ReportWire

Tag: Abortion

  • FACT FOCUS: A look back at some of the questionable claims made during the Democratic convention

    FACT FOCUS: A look back at some of the questionable claims made during the Democratic convention

    [ad_1]

    The Democrats’ star-studded, four-day convention drew to a close as Vice President Kamala Harris accepted the party’s nomination for president. The festivities were high on entertainment and praise for Harris and running mate Tim Walz. But while most speakers stuck to the script — and the facts — the convention was not without false information or statements that begged for additional context.

    Here’s a look at the facts around some of those claims.

    Trump’s views on an abortion ban

    VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS said Trump would “ban medication abortion and enact a nationwide abortion ban with or without Congress.”

    THE FACTS: While Trump has said in the past that he would support a national ban on abortion, he said Thursday morning on Fox & Friends: “I would never. There will not be a federal ban. This is now back in the states where it belongs.”

    In April, he said he would leave the issue up to the states in a video on his Truth Social platform.

    Days later, asked by a reporter upon arriving in Atlanta whether he would sign a national abortion ban, Trump shook his head and said “no.”

    But just a month earlier Trump suggested he’d support a national ban on abortion around 15 weeks of pregnancy. He also often brags about appointing the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the constitutional right to an abortion.

    Trump has previously supported a federal ban on abortion at 20 weeks of pregnancy. In a letter to anti-abortion leaders during his 2016 campaign, Trump expressed his commitment to this view by vowing to sign the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

    The Republican presidential nominee advocated for the bill again in 2018, at that year’s annual March for Life festival in Washington. The bill, which included exceptions for saving the life of a pregnant woman, as well as rape or incest, was passed by the House in 2017, but failed to move forward in the Senate.

    Trump told CBS News on Monday that he would not enforce the Comstock Act to restrict the sale of abortion medication by mail. The act, originally passed in 1873, was revived in an effort to block the mailing of mifepristone, the pill used in more than half of U.S. abortions.

    Trump and Project 2025

    COLORADO REP. JASON CROW: “Donald Trump’s Project 2025 would abandon our troops, abandon our veterans, our allies and our principles.”

    THE FACTS: Many speakers at the convention have linked Trump to Project 2025. Trump has repeatedly disavowed the conservative initiative, saying on social media he hasn’t read it and doesn’t know anything about it. At a rally in Michigan, he said Project 2025 was written by people on the “severe right” and some of the things in it are “seriously extreme.” He has also denied knowing who is behind the plan.

    Project 2025 has also said it is not tied to a specific candidate or campaign. And yet, it is connected in many ways to Trump’s orbit. Some of the people involved in Project 2025 are former senior officials from the Trump administration. The project’s former director is Paul Dans, who served as chief of staff at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under Trump.

    Trump’s campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt was featured in one of Project 2025’s videos. John McEntee, a former director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office in the Trump administration, is a senior adviser. McEntee told the conservative news site The Daily Wire earlier this year that Project 2025’s team would integrate a lot of its work with the campaign after the summer when Trump would announce his transition team.

    What to know about the 2024 Election

    Trump’s running mate, Sen. JD Vance, penned the forward of a yet unreleased book written by Kevin Roberts, president of The Heritage Foundation, which created Project 2025.

    __ CROW again: “Trump plans to do Putin’s bidding by abandoning Ukraine and walking away from our NATO allies. In chapters two and three, he plans to fire our national security and military professionals and then replace them with MAGA loyalists.”

    THE FACTS: In regards to the Russia-Ukraine war, Project 2025 lays out three schools of thought about U.S. involvement, one of them being that it should not continue. However, it does not advocate for any one over the other.

    Crow’s claim that national security and military professionals will be replaced with Trump supporters does ring true. Among its recommendations are that senior CIA leaders “must commit to carrying out the President’s agenda and be willing to take calculated risks.” It also states that the National Security Council should be made up of “personnel with technical expertise and experience as well as an alignment to the President’s declared national security policy priorities.”

    Trump’s alleged comments about those captured or killed in military service

    ARIZONA SEN. MARK KELLY: “Trump thinks that Americans who have made the ultimate sacrifice are suckers and losers.”

    THE FACTS: Kelly was among many DNC speakers who brought up similar claims. He was referencing allegations first reported in The Atlantic on Sept. 3, 2020, that Trump made disparaging remarks about members of the U.S. military who have been captured or killed, including referring to the American war dead at a World War I cemetery outside Paris in 2018 as “suckers” and “losers.”

    But the truth is that it hasn’t been proven definitively, one way or the other, whether Trump actually made these comments.

    The Republican presidential nominee said the day the Atlantic story came out that it is “totally false,” calling it “a disgraceful situation” by a “terrible magazine.”

    Speaking to reporters after he returned to Washington from a campaign rally in Pennsylvania soon after, Trump said: “I would be willing to swear on anything that I never said that about our fallen heroes. There is nobody that respects them more. No animal — nobody — what animal would say such a thing?”

    And yet, a senior Defense Department official with firsthand knowledge of the events and a senior U.S. Marine Corps officer who was told about Trump’s comments confirmed some of his remarks to The Associated Press after the Atlantic story was published, including the ones about “suckers” and “losers.”

    Walz’s accomplishments as governor

    MINNESOTA SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR, touting Tim Walz’s accomplishments as governor of the state: “Tim has delivered — paid leave, school lunches and the biggest tax cut in Minnesota history.”

    THE FACTS: Over the last two years, Walz has indeed signed legislation to create a paid family and medical leave program in Minnesota, and for free school breakfasts and lunches for all students regardless of income.

    Walz also signed what his administration and Democratic legislative leaders have touted as the largest tax cut in state history, about $3 billion worth as part of the two-year budget approved last year. It included a one-time refundable tax credit of $260 for single filers and up to $1,300 for a family with three children. It also established a child tax credit of up to $1,750 per child for lower-income families, subject to income limits. In addition, it exempted more people from state taxes on Social Security income, but left the tax in place for higher-income seniors.

    But critics take issue with his characterization of it as the biggest tax cut in state history. The Center of the American Experiment, a conservative think tank, points out that low-income Minnesotans don’t pay the state income tax, so in its view giving them tax credits amounts to income redistribution and welfare — not tax cuts.

    Republican legislators tried to hold out for permanent tax cuts for everyone, but Democrats control both chambers of the Legislature and went for targeted relief instead.

    Bill Clinton’s keeping score

    FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON on Wednesday: “Since the end of the Cold War in 1989, America has created 51 million new jobs. I swear I checked this three times. Even I couldn’t believe it. What’s the score? Democrats 50, Republicans one.”

    THE FACTS: The math shows Clinton is technically right, but the underlying story is more nuanced. There were four recessions since the end of the Cold War — each of them beginning during the Republican presidencies of George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Donald Trump. That’s the simplest explanation for the trend outlined by Clinton.

    Let’s get precise: The U.S. economy has added almost 51.6 million jobs since January 1989, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That includes a net 1.3 million jobs added under Republicans.

    It’s worth noting that this simple scoreboard is incomplete. There can be reasons for a recession that have nothing to do necessarily with the president — as market economies can have minds of their own. There can be bad policy choices in previous administrations that led to downturns happening later. And job growth generally comes from the combination of rising populations, improvements in workers’ skills and the actions of private employers. The U.S. economy is big and diverse enough that areas in the industrial Midwest struggled even as parts of the Sunbelt boomed.

    After George H.W. Bush endured a brief downturn, the economy recovered and 2.3 million jobs were added during his term. But Americans still felt the economy was poor and elected Clinton.

    Growth jumped during Clinton’s eight years as more women entered the labor force and 22.9 million jobs were added. But shortly after he left office, the tech bubble in the stock market burst and the U.S. economy entered into a brief recession. The economy shed jobs for a little over two years, then mounted a comeback only to slam headfirst into the mortgage bust and the 2008 financial crisis that produced the Great Recession and mass layoffs. Still, over eight years, George W. Bush added a little over 2.1 million jobs because the U.S. population was still growing.

    Democrat Barack Obama inherited the disastrous economy in early 2009 and endured a grindingly slow but successful recovery. The U.S. economy added 11.3 million jobs.

    Trump took the presidency and promised an unprecedented economic boom. The job market continued to build on its health during Obama’s final four years, only to get crushed by the coronavirus pandemic as shutdowns for health reasons led to unemployment. As a result, the country had 3.1 million fewer jobs when his term ended.

    President Joe Biden oversaw a recovery with additional pandemic aid and other investments that accelerated hiring, but it was accompanied by higher inflation that left much of the public feeling pessimistic about the economy. Still, his presidency — still ongoing — has added more than 15.8 million jobs.

    Whether Trump said women should be punished for having abortions

    ALEXIS MCGILL JOHNSON, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, on Wednesday: “Do we want a president who said women should be punished for having abortions?”

    THE FACTS: Asked whether he would be comfortable with states deciding to punish women who access abortions after the procedure is banned, Trump said in an April interview with Time magazine: “The states are going to say. It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not. It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions.”

    Trump said outright during his 2016 campaign that women who get illegal abortions should receive “some form of punishment.” The comment came during a heated exchange with MSNBC host Chris Matthews at a town hall taping in Green Bay, Wisconsin.

    But Trump quickly did an about-face. His campaign sought within hours to take back his comment in two separate statements, ultimately saying he believes abortion providers — not their patients — should be the ones punished.

    The first statement said he believed the issue should rest with state governments, while the second entirely rejected the idea that a woman should face repercussions for undergoing an illegal abortion.

    “If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman,” Trump said in the second statement. “The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb.”

    Trump faced backlash from both abortion-rights supporters and anti-abortion activists, The Associated Press reported at the time.

    ___

    Associated Press writers Melissa Goldin in New York, Josh Boak in Chicago and Steve Karnowski in Minneapolis, contributed to this report.

