.

    Trump loomed over immigration debate

    Moderators of the fast-paced, hour-long debate — hosted by KABC-TV in partnership with Univision and the League of Women Voters — asked Schiff and Garvey multiple questions about immigration and border security.

    Schiff said the country needs to “get control of the border” with more personnel and technology to interdict people and drugs. But it also needs a “comprehensive immigration policy” that treats people humanely and provides relief for farmworkers and undocumented people who arrived in the U.S. as children.

    And he blasted Garvey for backing Trump, saying Trump’s plan is for mass deportations that will devastate the country and immigrant communities.

    “You’re voting for mass deportations when you say you’re for Donald Trump,” Schiff said.

    Garvey said his campaign has focused heavily on Latino communities. He also said border security needs to be greatly enhanced. He said Schiff, alongside President Biden, had created an “existential crisis” by backing an “open border.”

    “What we have to do is secure the border. We have to finish off the wall. We have to reinstate ‘remain in Mexico,’” Garvey said. “We have to reinforce our border patrol. We have to get back to building facilities at the border that will detain these illegal immigrants, then a judicial system that will will try them.”

    A record number of people have been stopped at the U.S.-Mexico border during the Biden-Harris administration, and Republicans across the country — including Garvey — are pushing to make border security a campaign liability for Democrats.

    “A lot of Americans are concerned about immigration,” said Mindy Romero, the founder of the Center for Inclusive Democracy at USC. “The reason why Republicans are talking about it so much is because it works.”

    While Garvey’s chances of winning the Senate race are low given how deeply blue California voters are overall, Romero said, he is still the highest-ranking Republican on the ballot after Trump — and what Garvey says about immigration could still matter for Republicans.

    “In California, we’re not a monolith and we’re not all in sync on this issue,” Romero said. “What Garvey says and does could help motivate and mobilize Republicans.”

    Garvey struggled to state a clear position on abortion

    The moderators sought, without success, to bring clarity to Garvey’s position on abortion rights.

    He has said that he personally opposes abortion and would not support a federal ban on abortion.

    “I am a Catholic,” Garvey said Tuesday night. “I believe in life at conception. I believe that God breathes a soul into these fetuses. So I am steadfast in terms of my policies on abortion, and also pledge to support all the people of California.”

    But Garvey also pledged to “support the voice of Californians.” He said he supported the amendment enshrining a right to abortion in the state Constitution that two-thirds of Golden State voters supported in 2022 after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

    If Garvey is “listening to the voices of Californians like he claims, he would hear their voices loud and clear,” Schiff said. “Californians want a national right to reproductive freedom and they don’t want the government in the business of making that decision for women.”

    Schiff has been a longtime vocal advocate for access to abortion services, and said Tuesday that he supports establishing a national right to abortion access.

    A UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll in early August, co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times, found that more than half of likely California voters surveyed — 52% — said electing someone who “would be a strong voice in defending abortion rights in the Senate” was very important to them.

    Differences on government’s role on the economy

    The differences in how Schiff and Garvey see the role of government was fully on display when they were pressed on how to address the rising cost of goods and housing.

    “We’re much worse off than we were four years ago,” Garvey said. He said he supported more free-market policies, and knocked Schiff for what he described as “Schiff-flation.”

    Housing is a local issue and more federal regulation could lead to the government being “overinvolved,” Garvey said.

    Asked how he would help renters, he said he’d do so by getting the U.S. economy “roaring again.”

    Schiff said he would support more direct federal spending on housing, and as well as an expansion of Section 8 vouchers, a government subsidy that enables eligible tenants to find housing with private landlords. He also proposed a “renter’s tax credit,” akin to the tax deduction that allows homeowners to write off their mortgage interest payments.

    Garvey said he would support tariffs on imported goods shipped by “a company that threatens the success of an American company.” But, he said, he would prefer to see lower domestic taxes to foster more small businesses and reduce the need to import foreign goods.

    Schiff said he doesn’t support Trump’s “across-the-board tariffs,” which he said would lead to higher prices for consumers. He said he would support “targeted tariffs” when China dumps cheap goods into the country “to try to drive American businesses out of business.”

    Feinstein’s legacy stirs debate

    Throughout the debate, the political specter of the woman whose seat Schiff and Garvey are vying for loomed large.

    Right out of the gate, KABC anchor and moderator Marc Brown brought up Feinstein having authored an assault weapons ban in 1994, and asked Garvey whether he would take any action on guns were he elected.

    “I believe in the Constitution, I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe it will never be overturned, nor should we attempt to overturn that,” Garvey said. “I do have sympathy for all of those who may have been victims of shootings, but I think that the most important thing is a stringent background check that goes much deeper than it is today, in order to to preserve the integrity of the Second Amendment and to be able to provide for people to defend themselves.”

    Schiff said Californians need leaders like Feinstein who are willing to “stand up to” the National Rifle Assn.

    “I would support an assault weapons ban. I would support extended and universal background checks. I would support a ban on extended ammunition clips and my own bill, which would strip away the NRA’s immunity from liability,” Schiff said. “Mr. Garvey was asked just a couple weeks ago if he would support any gun control measure, and his answer was unequivocal, no, that is not what Californians are looking for. Californians want a leader like Dianne Feinstein, who will stand up to the NRA.”

    Later in the debate, Feinstein came up again, on the issue of environmental regulations — and whether Schiff would ease water restrictions on farmers.

    Schiff said he would not “support eviscerating” regulations, but would do what Sen. Feinstein did, which is “look for those opportunities where we can have a win, both for our farms, our cities and our environment.”

    Garvey said environmentalists in the state need to work with farmers, and that he is a “consensus builder” who can help make that happen. He called water the “platinum issue in California,” and one Schiff doesn’t know how to fix.

    Schiff would later evoke Feinstein’s name on the economy, saying he realizes many in California are struggling financially and that he will work with “community leaders and stakeholders in every part of this Golden State” in “Feinstein’s model.”

    “Mr. Schiff, you’re no Dianne Feinstein,” Garvey said. “I remember when this state was the heartbeat of America, and now it’s just a murmur.”

    Schiff, in response, said Feinstein was a friend of his, and would never “pretend to be the equal” of hers, because she was a “giant.” But he suggested he is far more similar to Feinstein than Garvey.

    “While Mr. Garvey was signing baseballs for the last 37 years, I was seeing presidents of both parties and governors of both parties sign my bills into law,” Schiff said.

    Back to Trump

    After the debate, in small gaggles with reporters, both Schiff and Garvey came back to another politician not in the room: Trump.

    Schiff said it was clear from the debate that Garvey is “for Trump” and his agenda.

    “He’s for states being able to ban abortion. He’s against any form of gun safety legislation. He’s for opening up the oil spigots. These are views right out of Project 2025 and Trump, but they are not in sync in California,” Schiff said.

    Garvey said he felt he had been unfairly tied to Trump.

    “People know that we’re two entirely different people,” he said.

    He said Schiff’s attempt to “paint me far-right” wouldn’t stand up, because “people know I’m conservatively moderate.”

    Garvey declined to say whether he would vote for Trump in November, but confirmed that he voted for Trump for a third time in this year’s primary.

    [ad_2]

    Kevin Rector, Laura J. Nelson

    Source link

  • (Media News) DeSantis Administration Threatens Tampa TV Station Over Abortion Rights Ad

    (Media News) DeSantis Administration Threatens Tampa TV Station Over Abortion Rights Ad

    [ad_1]

    Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s administration is threatening legal action against Tampa NBC affiliate WFLA for airing an abortion rights ad. The ad features a woman, Caroline, who says she needed an abortion and cancer treatment after being diagnosed with a brain tumor in 2022. Florida’s six-week abortion ban passed under DeSantis, would make such a procedure illegal.

