ReportWire

Tag: sexual and reproductive health

  • Roe v. Wade Fast Facts | CNN

    Roe v. Wade Fast Facts | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at the US Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade.

    1971 – The case is filed by Norma McCorvey, known in court documents as Jane Roe, against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, who enforced a Texas law that prohibited abortion, except to save a woman’s life.

    January 22, 1973 – The US Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, affirms the legality of a woman’s right to have an abortion under the Fourteenth amendment to the Constitution. The court held that a woman’s right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman the right to an abortion during the entirety of the pregnancy and defined different levels of state interest for regulating abortion in the second and third trimesters.

    The ruling affected laws in 46 states.

    Full-text opinions by the justices can be viewed here.

    1971 – The Supreme Court agrees to hear the case filed by Roe against Wade, who was enforcing the Texas abortion law that had been declared unconstitutional in an earlier federal district court case. Wade was ignoring the legal ruling and both sides appealed.

    December 13, 1971 – The case is argued before the US Supreme Court.

    October 11, 1972 – The case is reargued before the US Supreme Court.

    January 22, 1973 – The US Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, affirms the legality of a woman’s right to have an abortion under the Fourteenth amendment to the Constitution.

    June 17, 2003 – McCorvey (Roe) files a motion with the federal district court in Dallas to have the case overturned and asks the court to consider new evidence that abortion hurts women. Included are 1,000 affidavits from women who say they regret their abortions.

    September 14, 2004 – A three-judge panel of the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans dismisses McCorvey’s motion to have the case overturned, according to the Court’s clerk.

    May 2, 2022 – In a stunning breach of Supreme Court confidentiality and secrecy, Politico has obtained what it calls a draft of a majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito that would overturn Roe v. Wade’s holding of a federal constitutional right to an abortion. The opinion in the case is not expected to be published until late June. The court confirms the authenticity of the document on May 3, but stresses it is not the final decision.

    June 24, 2022 – The Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade with a 6-3 decision, holding that there is no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion. 

    Norma McCorvey – Texas resident who sought to obtain an abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant mother’s life. McCorvey was pregnant when she became the lead plaintiff in the case. She gave up the baby for adoption.

    McCorvey has since come forward and spoken against abortion. In 1997, McCorvey started Roe No More, an anti-abortion outreach organization that was dissolved in 2008. McCorvey died on February 18, 2017. In the 2020 documentary “AKA Jane Roe,” prior to her death in 2017, McCorvey told the film’s director that she hadn’t changed her mind about abortion but became an anti-abortion activist because she was being paid.

    Henry Wade – district attorney of Dallas County from 1951 to 1987. McCorvey sued him because he enforced a law that prohibited abortion, except to save a woman’s life. He died on March 1, 2001.

    Sarah Weddington – Lawyer for McCorvey.

    Linda Coffee – Lawyer for McCorvey.

    Jay Floyd – Argued the case for Texas the first time.

    Robert C. Flowers – Reargued the case for Texas.

    Majority: Harry A. Blackmun (for The Court), William J. Brennan, Lewis F. Powell Jr., Thurgood Marshall

    Concurring: Warren Burger, William Orville Douglas, Potter Stewart

    Dissenting: William H. Rehnquist, Byron White

    [ad_2]

    Source link

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

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

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Notable US Supreme Court Decisions Fast Facts | CNN

    Notable US Supreme Court Decisions Fast Facts | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

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

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

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

    The Court decided against Marbury 6-0.

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

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

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

    The Court decided against Scott 7-2.

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

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

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

    The Court decided against Plessy 7-1.

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

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

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

    The Court decided in favor of Brown unanimously.

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

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

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

    The Court decided in favor of Gideon unanimously.

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

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

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

    The Court decided against Sullivan unanimously.

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

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

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

    The court decided in favor of Miranda 5-4.

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

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

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

    The Court decided in favor of Roe 7-2.

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

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

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

    The Court decided against Nixon 8-0.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The court voted 5-4 in favor of Windsor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    2016 – Fisher v. University of Texas

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

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

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

    2020 – Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia

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

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

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

    2022 – Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

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

    Mississippi appeals the decision to the Supreme Court.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How the Senate GOP’s campaign chief is navigating Trump and messy primaries | CNN Politics

    How the Senate GOP’s campaign chief is navigating Trump and messy primaries | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Top Senate Republicans look at the prospects of a Donald Trump primary victory with trepidation, fearful his polarizing style and heavy baggage may sink GOP candidates down the ticket as their party battles for control of the chamber.

    But Sen. Steve Daines doesn’t agree.

    The Montana Republican, who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, has spent the past year working to ensure Trump and Senate Republican leaders don’t clash about their preferred candidates in key primaries, after the 2022 debacle that saw a bevy of Trump-backed choices collapse in the heat of the general election and cost their party the Senate majority. So far, the two are on the same page.

    Daines argues that Trump is “strengthening” among independent voters and that could be a boon for his Senate candidates – even in purple states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada and Pennsylvania. The senator says that his down-ticket candidates should embrace the former president, even as he’s facing four criminal trials with polls showing that he remains a deeply unpopular figure with wide swaths of voters.

    “What’s key is we want to make sure we have high-quality candidates running with President Trump,” Daines said. “Candidates that can again appeal beyond the Republican base – that’s my goal.”

    In an interview with CNN at NRSC headquarters, Daines detailed his latest thinking about the GOP strategy to take back the Senate, saying his candidates need to have a stronger position on abortion, signaling he’s eager to avoid a primary in the Montana race and arguing that neither Sens. Kyrsten Sinema nor Joe Manchin could hold onto their seats if they ran for reelection in their states as independents.

    And as Kari Lake is poised to announce a Senate bid in Arizona as soon as next week, Daines has some advice for the former TV broadcaster, who falsely blamed mass voting fraud for her loss in last year’s gubernatorial race in her state.

    “I think one thing we’ve learned from 2022 is voters do not want to hear about grievances from the past,” Daines said. “They want to hear about what you’re going to do for the future. And if our candidates stay on that message of looking down the highway versus the rearview mirror, I think they’ll be a lot more successful particularly in their appeal to independent voters, which usually decide elections.”

    Daines, who called Lake “very gifted” and said he’s had “positive” conversations with her, added: “I think it’s just going to be important for her to look to the future and not so much the past.”

    Asked if Trump’s repeated false claims of a “stolen” election could be problematic down-ticket, Daines instead pointed out that Trump was the last GOP president since Ronald Reagan to win Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan in 2016, though he lost those states in 2020.

    “As we continue to watch the president strengthen, we’ll see what happens here in ’24, but I’ll tell you he provides a lot of strength for us down ballot in many key states,” said Daines, who was the first member of Senate GOP leadership to endorse Trump.

    Daines’ assessment comes as he is benefitting from a highly favorable map, with 23 Democrats up for reelection, compared to just 11 for the GOP. Democratic incumbents in three states that Trump won – Ohio, Montana and West Virginia – are the most endangered, while the two best Democratic pickup opportunities – Texas and Florida – remain an uphill battle.

    “We’ll have to keep an eye on Texas – the Ted Cruz race,” Daines said. “Just because he’s Ted Cruz he’ll draw a lot of money from the other side to try to defeat Ted Cruz.”

    Beating incumbents is usually a complicated endeavor, plus Republicans are facing messy primaries that could make it harder to win a general election, including in Daines’ home-state of Montana. There, Daines has gotten behind Tim Sheehy, a former Navy SEAL who owns an aerial firefighting company. But there’s a possibility that Sheehy could face Rep. Matt Rosendale in the primary, something that Republicans fear could undercut their effort to take down 17-year incumbent Sen. Jon Tester.

    Rosendale, a member of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, narrowly lost to Tester in 2018 and is considering another run in 2024.

    “I’ve known Matt a long time. He’s a friend of mine. I like Matt Rosendale,” Daines said. “I think it’s best if he were to stay in the US House and gain seniority.”

    Unlike in the last cycle when the NRSC stayed neutral under previous leadership, the campaign committee now is taking a much heavier hand in primaries, picking and choosing which candidates to endorse. While Daines declined to say how his committee would handle the Arizona primary, he indicated they would stay out of the crowded Ohio primary, arguing the three GOP candidates battling it out there are on solid footing in the race for Sen. Sherrod Brown’s seat.

    While West Virginia remains perhaps the best pickup opportunity for the GOP, the NRSC will have a much harder time if Manchin decides to run for reelection. In an interview, Manchin signaled that if he runs again, it may be as an independent – not a Democrat.

    “I think everyone thinks of me as an independent back home,” Manchin told CNN. “I don’t think they look at me as a big D or a big R or an anti-R or anti-D or anything. They say it’s Joe, if it makes sense, he’ll do it.”

    Daines said that wouldn’t make much of a difference.

    “It’d be very difficult for Joe to get reelected in West Virginia based on looking at the numbers,” Daines said, pointing to Manchin’s support for the Inflation Reduction Act.

    Similarly, Daines said that if Sinema runs in Arizona, he doesn’t believe she can win as a third-party candidate, as she faces a GOP candidate and the likely Democratic nominee, Rep. Ruben Gallego.

    “I think Sinema will have a difficult path if she gets in the race,” he said.

    In addition to facing weaker candidates last cycle, many Republicans continue to sidestep questions on their positions over abortion – a potent issue in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning Roe v. Wade.

    But Daines says he doesn’t think abortion will be “as potent this cycle,” indicating he is pressing candidates to do a “better job” messaging on the issue to suburban women. He said that Republicans need to impress upon voters that they support limits on late-term abortions, with exceptions for rape, incest or life of the mother, arguing that’s a “more reasonable position” in line with most Americans – all the while rejecting calls for a national ban on all abortions.

    “I think we actually had candidates who just kind of ran away from the issue and kind of hoped it went away,” Daines said. “And when you do that, if you don’t take a position, the Democratic opponents there will define the issue for them. And that’s a losing strategy.”

    Daines is also in the middle of another internal party war – between Trump and Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell, as the two men have been at sharp odds since the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

    Asked if he believed the two could work with each other if Trump is president again and McConnell returns as Republican leader, Daines said: “It’d be a privilege to have a Republican president and a Republican majority leader working – that’d be a nice problem to have.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump, who paved way for Roe v. Wade reversal, says Republicans ‘speak very inarticulately’ about abortion | CNN Politics

    Trump, who paved way for Roe v. Wade reversal, says Republicans ‘speak very inarticulately’ about abortion | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former President Donald Trump, who paved the way for the undoing of federal abortion rights protections, said that some Republicans “speak very inarticulately” about the issue and have pursued “terrible” state-level restrictions that could alienate much of the country.

    While avoiding taking specific positions himself, Trump said in an NBC interview that if he is reelected he will try to broker compromises on how long into pregnancies abortion should be legal and whether those restrictions should be imposed on the federal or the state level.

    “I would sit down with both sides and I’d negotiate something and we’ll end up with peace on that issue for the first time in 52 years,” he said.

    The former president targeted GOP primary rival Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in his criticism of how the Republican party has handled the issue, calling Florida’s six-week ban “a terrible thing and a terrible mistake.”

    DeSantis’ camp hit back on Sunday, taking aim at the former president for saying he’d be willing to work with both parties on abortion.