    ___

    Find AP Fact Checks here: https://apnews.com/APFactCheck.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Oregon Doctor Testifies to U.S. Senate on Idaho’s Abortion Bans – KXL

    Oregon Doctor Testifies to U.S. Senate on Idaho’s Abortion Bans – KXL

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Dr. Amelia Huntsberger testified to U. S. Senators,  “I currently live and work in Oregon, but previously practiced medicine in rural Idaho for more than a decade. I was on the advisory board of the Idaho Perinatal Project, that worked to advance the health of moms.”

    The board certified OB/GYN says she and many other doctors who serve mothers have had to move out of Idaho, and to states like Oregon and Washington, after the U. S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade.

    “Idaho enacted some of the strictest abortion restrictions in the country, without exceptions to allow doctors to act to preserve a pregnant patient’s health.  Not even to prevent harm to organs or fertility, unless an abortion is necessary to prevent death.   The lawmakers who created these bills knew it. The cruelty was built in.”

    She added, “Doctors in Idaho like me tried to raise awareness of the harm from the abortion bans. I naively thought that if people just understood the laws, they’d change them.  As a result of talking publicly about abortion, we began to fear for the safety of our family. Just over a year ago, we packed our things and moved to Oregon.”

    Oregon U.S. Senator Ron Wyden is the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, which held a hearing about the impacts on women’s health.

    He said, “Women are miscarrying, suffering life threatening blood loss, losing their ability to bear future children.  They are dying because they were denied emergency medical care that they needed. Doctors are being targeted or forced to relocate to states where they can practice basic medicine.”

    Wyden described horrific scenes and agonizing choices.  “A woman may come into the emergency room with an ectopic pregnancy or bleeding out from a miscarriage.  Some states that have passed abortion bans into law claim that they contain exceptions for emergency care if a woman’s life is at risk. In reality, these exceptions, are forcing doctors to play lawyer and lawyers to play doctor.”

    Outside the hearing on the Capitol steps, Washington U. S. Senator Patty Murray said, “We should all refuse to accept a status quo in America where pregnant women are dying.”

     

     

     

    More about:

    [ad_2]

    Annette Newell

    Source link

  • Trump Tells Women They Won’t Be Worrying Their Pretty Little Heads About Abortion When He’s President

    Trump Tells Women They Won’t Be Worrying Their Pretty Little Heads About Abortion When He’s President

    [ad_1]

    Donald Trump, attempting to make inroads with women who are deeply concerned about how he’ll further decimate reproductive rights in a second term, claimed this week that he is their “protector” and that on his watch, they “will no longer be thinking about abortion anymore.” Which somehow managed to be creepy, infantilizing, and a uniquely stupid take on abortion. A real trifecta!

    Speaking at a rally on Monday night in Pennsylvania, Trump told the crowd, “I always thought women liked me. I never thought I had a problem. But the fake news keeps saying women don’t like me. I don’t believe it. You know why? They like to have strong borders. They like to have safety.” Shortly after, he told the women present, “You’re not going to be in danger any longer. You will no longer have anxiety from all of the problems our country has today. You will be protected and I will be your protector. Women will be happy, healthy, confident, and free. You will no longer be thinking about abortion.”

    X content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    There is so much to unpack here, starting with the idea that women will be “free” if the guy who took away the federal right to an abortion returns to power. Then there’s the claim that women will be “protected” by a guy who was found liable last year for sexually abusing and defaming a woman, and has a long history of disparaging women. (Remember when his response to Taylor Swift endorsing Kamala Harris was to declare “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT!” to his legions of followers? You should because it happened less than two weeks ago.)

    But mostly, there’s the bizarre assertion that women will “no longer be thinking about abortion” when he’s president, because what the actual fuck does that mean? It presumably has to do with Trump’s attempt to tie immigration to rape—as he has done for years—and to somehow suggest that under his draconian immigration policies, rape and pregnancies resulting from rape will no longer happen. Which, once again, shows just how little he knows about women and why the right to abortion is important.

    As people who are not Trump know, there are many, many reasons a person might “be thinking about abortion”—reasons that have nothing to do with rape* by the people he claims are destroying this country. Is Trump going to stop ectopic pregnancies from happening? Is he going to find cure for fatal fetal abnormalities? Is he going to ensure childcare is affordable so that a person who already has children can afford to have more?** Is he going to eliminate rape not just by the immigrants he demonizes but by people born in this country? Is he going to single-handedly stop all sperm from fertilizing eggs that don’t want to be fertilized?

    In a statement published by The New York Times, a spokesperson for the Harris campaign said, of Trump’s claims, “women know better. He tries to tell us what to think and what we care about. We will vote like our lives depend on it this November.”

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Trump Campaigns In North Carolina Following Damning CNN Investigation Into His Pick For Governor

    Trump Campaigns In North Carolina Following Damning CNN Investigation Into His Pick For Governor

    [ad_1]

    Donald Trump is campaigning in North Carolina on Saturday, just two days after CNN’s investigative reporting found that the former president’s chosen gubernatorial candidate in the state, Mark Robinson, made dozens of disturbing comments on a pornography website’s message board more than a decade ago.

    Robinson, who denied the claims, will apparently not be in attendance, according to AP sources.

    Among other alarming remarks made under the username “minisoldr,” Robinson said, unprovoked, “I’m a black NAZI!” He also admitted to “peeping” on women in public gym showers as a 14-year-old, claimed to like “tranny on girl porn!,” and referred to Muslims as “little rag-headed bastards.”

    CNN, according to reporters Andrew Kaczynski and Em Steck, identified Robinson by his email account and “by matching a litany of biographical details” from the posts to the Republican gubernatorial nominee.

    Robinson, who, if elected, would become North Carolina’s first Black governor, reportedly called Martin Luther King Jr. a “commie bastard,” “worse than a maggot,” a “ho f**king, phony,” and a “huckster.”

    “I’m not in the KKK. They don’t let blacks join. If I was in the KKK I would have called him Martin Lucifer Koon!” Robinson reportedly posted, writing in another instance that “Slavery is not bad. Some people need to be slaves. I wish they would bring it (slavery) back. I would certainly buy a few.”

    These posts were made over a decade ago, between 2008 and 2012, on “Nude Africa,” a pornographic website.

    In the years that followed, Robinson has repeatedly shared other hateful sentiments.

    In a 2017 Facebook post, Robinson said he was “so sick of seeing and hearing people STILL talk about Nazis and Hitler and how evil and manipulative they were” and warned against “The Communist” who “has been pushing this Nazi boogeyman narrative all these years.”

    Then, in another Facebook status the next year, Robinson wrote, “So if a woman who ‘transitioned’ into a ‘man’ marries and abuses a man who ‘transitioned’ into a ‘woman’ is it still’ violence against a woman?’ Will the feminist raise hell over it?”

    “I’m asking for a British Cigarette,” he continued.

    In 2020, Robinson told attendees at a Republican Women of Pitt County event that, “I absolutely want to go back to the America where women couldn’t vote.” (Vanity Fair’s Bess Levin compiled more receipts here.)

    For over a year, Trump has lauded the current North Carolina lieutenant governor, enthusiastically endorsing him as the state’s head of government.

    At the North Carolina Republican Party’s annual convention in June of 2023, Trump called Robinson “one of the great stars of the party, one of the great stars in politics.” That December, the former president held a fundraiser for him at his Florida Mar-a-Lago estate.

    “I think he has the chance to be one of the greatest leaders because, I’ve been with him a lot, I’ve gotten to know him, and he’s outstanding,” Trump said at that event. “He’s tough, and he’s smart, and he has tremendous heart.”

    “This is Martin Luther King on steroids,” Trump said at a rally in Greensboro, NC, in March of this year. “I told that to Mark. I said, ‘I think you’re better than Martin Luther King. I think you are Martin Luther King times two.’”

    It’s unclear if or how Trump will refer to Robinson in his rally remarks on Saturday. According to NBC News on Friday, Trump has been “facing calls both from his allies and from within his own campaign to pull his endorsement from scandal-plagued North Carolina gubernatorial candidate,” according to four people familiar with the discussions.

    Following CNN’s investigation, Trump campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt told the network that, “President Trump’s campaign is focused on winning the White House and saving this country. North Carolina is a vital part of that plan.”

    [ad_2]

    Katie Herchenroeder

    Source link

  • Harris speaks about abortion in Georgia, highlighting deaths of two Georgia women

    Harris speaks about abortion in Georgia, highlighting deaths of two Georgia women

    [ad_1]

    Atlanta – Vice President Kamala Harris‘ visit to Georgia Friday is centered around one thing: women’s reproductive rights.

    The visit by Harris follows ProPublica’s investigation into two women who recently died in the state. It found their deaths could have been prevented, but their medical care was hindered by Georgia’s six-week abortion ban. Harris highlighted the stories of Candi Miller and Amber Nicole Thurman, the two women at the center of ProPublica’s report, and argued cases like theirs would intensify if former President Donald Trump is reelected. 

    According to ProPublica, Thurman, who was pregnant, took abortion pills, but did not expel all of the fetal tissue from her body, a rare complication. She needed a routine dilation and curettage to remove the tissue, but the procedure was now a felony in Georgia. A doctor who performed the procedure could be prosecuted and sentenced to prison. ProPublica reported that doctors monitored “her infection spreading, her blood pressure sinking and her organs beginning to fail.” By the time they operated, it was too late.

    Harris hammered Trump over his support for abortion ban with an exception to save the life of the mother. 

    “Doctors have to wait until the patient is at death’s door before they take action,” Harris said, “You know, the other folks, Trump and his running mate? They’re talking about, ‘Yeah, I do believe in an exception to save a mother’s life.’ Okay, let’s break that down shall we? So, we are saying that we’re going to create public policy that says that a doctor, a health care provider, will only kick in to give the care that somebody needs if they’re about to die? Think about what we are saying right now. You’re saying good policy, logical policy, moral policy, humane policy, is about saying that a health care provider will only start providing that care when you’re about to die?”

    Thurman’s family met with Harris at her “Unite for America” rally Thursday with Oprah Winfrey in Michigan. On Friday, Harris talked about her conversation with Thurman’s mother and sisters. She said they told her about “how terribly they miss her.” 