    The Florida Department of Health sent a letter to WFLA, calling the ad “false” and “dangerous” and warning that legal action would follow if it isn’t removed within 24 hours. The state cited a law allowing it to remove material deemed a health “nuisance.” The ad supports Amendment 4, a November ballot measure seeking to overturn Florida’s near-total abortion ban.

    Critics, including local Democrats, have called the move “government bullying.” WFLA has not yet responded publicly.


    Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.

    MBFC Ad-Free 

    or

    MBFC Donation


    Follow Media Bias Fact Check: 

    BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mediabiasfactcheck.bsky.social

    Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Media_Bias_Fact_Check/

    Threads: https://www.threads.net/@mediabiasfactcheck

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/MBFC_News

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mediabiasfactcheck

    Mastodon: https://mastodon.social/@mediabiasfactcheck

    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mediabiasfactcheck/

    Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/mbfcnews/

    Found this insightful? Please consider sharing on your Social Media:

    [ad_2]

    Media Bias Fact Check

    Source link

  • Andy Kim and Curtis Bashaw clash over abortion and immigration in New Jersey Senate debate

    Andy Kim and Curtis Bashaw clash over abortion and immigration in New Jersey Senate debate

    [ad_1]

    NUTLEY, N.J. (AP) — Democratic Rep. Andy Kim and Republican Curtis Bashaw clashed over abortion and immigration Sunday in their first debate for New Jersey’s Senate seat, open this year after Bob Menendez’s conviction on bribery charges and resignation.

    Kim, a three-term representative from the 3rd District, hammered Bashaw for his support of former President Donald Trump and expressed skepticism about Bashaw’s position as an abortion rights supporter. Bashaw, a hotel developer from southern New Jersey and first-time candidate, sought to cast himself as a moderate and Kim as a Washington insider.

    The debate was briefly derailed at the start when Bashaw stopped speaking mid-sentence and stared ahead, nonresponsive. He was helped from the stage and left the room for roughly 10 minutes.

    “I got so worked up about this affordability issue that I realized I hadn’t eaten so much food today,” Bashaw said when he returned. “So I appreciate your indulgence.”

    Among the most pointed exchanges was over abortion. Both candidates support abortion rights, but Bashaw has said he supported the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that ended Roe v. Wade. New Jersey has enshrined abortion protections in state law.

    “I just fundamentally have a problem with using the term ‘pro-choice’ to describe yourself when you have talked about the important of the Dobbs decision being correctly decided,” Kim said.

    He also hammered Bashaw for his support of Trump, who has twice lost New Jersey’s electoral votes.

    “The one endorsement that he has made is for Donald Trump to be president of the United States,” Kim said. “And I guess we get a sense of his judgment from that.”

    Bashaw, who defeated a Trump-endorsed rival in the primary, didn’t defend the former president explicitly.

    “Elections are binary choices, and we all have to make a decision,” he said.

    He touted his own candidacy based on his credentials as a businessperson and resisted being typecast as a traditional Republican, pointing out that he backs abortion rights and is a married gay man.

    “I am pro-choice, congressman. I am for freedom in the home,” Bashaw said. “I don’t think government should tell me who I can marry. I don’t think it should tell a woman what she can do with her reproductive health choices.”

    Bashaw hammered on immigration repeatedly throughout, saying it’s “a crisis in New Jersey” and is costing the state.

    In a reflection of how Democratic-leaning New Jersey has been in Senate races, which Republicans haven’t won in more than five decades, Bashaw addressed his closing statements to women and moms of New Jersey.

    “I am a moderate, common-sense person that will work to be a voice for New Jersey,” he said.

    Kim declared his candidacy a day after Menendez’s indictment last year, saying it was time for the state to turn the page on the longtime legislator. It looked as if the Democratic primary in a must-win state for the party would be contentious when first lady Tammy Murphy entered the race, winning support from influential party leaders.

    But Kim challenged the state’s unique ballot-drawing system widely viewed as favoring the candidates backed by party leaders. A federal judge sided with Kim in his legal challenge, putting the system on hold for this election. Murphy dropped out of the race, saying she wanted to avoid a divisive primary, leaving a clear path to Kim’s nomination.

    What to know about the 2024 Election

    Kim first won office to the House in 2018, defeating Republican Rep. Tom MacArthur. He got national attention after the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection when he was photographed picking up trash in the building.

    Bashaw won a contested primary in June, defeating a Trump-backed opponent. The hotel developer from Cape May is running for office for the first time.

    Menendez was convicted this summer on federal charges of accepting bribes of gold and cash from three New Jersey businesspeople and acting as an agent for the Egyptian government. He has vowed to appeal the conviction.

    He resigned in August, capping a career in politics that spanned roughly five decades. Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy appointed George Helmy as interim senator. Helmy said he’ll resign after the election is certified so Murphy can appoint whoever wins the election to the seat for the remainder of Menendez’s term, which expires in January.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Walz says he’ll ‘own up’ when he misspeaks as the Democratic ticket steps up media interviews

    Walz says he’ll ‘own up’ when he misspeaks as the Democratic ticket steps up media interviews

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Nearly a week after verbal stumbles in the only vice presidential debate, Democrat Tim Walz used his debut campaign appearance on a Sunday news show to try to fend off criticism of his stand on abortion rights and “own up” to past misstatements.

    The interview on “Fox News Sunday” reflected a broader media blitz by presidential nominee Kamala Harris and her running mate as the Democrats seek to garner public attention in the final 30 days of the campaign against Republicans Donald Trump and JD Vance.

    Harris has taped an interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes” that will air Monday night. She is booked Tuesday on Howard Stern’s satellite radio show, ABC’s “The View” and “The Late Show” with Stephen Colbert on CBS. Her interview on the podcast “Call Her Daddy” is scheduled to be released later Sunday. Walz will be on Jimmy Kimmel’s ABC show on Monday.

    Walz’s Fox appearance also touched on the turmoil in the Middle East, with anchor Shannon Bream pressing the Minnesota governor on whether Israel has a right to preemptively attack Iran’s nuclear and oil facilities in response to Tehran’s firing of missiles against Israel. It was a question that Walz did not fully answer during his debate this past week with Vance, an Ohio senator.

    Walz said Sunday that “specific operations will be dealt with at the time.” He said Israel has a right to defend itself and that Harris worked with Israel this past week to repel the Iranian attack. President Joe Biden said last week he would not support an Israeli strike on sites related to Tehran’s nuclear program.

    Walz defended a law that he signed as governor to ensure abortion protections, saying it “puts this puts the decision with the woman and her health care providers.” He questioned the statement by Trump that he would not sign a national abortion ban into law.

    On the economy, Walz said Harris’ proposals would make life more affordable for the middle class by helping with the construction of 3 million new homes and expanding tax credits for parents. He said tariffs floated by Trump could increase costs by an estimated $4,000 a year on a typical family.

    Walz also faced questions in the interview about misstatements pertaining to his military service, drunken driving arrest, infertility treatment for his family and claims to have been in Hong Kong before the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre in China.

    “I will own up when I misspeak,” Walz said.

    He said he believes voters are more concerned by the fact that Vance could not acknowledge during their debate that Trump lost the 2020 election to Biden and that there could restrictions on the infertility treatment of intrauterine insemination that his wife, Gwen, received.

    “I think they’re probably far more concerned with that than my wife and I used IUI to have our child and that Donald Trump would restrict that,” Walz said. “So I think folks know who I am.”

    Bream noted that Trump has come out in support of fertility treatments, even as he has said that abortion questions should be decided by states.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Most Colorado counties lack access to aid-in-dying, abortion or gender-affirming care at hospitals

    Most Colorado counties lack access to aid-in-dying, abortion or gender-affirming care at hospitals

    [ad_1]

    For the first time, Coloradans have a clear picture of where they can go for sometimes-controversial health services such as abortion, gender-affirming care or medical aid-in-dying.