    “We’ve already seen the disastrous results of Donald Trump compromising with Democrats: over $7 trillion in new debt, an unfinished border wall, and the jailbreak First Step Act letting violent criminals back on to the streets. Republicans across the country know that Ron DeSantis will never back down,” tweeted spokesperson Andrew Romeo.

    Trump also warned Republicans that the party would lose voters by advancing abortion restrictions without exceptions for cases of rape, incest or risks to the mother’s life.

    “Other than certain parts of the country, you can’t – you’re not going to win on this issue,” he said.

    Trump’s comments made plain the challenge for 2024 Republican presidential primary contenders: trying to balance the priorities of their conservative base, for whom the Supreme Court’s June 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade was a victory decades in the making, and those of the general electorate, which has consistently supported abortion rights – most recently in the 2022 midterms and the Wisconsin Supreme Court race this spring.

    Abortion could also be a pivotal issue this fall in Virginia’s state legislative elections, which are widely viewed as a barometer of the electorate’s mood in the lead-up to next year’s presidential election.

    Trump’s appointment of three conservative Supreme Court justices paved the way to the reversal of the 1973 decision that guaranteed abortion rights across the United States through the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.

    That reversal left abortion rights up to the states, which has led to a patchwork of laws – including bans on abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy in Florida and Iowa, the first state to vote in the GOP presidential nominating process.

    Abortion rights have been a major fault line in the 2024 Republican primary. Trump’s former vice president, Mike Pence, has advocated a federal abortion ban after 15 weeks. DeSantis, Trump’s top-polling rival, has touted the six-week ban he signed into law. However, other contenders, including Nikki Haley, have taken more moderate approaches, warning of the political backlash Republicans could face among the broader electorate by pursuing strict abortion restrictions.

    Trump would not commit to a specific policy preference in the interview. He deflected questions about whether he would support a federal ban – and if so, after how many weeks – or would rather the issue be left to statehouses.

    “What’s going to happen is you’re going to come up with a number of weeks or months, you’re going to come up with a number that’s going to make people happy,” Trump said.

    Trump said he believed it was “probably better” to leave abortion restrictions up to the states instead of trying to pass federal legislation on the issue.

    “From a pure standpoint, from a legal standpoint, I think it’s probably better. But I can live with it either way,” Trump said. “It could be state or could it federal, I don’t frankly care.”

    The intra-GOP debate over abortion took center stage at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition gathering, attended by many of the state’s leading conservative evangelical activists.

    Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, one of the most vocal Trump critics among the GOP contenders, told reporters Saturday in Iowa that Trump has “taken evangelical voters for granted” and is “waffling on important issues.”

    “I think he is looking at the abortion question as not whether it’s going to win evangelical support, but what that’s going to look like down the road, and as he said he wants everybody to like him,” Hutchinson said.

    Asked about federal legislation on abortion, DeSantis continued not to engage on the topic of a national ban, instead pointing to new restrictions in states such as Iowa and Florida.

    “I’ve been a pro-life governor. I’ll be a pro-life president,” DeSantis said. “Clearly, a state like Iowa has been able to move the ball with pro-life protections. Florida has been able to move the ball.”

    Pence reiterated his support for a federal ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy as a minimum, saying, “It’s an idea whose time has come.” He said Trump and other GOP candidates want to relegate the abortion issue to the states, “but I won’t have it.”

    ‘Personal for every woman and every man’

    However, other contenders more focused on the general electorate, including Haley – the former South Carolina governor and US ambassador to the United Nations – have sought to thread the same needle as Trump.

    Haley on Saturday told attendees at the Faith and Freedom Coalition in Iowa that her beliefs are the “hard truth.” She said pursuing a federal 15-week abortion ban would have “everybody running from us.”

    While Haley opposes abortion, she has emphasized she believes Republicans and Democrats need find a consensus on abortion issues, such as banning later abortions and agreeing not to jail women who get them.

    “This issue is personal for every woman and every man. And we need to treat it that way. I don’t judge anyone for being pro-choice any more than I want them to judge me for being pro-life,” she said.

    Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said on CNN last week that he would be open to signing a federal abortion ban “if it represented consensus,” while admitting the current setbacks to reaching that consensus within the US Senate and across states.

    “I want all of the 50 states to be able to weigh in if they want to, and what their state laws should be, and then let’s see if it’s a consensus,” he said.

    Democrats, meanwhile, are eyeing abortion as one of the most important issues in the 2024 presidential election.

    CNN previously reported that President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign earlier this month made a digital advertising buy highlighting the positions of Trump and other GOP 2024 contenders on the issue.

    “As Donald Trump visits states where women are suffering the consequences of his extreme, anti-abortion agenda, this ad reminds voters in states that have passed some of the most extreme abortion bans of Trump’s key role in appointing conservative justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade,” Biden’s campaign manager, Julie Chavez Rodriguez, said in a statement to CNN.

    This story has been updated with additional information Sunday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The anti-abortion movement is fractured over what it wants from its first post-Roe GOP presidential nominee | CNN Politics

    The anti-abortion movement is fractured over what it wants from its first post-Roe GOP presidential nominee | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Bernie Hayes has spent most Mondays since the overturning of Roe v. Wade meeting with friends outside of an Iowa Planned Parenthood trying to stop abortions one at a time. He huddles monthly with other like-minded activists plotting more wholesale paths to halting the procedure.

    Lately, Hayes, an elder at Noelridge Park Church in Cedar Rapids, has observed more dissent among anti-abortion allies who once worked in harmony. Some see the fall of Roe as a one-time chance to ban abortion entirely while others are worried about the political consequences of pushing too hard too quickly.

    “Sadly, it becomes divisive to the point where we just get fractured,” Hayes said. “I can only imagine what the division looks like on a national scale.”

    Those divisions are spilling out into the 2024 Republican presidential primary, as leading anti-abortion organizations are offering candidates conflicting guidance on an issue that has galvanized the political right for half a century. Recent polling shows Republican voters aren’t providing candidates much more clarity.

    Lynda Bell, the president of Florida Right to Life, bristled at the suggestion that Republican candidates must back a federal abortion ban.

    “There’s nothing in the Constitution that talks about abortion and this issue should be decided by the states,” she said.

    But other leaders of anti-abortion groups want GOP candidates to be unflinching in their support for more hardline policies.

    “Anyone in the pro-life movement is looking very carefully at the current candidates that are running for president, and those who are not advocating strongly on this issue are going to be the ones that are not going to get the confidence and get the vote of the pro-life movement,” said Maggie DeWitte, the executive director of the Iowa anti-abortion group Pulse Life Advocates.

    Candidates are cautiously navigating the unclear expectations of conservative voters as they search for their first presidential nominee in a post-Roe America. Former President Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, the two highest-polling candidates for the GOP nomination, have routinely dodged questions on the trail about whether they would sign a national abortion ban and at how many weeks into a pregnancy they would support such federal legislation.

    Meanwhile, candidates who have expressed more defined views on the topic – like former Vice President Mike Pence, a backer of a federal ban, and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who said the federal government “should not be involved” in the abortion debate – have yet to gain traction with Republican voters.

    Whoever is the GOP nominee will face an electorate that has so far handed anti-abortion advocates a series of stinging defeats since the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson last summer. In the immediate aftermath of the court’s ruling, Kansans voted overwhelmingly to keep abortion legal in the state. In November, Michiganders at the ballot box enshrined abortion access in the state constitution. This week in Wisconsin, liberal justice Janet Protasiewicz started her term on the state Supreme Court after winning a spring race, during which she campaigned on protecting abortion access.

    The enthusiasm displayed by abortion-rights activists in the past 12 months will be tested again on Tuesday when Ohioans will decide whether to raise the threshold for passing a constitutional amendment, a referendum that would have significant implications for a fall ballot question ensure “every individual has a right to make and carry out one’s reproductive decisions.”

    “We need to start winning hearts and minds,” Hayes said. “I don’t think we can worry about a federal ban until you can do that.”

    Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, a national anti-abortion group, has clashed with the GOP contenders for the nomination as the organization enforces its own red line for presidential candidates: a 15-week federal ban.

    When Trump’s campaign suggested in April that abortion should be decided at the state level, Marjorie Dannenfelser, the organization’s president, called it “a morally indefensible position for a self-proclaimed pro-life presidential candidate to hold.” It was a stunning break between one of the country’s most influential anti-abortion groups and the president who nominated the three Supreme Court justices that helped secure the movement’s watershed victory. Trump and Dannenfelser later met to clear the air, though Trump has still evaded outlining his views on the issue.

    Dannenfelser similarly said it was “not acceptable” when another candidate, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, stated “it’s not realistic” to expect a gridlocked Congress to find consensus on federal abortion legislation.

    And, in a blistering rebuke this week, Dannenfelser questioned DeSantis’ leadership after he once again declined to back a federal abortion.

    “A pro-life president has a duty to protect the lives of all Americans,” she said. “He should be the National Defender of Life.”

    DeSantis dismissed the criticism during a campaign stop in New Hampshire, where he noticeably drops references to his state’s new abortion law – which bans most abortions after six weeks – from his stump speech.

    “Different groups, you know, are gonna have different agendas, but I can tell you this: Nobody running has actually delivered pro-life protections,” DeSantis said. “I have done that.”

    South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott seized on the fissure between DeSantis and the leading abortion group, writing in a social media post that, “Republicans should not be retreating on life.” He added, “We need a national 15-week limit to stop blue states from pushing abortion on demand.”

    Scott, though, also struggled to define the federal role in the next frontier for the anti-abortion movement after he entered the presidential race in May.

    The anti-abortion movement is not totally aligned behind Dannenfelser. Carol Tobias, the president of the National Right to Life Committee, said she thought it was a mistake to have a political litmus test for Republican presidential candidates on abortion and argued doing so would only serve to splinter the party ahead of the general election. It “doesn’t help” for SBA Pro-Life America to set a 15-week national ban as its standard for GOP candidates, Tobias said, arguing that there were more realistic goals to work towards, like ensuring zero tax dollars are used to fund abortions

    “If we’re not going to get a national law on abortion through Congress, why focus on it?” Tobias told CNN.

    Republican voters appear similarly divided. A New York Times/Siena College national survey released this week found more Republicans favored some exceptions (33%) than a total ban (22%). Meanwhile, one-third said they believed abortion should be mostly or always legal.

    But among White evangelical Republican voters – whose influence is especially pronounced in the early nominating contests in Iowa and South Carolina – opposition is higher. More than three-fourths responded that abortion should be always or mostly illegal.

    Further complicating the calculus for the Republican field is that the GOP voters least likely to vote for Trump are among the most likely to support at least some protections for abortion. For those Republicans who said they are not open to voting for Trump, only 11% support a total ban while more than half said they want abortion to be legal in most situations.

    The clashing opinions underscore the political tightrope Republican candidates are walking after their party underperformed in the 2022 midterms in an election held just months after Roe v. Wade was overturned. Some Republicans – including Trump – have blamed it for the party’s losses, pointing to South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham’s failed attempt to push a federal ban through Congress last year as strategically unsound.

    “I thought, ‘What is Lindsey Graham doing?’” Bell said. “The Supreme Court just said it was a state decision. I was baffled.”