    “Their pain is heartbreaking,” Harris said. She added that Thurman’s mother said that she “can’t stop thinking” about the word “preventable” because “medical experts have now determined that Amber’s death was preventable.” Harris also said she promised Thurman’s mother she’d make sure her daughter is not remembered “just as a statistic.”

    In Michigan Thursday, Harris reminded voters that “Trump chose three members of the United States Supreme Court with the intention that they would [undo] the protections of Roe v Wade, and they did as he intended.” 

    Anti-abortion rights group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America accused Harris of attempting to use these stories to “score political points.”

    “We mourn the senseless loss of Amber, Candi, and their unborn children. We agree their deaths were preventable. But let’s be absolutely clear: Georgia’s law and every pro-life state law calls on doctors to act in circumstances just like theirs. If abortion advocates weren’t spreading misinformation and confusion to score political points, it’s possible the outcome would have been different,” said Katie Daniel, the group’s state policy director.

    In Atlanta, Harris also called out Trump’s plans to vote as a Florida citizen against a state ballot measure that would protect abortion rights and restore the limits set under Roe v. Wade. Like Georgia, Florida has a six-week abortion ban in place.

    “And now, Donald Trump says he will personally cast his vote in Florida, which is where he now lives, to support their extreme abortion ban, just like the one that is here in Georgia,” she said.

    Asked about his vote during the September debate between Harris and Trump, Trump falsely claimed Democratic-run states and Harris’ running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, support abortion in the ninth month, and argued there was wide bipartisan support for the overturning of Roe v. Wade. 

    “[Abortion access is] the vote of the people now. It’s not tied up in the federal government. I did a great service in doing it. It took courage to do it,” he said during the debate. “And the Supreme Court had great courage in doing it. And I give tremendous credit to those six justices.” 

    One Harris campaign official said its work in Georgia  has focused on tying reproductive rights to the state’s Black maternal mortality rate.

    Georgia has one of the highest maternal mortality rates for Black women according to the Journal of the American Medical Association. Both Thurman and Miller were black.

    This is Harris’ third trip to the state as a presidential candidate, and her eighth this year as vice president, according to a CBS News tracker. 

    A number of her trips have been focused on women’s reproductive rights. Surrogates for the campaign are currently on a “Reproductive Freedom Tour” that began in Florida and is passing through the swing states. Throughout her vice presidency, Harris has traveled to states that were imposing abortion restrictions or bans, such as Arizona, Indiana and Iowa. 

    In March, she became the first vice president to visit an abortion provider when she made a trip to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Minnesota. 

    Shawna Mizelle

    Shawna Mizelle is a 2024 campaign reporter for CBS News.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Pope Francis Thinks Americans Should Choose The “Lesser of Two Evils,” Critiques Trump and Harris

    Pope Francis Thinks Americans Should Choose The “Lesser of Two Evils,” Critiques Trump and Harris

    [ad_1]

    Pope Francis weighed in on Americans’ upcoming choice between Vice President Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump on Friday, critiquing both candidates as “against life” and urging Catholic voters to choose the “lesser of two evils.”

    “One must choose the lesser of two evils. Who is the lesser of two evils? That lady or that gentleman? I don’t know,” Francis told reporters while on the papal plane.

    Francis, who has been more openly political on some topics than his predecessors, criticized Trump’s handling of immigration and Harris’s support for accessing abortion services.

    “To send migrants away, to leave them wherever you want, to leave them … it’s something terrible, there is evil there. To send away a child from the womb of the mother is an assassination, because there is life. We must speak about these things clearly,” he said.

    This isn’t the first time the pope has opined on issues like these during his 11-year tenure.

    Back in 2016, when Trump was running his first presidential campaign on building a wall at the southwestern border, Francis said of the GOP-front runner, “A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel.”

    At the time, Trump immediately bit back, saying, “If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which, as everyone knows, is ISIS’s ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been president.”

    In 2021, in a rare public rift between the Vatican and American bishops, the pope, via the institution, warned conservative American bishops to “hit the brakes on their push to deny communion to politicians supportive of abortion rights,” the New York Times reported. The Vatican’s response came as some leading American bishops were questioning whether President Joe Biden ought to be served communion because he endorses some reproductive freedom measures. Biden is the first Roman Catholic to occupy the Oval Office in 60 years—since John F. Kennedy.

    Francis, who has called abortion a “plague” and a “crime” akin to “mafia” behavior, said at the time that communion is “not the reward of saints, but the bread of sinners.”

    The pope has also critiqued couples who choose to have pets instead of children—echoing Republican vice presidential candidate and new Catholic JD Vance’s “childless cat ladies” remarks—saying that “denial” of fatherhood or motherhood “takes away our humanity.”

    In October of 2023, hundreds of delegates from around the world flocked to the Vatican, beginning a monthlong meeting as part of Pope Francis’ “Synod on Synodality”—a gathering to discuss the church’s global aims and plans. For the first time ever, women delegates were allowed to join in.

    A couple of months later, in December of last year, Francis released new guidance on same-sex couples who are Catholic, saying that their unions can receive formal blessings—so long as they aren’t mistaken for marriages. Queer couples, the letter made clear, cannot invoke “any clothing, gestures, or words that are proper to a wedding.”

    Some of the pope’s positions on women and queerness—while far from revolutionary—have upset a growing movement of a new kind of right-wing American Catholic.

    Milo Yiannopoulos, the former Breitbart editor who incited a racist campaign against the comedian Leslie Jones and was banned from Twitter for it in 2016, has called to “make the Vatican straight again” and “make America homophobic again.” (This is the same guy who says he set up the meeting between Trump and white nationalist Nick Fuentes in 2022.)

    According to Pew, 20% of US adults describe themselves as Catholics and are generally older than the American average—and three-quarters of this group reportedly view Francis favorably. About six in ten Catholics say abortion should be legal, with 39% saying it should be legal in most cases and only 11% holding that it should be illegal in all cases.

    In the 2020 election, 52% of Catholic voters chose Biden, to Trump’s 47%.

    Despite criticizing the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, the leader of the Holy See said Catholics should vote.

    “Not voting is ugly,” the 87-year-old pontiff said. “It is not good. You must vote.”

    [ad_2]

    Katie Herchenroeder

    Source link

  • Arizona’s 1864 abortion ban is officially off the books

    Arizona’s 1864 abortion ban is officially off the books

    [ad_1]

    PHOENIX — Arizona’s Civil War-era ban on nearly all abortions officially is being repealed Saturday.

    The western swing state has been whipsawed over recent months, starting with the Arizona Supreme Court deciding in April to let the state enforce the long-dormant 1864 law that criminalized all abortions except when a woman’s life was jeopardized. Then state lawmakers voted on a bill to repeal that law once and for all.

    Democratic Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs signed the bill in May, declaring it was just the beginning of a fight to protect reproductive health care in Arizona.

    “I will continue doing everything in my power to protect reproductive freedoms, because I trust women to make the decisions that are best for them, and know politicians do not belong in the doctor’s office,” Hobbs said in a statement.

    Abortion has sharply defined Arizona’s political arena since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. As the November general election approaches, the issue remains a focus of Democratic campaigns, and it will be up to Arizona voters to decide whether to enshrine the right to abortion in the state constitution.

    It was after the state Supreme Court cleared the way for enforcement that Hobbs urged the state Legislature to take imminent action to undo the ban before it went into effect. Republican lawmakers, who hold a narrow majority in both chambers, derailed discussions about repealing the ban. At one point, the roadblocks resulted in chants of “Shame! Shame!” by outraged Democratic colleagues.

    Emotions on the House floor and in the gallery ran high as House Democrats were able to garner the support of three Republicans to pass the repeal legislation two weeks later, sending the measure to the Senate for consideration. Two GOP senators joined with Democrats a week later to grant final approval.

    Democrats were advocating for the repeal long before the Supreme Court issued its ruling. Even Hobbs called for action in her January State of the State address.

    The battle in Arizona made national headlines again when Democratic state Sen. Eva Burch told fellow lawmakers in a floor speech in March that she was going to get an abortion because her pregnancy was no longer viable. She said in an interview that it was her chance to highlight that the laws passed by legislators in Arizona “actually do impact people in practice and not just in theory.”

    In the weeks between the high court’s decision and Hobbs signing the repeal into law, Arizonans were in a state of confusion about whether the near-total ban would end up taking effect before the repeal was implemented.

    A court order put the ban on hold, but questions lingered about whether doctors in the state could perform the procedure. California Gov. Gavin Newsom weighed in on the issue in late May, signing legislation allowing Arizona doctors to receive temporary, emergency licenses to perform abortions in California.

    With the territorial ban no longer in play, Arizona law allows abortions until 15 weeks. After that, there is an exception to save the life of the mother, but missing are exceptions for cases of rape or incest after the 15-week mark.

    Arizona requires those seeking an abortion prior to the 15-week mark to have an ultrasound at least 24 hours before the procedure and to be given the opportunity to view it. Minors must have either parental consent or authorization from a state judge, except in cases of incest or when their life is at risk.

    Abortion medication can only be provided through a qualified physician, and only licensed physicians can perform surgical abortions. Abortion providers and clinics also must record and report certain information about the abortions they perform to the department of health services.

    Voters will have the ultimate say on whether to add the right to an abortion to the state constitution when they cast their ballots in the general election.

    Arizona for Abortion Access, the coalition leading the ballot measure campaign, was successful in securing the measure’s spot on the ballot. The Arizona Secretary of State verified 577,971 signatures that were collected as part of the citizen-led campaign, well over the 383,923 required from registered voters.

    If voters approve the measure, abortions would be allowed until fetal viability — the point at which a fetus could survive outside the womb, typically around 24 weeks. It also would allow abortions after that time in cases where the mother’s physical or mental health is in jeopardy.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Sam Brown misleads on Nevada abortion referendum limits

    Sam Brown misleads on Nevada abortion referendum limits

    [ad_1]

    Republican Nevada Senate candidate Sam Brown recently expressed disapproval of a Nevada ballot measure to enact constitutional protections for abortion.