    In much of the state, though, the answer is “nowhere close.”

    Hospitals are required to disclose data about restrictions on 66 services related to reproductive, gender-affirming and end-of-life care to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment under a law passed in 2023. Starting this month, they also must provide copies of their disclosure forms to patients ahead of their appointments.

    Only three Colorado counties — Denver, Douglas and Weld — have unrestricted access in at least one hospital to three services from the list that The Denver Post sampled.

    Access to gender-affirming surgery was especially limited; only 13 of Colorado’s 64 counties have a hospital without non-medical restrictions on a double mastectomy, also known as “top surgery,” for gender affirmation. (Eighteen counties have no hospital within their borders, and the rest either don’t offer mastectomies to anyone or restricted who could receive one.)

    Nor was access to the other sampled services much broader.

    Thirteen Colorado counties have a hospital that would assist with a request for medical aid-in-dying without religious or other non-medical limitations, and 15 have one that would provide comprehensive treatment for a miscarriage, which can include drugs and procedures used in induced abortions.

    Click to enlarge

    Facilities that restrict the services they offer aren’t likely to make changes because of the law — particularly since many of the restrictions stem from religious beliefs — but at least patients will know what to expect when they go for care, said Dr. Patricia Gabow, a former CEO of Denver Health who has written about the intersection of religion and health care.

    Of course, transparency only does so much for people who live in a county where the only hospitals are Catholic-owned, Gabow said. Catholic hospitals, which include those owned by CommonSpirit Health and some belonging to Intermountain Health, generally don’t offer contraception, sterilization, gender-affirming care, medical aid-in-dying or abortion.

    “People who live in Durango, I don’t know what they’re supposed to do,” she said.

    Mercy Hospital in that city follows Catholic ethical and religious directives for health care, and the closest hospital that offers comprehensive reproductive services or assistance with medical aid-in-dying is in Del Norte, about two and a half hours away.

    Catholic doctrine requires health care providers to “respect all stages of life,” and not participate in procedures such as medical aid-in-dying or sterilization without a medical reason, said Lindsay Radford, spokeswoman for CommonSpirit Health, which owns Mercy.

    The system’s hospitals work with patients and their families to provide appropriate pain and symptom relief as they near death, she said.

    “We respect and honor the physician-patient relationship, and medical decisions are made by a patient and their doctor. Patients who seek care at a CommonSpirit Health hospital or clinic are fully informed of all treatment options, including those we do not perform,” she said in a statement.

    Geographic and political differences

    Generally, access to potentially controversial services was greater in more areas with larger populations, though with significant exceptions.

    Both of Jefferson County’s hospitals, St. Anthony Hospital in Lakewood and Lutheran Hospital in Wheat Ridge, won’t allow measures to end a pregnancy if a fetus still has a heartbeat.

    The state’s form conflates “threatened” and “completed” miscarriages, said Sara Quale, spokeswoman for Intermountain Health, which owns Lutheran Hospital. The hospital doesn’t restrict care once a fetus has died, but if it still has a heartbeat, doctors attempt to treat whatever is causing the miscarriage, she said. The most common cause of miscarriages is a problem with a fetus’s chromosomes, which doesn’t allow it to survive and has no treatment.

    In contrast, people in rural Prowers County on the Eastern Plains can get comprehensive miscarriage treatment without driving elsewhere. So can residents of Rio Grande County.

    Local politics also don’t necessarily match up with access.

    The three counties that had at least one hospital offering unrestricted access to the three sampled services were deep-blue Denver and thoroughly red Weld and Douglas.

    While their residents might differ on many issues, Weld and Douglas counties shared one common characteristic with Denver: They’re home to at least one hospital owned by a secular system, such as UCHealth, Denver Health or HCA HealthOne.

    At least 22 hospitals in Colorado have religious restrictions on care options: 17 owned or formerly owned by Catholic organizations, and five affiliated with the Adventist faith. In some cases, when a hospital changes hands, provisions of the deal require the new owner to honor the seller’s religious and ethical rules, even if the buyer is secular.

    Some secular organizations also listed certain services as restricted.

    UCHealth generally doesn’t serve patients under 15, while Denver Health doesn’t provide abortions under certain circumstances because of concerns about losing federal funding, spokesman Dane Roper said.

    The seven HealthOne hospitals also had non-religious restrictions, but didn’t specify their nature. Banner Health didn’t respond to inquiries about service limitations at its five Colorado hospitals.

    Informed decision-making

    So far, Colorado is the only state that requires hospitals to directly tell patients when they don’t offer services for religious or other non-medical reasons, said Alison Gill, vice president of legal and policy with American Atheists, which supported the law as it went through the legislature.

    That provision will be important not only for Coloradans seeking care, but for people traveling to the state because of its welcoming policies around reproductive and gender-affirming care, she said.

    “We are encouraging other states to enact similar provisions because it is essential to provide patients with information about service availability so that they can make informed decisions about their health care,” she said.

    The law has some limitations, said Gabow, formerly of Denver Health. For example, an outpatient gynecology office owned by a religious health system doesn’t have to give patients the disclosure form, and insurers don’t have to include hospitals offering care without limitations in their networks, she said.

    Colorado’s law won’t inherently increase access to health care, but it may prevent surprises for patients who don’t know to look up the closest hospital’s religious affiliation or don’t realize it could affect them, said Dr. Sam Doernberg, a physician researcher at Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston.

    [ad_2]

    Meg Wingerter

    Source link

  • Virginia abortion patients, new report highlight barriers to accessing care despite fewer restrictions – WTOP News

    Virginia abortion patients, new report highlight barriers to accessing care despite fewer restrictions – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    A sign outside a clinic that provides abortions in Richmond, Va. (Sarah Vogelsong/Virginia Mercury) A sign outside a clinic that…

    This article was reprinted with permission from Virginia Mercury

    A sign outside a clinic that provides abortions in Richmond, Va. (Sarah Vogelsong/Virginia Mercury)

    Editor’s note: The Virginia Mercury is not using the last names of the women in this article to protect their privacy and safety. The accounts of all three women have been verified with medical records and by a medical professional with knowledge of their experiences.

    Nisa knew her third pregnancy was a non-starter. She didn’t know that she would fear death for 18 days while trying to get an abortion.

    “I felt like I had a ticking time bomb inside of me,” she said.

    This is because Nisa has Von Willebrand Disease, a genetic blood disorder that prevents clotting. It puts her at higher risk for bleeding to death during things like injuries, surgeries, or if she were to have a miscarriage.

    Her first two pregnancies had been challenging and once she had been diagnosed with the blood disorder, she’d decided not to have more children for fear of complications or passing the disease onto others. By the time she became unexpectedly pregnant last summer, she was also in the throes of Stage 4 endometriosis symptoms — a diagnosis that would later lead to her having a hysterectomy. She’d also had an endometrial ablation to treat endometriosis symptoms before finding out she was pregnant last summer — placing her in a more at-risk pregnancy.

    Under 10 weeks of gestation at the time, Nisa said she otherwise would have been able to take abortion medication. With her disease, she couldn’t. Surgical abortions also posed challenges because she needed to have specific medications and extra blood on standby. The procedure was denied by her local providers in coastal Virginia, she said, and the local Planned Parenthood facilities didn’t have the resources. A hospital was her best bet for completing the procedure, but it took 18 days to sort out an abortion at VCU Health in Richmond.

    Despite Virginia’s status as the least-restrictive Southern state for abortion access, Nisa wonders how many others may be falling through health care gaps as she did.

    “Virginia is not safe. We think we’re safe, but we’re not,” she said. “How do you treat a person who isn’t the standard in this post-Roe world?”