    But there are also fears within the anti-abortion movement that Republicans won’t act to preserve their chances at the ballot box.

    “Some say, ‘Let’s just ignore it,’” Hayes, the Cedar Rapids church elder, said. “For me the worst thing can happen is that it’s either very diluted or taken out of the platform all together. I hope we won’t go there. But if we’re going to talk about it, we need to do it in a smart way.”

    In Hayes’ state, Republicans that control Iowa’s government moved to ban most abortions in the state as early as six weeks into pregnancy. Gov. Kim Reynolds signed the measure into law at last month’s Family Leadership Summit, where most of the GOP field had assembled to speak directly to the state’s evangelical and Christian voters. Many Republican candidates heaped praise on Reynolds for signing the law, though most have not advocated for similar legislation at the federal level.

    Trump, who has notably not weighed in on Iowa’s law, did not attend the summit and has privately said he considers abortion a losing issue for Republicans. Publicly, he called Florida’s six-week abortion ban “too harsh,” testing conservatives who once celebrated Trump’s place in ending Roe.

    “I think many in the pro-life movement were disappointed to hear him talk about life not being a winning issue, and sort of attacking the heartbeat bill and some of the other legislation that’s coming down as being ‘too harsh,’” DeWitte said. “I think that really turned off people in the pro-life movement.”

    Joni Lupis, a pastor and president and director of March For Life New York, said she is wary of candidates who aren’t taking a stance on the issue or offering realistic answers.

    “Let’s be honest: The president can’t just declare no more abortion in the whole world,” Lupis said. “They can say they will but it doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. That’s politics and we’ll have to wait and see what they have to do. I like a person that says what they believe. If you believe something, you should stand behind and declare it.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Takeaways from the second Republican presidential debate | CNN Politics

    Takeaways from the second Republican presidential debate | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The second 2024 Republican presidential primary debate ended just as it began: with former President Donald Trump – who hasn’t yet appeared alongside his rivals onstage – as the party’s dominant front-runner.

    The seven GOP contenders in Wednesday night’s showdown at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California provided a handful of memorable moments, including former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley unloading what often seemed like the entire field’s pent-up frustration with entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy.

    “Honestly, every time I hear you, I feel a little bit dumber for what you say,” she said to him at one point.

    Two candidates criticized Trump’s absence, as well. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said he was “missing in action.” Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called the former president “Donald Duck” and said he “hides behind his golf clubs” rather than defending his record on stage.

    Chris Christie takes up debate time to send Trump a clear message

    The GOP field also took early shots at President Joe Biden. South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott said Biden, rather than joining the striking auto workers’ union on the picket line Tuesday in Michigan, should be on the southern border. Former Vice President Mike Pence said Biden should be “on the unemployment line.” North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum said Biden was interfering with “free markets.”

    However, what played out in the debate, hosted by Fox Business Network and Univision, is unlikely to change the trajectory of a GOP race in which Trump has remained dominant in national and early-state polling.

    And the frequently messy, hard-to-track crosstalk could have led many viewers to tune out entirely.

    Here are takeaways from the second GOP primary debate:

    Trump might have played it safe by skipping the debates and taking a running-as-an-incumbent approach to the 2024 GOP primary.

    It’s hard to see, though, how he would pay a significant price in the eyes of the party’s voters for missing Wednesday night’s messy engagement.

    Trump’s rivals took a few shots at him. DeSantis knocked him for deficit spending. Christie mocked him during the night’s early moments, calling him “Donald Duck” for skipping the debate and then in his final comments said he would vote Trump off the GOP island.

    “This guy has not only divided our party – he’s divided families all over this country. He’s divided friends all over this country,” Christie said. “He needs to be voted off the island and he needs to be taken out of this process.”

    However, Trump largely escaped serious scrutiny of his four years in the Oval Office from a field of rivals courting voters who have largely positive views of his presidency.

    “Tonight’s GOP debate was as boring and inconsequential as the first debate, and nothing that was said will change the dynamics of the primary contest,” Trump campaign senior adviser Chris LaCivita said in a statement.

    The second GOP primary debate was beset by interruptions, crosstalk and protracted squabbles between the candidates and moderators over speaking time.

    That’s tough for viewers trying to make sense of it all but even worse for these candidates as they attempted to stand out as viable alternatives to the absentee Trump.

    Further complicating the matter, some of the highest polling candidates after Trump – DeSantis and Haley – were among those least willing to dive into the muck, especially during the crucial first hour. The moderators repeatedly tried to clear the road for the Florida governor, at least in the beginning. But he was all but absent from the proceedings for the first 15 minutes.

    Ramaswamy fared somewhat better, speaking louder – and faster – than most of his rivals. But he was bogged down repeatedly when caught between his own talking points and cross-volleys of criticisms from frustrated candidates like Scott.

    The moderator group will likely get criticism for losing control of the room within the first half-hour, but even a messy debate tells voters something about the people taking part.

    All night, Scott seemed like he was looking for a fight with somebody and he finally got that when he set his sights on fellow South Carolinian Haley.

    He began his line of attack – which Haley interjected with a “Bring it” – by accusing her of spending $50,000 on curtains in a $15 million subsidized location during her time as the US ambassador to the United Nations.

    What ensued was the two Republicans going back and forth about the curtains. “Do your homework, Tim, because Obama bought those curtains,” Haley said, while Scott repeated, “Did you send them back? Did you send them back?” Haley then responded: “Did you send them back? You’re the one who works in Congress.”

    It wasn’t the most acrimonious moment of the night, but it was up there. The feuding between the two South Carolina natives seemed deep, but it’s worth remembering that about a decade ago, when Haley was governor, she appointed Scott to the Senate seat he currently holds after Republican Jim DeMint stepped down. That confidence in Scott seems to have dissolved in this presidential race.

    Confronted by his Republican competitors for the first time in earnest, DeSantis delivered an uneven performance from the center of the stage – a spot that is considerably less secure than it was heading into the first debate in Milwaukee.

    Despite rules that allowed candidates to respond if they were invoked, DeSantis let Fox slip to commercial break when Pence seemed to blame the governor for a jury decision to award a life sentence, not the death penalty, to the mass murderer in the Parkland high school shooting. (DeSantis opposed the decision and championed a law that made Florida the state with the lowest threshold to put someone on death row going forward.) Nor did he respond when Pence accused DeSantis of inflating Florida’s budget by 30% during his tenure.

    He later let Scott get the last word on Florida’s Black history curriculum standards and struggled to defend himself when Haley – accurately – pointed out that he took steps to block fracking in Florida on his second day in office.

    Before the first debate in Milwaukee, a top strategist for a pro-DeSantis super PAC told donors that “79% of the people tonight are going to watch the debate and turn it off after 19 minutes.”

    By that measure, the Florida governor managed to first speak Wednesday night just in the nick of time – 16 minutes into the debate. And when he finally spoke, he continued the sharper attacks on the GOP front-runner that he has previewed in recent weeks.

    DeSantis equated Trump’s absence in California to Biden, who DeSantis said was “completely missing in action for leadership” on the economy, blaming him for inflation and the autoworkers strike.

    “And you know who else is missing in action? Donald Trump is missing in action,” DeSantis said. “He should be on this stage tonight. He owes it to you to defend his record.”

    But DeSantis then largely pulled back from further targeting Trump – until a post-debate Fox News appearance when he challenged the former president to a one-on-one face-off.

    DeSantis ended the debate on a strong note. He took charge by rejecting moderator Dana Perino’s attempts to get the candidates to vote one of their competitors “off the island.” He ended his night forcefully dismissing a suggestion that Trump’s lead in the polls held meaning in September.

    “Polls don’t elect presidents, voters elect presidents,” he said, before pointing a finger at Trump for Republicans’ electoral underperformance in the last three elections.

    But as the super PAC strategist previously pointed out: By then, who was watching?

    In the final minutes of the debate, co-host Ilia Calderón of Univision asked Pence how he would reach out to those Latino voters who felt the Republican Party was hostile or didn’t care about them.

    “I’m incredibly proud of the tax cut and tax reform bill,” he said, referring to Republicans’ sweeping 2017 tax law. He also cited low unemployment rates for Hispanic Americans recorded during the Trump-Pence administration.

    Scott, faced with the same question, said it was important to lead by example. “My chief of staff is the only Hispanic female chief of staff in the Senate,” he said. “I hired her because she was the best, highest-qualified person we have.”

    Calderón focused much of her time on a series of policy questions that highlighted the candidates’ records on immigration and gun violence. At times, some of them struggled to respond directly.

    She asked Pence if he would work with Congress to find a permanent solution for people who were brought to the country illegally as children. The Trump-Pence administration ended the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which gave those young people protected status. She repeated the question after Pence focused his answer on his work securing the border. He then talked about his time in Congress.

    “Let me tell you, I served in Congress for 12 years, although it seemed longer,” he said. “But you know, something I’ve done different than everybody on this stage is I’ve actually secured reform in Congress.”

    The candidates – and moderators – shy away from abortion talk

    It took more than a 100 minutes on Wednesday night for the first question on abortion to be asked.

    About five minutes later, the conversation had moved on. What is potentially the most potent driver (or flipper) of votes in the coming election was afforded less time than TikTok.

    Tellingly, no one onstage seemed to mind.

    Perino introduced the subject by asking DeSantis whether some Republicans were right to worry that the electoral backlash to abortion bans – or the prospect of their passage – would handicap the eventual GOP nominee.

    DeSantis, who signed a six-week ban in April, dismissed those concerns, pointing to his success in traditionally liberal parts of Florida on his way to winning a second term in 2022. Then he swiped at Trump for calling the new laws “a terrible thing and a terrible mistake.”

    Christie took a similar path, arguing that his two terms as governor of New Jersey, a traditionally blue state, showed it was possible for anti-abortion leaders to win in a environments supportive of abortion rights.

    And with that, the abortion “debate” in Simi Valley ended abruptly. No more questions and no attempts by the rest of the candidates to interject or otherwise join the chat.

    Candidates pile on Ramaswamy

    Some of the candidates onstage didn’t want to have a repeat of the first debate, in which Ramaswamy managed to stand out as a formidable debater and showman.

    Early in Wednesday’s debate, Scott went after the tech entrepreneur, saying his business record included ties to the Chinese Communist Party and money going to Hunter Biden. The visibly annoyed Ramaswamy shifted gears from praising all the other candidates onstage to defending his business record. But Scott and Ramaswamy ended up talking over each other.

    A little later on Pence began an answer with a knock on Ramaswamy, saying, “I’m glad Vivek pulled out of his business deal in China.” At another point after Ramaswamy had responded to a question about his use of TikTok, Haley jumped in, saying, “Every time I hear you, I feel a little bit dumber from what you say” and then going on to say, “We can’t trust you. We can’t trust you.” As Ramaswamy tried to readopt his unity tone, Scott could be heard trying to interrupt him.

    Despite the efforts of moderators to pin them down, DeSantis and Pence struggled to respond when challenged on their respective records on health care.

    Asked about the Trump administration’s failure to end the Affordable Care Act as promised, Pence opted instead to answer a previous question about mass gun violence. When Perino pushed Pence one more time to explain why Obamacare remains not just intact but popular, the former vice president once again demurred.