    Brown said the ballot measure would put “essentially no limit on access to abortion.”

    The Nevada Independent obtained a recording of Brown answering a question about his stance on the ballot measure at an Aug. 28 meet and greet in Las Vegas. The statement was the most direct position Brown has taken on the ballot measure as he wages a competitive race to defeat incumbent Democrat Jacky Rosen. 

    “I’m not for changing our existing law,” Brown said in the recording. “Our existing law has been in place for over 34 years. The ballot measure would change the law and essentially (create) no limit on access to abortion,” the Independent reported that he said.

    Legal and policy experts say Brown misstates what the constitutional amendment would do.

    The proposed constitutional amendment places a clear limit on abortions: after fetal viability — the point at which a fetus is likely to survive outside the womb, typically considered to be around 24 weeks of pregnancy — the state can ban abortion unless it is needed to protect the  pregnant woman’s health or life.

    Nevada voters will weigh the amendment on their November ballots. It would prohibit the state from restricting abortion access before fetal viability. 

    That language is very similar to Nevada’s current law. Voters approved the current law in a 1990 ballot measure; it allows abortion until 24 weeks of pregnancy, and after that if a doctor determines the abortion is “necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman.”

    We contacted Brown’s campaign to ask for evidence and received no reply. 

    How the proposed amendment affects Nevada’s abortion access 

    If passed, the amendment would constitutionally protect abortion access during the first trimester of pregnancy, and throughout most of the second trimester. Although the existing law protects abortion up to 24 weeks, the amendment would prohibit the state and local governments from infringing on that right without a “compelling state interest.” 

    That will largely codify the protections already in place under state law, said David Orentlicher, health law program director at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas law school and a Democratic representative in the Nevada Legislature. That means before viability, there would be few limits on abortion access, he said.

    After fetal viability, though, the state could restrict abortion access. 

    Brown “seems to be just referring to subsection one (of the amendment) and ignoring subsection two,” Orentlicher said.

    The constitutional amendment would also be harder to repeal than the existing Nevada law, Orentlicher said. The ballot measure would need to be approved by a majority of voters in November and again in 2026 in order to be added to the state’s constitution. 

    Gretchen Ely, a University of Tennessee, Knoxville social work professor who studies abortion access, said Brown’s statement that the amendment places “no limit” on abortion access is wrong.

    The amendment “does actually put limitations on abortion in a similar way to what the current law does,” she said. “The limit is up to viability … unless there’s a medical reason for needing one after that point in time.” 

    The proposed amendment defines “viability” as the point at which “there is a significant likelihood of the fetus’ sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures,” as determined by a health care provider. 

    The proposed amendment’s opponents, including Nevada Right to Life, have argued the language will let physicians determine that pregnancies are not viable later in pregnancy, allowing for abortions after 24 weeks. 

    Abortions late in pregnancy are rare

    Abortions after 21 weeks of pregnancy are rare, accounting for 1% of all abortions in the U.S., according to KFF, a health policy research organization. In 2021, 93% of abortions happened in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. 

    Abortions after 24 weeks’ gestation are almost all the result of medical problems that endanger the fetus or the pregnant woman, Orentlicher and Ely said.

    “This person’s experiencing some kind of an unexpected medical situation that either puts their life at risk or their health at risk, or they know for some reason that the fetus won’t develop into a viable infant,” Ely said.

    Our ruling

    Brown said Nevada’s proposed constitutional amendment would place “essentially no limit on access to abortion.”

    The amendment does place a limit: abortions after fetal viability, typically around 24 weeks, would be restricted unless needed to protect the pregnant woman’s health. 

    We rate this claim False.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • North Dakota judge strikes down the state’s abortion ban

    North Dakota judge strikes down the state’s abortion ban

    [ad_1]

    BISMARCK, N.D. — A state judge struck down North Dakota’s ban on abortion Thursday, saying that the state constitution creates a fundamental right to access abortion before a fetus is viable.

    In his ruling, state District Judge Bruce Romanick also said that the law violates the state constitution because it is too vague.

    Romanick was ruling on a request from the state to dismiss a lawsuit filed against the ban in 2022 by what at the time was the sole abortion clinic in North Dakota. The clinic has sinced moved across the border to Minnesota, and the state argued that a trial wouldn’t make a difference. The judge had canceled a trial set for August.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Previewing the Presidential Debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris | Inside Story

    Previewing the Presidential Debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris | Inside Story

    [ad_1]

    PHILADELPHIA (WPVI) — Host Tamala Edwards visits the National Constitution Center on Independence Mall in Philadelphia for an in-depth preview of the ABC News Presidential Debate taking place on Tuesday, September 10.

    Edwards spoke with the NCC’s Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President Vince Stango and General Counsel and Board Member Liz Preate Havey all about this great non-profit, non-partisan museum, celebrating the U.S. Constitution and promoting healthy civic discourse in our country.

    RELATED: Harris-Trump presidential debate: How to watch, what to know

    They share how the plans came together so quickly for Tuesday’s debate.

    Then, the panel takes a deep dive on what both candidates need to do to win this debate.

    Will this exchange be about policy or personality?

    What topics will resonate with local voters: the economy, abortion, Project 2025 or foreign policy?

    RELATED: Street closures, other info you need to know for the debate

    And is there a growing divide between support for the candidates when it comes to gender and education?

    Get the Inside Story with Sharmain Matlock-Turner, Brian Tierney, Liz Preate Havey and Bob Brady.

    And watch ABC New’s coverage of the Presidential Debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump starting at 8 p.m. on Tuesday, September 10th on 6abc and everywhere you stream.

    Copyright © 2024 WPVI-TV. All Rights Reserved.

    [ad_2]

    Tamala Edwards

    Source link

  • Prep for Trump-Harris debate with fact-checks of top claims

    Prep for Trump-Harris debate with fact-checks of top claims

    [ad_1]

    Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign said “the dangers of Trump’s Project 2025 agenda will be on full display” in the Sept. 10 presidential debate. Former President Donald Trump said Harris has “changed every policy” and “doesn’t even know what she is talking about.”

    It’s safe to assume the first and so far only debate between Harris and Trump will be feisty — and filled with attacks and boasts that need fact-checking.

    ABC News will host the debate Sept. 10 from the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. It comes weeks before millions of voters start casting ballots in the presidential election.

    If they stay true to their stump speeches, Harris and Trump will offer opposing visions for the country and critique each other’s records on abortion, the economy, crime, the environment and immigration. They will likely argue about Project 2025, a policy book written by Trump allies with some overlap of his conservative agenda.

    Here’s a guide to understanding the facts behind some of their most repeated talking points.

    Trump’s immigration rhetoric focuses on fear. Harris has mostly avoided the topic.

    Former President Donald Trump speaks Aug. 22, 2024, during a campaign event in Sierra Vista, Arizona. (AP)

    Trump uses scare tactics when describing immigrants illegally crossing the U.S. border. He has misleadingly said that immigrants are taking the jobs of union workers and native-born Americans. He said without evidence that millions are pouring in from other countries’ prisons and mental institutions, and that Democrats are signing them up to vote in this year’s election. Pants on Fire! 

    When Trump compares his immigration record with border crossings during the Biden-Harris administration, he presents the number in rosy terms that omit how the COVID-19 pandemic limited immigration drastically worldwide. In the months before Trump left office, illegal immigration was rising. 

    Illegal immigration during Trump’s administration was higher than under both of former President Barack Obama’s terms. During the Biden administration, illegal immigration has increased dramatically, reaching historic highs. Trump has faulted Harris, misleadingly referring to her as the “border czar” in charge of immigration enforcement when her role was to examine the root causes of immigration from three Central American countries.

    Harris has largely avoided specific answers on immigration. During her Democratic National Convention speech, she blamed Trump for killing a bipartisan border security bill. In defense of the current administration, President Joe Biden has cited statistics from the last few months showing illegal immigration has been decreasing, reaching monthly levels below Trump’s last few months in office.

    Harris links Trump to Project 2025. Trump says he’s not involved.
     

    A Project 2025 fan is seen Aug. 14, 2023, in the group’s tent at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines, Iowa. (AP)

    Harris and her allies have criticized several parts of Project 2025, a dense transition policy document for a Republican presidential administration. Harris has sometimes misled about what the plan would do and what it shares with Trump’s agenda. Trump has distanced himself from the plan — knocking some ideas as “absolutely ridiculous and abysmal” — even though many people who worked for his administration, some in high-ranking positions, wrote it.

    A Harris campaign ad said “Trump’s Project 2025 … would also require states to monitor women’s pregnancies.” But that exaggerates a proposed requirement that states report to the federal government additional maternal mortality statistics and how many abortions and miscarriages happen within their borders — not all pregnancies. Project 2025 authors write that current abortion reporting is voluntary and that “reliable statistical data about abortion, abortion survivors and abortion-related maternal deaths” is essential.

    The Harris campaign has accurately said that both Trump and Project 2025 would eliminate the Department of Education. The plan scales back the federal government’s role in education policy and devolves the functions that remain to other agencies. But a Harris ad’s claim that cutting the department is “defunding K-12 schools” is Half True; most public school funding comes from state and local governments through state income taxes, state sales taxes and local property taxes. Although some schools may feel more of a hit than others, the overall federal share is small.

    On abortion, Trump distorts Democrats’ position. Harris cites Trump’s mixed record.

     

    Vice President Kamala Harris speaks about Florida’s abortion ban May 1, 2024, in Jacksonville, Fla. (AP)

    Harris’ abortion messaging warns that Trump wants the federal government to play a heavy hand, complete with a national abortion ban. Trump says his agenda is more hands off.

    When asked about a national abortion cutoff, Trump has said since April that regulation should be left to the states. Earlier in spring, Trump had floated 15- and 16- week national cutoffs for abortion, and he supported legislation for a 20-week abortion ban in his first year as president. But his states-decide approach has been consistent in this phase of the campaign.