    Virginia’s barriers

    Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade two and a half years ago, states around the country have shored up their protections or enacted various bans and restrictions. And though Virginia is the least restrictive Southern state — and a bastion for out-of-state patients — a new report indicates some hurdles.

    In Virginia, abortion is legal for any reason until around 26 weeks, with limited exceptions for later abortions. In those cases, three physicians must attest that someone’s physical or mental health would be “irremediably impaired” if a pregnancy were to continue. Conversely, surrounding states have near-total bans or limits as low as 6 weeks on the procedure.

    Key findings from the RAND Corporation report noted how abortion law is currently housed in Virginia’s criminal code (a Class 4 felony for unlawfully conducted abortions), the three-physician threshold for some abortions, and lack of clarity on the “ability to provide second-trimester abortions in non-hospital settings.”

    Dr. William Fitzhugh, who runs clinics in Richmond, Newport News and Roanoke, said he’s seen a flux of out-of-state patients over the past two years. But sometimes, he’s had to refer patients elsewhere. For example, by the time a Tennessee patient had made it to one of his clinics, she was 28 weeks along, he said, so he referred her to Maryland where there are no gestation limits.

    “I worry for other women in gray areas like mine,” Nisa said. “I had family that could help watch my kids and I didn’t have to travel far, but I still had to travel in my own state. There are women who can’t take time off work or have childcare.”

    North Carolina resident Kishia ended up having to take time off work and her children had to miss school for a few days so they could travel to Fitzhugh’s Richmond clinic for her 14-year-old daughter to get an abortion.

    She called the experience “H-E-double-L.”

    More important, Kishia said, is the fact that her daughter Myasia has been in pain.

    At 19-weeks of gestation, she couldn’t legally obtain an abortion in North Carolina and being further into gestation means a more invasive abortion procedure. In these cases, small rods are typically placed in the cervix to prepare it for an abortion to occur the next day. Kishia said the family would have sought an abortion sooner if they could have.

    Myasia has had regular menstrual cycles, her mother said, and with bleeding in early gestation common in 15% to 25% of pregnancies, Myasia hadn’t realized right away that she was pregnant. By the time she did and told her mother, when they visited a clinic in Charlotte they were told she was too far along for the state’s 12-week limit.

    “People get abortions for different reasons,” Kishia stressed as she noted that people can have medical issues, or be young and not emotionally or financially ready to care for an unplanned child. In Myasia’s case, she is still technically a child herself.

    With a smile, Kishia said that she is grateful her family was able to connect with an abortion fund to offset travel costs. She said she doesn’t plan on having to go through their ordeal again.

    Kishia said she’s somewhat tuned in to state, congressional, presidential and gubernatorial elections. As her chance to vote in North Carolina this fall approaches, she’ll be thinking about abortion access and other reproductive rights.

    “I don’t think this should ever be banned,” she said.

    Legal challenges

    Another finding in the RAND report noted local-level abortion hurdles when it comes to city, town and county governments in the state. Such is the case in  parts of Southwest Virginia, where local governments have ordinances to deter the establishment of abortion clinics. A clinic in Bristol has been embroiled in lawsuits with its building’s landlords that threaten its existence. Conversely, Alexandria passed an ordinance to make it easier for clinics to open and Richmond recently transferred land for cheap to Planned Parenthood to set up another clinic in town.

    At the state level, democratic  lawmakers still plan to strengthen Virginia’s abortion access laws. In 2025, they plan to introduce a proposed constitutional amendment. It will need to pass two years in a row with a House of Delegates election in between before appearing on statewide ballots for voters to approve or reject. Placing protections in the constitution would make them less susceptible to partisan shifts in the legislature over time. Even Republican-leaning states have approved similar ballot measures in recent years, showing that it is not a totally partisan issue.

    It wouldn’t be the first time Virignia has tried to enshrine abortion access in its constitution. Similar proposals have failed in the two previous legislative sessions. A sticking point had been language that GOP lawmakers alleged was too broad and would go further than Roe’s legal framework.

    The language, much like language in other states’ passed amendments, would declare people have a right to abortion unless there is a “compelling state interest.”

    Where Roe balanced the right to obtain an abortion and health of the pregnant person with the potential life of a fetus, constitutionally protecting access within a state would operate similarly.

    It’s unclear what the language of the next attempted abortion amendment  would be but Sen. Ghazala Hashmi, D-Chesterfield — who plans to co-sponsor it again — said there will be more to discuss later this year.

    “We are still working on the language to ensure that our constitutional amendment effectively protects safe and legal access to abortion in Virginia.”

    [ad_2]

    Ivy Lyons

    Source link

  • Kari Lake’s ever-changing abortion views: A comprehensive timeline

    Kari Lake’s ever-changing abortion views: A comprehensive timeline

    [ad_1]


    Kari Lake, currently running for the Senate against Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego, built her fiery image around a fierce and uncompromising antiabortion stance during her failed 2022 campaign for governor. Abortion, of course, has been a hot political topic since the overturning of Roe v. Wade…

    [ad_2]

    TJ L’Heureux

    Source link

  • JD Vance reaches disgusting new low after calling rape and incest ‘inconvenient’ when discussing abortion rights

    JD Vance reaches disgusting new low after calling rape and incest ‘inconvenient’ when discussing abortion rights

    [ad_1]

    While defending his stance that abortion should be banned regardless of circumstances, J. D. Vance reached a new low by calling rape and incest “inconvenient.”

    When Donald Trump selected J. D. Vance as his running mate, he managed to put women’s abortion rights into further jeopardy. Many suspect that, given his pride in overturning Roe v. Wade and alleged ties to Project 2025, Trump will seek to further take away abortion access if elected into office. The Heritage Foundation, which is filled with Trump supporters and former administrative staff members, penned Project 2025 to outline MAGA’s plans to essentially dismantle democracy in America if Trump is elected. One of the agendas highlighted in the plan is to enact a nationwide abortion ban and defund Planned Parenthood. It also uses language that could threaten women’s access to IVF and contraceptives.

    Although Trump has claimed he isn’t interested in a nationwide abortion ban and wants to leave abortion rights in the hands of the states, his running mate is. In 2022, Vance stated, “I certainly would like abortion to be illegal nationally.” Upon his selection as vice president, he tried walking back his statement and claimed he agreed with Trump that abortion was a state issue. However, his chilling response to the topic of abortion law exceptions for rape and incest victims is a testimony to his extreme views on abortion rights.

    J. D. Vance’s heartless stance on incest and rape victims

    Ahead of the U.S. vice presidential debate between Vance and Tim Walz, Kamala Harris’ campaign account on X, Kamala HQ, resurfaced audio of Vance responding to a question about abortion rights. He was asked, “Should a woman be forced to carry a child to term after she has been the victim of incest or rape?” Vance immediately responded that it shouldn’t be about the victim but should solely be about “whether a child should be allowed to live even though the circumstances of that child’s birth are somehow inconvenient.”

    In the audio, he almost sounds sarcastic as he mentions how the child should live even if the circumstances of its conception are somehow inconvenient and problematic. Not only is he claiming that rape and incest are a mere “inconvenience,” but he seems to be expressing skepticism and annoyance that society and women would even so much as classify these crimes or the product of these crimes as “inconvenient.” He solely wants people to see pregnancy as a positive thing while basically excluding the woman or girl and the circumstances of their pregnancy completely from the equation. There aren’t even any words strong enough to describe the trauma and horror of a woman or child facing an unwanted pregnancy due to a sexual assault. According to Vance, though, it’s just a minor inconvenience that society should stop seeing as “problematic.”

    This isn’t the first time Vance’s horrific views on abortion rights for victims of rape and incest have arisen. Another time, when asked if there should be rape and incest exceptions for abortion laws, his chilling response was, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” Once again, he downplayed the seriousness of rape and incest, classifying these despicable crimes as a “wrong” equivalent to a woman having an abortion. He doesn’t even attempt to denounce those crimes, as his only concern is ensuring that women and children will have to pay the price for others’ crimes.