    Fox’s Stuart Varney similarly pressed DeSantis to explain why 2.5 million Floridians don’t have health insurance.

    DeSantis found a familiar foil for Republicans in California: inflation. Varney, though, said it didn’t explain why Florida has one of the highest uninsurance rates in the country, to which DeSantis had little response.

    “Our state’s a dynamic state,” DeSantis said, before pointing to Florida’s population boom and the low level of welfare benefits offered there.

    Haley, though, appeared ready to debate health care, arguing for transparency in prices to lessen the power of insurance companies and providers and overhauling lawsuit rules to make it harder to sue doctors.

    “How can we be the best country in the world and have the most expensive health care in the world?” Haley said.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Meta criticized for making reproductive health an R-rated issue | CNN Business

    Meta criticized for making reproductive health an R-rated issue | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Female reproductive health experts are calling on Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, to rethink its restrictions on reproductive health content.

    The company has long faced criticism for removing and restricting female reproductive health information with a prominent report from the Center for Intimacy Justice early last year accusing Meta of systematically rejecting many female and gender diverse reproductive health ads. The CIJ report also accused Meta of having bias algorithms, stating that male reproductive health ads were found to be permitted, including ads that referenced male sexual pleasure.

    In bid to combat those concerns, Meta tweaked its “adult products or services” advertising policy last October to include clearer guidelines about reproductive health, clarifying that it allows the promotion of “reproductive health products or services” if the content is targeted to “people aged 18 or older.”

    Meta

    (FB)     argues the topic is sensitive, stating that as a global company it needs to take in to account the “wide array of people from different cultures and countries” to “avoid potential negative experiences.”

    However, female reproductive experts tell CNN that the advertising policy is still too restrictive and is creating barriers for how younger people around the world access information about female reproductive health issues, including the menstrual cycle, which can start as early as 8 years old.

    They argue that censoring content about normal and natural bodily functions plays into the shame that has long plagued how people learn about the female body and hormone cycle. That can hinder how people with uteruses advocate for their bodies in healthcare settings, including obtaining care for misunderstood and underdiagnosed conditions like endometriosis.

    The practice of censoring female reproductive health content is not unique to Meta, with similar issues reported on other social media platforms. However, Meta is under specific scrutiny for failing to adequately address the issue within its policy updates last year.

    The founder and CEO of the Center for Intimacy Justice, Jackie Rotman, told CNN that despite the policy update, Meta’s algorithms still seem to have a problem with female reproductive health content.

    “The policy says that reproductive health is allowed, but in practice their technology is still rejecting it,” Rotman said, explaining that images of uteruses are often mistakenly flagged as nudity, and words like period, menopause, endometriosis and vagina also commonly triggering sexually inappropriate warnings.

    Rotman outlined that while Meta’s reproductive health guidelines are targeted toward advertising content, unpaid posts are also often being impacted by Meta’s algorithms. She says shadow-banning, which refers to content being partially blocked from certain audiences, is common practice for organic content. Several reproductive health content creators told CNN that they experience shadow-banning, explaining that it is time consuming game of trial and error to determine what is considered too taboo.

    Dr. Hazel Wallace, author of “The Female Factor” told CNN she wishes she could be more direct in how she speaks about the female body and hormone cycle, including menstrual health. However, said has learned that “to educate people, you almost have to play the game.”

    She says she often experiences shadow banning, with her analytics showing less engagement if she uses words like period. She explained that her team experimented with Meta’s algorithm, finding they could often dodge restrictions by mis-spelling the word period as p3riod.

    “We found that it increased engagement because it doesn’t flag your content as being inappropriate to certain audiences,” Wallace outlined.

    While Meta on several occasions has apologized and re-instated female reproductive health content that it says was mistakenly removed, it still stipulates an age restriction in its policy. Therefore, even if the updated policy was perfectly implemented, Meta would still be green lighting the practise of censoring crucial content from certain audiences.

    CNN asked Meta about the reports that it is continuing to remove, restrict, and shadow-ban female reproductive health content. CNN also asked Meta why all female reproductive health, including menstrual health, is classified as an 18+ issue.

    In response, a spokesperson for Meta, Ryan Daniels, said, “We welcome ads for women’s health and sexual wellness products, but we prohibit nudity and have specific rules about how these products can be marketed on our platform.”

    In a bid to change the conversation, female reproductive health content creators are not letting Meta’s restrictions silence their voices.

    Wallace, a like so many others in her field, says she should not need to self-censor how she speaks about female reproductive health, arguing that censorship perpetuates a “hush hush” narrative about “normal experiences.”

    “Imagine a world where we are teaching young girls and women from puberty – this is what to expect, this is normal, this is not normal, this is when to ask for help. We would feel a lot more empowered,” Wallace stated.

    Categorizing reproductive health as an R-rated topic is an issue that extends far beyond Meta advertising policies, reflecting wider societal views, from politics to sex education curriculums.

    Tracey Lindeman, the author of “BLEED: Destroying Myths and Misogyny in Endometriosis,” says classifying all female reproductive health issues under the umbrella of sexual health “perpetuates the idea that our sexual organs are to be exploited and used for sexuality, even at a young age.”

    “You’re born with a reproductive system. Whether or not you’re having sex, you still have that system in your body, and it’s still affecting your body in different ways,” Lindeman reasoned.

    “How about we just teach people about how their bodies work first, before we start teaching them how they work to have sex,” Lindeman stated.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Abortion divides Iowa GOP voters ahead of crucial first primary debate | CNN Politics

    Abortion divides Iowa GOP voters ahead of crucial first primary debate | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Sioux City, Iowa
    CNN
     — 

    Ask Lisa McGaffey if she has ever voted for a Democrat and there is no pause.

    “Oh, heavens, no,” she says quickly and emphatically. “Oh, no. There’s no – abortion. … They have to have a chance to grow up. They have to have the chance. You never know who that’s going to be.”

    McGaffey is a loyal Donald Trump supporter and is grateful for his three appointments to the conservative Supreme Court majority that erased Roe v. Wade last year and returned the question of abortion rights to the states.

    Two-hundred miles away, in the fast growing Des Moines suburbs, Betsy Sarcone takes a different view.

    Iowa, like Florida, in recent months enacted a law outlawing most abortions at six weeks. Sarcone – a single mother and a Catholic and Republican who told us, “I don’t believe in abortion” – thinks that is too restrictive.

    “I agree with a time limit,” Sarcone said in a recent interview in her West Des Moines home. “I’ve had three babies grow inside me. I agree when you feel them kicking and you feel them moving – that’s in my heart, is a time when that (a cutoff to abortion access) would be. Which is around say, like 18 weeks, something like that typically. So in my heart, that’s what I feel. I again, I just I don’t know that much further than that it’s somebody’s place to judge.”

    Abortion is among the fault lines in the 2024 Republican campaign, and a likely debate topic in Wednesday’s first primary season showdown between Republican candidates – all of whom support abortion restrictions. It’s also an issue that splits GOP voters, even those who share an opposition to the procedure. Sarcone and McGaffey, for example, are among a group of Iowa Republicans we are tracking as part of a CNN project designed to view the 2024 campaign through the eyes of voters – to see firsthand if their views change over the course of the cycle, and if so, why.

    Among that group is also Chris Mudd, a businessman in Cedar Falls and a Trump supporter, who signals a potential warning for GOP hopefuls on abortion.

    “I’m a pro-life guy,” Mudd told us. “But I think it is a losing issue for Republicans.” Of the six-week bans enacted in Florida and later in his home state of Iowa, Mudd said: “I think that was a mistake.”

    Among Republican candidates there’s some disagreement over whether a national ban should be a priority, or whether the issue is best left to the states.

    Trump, for example, has called the six-week ban signed by DeSantis in Florida “too harsh.” The GOP front-runner is choosing to skip the Milwaukee debate.

    Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina favors a federal law banning most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Mike Pence, the former vice president and Indiana governor, supports a six-week federal ban.

    GOP rivals Chris Christie, the former New Jersey governor, entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum describe themselves as staunchly “pro life” but argue the principled conservative position is that each state should make its own law. Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley has said she would sign a 15-week national ban, but also frequently notes the votes aren’t there in the current congressional balance of power and that the federal conversation is best put aside unless and until there is more consensus.

    Democrats see opportunity in almost any Republican conversation about abortion, citing how the issue has consistently helped galvanize voters in elections – from ballot initiatives to last year’s midterms – since the Dobbs decision.

    The last public poll on the issue in Iowa was in March, for the Des Moines Register.

    A clear majority, 61% of Iowans, said abortion should be legal in all or most cases. But the first competition here is the Republican caucuses, and the poll found that 59% of Republicans and 64% of evangelicals believed abortion should be illegal in most or all cases.

    Sarcone, a suburban Des Moines real estate agent, made a point worth remembering as the candidates debate for the first time this week.

    “I don’t know that I will have any candidate that I agree with on everything,” she said. “So the character, the leadership, the military is very important to me.”

    To that end, she listed DeSantis as her early favorite, despite her opposition to a six-week ban, but said she would consider Haley, Scott and perhaps others, too.

    Our first visit with this voter group, before the first debate, was to get a sense of how they rate the candidates and the issues early on.

    McGaffey, an administrator at the Jolly Time Pop Corn company, was the only member of the group who brought up the abortion issue in our conversations.

    Mudd, the pro-Trump businessman who’s wary of the GOP leaning too heavily into abortion, listed the economy as his lead issue.

    Similarly, attorney Priscilla Forsyth from Sioux City said abortion was not an issue on her debate priority list.

    “Issues like abortion are not my issue,” she said. “A lot of the social issues are not. It’s all the economy, really.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Abortion politics take center stage after Biden campaign capitalizes on GOP debate rift | CNN Politics

    Abortion politics take center stage after Biden campaign capitalizes on GOP debate rift | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    More than a year after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Republican candidates remain split over how to move forward on abortion, a political liability Democrats are eager to exploit regardless of who becomes the Republican nominee.

    The GOP divide was laid bare on the debate stage this week, as candidates backed a 15-week abortion ban, deferred to the states or tried to split the difference. President Joe Biden’s campaign responded immediately in a new digital ad, painting the field’s top contenders as extreme on the issue – and signaling what the Democratic campaign is likely to focus on in the coming year.

    When it comes to the future of abortion access, Republican candidates are facing pressure on all sides.

    GOP-led state legislatures have passed a wave of complete or near-total abortion bans that go beyond what most Americans support. Voters have supported abortion rights ballot initiatives and candidates in several key elections over the last year. And anti-abortion and evangelical groups are demanding presidential candidates go on the offensive and get as specific as possible.

    “The debate reflected the many different views among Republicans regarding abortion policy: not only what the policy ought to be, but what level of government ought to be making the decisions,” said Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster. “There’s no real consensus at this point.”

    Biden’s reelection campaign has also homed in on remarks GOP candidates made on abortion during the debate. In talking points sent out to surrogates Wednesday night, the campaign claimed Republicans “spent two hours shouting over each other on … who has the best plan to ban abortion nationwide,” CNN reported Thursday.

    Biden’s team followed up Friday morning with a digital ad, “These Guys,” highlighting comments former President Donald Trump, South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis have made on abortion, including a clip of DeSantis on the debate stage. The ad, aimed at women in seven battleground states, is part of a $25 million ad campaign CNN first reported earlier this week.