    Trump has falsely said Democrats support abortion measures that result in the “execution” of babies “after birth.” Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric exaggerates Democrats’ support for broad abortion access to the point of fetal viability, with exceptions for medical emergencies. Killing an unwanted infant after birth is infanticide and is illegal in every state. 

    Trump has also falsely said that all legal scholars wanted the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, the precedent that guaranteed federal abortion access. As one of the most contentious legal issues of the past half century, Roe inspired legions of supporters and opponents. Before it was overturned in 2022, numerous legal scholars wrote briefs urging the  Supreme Court to uphold the case.

    Competing crime trends

    Each side has cast the opponent as overseeing a crime wave. 

    Trump said at an Aug. 23 Arizona rally that “there’s been a 43% increase in violent crimes since I left office.” The statement is Mostly False, because it focuses on one federal data point (the National Crime Victimization Survey) that shows a crime increase while ignoring other federal data that tells a different story. FBI statistics covering roughly the same period found that crime went down, not up. And preliminary data for 2023 and 2024 shows violent crime dropping.

    Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, Harris’ running mate, said violent crime increased under Trump, which we rated Half True. Experts said it’s wrong to blame Trump solely for rising violent crime in 2020. A confluence of the coronavirus pandemic and societal upheaval after George Floyd’s 2020 murder fueled the spike. 

    Both campaigns mislead about the other’s plans for Social Security

    Older Americans are one of the most reliable voting blocs, so both candidates are using the age-old tactic of accusing the other of threatening Social Security. Both sidestep that barring congressional action, the program will be in dire straits in about a decade. 

    Harris’ campaign talking point is that Trump “intends to cut Social Security,” which is Mostly False. In his earlier campaigns and before he entered politics, Trump said that he was open to overhauling Social Security by cutting or privatizing it. In a March 2024 CNBC interview, Trump said, “There’s a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting,” before quickly walking back the statement. His CNBC comment stands at odds with essentially everything else Trump has said during the 2024 presidential campaign. 

    Trump’s campaign website says that not “a single penny” should be cut from Social Security, and he’s repeated similar lines in campaign rallies.

    Trump has falsely said that Social Security will be destroyed by immigrants. Immigrants in the U.S. illegally cannot receive Social Security retirement benefits or Medicare coverage. But many do pay taxes. 

    Social Security’s fiscal challenges stem from a shortage of workers compared with beneficiaries. Immigration would increase the worker-to-beneficiary ratio, potentially for decades, extending the program’s fiscal life.

    Trump boasts about his economic record. Harris cherry-picks his record.

    President Donald Trump, center, along with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, left, and then, Foxconn Chairman Terry Gou, participate in a groundbreaking In June 28, 2018, for a Foxconn plant in Mount Pleasant, Wis. (AP)

    Although Trump has attacked Harris for inflation under Biden, which peaked at a 9% annual rate in 2022, Harris has said Trump’s tariffs would raise prices for consumers.

    Trump has pitched an across-the-board tariff of 10% to 20%, plus a 60% levy on goods from China. Harris has said Trump’s proposed tariffs on foreign goods would amount to a national sales tax that would raise prices “on middle-class families by almost $4,000 a year.” The projected dollar impact on consumers varies, so this rates Half True. Two estimates generally support Harris’ $4,000 figure; two show a smaller impact.

    Trump has said Harris wants to quadruple Americans’ taxes, which is also False. Harris’ tax plan, which is based on Biden’s, proposes a tax increase of about 7% over the next decade, which is far lower than the 300% increase that Trump claimed. 

    The top 1% of taxpayers, a level that starts at just under $1 million a year in income, would bear about 83% of the proposed Biden tax increase. Taxpayers earning up to $60,400 would see their yearly taxes decline on average, and taxpayers earning $60,400 to $107,300 would see an annual increase of $20 on average.

    A possible focus on fracking

    Chargers are seen Jan. 3, 2023, near parking stalls for electric vehicles outside the Cockeysville Public Library in Cockeysville, Md. (AP)

    Trump is likely to mention Harris’ more liberal positions from her 2019 Democratic presidential primary campaign, including her previous opposition to hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a practice used to access hard-to-reach oil and gas in rock formations. That matters in the debate’s setting within Pennsylvania, a battleground state in which fracking has boomed. 

    Harris currently supports fracking, but Trump predicts she won’t allow it, citing her previous stance.

    Harris said during a 2019 CNN town hall, “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking, so, yes. And starting — and starting with what we can do on Day 1 around public lands, right?”

    But after Biden picked Harris as his running mate in 2020, Harris aligned with his policies, which did not involve a fracking ban. 

    When CNN host Dana Bash asked Harris about this switch in an Aug. 29 interview, Harris said, “I made (my opposition to fracking) clear on the debate stage in 2020 that I would not ban fracking. As vice president, I did not ban fracking. As president, I will not ban fracking.”

    During the 2020 vice presidential debate with Republican Mike Pence, Harris said, “Joe Biden will not end fracking.” Harris didn’t say she no longer supported a fracking ban, but that Biden would not pursue one. 

    RELATED: How accurate are warnings by Democrats, Kamala Harris about Donald Trump’s ‘Project 2025 agenda?’

    RELATED: A guide to Trump’s 2nd term promises: immigration, economy, foreign policy and more

    RELATED: Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris on the Truth-O-Meter

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Floridians balk at DeSantis administration plan to build golf courses at state parks

    Floridians balk at DeSantis administration plan to build golf courses at state parks

    [ad_1]

    TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — The golf course is not a threatened species in the Sunshine State — but the Florida scrub-jay is.

    And advocates are warning that life for the small blue and gray birds and many other imperiled species could get much harder if Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration follows through on a proposal to build golf courses, pickleball courts and 350-room hotels at state parks from Miami to the Panhandle.

    State parks “are the last strongholds for a lot of wildlife in rapidly urbanizing communities in Florida,” said Julie Wraithmell, executive director of Audubon Florida.

    “They have an outsized importance — not just to wildlife but also as places where Floridians and visitors can continue to see what Florida was like,” she said. “It’s the best of Florida.”

    DeSantis has enjoyed rock solid support from the Republicans who dominate state politics. It has been rare for DeSantis to get pushback on anything from GOP lawmakers, and he has a reputation for seeking vengeance when they do.

    But it appears a political line in the sand is being drawn after DeSantis’ administration announced plans this week to carve out golf courses and pickleball courts in Florida’s beloved state parks.

    Unlike the issues of abortion, LGBTQ rights, race and guns that have divided voters, state parks apparently hold a place in the hearts of Floridians regardless of party. The state park system has received national recognition for years, and people are resistant to change the protected lands they enjoy.

    The proposal announced by Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection to build new sports facilities, hotels and glamping sites at nine state parks across Florida has drawn a wave of opposition, not just from nature lovers and birdwatchers but also from members of DeSantis’ Cabinet, a Republican member of Congress and conservative state lawmakers. That includes outgoing Republican Senate President Kathleen Passidomo.

    “Our vision (for state parks) did not contemplate the addition of golf courses and hotels, which in my view are not in-line with the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of nature,” Passidomo posted on X. “From what I know at this time, the proposal should not move forward in its current form.”

    A spokesperson for DeSantis defended the plans — which are not final — and touted the administration’s investments in protecting and conserving the state’s natural resources.

    “Teddy Roosevelt believed that public parks were for the benefit and enjoyment of the people, and we agree with him,” press secretary Jeremy Redfern said. “But it’s high time we made public lands more accessible to the public.”

    The Department of Environmental Protection did not respond to requests for comment from The Associated Press.

    All of the parks slated for development are located near heavily visited tourist destinations, including Miami, Tampa, Panama City and St. Augustine.

    Florida’s state park system is a bastion of wildness in a state where vast stretches of sugar sand beaches and mangrove forests have long given way to condos, motels and strip mall souvenir shops.

    Advocates say places like Topsail Hill Preserve State Park near Destin are literal beacons on a hill — the preserve is known for its 25-foot high sand dunes that tower over a stretch of the Panhandle known for its spring break destinations and military installations.

    Eric Draper, a former head of the Florida Park Service, said Topsail is one of the last undeveloped stretches of Florida’s Gulf Coast.

    In that part of the state, Draper said, “you can stand on the beach, you look right, you look left, and you just see a lot of condos and developments and houses. But this is one place that you can stand and look for three miles and not see any development.”

    Under the new plans, Topsail would get up to four new pickleball courts, a disc golf course and a new hotel with a capacity of up to 350 rooms — a scale of development that Draper said is more in line with a conference center than a quiet beach retreat.

    Another proposal is for a golf complex at Jonathan Dickinson State Park in Martin County on the state’s southeast coast north of West Palm Beach. Building the golf courses would entail removing a boardwalk and observation tower as well as relocating the residences and offices of park staff, as well as existing cabins for visitors.

    A change.org petition targeting the would-be golf complex at Jonathan Dickinson had netted more than 60,000 signatures as of Thursday afternoon.

    It is not the first time a Republican administration has raised the idea of leveraging more revenue from state parks by providing golf, lodging and other attractions. But past ideas were quickly dropped after public opposition.

    In 2015, then-Gov. Rick Scott’s administration floated plans to allow cattle farmers to graze their herds and loggers to harvest timber from park lands.

    Legendary former professional golfer Jack Nicklaus has long lobbied state officials to underwrite his push to build golf courses in state parks, efforts that fizzled following public pushback.

    Wraithmell, the head of Audubon Florida, said she hopes state officials will listen to the Floridians who plan to pack public meetings next week to weigh in on the proposals.

    “Absolutely there is demand for more people to enjoy state parks,” she said. “The solution is not to try to cram as many people into a park as we can …. The solution is to create more state parks.”

    ___

    This story was first published on Aug. 22, 2024. It was updated on Aug. 23, 2024, to correct that there are nine state parks included in the proposal, not eight.