    These horrific statements may be raised during the vice presidential debate. Although he’ll likely try to deny them, they are on the record in audio and writing. Republican politicians may try stepping back from some of their extreme views for the sake of popularity, but their real sentiments aren’t hard to find. Pro-Trumper Charlie Kirk recently confirmed nonchalantly that if his 10-year-old daughter were left pregnant from a sexual assault, he would force her to deliver the baby and undergo the extreme trauma of childbirth. The thought of forcing anyone, whether a woman or a child, to give birth after being a victim of a horrific, life-altering crime should make one sick. Yet, conservatives like Vance tout their willingness to do this quite proudly.


    The Mary Sue is supported by our audience. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission. Learn more about our Affiliate Policy

    [ad_2]

    Rachel Ulatowski

    Source link

  • California sues Catholic hospital for denying emergency abortion to woman having a miscarriage

    California sues Catholic hospital for denying emergency abortion to woman having a miscarriage

    [ad_1]

    California attorney general sues hospital accused of denying emergency abortion


    California attorney general sues hospital accused of denying emergency abortion

    02:39

    California is suing a Catholic hospital for denying an emergency abortion to a woman who was miscarrying and sending her instead to another hospital miles away with a bucket and towels in case anything happened in the car on the way, according to the complaint.

    At a press conference Monday in Sacramento, Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the lawsuit against Providence St. Joseph Hospital in Eureka, Humboldt County. He was joined by the patient, Anna Nusslock, who was 15 weeks pregnant with twins when she went to the hospital on February 23 after her water broke.

    Anna Nusslock, California Attorney General Rob Bonta
    Anna Nusslock speaks at a press conference where California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced a lawsuit against a Providence St. Joseph Hospital for allegedly denying Nusslock emergency abortion care, September 30, 2024.

    KOVR


    According to the complaint, the doctor diagnosed Nusslock with previable preterm rupture of membranes (PPROM) and said her twins would not survive. The diagnosis also meant Nusslock was at risk for serious complications, including hemorrhaging, infection and death as the minutes passed without treatment.

    However, instead of providing emergency abortion care to preserve her health, according to the complaint:

    The doctor at Providence Hospital informed Anna that hospital policy prohibited them from providing Anna the needed treatment so long as one of Anna’s twins had detectable heart tones, unless Anna’s life was sufficiently at risk – that is, more at risk that it already was. Until such time, all they could do was watch and wait. Despite every doctor agreeing that Anna needed immediate intervention, Providence Hospital police would not allow it.

    Complaint: California v. St. Joseph Health Northern California

    As a result, Nusslock had to be driven to a small community hospital about 20 minutes away, with the hospital providing her with a bucket and towels “in case something happen[ed] in the car” on the way, the complaint said. By the time she reached the operating room at the second hospital, Nussbaum was “actively hemorrhaging,” according to the lawsuit. 

    Bonta said California law requires all hospitals to provide emergency abortion care and that Providence St. Joseph violated the state’s Emergency Services Law, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the Unfair Competition Law. The attorney general said he also moved for an injunction to guarantee that Providence St. Joseph patients receive prompt emergency abortion care. 

    “So even in California, a champion for reproductive freedom, we are not immune from practices like the one we’re seeing today,” said Bonta. “We will not stand by as it occurs. We will take action as we’re doing today and move to end it immediately.”

    According to the lawsuit, the Providence doctor recommended to Nusslock that she be helicoptered to the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center (UCSF) to obtain the emergency abortion, but Nusslock knew that her insurance would not cover the $40,000 cost of the flight. As stated in the complaint:

    When Anna asked whether it would be advisable to drive to UCSF instead, her doctor told her: “If you try to drive, you will hemorrhage and die before you get to a place that can help you.”

    “Providence Hospital’s policy resulted in the denial of emergency medical care that my doctors recommended,” said Nusslock. “It inflicted on me, needless protracted pain, bleeding and trauma. It subjected me to further risk of medical complications by delaying the care I needed.”

    Providence St. Joseph told CBS News Sacramento it was reviewing the lawsuit. 

    “We are heartbroken over Dr. Nusslock’s experience earlier this year,” Providence said in an emailed statement. “Because the case is in active litigation and due to patient confidentiality, we cannot comment on the matter.” 

    [ad_2]

    Carlos Castañeda

    Source link

  • Fact-checking ad about Republican Laurie Buckhout’s abortion stance

    Fact-checking ad about Republican Laurie Buckhout’s abortion stance

    [ad_1]

    Democrats are accusing the Republican candidate in a competitive North Carolina congressional district of supporting strict abortion bans.

    Republican Laurie Buckhout is challenging incumbent Democrat Don Davis in North Carolina’s 1st Congressional District, which stretches from the state’s Triangle region through most of northeastern North Carolina. Political analysts expect it to be the closest of North Carolina’s 14 congressional races and could play a major role in determining which party controls the House of Representatives.

    House Majority PAC, a political action group that helps elect Democrats to Congress, launched a television ad the week of Sept. 10 to attack Buckhout and boost Davis’s chances.

    A woman in the ad says: “We don’t need an outsider like Laurie Buckhout trying to get to Congress to pass a national abortion ban, allowing politicians to ban abortions with no exceptions and prosecute women if they get an abortion, treating women right here like criminals.”

    The ad gives a misleading impression of Buckhout’s abortion stance. 

    National abortion ban

    To support the claim that Buckhout would pass a national abortion ban, the ad cites a Feb. 21 Hertford-based Perquimans Weekly newspaper article. Perquimans Weekly is a product of the Daily Advance newspaper in Elizabeth City, North Carolina.

    The newspaper asked Buckhout if she would support a national ban on abortion. Buckhout’s response was broad. 

    “As the only candidate to be endorsed by the pro-life SBA (Susan B. Anthony) List, I believe every life is precious and would vote to preserve life, including the mother’s,” she said.

    House Majority PAC spokesperson CJ Warnke said Buckhout signaled her intentions for a national abortion ban by citing her endorsement from the Susan B. Anthony advocacy group. Susan B. Anthony says its mission is to “end abortion.”

    Buckhout previously told Spectrum News 1 that she thinks a national ban should be discussed, the network reported. PolitiFact NC found no statement in which Buckhout cited a national abortion ban as one of her goals. 

    Abortion ban exceptions

    But the ad did not mention this: In the same article in which Buckhout was asked about a national abortion ban, she specifically said she supports exceptions for abortion.

    “I support consensus limits on late-term abortions, with reasonable exceptions, when scientific evidence proves the baby can feel pain,” Buckhout said in the article.

    The ad not only fails to make that clear, its visuals give the opposite impression.
    When the ad’s narrator talks about abortion exceptions, the Perquimans Weekly citation appears on screen and text shows Buckhout’s name above the words: “No exceptions for rape or incest.”

    Warnke argued the ad’s claim about “no exceptions” wasn’t about Buckhout’s statement in the newspaper — but what she would allow other politicians to do. 

    “Buckhout is ‘trying to get to Congress to pass a national abortion ban’ and is ‘allowing politicians to ban abortions with no exceptions and prosecute women if they get an abortion,’” Warnke said.

    Because Buckhout agrees with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling that allowed states to restrict abortion as much as they want, Warnke said that means she’s OK with states banning the abortion in all circumstances.

    Ten states ban abortion without exceptions for cases of rape or incest, according to the health policy research group KFF. Every state that bans abortion includes an exception for the life of the pregnant woman, the group found.

    In a Nov.13 podcast interview, Buckhout said the Supreme Court “did the right thing” when it overturned Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 decision that held abortion access was constitutionally protected.