    The ad also reaffirms Biden’s stance on abortion: that the U.S. should maintain the standard set in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which allowed for abortion up until fetal viability, generally viewed as around 24 weeks.

    “This ad is the first of many that will hold all MAGA Republicans accountable for their extreme, losing positions throughout the cycle, while also highlighting the President’s support for women and their fundamental freedoms,” Biden campaign manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez said in a statement.

    Polling suggests that Americans support some legal abortion, but with limits. Seventy-three percent of respondents to an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released last month said abortion should be allowed during the first six weeks of pregnancy, including 88% of Democrats and 56% of Republicans surveyed. Asked if states should allow abortion at 15 weeks, 51% of those surveyed said yes, including 75% of Democrats and 29% of Republicans.

    Only 27% of those surveyed supported allowing abortion until 24 weeks of pregnancy.

    Democrats are hoping that abortion access will continue to be an issue that helps them with voters heading into 2024. Since last year’s Dobbs v. Jackson decision overturned Roe and left abortion access up to individual states, Democrats and abortion rights activists have racked up a number of wins in special elections and ballot initiatives, and the party overperformed in the 2022 midterm elections.

    Trump – whose handpicked nominees lost key Senate races in Nevada, Arizona, Pennsylvania and Georgia – went on to write a January social media post blaming the party’s midterm losses on “the ‘abortion issue,’ poorly handled by many Republicans, especially those that insisted on No Exceptions.”

    Tom Bonier, chief executive of TargetSmart, a Democratic political targeting firm, said he expects abortion will be an even stronger issue for his party heading into the 2024 election.

    “The evidence that we’re seeing at this point is that abortion rights as a political issue is having an even greater impact than it did last year, which is saying a lot because it had a huge impact on elections in 2022,” he said.

    Bonier cited two causes for abortion’s growing influence. Voters, he said, no longer have to imagine what life would look like after Roe. They’re experiencing it firsthand. At the same time, Republicans have not adopted their message to address the political climate, he said. That dynamic was on display in the ad released by the Biden campaign Friday.

    “It literally speaks for itself as an issue at this point, that Republicans have not moderated, that in some ways they’ve actually got further to the right,” he said.

    Nearly two dozen states have moved to ban or restrict abortion in the wake of Dobbs. Some of the bans have been blocked in court, including the six-week limit DeSantis signed in April. Abortion is currently legal in Florida until 15 weeks of pregnancy.

    Republicans have begun to coalesce around the idea of a federal abortion ban after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, an anti-abortion group, has called on candidates to support the 15-week limit at minimum, with room for states to pass more restrictive measures.

    “A number of GOP officeholders and even presidential aspirants use ‘states’ rights’ as an excuse to tape their mouths shut on abortion,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, wrote in a Thursday Washington Post op-ed with former Trump White House senior adviser Kellyanne Conway. “This should not, and will not, stand.”

    Former UN Ambassador and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum and DeSantis all declined to commit to signing a 15-week ban, while former Vice President Mike Pence and Scott did. The latter two criticized their opponents in post-debate interviews. Scott said in a Thursday Fox News interview that it is “a problem for our nation” that some candidates said they would not commit to a 15-week ban, while Pence also took a jab at Trump.

    “Whether it be with Gov. Desantis or Nikki Haley or others onstage, frankly most of the candidates running, including the one that did not show up tonight, are all trying to relegate the question of abortion as a states-only issue,” he told CNN’s Dana Bash on Wednesday.

    Trump has not said whether he would back a 15-week ban and has suggested he would leave it with the states. In May, he criticized the six-week ban DeSantis signed as “too harsh” for the anti-abortion movement but declined to say whether he supported it personally. A month later he told the audience at a Faith and Freedom Coalition conference that while there “remains a vital role for the federal government” to play in abortion policy, people want it to be a state-level issue.

    “I believe the greatest progress for pro-life is now being made in the states, where everyone wanted to be,” Trump said. Pence used his remarks at the same conference to call on every GOP candidate to back a 15-week ban as a national standard.

    If a consensus is reached it will likely be whatever the eventual Republican nominee backs, though Ayres would advise candidates to leave the issue to the states — if that’s what they personally believe, he said.

    “Ultimately, a candidate has to look into his or her heart and soul to find a position they’re comfortable with, otherwise, they’ll never be able to articulate it effectively,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Nikki Haley’s gender is rarely mentioned on the campaign trail but always present | CNN Politics

    Nikki Haley’s gender is rarely mentioned on the campaign trail but always present | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    When Nikki Haley took the Republican presidential debate stage alongside her seven male rivals last month, she shone a spotlight on her gender only once – evoking a former British prime minister.

    “This is exactly why Margaret Thatcher said, ‘If you want something said, ask a man; if you want something done, ask a woman,’” the former South Carolina governor interjected as Chris Christie and Vivek Ramaswamy sparred during the Milwaukee debate.

    Haley, the only female competitor in the GOP race, has not made her gender central to her campaign pitch. Instead, she has zeroed in on the need for a new generation of leadership.

    Republican voters who are considering supporting Haley told CNN they welcome the fact that she doesn’t lead with her gender as she campaigns, but many said her experience as a mother and a military spouse were part of her appeal.

    “It’s not necessary to point out that a female would bring a fresh perspective,” said Melinda Tourangeau, a Republican voter from New Hampshire. “She has one, she’s nailing it and I think that stands on its own merits.”

    GOP strategists say that by simply showing up as who she is, and weaving elements of her gender into her pitch, Haley is likely to boost her support among suburban female voters – a constituency that helped fuel President Joe Biden’s victory in 2020.

    “There’s no need for her to light her hair on fire and [stress] the fact that she’s a woman because she uses her ability and experience as a way to connect with voters,” said GOP strategist Alice Stewart, a CNN political commentator who advised former Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann on her 2012 presidential bid. “What suburban women want is a candidate that’s going to speak the truth, and Nikki Haley is out there being truthful about Donald Trump’s record. She’s being truthful about what we can actually accomplish in the future on abortion.”

    When Haley, a former US ambassador to the United Nations under Trump, speaks on the campaign trail about personal experiences that have informed her policy positions, she underscores her identity as a mother, wife and female politician.

    “I am pro-life because my husband was adopted, and I live with that blessing every day. I am pro-life because we had trouble having both of our children,” Haley has said in explaining her stance on abortion.

    She expanded on that position at the Milwaukee debate last month in calling for a “respectful” approach to the divisive topic.

    “Can’t we all agree that we should ban late-term abortions?” Haley said. “And can’t we all agree that we are not going to put a woman in jail or give her the death penalty if she gets an abortion?”

    Haley also spoke of the difficulty of enacting a federal abortion ban, pointing to the difficulty in overcoming the Senate’s 60-vote threshold to break a filibuster.

    It was a nuanced perspective for a GOP candidate, and one that caught voters’ attention.

    “When she talked about abortion, I liked that because although she is totally pro-life, she is willing to make some concessions because she said it’s not about her. It’s about what the country thinks,” a female GOP voter from South Carolina told CNN after the debate. “She’s trying to meet people where they are or at least do away with late-term abortions and things like that.”

    Hear Nikki Haley answer questions about abortion

    Haley’s campaign said it raised more than $1 million in less than 72 hours following that first primary debate. The campaign also said it raised more online in the 24 hours after the debate than it had on any other day since Haley launched her presidential bid in February.

    GOP strategists believe that Haley’s approach to the abortion issue was a key factor in that surged interest.

    “I think there are two key issues that she addressed on the debate stage that are helping in fueling their fundraising drive, and the nuanced position on abortion is one and her strong support for Israel,” Stewart said.

    In her stump speeches, Haley also draws from personal experiences – highlighting her role as mother – to speak against the participation of transgender girls in girls’ sports.

    “The idea that we have biological boys playing in girls’ sports, it is the women’s issue of our time,” she said during a CNN town hall in June. “My daughter ran track in high school. I don’t even know how I would have that conversation with her.”

    Similarly, when Haley speaks about standing up for veterans’ families, she speaks about her husband, Michael Haley, a major in the South Carolina National Guard whose brigade deployed to Africa earlier this year in support of the United States Africa Command. He previously served in Afghanistan in 2013 when his wife was serving as governor, which meant she was a working mom alone at home with two children.

    “The first three months when he deployed to Afghanistan, one of them was crying every night,” Haley said at the Iowa State Fair this summer. “I feel for every military family out there because it is survival mode.”

    When asked about her gender, Haley’s campaign noted that it is a part of who she is but not her only defining trait.

    “Nikki is proud to be a woman, a military spouse, a mom, a governor, an ambassador, and an accountant. All these experiences make her the tough and honest leader she is. She brought this toughness to the establishment as South Carolina governor. She brought it to the UN when she took on the world’s dictators. And she will bring it to the White House,” campaign spokesperson Olivia Perez-Cubas said in a statement.

    Haley is the fifth prominent Republican woman to run for president, following Margaret Chase Smith in 1964; Elizabeth Dole, who dropped out before the 2000 primaries; Bachmann in 2012; and Carly Fiorina in 2016.

    In comparison to Haley, Fiorina spoke more often and more directly about her gender. That move was dictated, at least in part, by Trump attacking her looks and the leading opposition candidate also being a woman.

    “[Whether] or not you’re ready to … support me, in your heart of hearts, every single one of you know you would love to see me debate Hillary Clinton,” Fiorina told voters on the stump.

    Haley’s competition this cycle is different, and so is her tact.

    “She is a woman, but she leads with her merit and experience,” said Iowa state Sen. Chris Cournoyer, a Haley supporter who touted the fact that the former governor does not play the “woman card.”

    At an August event in New Hampshire for female Republican voters, Haley’s identity as a woman was celebrated.

    “Nikki Haley is an empowered woman, who empowers women, and she really gets it as a former state representative,” Elizabeth Girard, the president of the New Hampshire Federation of Republican Women, said as she introduced Haley, who served three terms in the South Carolina House prior to her election as governor.

    SE CUpp unfiltered 0216

    SE Cupp: Nikki Haley promises youth, but will her policies reflect that?

    But when Haley took the stage – facing a gaggle of female voters – she didn’t tailor her message to the audience. She ticked through her regular stump speech, closing out with her signature call for a new generational leader and a candidate who can win the general election.

    Many of the potential female voters in the room that day appreciated Haley’s approach.

    “I think that’s a good thing,” Kim Rice, 50, told CNN after the event when asked about Haley not making her gender a focus of her pitch. “I don’t think that should be the reason people vote for her. I think her policy points are her strongest points. That’s what should draw people to her.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Rep. Nancy Mace says Republicans in swing districts are ‘walking the plank’ because of abortion restrictions | CNN Politics

    Rep. Nancy Mace says Republicans in swing districts are ‘walking the plank’ because of abortion restrictions | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    GOP Rep. Nancy Mace has a warning for her party about some efforts to restrict abortion without exceptions – and how it could affect moderate House Republicans on whom their narrow majority depends.

    “I think they’re walking the plank,” the South Carolina Republican told CNN’s Dana Bash in an interview that aired Sunday, when asked if members in moderate districts like hers are doomed.