    ___ Associated Press reporter Brendan Farrington in Tallahassee contributed to this story.

    ___

    Kate Payne is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Don’t Fall for Trump’s 2024 Pivot

    Don’t Fall for Trump’s 2024 Pivot

    [ad_1]

    The day after Labor Day traditionally marks the beginning of the general election season. Republicans have spent nearly a decade going full One America News—ceding party control to wingnuts like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Anna Paulina Luna; jettisoning anyone who doesn’t toe the Trumpy line, like Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, and Jeff Flake; and electing as House Speaker “MAGA” Mike Johnson, whose main qualification for the job was spearheading a legal brief that sought to overturn the 2020 election. Now, the GOP is doing a last-minute pivot, trying to appeal to voters who don’t have a “MAGA123” license plate.

    Case in point: Last week, Donald Trump, who has openly bragged about gutting reproductive rights, laid out plans to defend IVF if elected. Keep in mind that Senate Republicans blocked a bill that would have codified the right to access IVF when Democrat Tammy Duckworth brought it to the floor in June. Those Republicans include the very normal, not-at-all-weird JD Vance, along with every other member of his party, except the two (relatively) sane ones: Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. State-level Republicans have also followed suit; for example, Alabama’s supreme court ruled that frozen embryos were actually children (yes, eight-celled children), forcing IVF clinics to halt their services. While this stance might sound crazy, it is completely in line with that of the Heritage Foundation, the think tank that published Project 2025, which has long subscribed to the concept of “fetal personhood” and has argued that IVF should be regulated.

    All in all, the GOP has brought nothing but danger to IVF. And yet Trump is attempting to triangulate on the issue, saying in an interview with NBC News last week that his administration would be “paying for that treatment. We’re going to be mandating that the insurance company pay.” It’s no surprise he’d say this, considering IVF is massively popular: Roughly 42% of Americans have used fertility treatments or know someone who has, as the Pew Research Center reported in September 2023, while a CBS News–YouGov poll released earlier this year found that 86% of Americans think IVF should be legal. That’s a lot of voters. But here’s the thing: In the first Trump administration, the former president tried to repeal Obamacare, the federally funded health care program that was saved by Republican senator John McCain in 2017 when he broke rank with his party. So is this to say that Trump is now in support of some form of public health care?

    Trump is not the only one attempting a less radical rebrand. Consider JD Vance’s stance on the federal child tax credit, which temporarily increased to $3,600 under Joe Biden’s 2021 pandemic-era rescue plan. “I’d love to see a child tax credit that’s $5,000 per child,” Vance told Face the Nation in August. The child poverty rate reached a historic low the year the higher tax credit was in effect, so bravo to Vance for supporting it now! But the inconvenient truth is that, just days before appearing on Face the Nation, Vance skipped a vote on a bill that would have again expanded the child tax credit; it failed in the Senate 48-44. So, when Vance says he’d “love” to see a bigger child tax credit, he has a lot of explaining to do.

    It’s impossible to pin down the exact reason why people like Trump and Vance are pivoting to more centrist policies, but if I had to hazard a wild guess, it’s the same reason Trump disavowed Project 2025: The GOP’s actual policies are deeply unpopular. No one wants tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, exonerations of Trump and the January 6 rioters, or what many economists predict would be highly inflationary tariffs. Now the former president is suddenly trying to neutralize his terrible platform with gauzy centrist policies. But make no mistake: If he gets in office, Trump will almost surely abandon his bid for moderation and make his dystopian vision a reality, from erecting mass deportation camps for migrants to installing a federal bureaucracy full of loyalists.

    Popular will and the GOP have about as much chemistry as Trump and his teleprompter, largely because the former president’s stunts touch every part of the GOP. In the House, which Republicans are desperately trying to hold onto, you have so-called centrist congressmen like Mike Lawler, Marc Molinaro, Anthony D’Esposito, and Brandon Williams—all of whom backed Mike Johnson as Speaker, and voted to impeach both Biden and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas. How can these congressmen advertise themselves as “sensible” moderates when they vote with Marjorie Taylor Green, jacketless Jim Jordan, and the rest of the QAnon crazies practically 99% of the time? Hard to say. But one thing’s for sure: By embracing the craziest element of their base, they are ultimately going to have to answer for it—if journalists bother asking.

    [ad_2]

    Molly Jong-Fast

    Source link

  • Trump Says His Abortion Strategy Is “States’ Rights”—But Even He Doesn’t Follow It

    Trump Says His Abortion Strategy Is “States’ Rights”—But Even He Doesn’t Follow It

    [ad_1]

    This week, one Floridian—Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump—weighed in on how he might vote on the state’s abortion access ballot initiative come November.

    Florida’s near-total abortion ban went into effect at the beginning of May. The state, helmed by Governor Ron DeSantis, had replaced the 15-week ban with a six-week one, eliminating access before many people even know they’re pregnant.

    Now, a 2024 ballot measure is hoping to safeguard abortion access until about 24 weeks, or later if a medical professional deems the procedure necessary to save a patient’s life.

    The current ban, Trump said in an interview with NBC News on Thursday, is “too short.” When pressed on how he plans to vote on the ballot initiative, he responded, “I am going to be voting that we need more than six weeks.” “It has to be more time,” he said.

    The conservative backlash was swift.

    “If Donald Trump loses, today is the day he lost,” conservative commentator Erick Erickson posted to X, formerly Twitter. “The committed pro-life community could turn a blind eye, in part, to national abortion issues. But for Trump to weigh in on Florida as he did will be a bridge too far for too many.”

    “Trump had better count the cost of abandoning pro-life voters—quickly. That cost is going to be very high,” Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote on social media. “Pro-life Christian voters are going to have to think clearly, honestly, and soberly about our challenge in this election—starting at the top of the ticket.”

    Lila Rose, who heads the prominent anti-abortion group Live Action, shared that she would “love to see him stop saying this nonsense about supporting abortion,” in a Politico piece published Thursday. “But unfortunately, that’s not the case.” “Perhaps,” she said, “he personally lacks principle on this issue.”

    Just one day after the first interview with NBC, Trump said he actually wouldn’t be voting for the Florida measure.

    “So I think six weeks, you need more time than six weeks. I’ve disagreed with that right from the early primaries when I heard about it, I disagreed with it,” Trump told Fox News. “At the same time, the Democrats are radical, because the nine months is just a ridiculous situation where you can do an abortion in the ninth month. … So I’ll be voting no for that reason,” he continued, echoing a common abortion myth.

    In 2021, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 93 percent of abortions occurred during the first trimester. Only about 1 percent were performed at 21 weeks—about five months—or more of gestation. These terminations often occur due to lack of health insurance or health complications for the pregnant person or the fetus.

    This day-to-day messaging on how states ought to handle who gets to have an abortion and when is just the latest strategy in Trump’s retelling of how he, and his administration, have decimated access to reproductive healthcare across the country. For three presidential campaigns, Trump has morphed his rhetoric around abortion to best serve his needs. During this latest run for office, Trump has been doubling down on how his stance has always been anchored in states’ rights.

    “People forget, fighting Roe v. Wade was, right from the beginning, all about bringing the Issue back to the States,” Trump posted to Truth Social in April. “It wasn’t about anything else,” he continued, “We had a Great Victory, it’s back in the States where it belongs, and where everyone wanted it. The States will be making the decision.”

    [ad_2]

    Katie Herchenroeder

    Source link

  • Donald Trump works to clarify stance on abortion amid conflicting statements

    Donald Trump works to clarify stance on abortion amid conflicting statements

    [ad_1]

    Donald Trump works to clarify stance on abortion amid conflicting statements – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Former President Donald Trump is trying to clarify what appears to be his shifting stance on abortion rights. On Thursday, he said Florida’s six-week abortion ban is too short and signaled he would vote to overturn it but on Friday, he reversed course.

    Be the first to know

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


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump wants to make the GOP a ‘leader’ on IVF. Republicans’ actions make that a tough sell

    Trump wants to make the GOP a ‘leader’ on IVF. Republicans’ actions make that a tough sell

    [ad_1]

    Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s vow to promote in vitro fertilization by forcing health insurance companies or the federal government to pay for the treatments is at odds with the actions of much of his own party.Related video above: Former President Donald Trump holds town hall in battleground state of WisconsinYet his surprising announcement Thursday reveals the former president’s realization that GOP stances on abortion and reproductive rights could be huge liabilities for his chances of returning to the White House. Trump has quickly tried to reframe the narrative around those issues after Vice President Kamala Harris entered the presidential race.Even before he made his coverage proposal, Trump had been promoting the idea that the Republican Party is a “leader” on IVF. That characterization is rejected by Democrats, who have seized on the common but expensive fertility treatment as another dimension of reproductive rights threatened by Republicans and a second Trump presidency.It’s not just political partisans.”Republicans are not leaders on IVF,” said Katie Watson, a medical ethics professor at Northwestern’s Feinberg School of Medicine. “Some of them have posed a threat to IVF, and they’re currently trying to figure out how to be anti-abortion and pro-IVF, and there are internal inconsistencies and struggles there. It appears that the Republicans are careening to remedy the political damage that resulted from their own choices.”Trump’s proposal, which he announced without providing details, illustrates how reproductive rights have become central in this year’s presidential race. It’s also the latest example of the former president attempting to appear moderate on the issue, despite repeatedly boasting about appointing the three Supreme Court justices who helped overturn the constitutional right to abortion.Even as the Republican Party has attempted to create a national narrative that it’s receptive of in vitro fertilization, many Republicans have been left grappling with the innate tension between support for the procedure and for laws passed by their own party that grant legal personhood not only to fetuses but to any embryos that are destroyed in the IVF process.The messaging efforts also have been undercut by state lawmakers, Republican-dominated courts and anti-abortion leaders within the party’s ranks, as well as opposition to legislative attempts to protect IVF access.Ahead of the Republican National Convention in July, the Republican Party adopted a policy platform that supports states establishing fetal personhood through the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which grants equal protection under the law to all American citizens. The platform also encourages supporting IVF but does not explain how the party plans to do so while also encouraging fetal personhood laws that would render the treatment illegal.In May, the Texas Republican Party’s platform committee narrowly rejected a proposal to classify embryos created through IVF as “human beings” and designate their destruction as “homicide.” A bill aimed at expanding IVF access, meanwhile, sailed through in California on Thursday, despite opposition from nearly all Republican lawmakers.Video below: A conversation with Elizabeth Carr, the first person born via IVF in the USSen. Tammy Duckworth, a Democrat from Illinois who shared her own IVF journey on the Senate floor and co-sponsored a bill to protect the treatment, slammed Republicans for saying they support IVF in campaigning but not backing that up with their votes.She added that Supreme Court justices appointed by Trump “paved the way” for the fall of Roe v. Wade and the impact on reproductive rights, including access to IVF.”Republicans publicly claiming to be in support of IVF is absurd,” she told the AP.The issue burst onto the national political landscape in February after the all-Republican Alabama Supreme Court granted frozen embryos the legal rights of children. That decision forced clinics in Alabama to pause their IVF treatments, devastating patients struggling to be parents. Soon after, and facing a national backlash, Alabama’s Republican governor signed legislation shielding doctors from legal liability so IVF procedures could continue.In the weeks after the Alabama ruling, congressional Republicans scrambled to address IVF. Many rushed to create a unified message of support despite histories of voting in favor of fetal personhood laws and arguing that life begins at conception, the same concept that upheld the Alabama decision.”The reality is you cannot protect IVF and champion fetal personhood — they are fundamentally incompatible — and the American people won’t be fooled by another one of Donald Trump’s lies,” Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat and co-sponsor of the Right to IVF bill, told The Associated Press.Republican Sens. Katie Britt and Ted Cruz introduced a bill this year to prohibit states from receiving Medicaid funding if they ban the procedure. But that came after Senate Republicans blocked legislation that would have made IVF a federal right. All Republicans except Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine voted against the measure.”It’s not easy for a Republican lawmaker to say they’re for IVF and actually mean it in a straightforward, tangible way without angering a lot of constituents,” said Mary Ruth Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis School of Law.An AP-NORC poll conducted in June found that more than 6 in 10 U.S. adults support protecting access to IVF, including more than half of Republicans, and only about 1 in 10 are opposed. But many anti-abortion groups and some lawmakers oppose the treatment, including several members of the right-wing Freedom Caucus who have objected to expanding IVF access for veterans.At least 23 bills aiming to establish fetal personhood have been introduced in 13 states so far this legislative session, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights. This type of legislation, all proposed by Republican lawmakers, is based on the idea that life begins at fertilization and could imperil fertility treatments that involve the storage, transportation and destruction of embryos.Still, many GOP lawmakers have been vocal in their support for IVF. The issue is personal for Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson, who shared his daughter’s IVF experience. But even though Johnson said he fully supports IVF, he was not completely sold on Trump’s proposal due to its possible price tag. Other Republican lawmakers who responded publicly after Trump’s announcement expressed similar concerns. “I would need to see cost estimates, impacts on insurance rates, etc., before making any decisions or commitments to support any proposal,” Johnson said.Republican lawmakers have historically opposed federal funding to cover health care, including by repeatedly attempting to undo the Obama-era Affordable Care Act, and may be unlikely to support similar plans, including for IVF.Lack of health insurance coverage for fertility treatments has been a major barrier for those wanting to start or continue treatments. While coverage has been expanding in recent years, less than half of employers with 500 or more workers in the U.S. offered IVF coverage in 2023, according to the benefits consultant Mercer.Republican Rep. Michelle Steel of California faced criticism for supporting a GOP bill aiming to grant constitutional protection to embryos at “the moment of fertilization” after she publicly shared her own experience with IVF. Steel rescinded her co-sponsorship of the measure in March, two days after winning her primary, declaring she does not support federal restrictions on IVF.In a statement to the AP, she said Congress “must pass policies to support and expand access to IVF treatments.”Such flip-flopping from Republicans only provides fodder for Democrats, who say Trump and his party can’t be trusted to protect reproductive rights.Rep. Elissa Slotkin, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Michigan, warned voters to “watch what they do, not what they say.” ___Associated Press writers Scott Bauer in Madison, Wisconsin; Tom Murphy in Indianapolis and Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux in Washington contributed to this report.

    CHICAGO —

    Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s vow to promote in vitro fertilization by forcing health insurance companies or the federal government to pay for the treatments is at odds with the actions of much of his own party.

    Related video above: Former President Donald Trump holds town hall in battleground state of Wisconsin

    Yet his surprising announcement Thursday reveals the former president’s realization that GOP stances on abortion and reproductive rights could be huge liabilities for his chances of returning to the White House. Trump has quickly tried to reframe the narrative around those issues after Vice President Kamala Harris entered the presidential race.

    Even before he made his coverage proposal, Trump had been promoting the idea that the Republican Party is a “leader” on IVF. That characterization is rejected by Democrats, who have seized on the common but expensive fertility treatment as another dimension of reproductive rights threatened by Republicans and a second Trump presidency.

    It’s not just political partisans.

    “Republicans are not leaders on IVF,” said Katie Watson, a medical ethics professor at Northwestern’s Feinberg School of Medicine. “Some of them have posed a threat to IVF, and they’re currently trying to figure out how to be anti-abortion and pro-IVF, and there are internal inconsistencies and struggles there. It appears that the Republicans are careening to remedy the political damage that resulted from their own choices.”

    Trump’s proposal, which he announced without providing details, illustrates how reproductive rights have become central in this year’s presidential race. It’s also the latest example of the former president attempting to appear moderate on the issue, despite repeatedly boasting about appointing the three Supreme Court justices who helped overturn the constitutional right to abortion.

    Even as the Republican Party has attempted to create a national narrative that it’s receptive of in vitro fertilization, many Republicans have been left grappling with the innate tension between support for the procedure and for laws passed by their own party that grant legal personhood not only to fetuses but to any embryos that are destroyed in the IVF process.

    The messaging efforts also have been undercut by state lawmakers, Republican-dominated courts and anti-abortion leaders within the party’s ranks, as well as opposition to legislative attempts to protect IVF access.

    Ahead of the Republican National Convention in July, the Republican Party adopted a policy platform that supports states establishing fetal personhood through the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which grants equal protection under the law to all American citizens. The platform also encourages supporting IVF but does not explain how the party plans to do so while also encouraging fetal personhood laws that would render the treatment illegal.

    In May, the Texas Republican Party’s platform committee narrowly rejected a proposal to classify embryos created through IVF as “human beings” and designate their destruction as “homicide.” A bill aimed at expanding IVF access, meanwhile, sailed through in California on Thursday, despite opposition from nearly all Republican lawmakers.

    Video below: A conversation with Elizabeth Carr, the first person born via IVF in the US

    Sen. Tammy Duckworth, a Democrat from Illinois who shared her own IVF journey on the Senate floor and co-sponsored a bill to protect the treatment, slammed Republicans for saying they support IVF in campaigning but not backing that up with their votes.

    She added that Supreme Court justices appointed by Trump “paved the way” for the fall of Roe v. Wade and the impact on reproductive rights, including access to IVF.

    “Republicans publicly claiming to be in support of IVF is absurd,” she told the AP.

    The issue burst onto the national political landscape in February after the all-Republican Alabama Supreme Court granted frozen embryos the legal rights of children. That decision forced clinics in Alabama to pause their IVF treatments, devastating patients struggling to be parents. Soon after, and facing a national backlash, Alabama’s Republican governor signed legislation shielding doctors from legal liability so IVF procedures could continue.

    In the weeks after the Alabama ruling, congressional Republicans scrambled to address IVF. Many rushed to create a unified message of support despite histories of voting in favor of fetal personhood laws and arguing that life begins at conception, the same concept that upheld the Alabama decision.

    “The reality is you cannot protect IVF and champion fetal personhood — they are fundamentally incompatible — and the American people won’t be fooled by another one of Donald Trump’s lies,” Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat and co-sponsor of the Right to IVF bill, told The Associated Press.

    Republican Sens. Katie Britt and Ted Cruz introduced a bill this year to prohibit states from receiving Medicaid funding if they ban the procedure. But that came after Senate Republicans blocked legislation that would have made IVF a federal right. All Republicans except Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine voted against the measure.

    “It’s not easy for a Republican lawmaker to say they’re for IVF and actually mean it in a straightforward, tangible way without angering a lot of constituents,” said Mary Ruth Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis School of Law.

    An AP-NORC poll conducted in June found that more than 6 in 10 U.S. adults support protecting access to IVF, including more than half of Republicans, and only about 1 in 10 are opposed. But many anti-abortion groups and some lawmakers oppose the treatment, including several members of the right-wing Freedom Caucus who have objected to expanding IVF access for veterans.

    At least 23 bills aiming to establish fetal personhood have been introduced in 13 states so far this legislative session, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

    This type of legislation, all proposed by Republican lawmakers, is based on the idea that life begins at fertilization and could imperil fertility treatments that involve the storage, transportation and destruction of embryos.

    Still, many GOP lawmakers have been vocal in their support for IVF. The issue is personal for Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson, who shared his daughter’s IVF experience. But even though Johnson said he fully supports IVF, he was not completely sold on Trump’s proposal due to its possible price tag. Other Republican lawmakers who responded publicly after Trump’s announcement expressed similar concerns.

    “I would need to see cost estimates, impacts on insurance rates, etc., before making any decisions or commitments to support any proposal,” Johnson said.

    Republican lawmakers have historically opposed federal funding to cover health care, including by repeatedly attempting to undo the Obama-era Affordable Care Act, and may be unlikely to support similar plans, including for IVF.

    Lack of health insurance coverage for fertility treatments has been a major barrier for those wanting to start or continue treatments. While coverage has been expanding in recent years, less than half of employers with 500 or more workers in the U.S. offered IVF coverage in 2023, according to the benefits consultant Mercer.