    Prosecuting women

    When the ad mentions criminal repercussions for women who get abortions, text on the screen points to an April 30 Time magazine article. PolitiFact NC found no references to Buckhout in Time.

    Asked about this, Warnke told PolitiFact NC that the ad referred to former President Donald Trump’s interview with Time magazine in which Trump was asked if states should monitor women’s pregnancies to track whether they’ve broken abortion laws. Trump declined to give his opinion, citing states’ rights. 

    “It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not. It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions,” Trump told Time.

    House Majority PAC argued that, because Trump endorsed Buckhout, she will follow his lead on the issue of allowing states to monitor women’s pregnancies.

    The ad’s narrator, though, doesn’t make clear that she’s talking about laws in other states. The narrator says Buckhout would allow politicians to prosecute women if they get an abortion, treating women “right here” like criminals.

    The ad misrepresents Buckhout’s position, campaign spokesperson Jonathan Felts said.

    “Buckhout is pro-life, but has never said she is opposed to exceptions. And the pro-Don Davis group knows this. But they lie about it anyway,” Felts said. 

    Our ruling

    The ad accuses Buckhout of “trying to get to Congress to pass a national abortion ban, allowing politicians to ban abortions with no exceptions and prosecute women if they get an abortion, treating women right here like criminals.”

    This is misleading.

    Buckhout has said a national abortion ban should be discussed and that she would “vote to preserve life.” But her comments on this topic have been vague and lacking in detail. We found no evidence she’s actively campaigning in favor of a federal law restricting abortion, as the ad suggests.

    The PAC argued that Buckhout’s support of the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe vs. Wade and returned to the states the responsibility for creating their own abortion laws shows she would enable state lawmakers to pass abortion restrictions that don’t include exceptions or that criminalize women. 

    But Buckhout has explicitly stated that she supports exceptions for abortion. House Majority PAC produced no credible evidence that she has said she wants to prosecute women who break abortion laws.

    We rate this claim Mostly False.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Georgia’s heartbeat law ruled unconstitutional, abortion services to resume statewide

    Georgia’s heartbeat law ruled unconstitutional, abortion services to resume statewide

    [ad_1]

    Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney ruled Monday afternoon Georgia’s heartbeat law which bans abortions at six weeks of pregnancy is unconstitutional.  The Georgia’s Living Infants Fairness and Equality (LIFE) Act, bans most abortions the moment “a detectable human heartbeat” is present. 

    Cardiac activity can be detected by ultrasound in cells within an embryo that will become the heart. That process could take place as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, before many pregnancies are detected. 

    Georgia is one of fourteen states where such abortion bans are enforced. As a result, abortions can resume beyond six weeks in Georgia until 22 weeks of pregnancy.

    Here is a portion of McBurney’s ruling: 

    “While the State’s interest in protecting “unborn” life is compelling, until that life can be sustained by the State — and not solely by the woman compelled by the Act to do the State’s work — the balance of rights favors the woman.”

    The Republican majority in the General Assembly passed the Living Infants and Equality (LIFE) Act in 2019. The law bans abortion in Georgia after a fetal heartbeat appears. The law included exceptions for rape, incest, and “medical emergencies,” defined as a life-threatening condition or threat of irreversible physical impairment to the mother.

    Consequently, federal courts blocked the law from taking effect until 2022, after the United States Supreme Court overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

    Georgia Democrats are celebrating the victory while preparing for the possibility McBurney’s ruling will be subject to appeal. 

    “Today’s decision is a critical victory for reproductive freedom in Georgia, reaffirming that politicians have no place in our personal medical decisions. While I am encouraged by this ruling, the work to restore reproductive freedom is far from over. Courts alone cannot protect our rights.

    United States Representative Nikema Williams, D-Georgia, speaks during a press conference on Saturday, June 1, 2024 in Decatur, Georgia. (Photo: Itoro N. Umontuen/The Atlanta Voice)

    We need federal protections for the right to make decisions about our bodies and futures now more than ever. I will continue fighting in Congress to ensure that everyone, no matter their zip code, has access to the full range of reproductive healthcare, including abortion.”

    The reproductive rights group SisterSong filed a lawsuit challenging the law. They won an initial ruling by McBurney in November 2022 declaring the ban unconstitutional. However, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed McBurney’s decision one year later. The body sent the case back to Fulton County Superior Court, leading to Monday’s decision.

    McBurney says women cannot do the State’s work

    Additionally, McBurney’s order says “until that life can be sustained by the State — and not solely by the woman compelled by the Act to do the State’s work — the balance of rights favors the woman.” 

    Georgia State Senator Sonya Halpern, D-Atlanta, speaks inside the Georgia Senate chambers on Monday, February 26, 2024. (Photo: Itoro N. Umontuen/The Atlanta Voice)

    “Today’s ruling is a win for women across Georgia, who once again have the right to make decisions about their own bodies,” says Georgia State Senator Sonya Halpern. “While we know this decision will likely face appeal, this moment offers hope to countless women who deserve the dignity and freedom to make their own healthcare choices. We will continue to fight to defend these rights for women across our state.”

    Republicans promise to keep fighting for abortion restrictions

    Governor Brian Kemp, who signed the bill into law on May 7, 2019, issued the following statement:

    “Once again, the will of Georgians and their representatives have been overruled by the personal beliefs of one judge. Protecting the lives of the most vulnerable among us is one of our most sacred responsibilities, and Georgia will continue to be a place where we fight for the lives of the unborn.”

    Unlike other states, Georgia does not have a mechanism allowing initiatives to appear on a ballot. As such, there are at least ten states that have the option to codify abortion access into their state’s constitution. However, Democrats have continually fought to make abortion access a central issue heading into November’s elections. 

    On the other hand, McBurney’s ruling also says that Georgia’s heartbeat bill induces women into a legal fight. According to his order, Georgia’s abortion ban makes women the inherent property of the State. Why? Their access to care is, “decided by majority vote.” McBurney continues, “Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted, not-yet-viable fetus to term violates her constitutional rights to liberty and privacy, even taking into consideration whatever bundle of rights the not-yet-viable fetus may have.”

    A cautionary tale regarding abortion bans

    Georgia’s abortion ban was held to harsh scrutiny as the story of Amber Nicole Thurman received more notoriety. Thurman, 28, went to Piedmont Henry Hospital in suburban Atlanta with signs of sepsis in August 2022. She had taken USDA-approved  mifepristone and misoprostol to end her pregnancy. It took 20 hours for doctors to intervene with a dilation and curettage procedure. That procedure had become a felony under Georgia’s abortion ban with few exceptions. Thurman passed away. First reported by ProPublica, Thurman’s ordeal is the first publicized case of a woman dying as a result of Georgia’s abortion ban. 

    Georgia State Representative Dar’Shun Kendrick poses for a photograph outside of the House Chamber inside the Georgia State Capitol on February 22, 2024. (Photo: Itoro N. Umontuen/The Atlanta Voice)

    “Finally a judge that understands that life and liberty are paramount to our democracy,” says Georgia State Representative Dar’shun Kendrick, a Democrat representing State House District 95, which contains portions of Lithonia plus DeKalb, Gwinnett and Rockdale Counties. Life and liberty for the mother [are] first and foremost.”

    What’s next?

    Vice President Kamala Harris has called for codifying Roe v. Wade into federal law. Conversely, former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, supports leaving the abortion issue to the states.

    A portrait of Debra Shigley on April 13, 2024, in Alpharetta, Georgia. (Photo by: Kevin Lowery)

    “I applaud this ruling, and this is a win because abortion is once again legal in Georgia today,” says Debra Shigley, a candidate for Georgia State House District 47. “Will it be tomorrow? We can expect an appeal from the State, and possible temporary suspension of the ruling by the Georgia Supreme Court.