    “I’m pro-life. I have a fantastic pro-life voting record, but I also understand that we cannot be a**holes to women,” said Mace, who has been vocal about including exceptions for rape in measures to restrict the procedure.

    The two-term congresswoman went public about her own experience of rape during an abortion debate in the South Carolina state house before coming to Congress. “Being the victim of rape, you don’t ever get over it,” she told Bash, noting how the experience has affected her and her outspoken advocacy for exceptions.

    “As a Republican woman in 2023, this is a very lonely place to be,” said Mace, who was first elected to her coastal South Carolina congressional district in 2020. “Because I feel like I’m the only woman on our side of the aisle advocating for things that all women should care about.”

    Still, Mace has faced criticism for voting the party line, even on measures where abortion rights are at stake.

    “I think I get labeled a flip-flopper unfairly because of that,” Mace said. “I have my own ideology that I believe in. I’ll take the vote. That doesn’t mean I want to take the vote.”

    She argues she has tried to secure changes to measures she may not fully agree with. “I have been very effective at trying to push the ball – not always – but doing the best that I can. I’m only one person, and a lot of times I’m doing it alone and by myself.”

    In the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade last year, Mace – the first woman to graduate from the Citadel’s Corps of Cadets – has often said she’s looking for ways to show that the GOP is “pro-women.” In her interview with Bash, she called on lawmakers to address the foster care and child care systems, for example, arguing that having an abortion is a decision no woman wants to make.

    In April, the congresswoman urged the Food and Drug Administration to ignore a ruling by a federal judge that suspended the approval of a medication drug used for abortion. (The Supreme Court subsequently said that the drug and regulations that make it accessible would remain in place for the time being.)

    “This is an issue that Republicans have been largely on the wrong side of,” Mace told CNN at the time.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Pence intensifies attacks on Trump as GOP primary heats up | CNN Politics

    Pence intensifies attacks on Trump as GOP primary heats up | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former Vice President Mike Pence on Sunday intensified his attacks on his former boss, hitting former President Donald Trump over everything from his abortion messaging to comments about the war in Ukraine.

    “When Donald Trump ran for president in 2016, he promised to govern as a conservative. For four years, we did govern as conservatives, but, today, Donald Trump makes no such promise,” Pence told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.”

    “He’s embracing the politics of appeasement on the world stage, walking away from our role as leader of the free world. He’s willing to ignore the debt crisis facing Americans. And he wants to marginalize the right to life,” Pence said.

    The comments from Pence represent a significant escalation in his campaign attacks on Trump. While the former Indiana governor has repeatedly denounced Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021, he has been more cautious about going after the Republican front-runner on other issues.

    Asked about Trump’s comments to NBC that he would get Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in a room and “have a deal worked out,” Pence said: “Look, the only way this war would end in a day, as my former running mate says, is if you let Vladimir Putin have what he wants, which, frankly, other candidates for the Republican nomination are advocating as well.”

    Pence similarly sought to distance himself from Trump on abortion at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition’s fall banquet Saturday night. Speaking to a friendly crowd of evangelical conservatives, Pence reiterated his support for a federal ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy as a minimum, saying, “It’s an idea whose time has come.” Pence said Trump and other GOP candidates want to relegate the abortion issue to the states, “but I won’t have it.”

    And earlier this month, Pence called on his party to turn away from what he described as a growing threat of populism led by Trump and “his imitators.” The former vice president said that Trump often sounds “like an echo” of President Joe Biden and that Trump was ignoring a coming US debt crisis.

    The stream of attacks comes as Trump continues to hold what has proven to be an unshakeable position atop the Republican field of candidates vying to take on Biden next year, according to a CNN poll released earlier this month.

    More than 4 in 10 in the potential GOP primary electorate say they have definitely decided to support Trump for the nomination (43% are definite Trump backers, 20% are firmly behind another candidate, and 37% have no first choice or say they could change their minds).

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Donald Trump is testing the resilience of Iowa’s evangelical voters | CNN Politics

    Donald Trump is testing the resilience of Iowa’s evangelical voters | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Des Moines, Iowa
    CNN
     — 

    Donald Trump is testing the resilience of his evangelical support in Iowa, a key constituency that could solidify – or slow – his march to the Republican presidential nomination.

    The former president’s latest comments on abortion, in which he called Florida’s six-week ban a “terrible mistake” and declined to offer a clear view on a federal ban, are being closely scrutinized by his rivals and Christian conservatives, a crucial GOP voting bloc in Iowa.

    “For evangelicals, there are probably four issues that matter. Life is usually right at the top,” said Mike Demastus, pastor of the Fort Des Moines Church of Christ. “Most people, the way they evaluate presidential elections, is what the gas price is. But for an evangelical? No.”

    Less than four months before the Iowa caucuses open the Republican nominating contest, nuances on abortion policy will be at the center of conversation here among faith leaders like Demastus, who has met with most of the GOP candidates.

    He expressed concern over Trump’s remarks on abortion since the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. But he also acknowledged that Trump’s key role in the decision – appointing three of the six justices who voted with the majority – helps the former president keep evangelical voters in his corner, at least for now.

    “The fact that Trump is leading in polls – he is – but you can’t take it for granted. There’s so many unknowns with Trump right now,” Demastus said in an interview. “There’s a loyalty with Trump, and people that follow him. You can’t just peel that away from some, but I think many people in the evangelical community right now are willing to hear from other people.”

    Whether Iowa Republicans are willing to hear from – or actually vote for – one of Trump’s many challengers is an open question. The answer could rest inside Iowa churches, where candidates are going to great lengths to win over evangelicals, who in 2016 comprised nearly two-thirds of all GOP caucus attendees.

    “They are very appreciative of the former president, but they are exhausted as well,” said Bob Vander Plaats, president of influential Christian group The Family Leader. “Iowa is tailor-made to upend Trump. If he loses Iowa, there’s a competitive nomination process. If he wins Iowa, I think it’s over.”

    The Iowa caucuses, in effect, have become a furious race for second place.

    While Vander Plaats has been a leading Trump critic, his assessment of the Iowa caucuses is shared by allies of the former president, who plans to step up his Iowa appearances for the rest of the year. Starting with a visit to Dubuque on Wednesday, the Trump campaign is intensifying its focus here in hopes of “squeezing off the oxygen” for other rivals, a Trump adviser told CNN.

    The pursuit of evangelical voters is a top priority for most candidates, including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who bowed his head as he stood at the center of a prayer circle during a weekend stop at the Fort Des Moines Church of Christ.

    “Our rights are endowed by God,” DeSantis told those assembled in the sanctuary. “They do not come from the government.”

    The Florida governor leaned into the abortion debate Monday, seizing on Trump’s comments and offering a warning to voters during an interview with Radio Iowa: “I think all pro-lifers should know that he’s preparing to sell you out.”

    South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott called out his rivals by name Monday night at a town hall in Mason City, Iowa, telling voters which GOP contenders did not support a federal abortion ban. “I will use my entire presidency fighting for a 15-week limit,” he said.

    Scott also has long been highlighting his faith, often weaving in Bible verses on the campaign trail and in his television ads. Former Vice President Mike Pence frequently talks about his religious awakening and his support for a federal abortion ban after 15 weeks of pregnancy, as a minimum.

    Trump was the only major presidential candidate to bypass the annual Faith and Freedom Coalition’s fall banquet this past weekend in Des Moines, but Rebekah Gerling proudly wore a Trump sticker as she walked through the convention center. She said she supports the former president as strongly as she ever has.

    “I love everything that he stands for,” Gerling said. “He’s willing to stand up for other people who do love God and believe.”

    When Gerling was asked whether she was troubled by the criminal indictments the former president is facing, her friend, Theresa Gibson, also wearing a Trump sticker, jumped in before she could answer, calling the charges “false accusations.”

    “They’re just going after him because he’s the front-runner,” Gibson said, “and he’s very highly supported.”

    Sally Hofmann, a Republican voter who said faith drives many of her decisions, credits Trump for his appointments to the Supreme Court. But she said she is open to supporting another candidate when she walks into her neighborhood caucus in January.

    “I like a lot of what Trump has done in office, but his personality concerns me a little bit,” Hofmann said. “I like what Nikki Haley is doing. I like DeSantis too. I’m in that range.”

    She said some of her friends and her daughter are concerned about Trump’s rhetoric and conduct. She said it bothers her too, but she’s willing to look beyond it if necessary.

    “Like I told my daughter, if I go to a doctor, and that doctor is such a good doctor to evaluate and treat my issue but doesn’t have the personality that I’m most comfortable with, I’ll still go to that doctor,” Hofmann said. “So that’s the way I look at Trump.”

    Inside the Fort Des Moines Church of Christ, where Demastus has preached for more than two decades, he explained how he came around to Trump in the first place. He supported Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas in 2016 and was suspicious of Trump’s intentions before he took office.

    “He started to do what he said he would do,” Demastus said. “I said some pretty harsh things about him at the time, but let me be clear: He won me over. He won me over because he was consistent.”

    For now, Demastus echoes the sentiment of many other faith leaders, saying he is undecided, waiting and watching as the Republican presidential primary unfolds. He believes the indictments against Trump are politically motivated but worries they could weaken his chances in the general election.

    “With all the litigation that’s going on, what’s going to happen? Is he going to receive a felony conviction or not?” Demastus said, ticking through a list of uncertainties hanging over the race. “I think that’s why a lot of these candidates are still in it.”

    This story has been updated with additional reaction.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Republican block leaves major branch of US military without a confirmed leader for first time in over a century | CNN Politics

    Republican block leaves major branch of US military without a confirmed leader for first time in over a century | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A major branch of the US military does not have a Senate confirmed leader for the first time in more than a century, as a result of a Republican senator refusing to lift his block on military nominations.

    Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. David Berger relinquished command on Monday after holding a private retirement ceremony, after more than 40 years of service. His successor, Gen. Eric Smith, has not yet been confirmed to take over due to the hold on senior military nominations by Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville.

    Speaking at Berger’s relinquishment of command ceremony on Monday, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin made a point to mention the hold and its impact on “stable and orderly leadership transitions,” and military families.

    “We have a sacred duty to do right by those who volunteer to wear the cloth of our nation,” Austin said. “And I remain confident that all Americans can come together to agree on that basic obligation to those who keep us safe. I am also confident that the United States Senate will meet its responsibilities. And I look forward to welcoming an outstanding new commandant for our Marine Corps, and to adding many other distinguished senior leaders across the joint force.”

    Berger agreed just moments later, saying, “We need the Senate to do their job so we can have a sitting Commandant that’s appointed and confirmed.”

    “We need that house to be occupied,” Berger said in reference to the Commandant’s house. “We ask the Senate to do that.”

    In his last interview as commandant, Berger argued military officers should be left out of the hold, which is being maintained as a protest of Pentagon reproductive health policies announced earlier this year that provide additional support to service members and dependents who must travel out of state to receive an abortion.

    “This needs to get resolved,” Berger told CNN. “We need to leave the military out of the politics of it. The whole department – the military people wearing a uniform, should not be drug into an issue that’s a policy issue, for which we don’t deal with. … The military uniform people that we want left out [of] politics are being dragged into it, and that’s not healthy at all.”

    Tuberville told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on “The Source” Monday night that when lawmakers are in the minority party in the Senate, “the only power we have is to put a hold on something.”