    Republican Rep. Michelle Steel of California faced criticism for supporting a GOP bill aiming to grant constitutional protection to embryos at “the moment of fertilization” after she publicly shared her own experience with IVF. Steel rescinded her co-sponsorship of the measure in March, two days after winning her primary, declaring she does not support federal restrictions on IVF.

    In a statement to the AP, she said Congress “must pass policies to support and expand access to IVF treatments.”

    Such flip-flopping from Republicans only provides fodder for Democrats, who say Trump and his party can’t be trusted to protect reproductive rights.

    Rep. Elissa Slotkin, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Michigan, warned voters to “watch what they do, not what they say.”

    ___

    Associated Press writers Scott Bauer in Madison, Wisconsin; Tom Murphy in Indianapolis and Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux in Washington contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump says he’ll vote to uphold Florida abortion ban after seeming to signal he’d support repeal

    Trump says he’ll vote to uphold Florida abortion ban after seeming to signal he’d support repeal

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — Former President Donald Trump on Friday said he will vote no on a Florida ballot measure that would repeal the state’s six-week abortion ban, a day after he seemed to indicate he would vote in favor of the measure.

    Trump has said he thinks Florida’s ban is a mistake and said in an interview with Fox News Channel on Friday, “I think six weeks, you need more time.” But then he said, “at the same time, the Democrats are radical,” and he repeated false claims he has frequently made about late-term abortions and said that he opposed allowing abortions up until nine months.

    “So I’ll be voting no for that reason,” said Trump, who is registered to vote at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida.

    The Florida ballot measure would legalize 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, which is about six months.

    Trump drew backlash from abortion opponents who support him when he seemed to signal in another interview on Thursday that he would vote in favor of the ballot measure and repeal the six week ban when he said, “I am going to be voting that we need more than six weeks.”

    Amid the blowback his campaign quickly issued a statement saying that Trump had not actually said how he would vote but “simply reiterated that he believes six weeks is too short.”

    Trump has held multiple conflicting positions on abortion over the years. After briefly considering backing a potential 15-week ban on the procedure nationwide, he announced in April that regulating abortion should be left to the states.

    In the months since, he has repeatedly taken credit for his role in overturning Roe and called it “a beautiful thing to watch” as states set their own restrictions.

    “Donald Trump just made his position on abortion very clear: He will vote to uphold an abortion ban so extreme it applies before many women even know they are pregnant,” Vice President Kamala Harris, his Democratic rival, said in a statement responding to Trump’s Friday comments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Appeals court spikes Tennessee’s bid to get family planning dollars despite abortion rule

    Appeals court spikes Tennessee’s bid to get family planning dollars despite abortion rule

    [ad_1]

    NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — A federal appeals court has shot down Tennessee’s attempt to collect millions of dollars in family planning funds without complying with federal rules requiring clinics to provide abortion referrals due to its current ban on the procedure.

    Last year, Tennessee’s Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti filed a federal complaint seeking to overturn the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ decision to disqualify the state from receiving money offered through a family planning program known as Title X. A lower court later determined that Tennessee was unlikely to succeed and the state appealed that decision.

    In 2021, the Biden administration announced that clinics that accept Title X funds must offer information about abortion. However, Skrmetti’s argued that HHS did not alert officials how the rule would apply in states with abortion bans now allowed under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    Yet the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals argued in a ruling Monday that Tennessee could not use its abortion ban law to “dictate eligibility requirements” for Title X funding. The 31-page ruling means the federal government will not reinstate Tennessee’s Title X funding while the lawsuit continues through the courts.

    Furthermore, the appeals court said that the state was not obligated to accept the money and noted that the Tennessee Legislature approved of replacing the lost federal dollars with state funding.

    “Tennessee was free to voluntarily relinquish the grants for any reason, especially if it determined that the requirements would violate its state laws,” the ruling stated.

    A spokesperson for Skrmetti’s office said they were “reviewing the opinion and considering next steps.”

    Tennessee has been a recipient of the program since it launched in 1970, recently collecting around $7.1 million annually to help nearly 100 clinics provide birth control and basic health care services mainly to low-income women, many of them from minority communities.

    Under the latest rule, clinics cannot use federal family planning money to pay for abortions, but they must offer information about abortion at the patient’s request.

    Tennessee bans abortion at all stages of pregnancy but includes some narrow exceptions.

    In March of 2023, HHS informed Tennessee health officials that the state was out of Title X compliance because of its policy barring clinics from providing information on pregnancy termination options that weren’t legal in the state — effectively prohibiting any discussions on elective abortions. The state defended its policy and refused to back down, causing the federal government to declare that continuing Tennessee’s Title X money was “not in the best interest of the government.”

    HHS later announced that Tennessee’s Title X funds would largely be directed to Planned Parenthood, the leading provider of abortions in the United States, which would distribute the money to its clinics located in Tennessee.

    “Millions of people across the country rely on essential care — like birth control, STI screenings and treatment, cancer screenings, and other key sexual and reproductive health care services — funded by Title X,” said Ashley Coffield, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Tennessee and North Mississippi in a statement. “The state’s decision not to comply with all-options counseling is playing politics with our bodies.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Abortion rights ballot measures to go before voters in Montana and Arizona

    Abortion rights ballot measures to go before voters in Montana and Arizona

    [ad_1]

    Voters in Arizona and Montana will be able to decide in November whether they want to protect the right to an abortion in their state constitutions.

    The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a 200-word summary that abortion rights advocates used to collect signatures for a ballot measure is valid, clearing the way for the issue to remain on the ballot.

    The Arizona secretary of state’s office said last week it had certified 577,971 signatures – far above the required number that the coalition supporting the ballot measure had to submit in order to put the question before voters.  

    Montana Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen on Tuesday certified Montana’s constitutional initiative for the November ballot.

    Under both measures, abortions would be allowed until fetal viability – the point at which a fetus could survive outside the womb, typically around 24 weeks.

    In Arizona, there are some exceptions for post-viability abortions to save the mother’s life or to protect her physical or mental health. Montana’s measure allows later abortions if needed to protect the mother’s life or health.

    Montana’s initiative would enshrine in the constitution a 1999 state Supreme Court ruling that found the constitutional right to privacy includes the right of a patient to receive an abortion from a provider of their choice. Supporters sought to protect the right as Republican lawmakers passed bills to restrict abortion rights.

    Voters in more than a half-dozen states will be deciding abortion measures this fall.

    Democrats have made abortion rights a central message since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 – and it is a key part of their efforts in this year’s elections.

    Seven states have already put abortion questions before voters since then — California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Ohio and Vermont — and in each case abortion supporters won.   

    “Since Roe was overturned, extreme anti-abortion politicians have used every trick in the book to take away our freedoms and ban abortion completely,” Martha Fuller, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Montana, said in a statement. “During that time, we have been working together to put this issue before voters.”

    Recent decisions from the Arizona Supreme Court come ahead of a Thursday ballot printing deadline. Montana’s ballot must be certified by Thursday.

    Arizona’s justices sided with Republican lawmakers in a separate case concerning the abortion ballot measure last week to allow a voter information pamphlet to refer to an embryo or fetus as an “unborn human being.” That language will not appear on the ballots.

    In the latest abortion measure case, Arizona Right to Life sued over the petition summary, arguing it was misleading.

    The high court justices rejected that argument, as well as the claim that the petition summary for the proposed amendment failed to mention it would overturn existing abortion laws if approved by voters. The court in its ruling states that “(r)easonable people” can differ over the best way to describe a key provision of a ballot measure, but a court should not entangle itself in those disputes.

    “Regardless of the ruling, we are looking forward to working with our pro-life partners across the state to continue to inform voters about this ambiguous language,” said Susan Haugland, spokesperson for Arizona Right to Life.

    Arizona for Abortion Access, which launched the initiative, said the ruling is a “huge win” and advocates will be working around the clock to encourage voters to support it.

    “We are confident that this fall, Arizona voters will make history by establishing a fundamental right to abortion in our state, once and for all,” the group said in a statement.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Are Democrats offering free abortions at their convention?

    Are Democrats offering free abortions at their convention?

    [ad_1]

    Reproductive rights took center stage during the Democratic National Convention’s first night in Chicago. But is the DNC offering free abortions and vasectomies to attendees, as some conservative social media users have claimed?

    RNC Research, an X account run by the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee, posted Aug. 18, “Democrats are giving out ‘free abortions and vasectomies’ at their convention.”

    Other users made similar claims on X.

    A Planned Parenthood branch is providing free medication abortion, vasectomies and emergency contraception through a mobile health clinic in Chicago that’s running at the same time as the DNC. But the convention is not sponsoring or otherwise connected to these services.

    Planned Parenthood Great Rivers, which is based in the St. Louis region, said Aug. 14 on X and Aug. 19 in a press release that its mobile health unit would be stationed Aug. 19 and 20 in Chicago’s West Loop neighborhood. Planned Parenthood Great Rivers said Aug. 17 that all of its appointment spots had been filled.

    The DNC is not being held in the West Loop. The event’s nighttime programming and speeches are at the United Center, a few blocks east of the West Loop. Daytime events are at the McCormick Place Convention Center, a few miles south of the West Loop, according to the DNC’s website.

    The DNC’s website does not list Planned Parenthood as a partner, sponsor or vendor for the event, nor does it mention this mobile health clinic.

    Planned Parenthood Great Rivers’ press release lists the Chicago Abortion Fund, a nonprofit group, and the Wieners Circle, a food vendor, as partners. It does not mention the DNC.

    “Meeting patients where they are by offering the mobile clinic’s services in busy areas is yet another continuation of Planned Parenthood’s unending efforts to improve accessibility and expand services for Illinois residents,” the release said, adding that the mobile clinic would also address “the influx of patients” going to Illinois for care as surrounding states restricted reproductive care.

    RELATED: Fact-checking DNC Night 2: What Democratic speakers got right, wrong

    LIVE BLOG: Explore PolitiFact’s live fact-checking feed from Night 2 of DNC 2024

    [ad_2]

    Source link