    This fight for our reproductive rights is still very much ongoing no matter how the Georgia Supreme Court rules. Republicans including, [Speaker Pro Tempore] Jan Jones, have made their intent very clear. We know exactly what their playbook will be in the next legislative session. That is exactly why we need to elect pro-choice candidates to ensure reproductive freedom in Georgia.”

    [ad_2]

    Itoro N. Umontuen

    Source link

  • Prep for the vice presidential debate with fact-checks

    Prep for the vice presidential debate with fact-checks

    [ad_1]

    Republican Ohio Sen. JD Vance and Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz will face off for the first time Oct. 1 at the CBS News vice presidential debate in New York City.

    This is the only scheduled vice presidential debate for the 2024 election, and it comes just three weeks after the first, and likely only, presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris.

    PolitiFact has scrutinized more than a dozen recent statements from Vance and Walz since each man became his party’s VP nominee. Here’s how accurate their talking points have proven so far.

    Vance’s false and misleading claims about immigrants

    Vance was among the first politicians to spread the unsubstantiated claim that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were killing and eating pets. During the Sept. 10 presidential debate, Trump repeated this baseless rumor. In the weeks since, Vance has used selective data to exaggerate Springfield’s problems amid the migrant influx.

    Vance cherry-picked crime data to link the immigration uptick to rising murders, saying they “are up by 81%.” From 2021 to 2023, murders in Springfield rose from five to nine — an 80% increase. But FBI homicide data also showed that the number of homicides in Springfield fluctuated without a clear trend from 2012 to 2022, and a crime data expert cautioned against making annual comparisons in places where less than one homicide is reported each month.

    Vance also claimed the number of communicable diseases, such as HIV and tuberculosis, in Springfield have “skyrocketed” because of the increase in Haitian immigrants. This is Mostly False. Not including COVID-19 cases, the overall communicable disease rate in Clark County, where Springfield is, has generally dropped since 2018, with the exception of HIV cases. The county cautions that its rates may be inflated because 2020 Census data does not account for population increases. Public county data doesn’t separate case numbers by city or demographics, so public health experts cautioned against tying changes in case rates to immigrants.

    When discussing immigrants in the U.S. more broadly, Vance mischaracterized one of Harris’ proposals, saying she “wants to give $25,000 to illegal aliens to buy American homes.” But Vance is filling in blanks about a proposal that we know little about. Harris has not detailed her plan or said who would qualify for this first-time homebuyer assistance.

    Walz’s attacks on Vance and Project 2025

    Like Harris, Walz routinely works in warnings about Trump and Vance embracing proposals from Project 2025, even though the Trump-Vance campaign has distanced itself  from the 900-page policy manual for the next Republican administration.

    Walz said Vance “literally wrote the foreword for the architect of the Project 2025 agenda.” This is True. Vance wrote the foreword for Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts’ forthcoming book, “Dawn’s Early Light.” The Heritage Foundation led the network of groups that created the policy handbook.

    However, Walz has also wrongly described Project 2025’s goals. He falsely claimed it requires women to register with a new federal agency if they get pregnant. The manual does not mention, nor call for, a new federal agency to be created for pregnancy registration. It recommends that states provide more detailed and consistent abortion and miscarriage reporting to the federal government.

    Vance’s attacks on Walz’s military and political records

    Vance has sought to negatively reframe Walz’s 24-year military career with the Nebraska and Minnesota National Guards. In August, Vance said, “When Tim Walz was asked by his country to go to Iraq, do you know what he did? He dropped out of the Army and allowed his unit to go without him.”

    This has an element of truth but misstates the timeline in ways that could leave a misleading impression, so Vance’s claim rates Mostly False. Walz retired from the Minnesota National Guard in May 2005 to run for Congress. He submitted retirement paperwork five to seven months beforehand.

    After Walz filed congressional candidacy paperwork in February 2005, his Minnesota National Guard battalion received a March 2005 notification for a potential deployment within two years, not immediately. Walz’s battalion was not officially ordered to go to Iraq until July 2005, two months after Walz retired.

    Vance has also attacked Walz for saying in 2018 that he wanted to get “weapons of war that I carried in war” off the streets. Vance said Walz “has not spent a day in a combat zone,” which is True.

    On Walz’s gubernatorial record, Vance said Walz enacted a law that would “take children away from their parents if the parents don’t want to consent to sex changes.” But that’s False, the law Walz signed does not do that. It amended the law governing which court could have temporary jurisdiction over child custody cases involving more than one state.

    Walz’s attacks on Trump’s record

    Walz has characterized the Trump-Vance campaign as antiunion, saying that when Trump was president, he “cut overtime benefits for millions of workers.” That’s Mostly False.

    In 2016, former President Barack Obama’s administration set a rule that would have raised the salary threshold for overtime pay. But a judge struck it down before it took effect, and the incoming Trump administration dropped a challenge against the ruling. The Trump administration set its own rule to raise the salary threshold for overtime pay, which was lower than the Obama-era policy. The Trump rule did not amount to a “cut.”

    Walz has also blamed Trump for racking up the federal government’s debt, saying Trump “added more to the national debt than any other president.” That’s Half True.

    Looking at the increase in federal debt, Trump ranks first for debt added in a single term. However, Biden is projected to pass Trump’s total by the time he leaves office in January 2025. Using a different method — counting how much future debt a president’s policies created — Trump is projected to about double Biden’s debt amount.

    More fact-checks of Vance and Walz’s statements

    • Vance said Harris is “calling for an end to the child tax credit.” That’s Pants on Fire!

    • Walz said former President Ronald Reagan was “the last union member on a national ticket.” That’s False.

    • Vance said Trump could have destroyed the Affordable Care Act, but “he chose to build upon (it).” That’s False.

    • Vance said a zero-tolerance policy during the Trump administration “led to less family separation than under Kamala Harris’ border policies.” That’s False.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Debra Shigley: No right, and NOBODY, is safe

    Debra Shigley: No right, and NOBODY, is safe

    [ad_1]

    Like many women in Georgia and across the country — I was shaken to my core the day that Roe v. Wade was overturned. I am a mother of five children. I know there is no safe pregnancy without access to abortion care. Without control over our bodies, we are not free. The warnings of what the Supreme Court intended to do didn’t lessen the shock – I felt a deep anger, sadness, and grief. I knew that the Georgia abortion ban was deadly. Now I feel that same anger, sadness, and grief as I see the worst case scenario come to pass. 

    Just this week, we learned of Amber Nicole Thurman, a 28 year-old mother, who died after becoming septic when doctors delayed performing a routine Dilation and Curettage (D&C) procedure. Thurman suffered in pain for more than 20 hours, her organs failing. When doctors finally operated, it was too late.

    In the weeks following the Dobbs decision, I could not forget the images of abortion bans immediately being signed into law across the country. I was disturbed when I noticed the pattern of who was in the room, singing these bills and banning our rights. Or moreover, who wasn’t in these rooms. Majority of these decision makers were men, men who not only were stripping me and every woman I love of our rights, but doing so with such little concern for the lives they so recklessly put at stake. I felt helpless. I was helpless. Plus, I immediately began to question where we go from here—and what role I would play in restoring abortion access to my friends, neighbors, and daughters. 

    The State of Georgia is culpable

    The same Georgia lawmakers – the same men – who were so eager to make abortion illegal, passed a law making a D&C procedure a felony with very few exceptions. This law directly led to Amber Nicole’s death. A D&C is a minor and routine procedure, but the law restricting it led to a little boy who now has to grow up without his mother. How can we expect that doctors will be able to provide the appropriate care when they are operating in a climate of fear of losing their careers? This fear is exactly what this law is designed to create – a chilling effect on medical care needed by women.