    Asked by Collins whether he knows better than seven former defense secretaries who penned a letter in May arguing the hold was “harming military readiness and risks damaging US national security,” Tuberville said: “They were nominated, they weren’t elected. I was elected to represent the people of Alabama in this country.”

    “I’m a senator,” Tuberville added, “I can hold any confirmation I want until we get some kind of confirmation of why you’re doing this” from the White House and Pentagon.

    The Alabama Republican had told CNN’s Manu Raju earlier Monday that he would not back off of his hold, saying he doesn’t buy concerns about the impact on military readiness “whatsoever” and arguing “this is not a risk.”

    While Tuberville’s hold continues, Smith has the authority to act as the commandant in his current role as the assistant commandant. Maj. Jim Stenger, a spokesman for the Marine Corps, said Smith will remain the assistant until he is confirmed by the Senate.

    Smith will have the authorities he needs to do the job, Berger said, but he’ll be left without a second-in-command to assist him because of the hold.

    “He can’t do both jobs at the same time, nor can anyone else because they don’t have the authorities because all the promotions are held up,” Berger said. “So he’s going to have to do his job in a very different way than I was able to, because I could travel, he was here, he could travel, I was here. Now only one of him, so it affects the way he does his job.”

    Democratic Sen. Jack Reed, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told CNN that denying Smith’s promotion “in this partisan manner is an insult to the Marine Corps and every service member.”

    “Gen. Smith has faithfully served the country for 36 years,” Reed said. “He has fought and bled in our nation’s wars and led fellow marines with courage, honor, and distinction. He earned this promotion. He deserves Senate action without political obstruction that has nothing to do with his command.”

    Smith is one of more than 200 general and flag officers whose nominations are currently stalled in the Senate due to a hold led by Tuberville over his protest of the new Pentagon reproductive health policies.

    Defense officials expect more than 600 senior officers to be up for nomination by the end of the year.

    Typically, those nominations are approved in a routine process known as unanimous consent, which approves hundreds of nominations at once. Tuberville’s hold prevents that, meaning the Senate would need to take a vote on each nomination individually – a process one Democratic Senate aide previously told CNN would take months to complete.

    Tuberville told CNN earlier Monday that he didn’t know why the Senate hadn’t yet taken up the votes individually on the floor.

    “Why don’t we vote on these people one at a time? We could do that, but they don’t want to do that for some reason,” he said, adding later that it’s “very easy to do.”

    Tuberville doubled down Monday night, telling Collins that he’s “not stopping anybody from being confirmed.”

    “I’m just stopping them from confirming hundreds at a time,” he said. “They can confirm as many as they want during the day, we’re just sitting around twiddling our thumbs most of the time during the week and should be confirming people.”

    Berger said that in the last few months, he’s had to do something he “never thought I would have to do as a service chief: tell people who had already served 30 years, and their family has served 30 years … I’d like you to think about not retiring.”

    “These are families who have already done this for 30 years,” he said. “They’ve given up a lot in those 30 years, and I’m asking them would they be willing to stay longer, indefinitely.”

    And Smith is far from the only senior Marine Corps officer to be impacted by the holds. Among the other positions are the commanders of the I and III Marine Expeditionary Forces. Both are positions held by three-star generals, but could be temporarily filled by a one-star if their successors aren’t confirmed by the Senate.

    Smith raised concerns about I Marine Expeditionary Force commander slot being filled by a one-star in his Senate confirmation hearing in June. In response to a question from independent Maine Sen. Angus King, Smith said that if the current commander did not have a confirmed replacement by the time he retires in August, a “fairly new” one-star general would be “in charge of that 48,000-person Marine Expeditionary Force.”

    “And that compromises readiness and decision making and the effectiveness of that division?” King asked.

    “Sir, it does,” Smith responded.

    Outside of questions about how a lasting hold would impact internal military processes, officials have also raised concerns about the message the hold projects to allies and adversaries alike.

    Berger told CNN it would be “naïve to think that the US military isn’t considered a world leader, and when the world leader can’t promote its officers on a regular basis – kind of like when [you] can’t pass a budget – confidence goes down.”

    “I won’t be surprised if confidence [is] affected by that,” he said.

    A Marine official who spoke on condition of anonymity pointed to the III Marine Expeditionary Force commander slot, saying that the general officer in that position regularly meets with important allies and partners in the Pacific. The official said it would be “embarrassing” for the US to send a one-star, acting commander to meet with more senior ranking foreign allies in a region that is so critical for the Pentagon.

    “It wouldn’t be a good look for a key ally to be meeting with a one-star,” the official said.

    Democratic Rep. Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts, a member of the House Select Committee on Strategic Competition Between the US and China, told CNN that Tuberville’s hold is playing into China’s hands.

    Chinese President Xi Jinping’s “core message is the United States, specifically and the West broadly, are in decline and dysfunction,” Auchincloss said.

    “It’s one guy who is single handedly handing a public relations gift to Xi Jinping,” he added. “It’s especially unfortunate, because we’ve actually had a lot of success recently on our military posture in the Indo-Pacific … And as we’re doing this pivot to Asia, pivot to the Indo-Pacific maybe more precisely, we’re stubbing our toe because of Tommy Tuberville.”

    Though the policies included things like extending the timeline for service members to have to notify commanders of a pregnancy, and travel allowances for troops seeking in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intrauterine insemination (IUI), they also included a travel allowance for service members seeking an abortion.

    “Our service members and their families do not control where they are stationed, and due to the nature of military service, are frequently required to travel or move to meet operational requirements,” a February news release announcing the new policies said. “The efforts taken by the Department today will … ensure service members are able to access non-covered reproductive health care regardless of where they are stationed.”

    Tuberville “believes the Pentagon is circumventing the role of Congress and flouting existing federal law, which narrowly restricts the use of taxpayers funds” for abortions, a news release from his office said. Under current law, the Defense Department cannot pay for abortions unless the health of the mother is at risk, or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

    Those three cases remain the only instances in which Pentagon facilities can provide an abortion.

    Ultimately, Berger echoed concerns from other DOD officials about the impact an ongoing hold would have on the military’s readiness and warfighting capabilities.

    He said the holds put the Marine Corps in “a risky place, because from a warfighting perspective, you want the most experienced, most proficient leader commanding that organization,” and in some cases a less experienced leader will be in charge.

    “You want the very best leaders day-to-day leading those organizations, training those Marine units, getting them ready for whenever a conflict comes. So day-to-day, increase risk, because we don’t have the right person in the right job because I can’t promote them,” Berger said. “The second part is in a conflict or in a crisis or a war, same thing — people’s lives are at stake. You want the very best person in position. I can’t do that right now.”

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Klobuchar says she supports allowing abortion restrictions in late pregnancy | CNN Politics

    Klobuchar says she supports allowing abortion restrictions in late pregnancy | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar said Sunday she would support allowing limitations on abortion in the third trimester of pregnancy, breaking with many Democrats in Congress who have been hesitant to offer specifics on abortion limitations.

    “I support allowing for limitations in the third trimester that do not interfere with the life or health of the women,” Klobuchar told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” Sunday.

    The third trimester in a pregnancy begins at 27 weeks. Less than 1% of abortions are performed at 21 weeks or later, according to a 2020 report from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    Abortion has become an especially potent political topic in the year since the monumental US Supreme Court decision one year ago to overturn Roe v. Wade and eliminate the federal constitutional right to abortion nationwide. More than a dozen US states have banned or severely restricted access to the procedure since the ruling.

    “What I support – and I will be very clear about this – is Roe v. Wade, which does allow for limitations, but it also protects the life of the woman and the health of the woman,” Klobuchar said Sunday.

    “I think that is the best way to go. But you look at what they are doing, their leading Republican candidates, Dana, are asking for abortion bans. Trump was on just last night gloating about how he had put these Supreme Court justices in place that had reversed Roe v. Wade.”

    Klobuchar has long articulated the need for some restrictions on late-term abortions, telling Bloomberg in 2019 “there are limits there in the third trimester that are very important – about – except for the health of the woman.”

    In the 2022 midterms, abortion was a crucial motivator for many voters, as CNN exit polls showed that 46% of people said that abortion was the most important issue to their vote. Abortion is also likely to be a cornerstone of President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign, as administration officials highlight what Democrats have done to protect access to abortion.

    “MAGA Republicans made clear that they don’t intend to stop with the Dobbs decision. No, they won’t, until they get a national ban on abortion,” Biden said this week, promising to issue a veto if a national ban is ever passed by Congress.

    This headline and story have been updated.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • In country with world’s lowest fertility rate, doubts creep in about wisdom of ‘no-kids zones’ | CNN

    In country with world’s lowest fertility rate, doubts creep in about wisdom of ‘no-kids zones’ | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Seoul
    CNN
     — 

    For a country with the world’s lowest fertility rate – one that has spent hundreds of billions of dollars trying to encourage women to have more babies – the idea of barring children from places like cafes and restaurants might seem a little counterproductive.

    But in South Korea, “no-kids zones” have become remarkably popular in recent years. Hundreds have sprung up across the country, aimed largely at ensuring disturbance-free environments for the grown-ups.

    There are nearly 80 such zones on the holiday island of Jeju alone, according to a local think tank, and more than four hundred in the rest of the country, according to activist groups.

    Doubts, though, are beginning to creep in about the wisdom of restricting children from so many places, fueled by concerns over the country’s growing demographic problems.

    In addition to the world’s lowest birthrate, South Korea has one of the world’s fastest aging populations. That has left it with a problem familiar to graying nations across the world, namely: how to fund the pension and health care needs of a growing pool of retirees on the tax income generated by a slowly vanishing pool of workers.

    And South Korea’s problem is more acute than most.

    Last year, its fertility rate dropped to a record low of 0.78 – not even half the 2.1 needed for a stable population and far below even that of Japan (1.3), currently the world’s grayest nation. (And even further below the United States, which at 1.6 faces aging problems of its own).

    With young South Koreans already facing pressure on multiple fronts – from sky-high real estate costs and long working weeks to rising economic anxiety – critics of the zones say the last thing the country needs is yet one more thing to make them think twice about starting a family.

    The government, they point out, should know this better than anyone. After all, it’s spent more than $200 billion over the past 16 years trying to encourage more people to have children. Critics suggest that, rather than throwing more money at the problem, it needs to work on changing society’s attitudes towards the young.

    With polls suggesting a majority of South Koreans support no-kids zones, shifting those mindsets won’t be easy. But there are signs opinions may be shifting.

    In recent weeks, a pushback against the zones has gained momentum thanks to Yong Hye-in, a mother and a lawmaker for the Basic Income Party who, in a show of defiance to mark Children’s Day, took her 2-year-old son to a meeting of the National Assembly – where babies are not usually allowed.

    “Everyday life with children is not easy,” she told the assembled lawmakers in an impassioned speech, during which she was pictured both cuddling her son and letting him wander around the podium. “Our society must be reborn into one where children are included.”

    That speech gained media coverage across the world, but it is not the only sign attitudes may slowly be changing.

    Jeju island – a tourist hotspot off the southern tip of the Korean peninsula – recently debated the country’s first-ever bill aimed at making such zones illegal (though if passed it would apply only to the island).