    Worst of all, Amber Nicole’s story isn’t unique. A woman named Candi Miller also died after being unable to seek care due to Georgia’s restrictive and controlling laws. How many more women’s stories are not being told in national news? How many more women are going to die because of a draconian law, put into place by Republican lawmakers who have no business acting as medical professionals? Additionally, how many women have already died? Amber and Candi’s deaths were preventable. Maternal health experts determined they were due to lack of access to safe abortion care, the same safe abortion care that was stolen from us. 

    Nobody is safe

    When Governor Kemp signed our state’s abortion ban into law, he said that ‘Georgia is a state that values life.’ And yet he has let many innocent women die because they needed medical care.  Georgia already has one of the worst maternal mortality rates in the country. Black women are three times more likely to die during pregnancy than their White counterparts. In the post-Roe world, Georgia’s maternal mortality rate is increasing, rising by 40% for women of color. 

    This is not about valuing life, this is about controlling women and denying us our privacy, dignity, and freedom. One of my strongest memories from law school is learning about the steady progression of individual rights secured in America. What alarms me is this rolling back of rights. We are witnessing the roll back of our nation’s agreement that we are all entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

    In this climate, no rights, and no body is safe. Amber Nicole should be alive. Candi Miller should be alive. Pregnancy should never result in otherwise preventable death – women exercising bodily autonomy should not result in death.

    I decided to run for office because I needed to speak up.

    I cannot tell my daughter that her brother can make his own health care decisions, but she can’t. Also, I cannot allow my daughters to feel violated by their lack of bodily autonomy within this state. Lastly, I certainly cannot sit by and watch my daughters continue to be in the same kind of danger they are in now. I cannot, and I will not.

    Debra Shigley is a lawyer, former reporter and mother of five. Shigley is currently a candidate for Georgia House District 47. The opinions expressed are her own.

    [ad_2]

    Opinion by Debra Shigley

    Source link

  • Abortion-rights groups are courting Latino voters in Arizona and Florida

    Abortion-rights groups are courting Latino voters in Arizona and Florida

    [ad_1]

    PHOENIX (AP) — When Lesley Chavez found out she was pregnant at age 16, she saw her daughter as a blessing from God and never considered an abortion, a view reinforced by her devout Christian mother. If she could have voted at the time, Chavez would have opposed expanding abortion access.

    But 10 years later — as she and other Arizona residents braced for a possible ban on nearly all abortions — Chavez drove over 300 miles (480 kilometers) to California to help a friend get one. That experience with someone she knew who was struggling financially and couldn’t support another child was the final push that changed Chavez’s stance on the issue.

    “I just kind of felt like, dang, if I didn’t have nobody, I would want someone like me to be there. I would want someone that’s not going to judge me and actually help,” she said.

    Now, she helps deliver that message to other Latinos in Arizona, one of nine states that is considering constitutional amendments to enshrine abortion rights.

    As abortion-rights groups court Latino voters through door-knocking and Spanish-language ads, they say the fast-growing group could determine the outcome of abortion ballot measures across the U.S., particularly in states such as Arizona and Florida with large Latino populations.

    Like other Americans, Latinos have an array of personal feelings and connections to the issue that can be impacted by religion, culture, country of origin and other things, organizers say. But their views are often misunderstood and oversimplified by people who assume they are all Catholic and, therefore, anti-abortion, said Natasha Sutherland, communications director for Floridians Protecting Freedom, which is behind an abortion measure in that state.

    A recent poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that about two-thirds of Hispanic Americans think abortion should be legal in all or most cases. About 4 in 10 U.S. Hispanics identify as Catholic, about one-third as Protestant or “other Christian,” and about one-quarter as religiously unaffiliated.

    Efforts to reach Latino voters often hinge on one-on-one conversations — “old-school, boots on the ground organizing,” said Alex Berrios, co-founder of the grassroots Florida group Mi Vecino, or “my neighbor.”

    Overall, about 14.7% of eligible voters, or 36.2 million people, are Latino, according to the Pew Research Center.

    In Florida, 18% of registered voters are Hispanic, or 2.4 million people, according to an October 2023 analysis by the nonpartisan Latino advocacy organization NALEO Educational Fund. More than 855,000 Latinos are expected to cast ballots in Arizona for the November election, making up about 1 in 4 Arizona voters, according to NALEO.

    As a lead canvasser for the grassroots Arizona group Poder in Action, Chavez has knocked on the doors of ambivalent Latino voters, persuading them to support a measure that would guarantee access to abortion until fetal viability, a term used by health care providers to describe whether a pregnancy is expected to continue developing normally or whether a fetus might survive outside the uterus. It’s generally considered to be around 23 or 24 weeks.

    Living United for Change in Arizona, or LUCHA, moved the measure to the top of its canvassing script because voters kept bringing up the issue. LUCHA campaigns to low-income Latino, Black and Indigenous voters.

    What to know about the 2024 Election

    “People initiated the conversation like, ‘Oh yeah I just heard on the news what happened with the 1800 abortion ban,’” Abril Gallardo, chief of staff for LUCHA, said, referring to the 1864 abortion ban that the Arizona Supreme Court signaled in April the state could enforce but that lawmakers later repealed.

    Another group, Mi Familia Vota, has put $200,000 toward its efforts to mobilize Latino voters to support the measure.

    The official campaign against the proposal— It Goes Too Far — has enlisted Hispanic volunteers in its effort to sway voters.

    Abortion is one of the most important issues in the upcoming election to about 4 in 10 Hispanic voters, below the economy, crime, and health care, and about on par with immigration, according to the AP-NORC poll.

    In Florida, abortion is illegal after the first six weeks of pregnancy. The November ballot measure would legalize abortion until fetal viability.

    “The Latino community is a huge part of any campaign in Florida,” Sutherland said. “We can’t win this without Latinos, so Latino outreach is essential.”

    Sutherland said her group uses bilingual phone banking and canvassing efforts, hosted a bilingual campaign launch rally, hired a Latino outreach manager and holds weekly Spanish-language meetings to discuss strategy.

    The opposing campaign has ads in Spanish and has a Spanish version of its website called “Vota No En La 4.”

    Berrios’ group, Mi Vecino, has focused on Florida’s 9th Congressional District, which includes Osceola County and Orlando and was the first majority Hispanic district to meet the signature requirement for putting abortion rights on the ballot. Berrios tells supporters of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump that they can vote for him and for abortion rights.

    “We saw a need for a culturally competent nonpartisan effort to engage and educate Hispanic voters on reproductive freedom,” Berrios said.

    For Latino men especially, it has been helpful to include messaging about limiting government decisions in family and health care decisions, several Florida organizers said.

    “You need to have conversations that are tailored to the person in front of you. For folks in Florida, for example, who escaped communism in their own countries, they’re really moved by things having to do with freedom and the power to determine the conditions of their own lives. We try to be as nuanced as possible,” said Lupe Rodriguez, executive director of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice.

    Rocio Garcia, an assistant professor of sociology at Arizona State University, said that over time, Latinas, including those who are Catholic, have swung toward supporting abortion access, even if they would not get an abortion themselves.

    Alyssa Sanchez, a 23-year-old Mexican American who is Catholic, plans to vote for Arizona’s measure. Her family members have been supportive of the issue as long as she could remember.

    “You do still have to take Bibles, sayings, everything about the Catholic religion to your own interpretation,” said Sanchez, a lifelong Arizona resident. “And then battling that thought it just comes down to, I believe in people’s choice to their own bodies stronger than I believe in anything else.”

    Sinsi Hernández-Cancio, vice president for health justice at the National Partnership for Women & Families, said abortion-rights supporters cannot afford to assume Latino voters do not support abortion rights, especially in majority-Republican Florida, which requires 60% voter support to pass a constitutional amendment.

    “If you’re going to approach any voter with false assumptions, you’re not going to be able to connect,” she said.

    ___

    Fernando reported from Chicago.

    [ad_2]

    Source link