    The move by its provincial council comes amid growing concerns that the age limits imposed by many guesthouses and campsites on the tourism-dependent island may be damaging its reputation for hospitality.

    As Bonnie Tilland, a university lecturer who specializes in South Korean culture, puts it: “Families with children who travel to Jeju on holiday are disgruntled if they drive to a scenic café only to be told that their children are not allowed.”

    Other critics say the problem goes deeper than lost business opportunities. Some see no-kids zones as an unjustifiable act of age discrimination that runs contrary to the Korean constitution.

    South Korean lawmaker Yong Hye-in with her son on May 4, 2023.

    In 2017, the National Human Rights Commission of Korea judged that no-kids zones violated the right to equality and called for businesses to end the practice in what was the first official statement on the matter by a state institution. It cited clause 11 of the constitution, which bans discrimination on the basis of gender, religion or social status, and pointed to a UN convention stipulating that “No child should be treated unfairly on any basis.”

    The ruling came in response to a petition by a father of three who was turned away from an Italian restaurant on Jeju. But it is not legally binding and critics say the ongoing popularity of no-kids zones highlights how hard it will be to change people’s mindsets.

    South Korea’s embrace of no-kids zones is widely thought to date back to an incident in 2012, in which a restaurant diner carrying hot broth accidentally scalded a child.

    The incident caused a stir online, after the child’s mother made a series of posts on social media attacking the diner.

    Initially, there was much public sympathy for the mother as the case appeared to have parallels to other incidents in which establishments had been forced to pay compensation following accidents involving children.

    But the public’s mood began to change after security camera footage emerged showing the child running around moments beforehand, Tilland said. Many began to blame the mother for not reining in her child’s behavior.

    “Then discussion unfolded over the next few years on social media about the rights and responsibilities of parents and guardians of young children in public spaces and private businesses,” said Tilland, who used to teach at Yonsei University in Seoul but is now with Leiden University in the Netherlands.

    By 2014, she says, no-kids zones had become a familiar sight, “most commonly in cafes but also in some restaurants and other businesses.”

    Over the years, the zones have grown in popularity, with a survey in 2021 by Hankook Research finding that more than 7 in 10 adults were in favor, and fewer than 2 in 10 against (the rest were undecided).

    And it is not only childless adults who back them. In South Korea, so widely acknowledged is the right to some peace and quiet that even many parents see the zones as reasonable and justified.

    “When I’m out with my child, I see a lot of situations that may make me frown,” said Lee Yi-rang, a mother of a two-year-old boy.

    “It’s not difficult to find parents who don’t control their children, causing damage to facilities and other people. That makes me understand why there are no-kids zones,” she said.

    Mother-of-two Lee Ji-eun from Seoul agrees. She thinks it’s a decision best left “to the business owners” – and if a parent “doesn’t like that, then they can seek a kids-allowed zone.”

    Not all parents are so understanding. Kim Se-hee, also from Seoul, said she feels “attacked when I see a blatant no-kids sign like that posted at a shop.”

    “There’s so much hatred against mothers already in Korea with terms like ‘mom-choong’ (‘mother bug,’ a derogatory term for mothers who care only about their children to the disregard of others) and I think no-kids zones validate that kind of negative sentiment toward moms,” she said.

    A man looks at strollers at a baby fair in Seoul, South Korea, in September 2022. South Korea's fertility rate is the lowest in the world.

    Meanwhile, it would be wrong to suggest that it is only the youngest in society who are subject to such “zoning” requirements.

    On Jeju, it’s not unusual to see signs at camping grounds or guest houses stipulating both lower and upper age limits for would-be guests. There are “no-teenager zones” and “no-senior zones”, for example, and even plenty of zones targeting those somewhere in between.

    So numerous have the “no-middle-aged zones” become that they have collectively been dubbed “no-ajae zones,” in reference to a slang term for “uncle.”

    One restaurant in Seoul rose to notoriety after “politely declining” people over 49 (on the basis men of that age might harass female staff), while in 2021, a camping ground in Jeju sparked heated debate with a notice saying it did not accept reservations from people aged 40 or above. Citing a desire to keep noise and alcohol use to a minimum, it stated a preference for women in their 20s and 30s.

    Other zones are even more niche.

    Among those to have caused a stir on social media are a cafe in Seoul that in 2018 declared itself a “no-rapper zone,” a “no-YouTuber zone” and even a “no-professor zone”.

    But most such zones follow a similar logic – that of preventing disturbance to other customers. For instance, no-YouTuber zones became popular in response to a trend known as “mukbang” (based on words for “eating” and “broadcast”) in which some livestreamers would show up at restaurants without prior consent to film themselves eating.

    Tilland says the appeal of such zones is complex, but derives in part from the strong pro-business sentiment in the country. A common mindset is that it is only natural that business owners should have a say on who they accept as clientele, she says.

    As for no-kids zones specifically, she has another theory.

    “Koreans in their 20s and 30s, in particular, tend to have a strong concept of personal space, and are increasingly less tolerant of both noisy children in their midst and noisy older people,” Tilland said.

    But such mindsets need to be re-examined if the country is to get a grip on its population problems, Tilland says, arguing they “reflect a worrying intolerance for anyone existing in public places who is different from oneself.”

    “Deep-rooted attitudes that every category of people belongs in ‘their place’ – and for mothers this is home with children, not out participating in public life – are one of the reasons young women are reluctant to have children,” she said.

    south korea fertility vpx

    See why South Korea has the world’s lowest fertility rate

    Lawmaker Yong came to a similar realization after giving birth in 2021.

    She had suffered postpartum depression and stayed at home for the first nearly 100 days of her child’s life. When she finally felt well enough to take her child for a walk the experience was alienating.

    “When we tried to go into a cafe nearby, we were immediately denied entry because it was a no-kids zone,” she recalled in an interview with CNN. “I was helplessly in tears. It felt like society didn’t want people like me.”

    She says many new mothers feel this way, citing a case being investigated by the labor ministry in which a working mother, a computer programmer at a leading tech firm, killed herself and left a suicide note asking, “Is a working mom a sinner?”

    “I am doing politics to create a society where working working moms don’t have to (feel like) a sinner,” Yong said.

    Her ultimate aim is to make childcare the “responsibility of society as a whole, not of individual caregivers and parents,” which she believes is the only way to overcome the population crisis.

    One way she hopes to bring about this change is by pushing for an equality bill that would outlaw discrimination based on age.

    But legislation isn’t the only way, she says. She thinks the government and local authorities can achieve much simply by guiding businesses away from no-kids zones and learning from other countries where families with young children are fast-tracked through queues at public places like museums and zoos.

    There may be other ways to compromise too.

    Barista Ahn Hee-yul says he has faced situations in a cafe he once worked for where parents appeared unable to keep their children from causing a nuisance, yet he appreciates the need to strike a balance between the needs of parents and non-parents.

    “I suggest no-kids times, instead of no-kids zones,” he said, suggesting that venues for instance allow children until 5 p.m., after which it’s adults only.

    “In the end, they’re just kids. It’s the best middle ground I could think of.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New York governor signs bill to legally protect doctors who prescribe abortion pills for out-of-state patients into law | CNN Politics

    New York governor signs bill to legally protect doctors who prescribe abortion pills for out-of-state patients into law | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul signed a bill into law Friday that legally protects doctors who prescribe and send abortion pills to patients in states where abortion services are outlawed or restricted.

    “We are witnessing a shameful regression of women’s rights in this country as abortion access is restricted in states across the nation,” Hochul said in a news release, adding that the law will ensure that more women will be able to access reproductive health care.

    The measure – passed by the state legislature Tuesday – will block out-of-state litigation, prohibiting prosecution against doctors in New York who provide telehealth services, prescribe medication abortion, or deliver reproductive health care to patients living in states with restrictive abortion laws.

    Telehealth medication abortions have accounted for an increasing share of total US abortions since last year’s Supreme Court ruling that established there is no constitutional right to abortion, CNN previously reported. Prior to the June 2022 ruling, medication abortions provided by virtual-only providers made up 4% of all abortions in April 2022 and 5% in May 2022, according to data from the Society of Family Planning. However, between June and December 2022, the share of such procedure grew from 6 to 11%. And as of 2020, more than half of US abortions were conducted using medication.

    Assemblymember Karines Reyes, a registered nurse who sponsored the bill, said Tuesday she was “proud to sponsor this critical piece of legislation to fully protect abortion providers using telemedicine.”

    Hochul previously signed legislation aimed at expanding reproductive rights. Last month, the governor signed a bill to ensure that every student at a State University of New York (SUNY) or City University of New York (CUNY) college will be able to access medication abortion, along with another bill that allows pharmacists across the state to dispense contraceptives over the counter.

    The governor’s recent moves demonstrate the changing abortion landscape nationwide. As Democratic-led states aim to expand access, states with Republican majorities have enacted widespread restrictions, including near-total bans.

    Last month, North Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature overrode a veto by its Democratic governor to ban most abortions after 12 weeks.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Kourtney Kardashian says she’s ‘overwhelmed with gratitude’ following epic pregnancy announcement | CNN

    Kourtney Kardashian says she’s ‘overwhelmed with gratitude’ following epic pregnancy announcement | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Kourtney Kardashian and Blink 182 drummer Travis Barker have a lot to be grateful for.

    The reality star and Poosh founder revealed she was pregnant in a video on Instagram Saturday in which she’s seen in the audience at a Blink 182 concert holding a sign that read, “Travis I’m pregnant.”

    Kardashian posted more behind-the-scenes photos from the concert on Sunday, showcasing her growing baby bump.

    “Overwhelmed with gratitude and joy for God’s blessing and plan,” she captioned the post, which features a photo of Barker playfully holding his drumsticks over Kardashian’s belly.

    Kardashian and Barker got engaged in October 2021 and wed last year in multiple ceremonies.

    Following a not-technically-legal walk down the aisle in Las Vegas after the Grammy Awards in April 2022, the pair exchanged vows at the Santa Barbara Courthouse in May and wrapped up the wedding festivities with a lavish Italian ceremony at Dolce & Gabbana designers Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana’s private villa.

    This will be Kardashian and Barker’s first child together, but they each have children from previous relationships.

    Kardashian shares three children – Mason, Penelope and Reign – with her former longtime partner Scott Disick. Barker is father to Landon, daughter Alabama and stepdaughter Atiana, whom he shares with ex-wife Shanna Moakler.

    The two have shared a bit about their fertility journey on Hulu’s reality series, “The Kardashians.”

    Kardashian told The Wall Street Journal in September 2022 she had paused in vitro fertilization treatments leading up to getting married because it was “a lot” and she wanted to focus on planning her wedding ceremony.

    On Sunday, Barker added to the chorus in the joyous comment section of Kardashian’s post with his own message of gratitude, saying, “God is great.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘Pretending to live a civilian life’: How pro-Ukrainian residents of occupied Melitopol feel daily fear | CNN

    ‘Pretending to live a civilian life’: How pro-Ukrainian residents of occupied Melitopol feel daily fear | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Kyiv
    CNN
     — 

    Editor’s note: The southern Ukrainian city of Melitopol has long been known for its sweet delights. The name “Melitopol” means “the Honey City” in Ukrainian and the city’s official logo features a cherry, a nod to the deep red fruit the region is famous for.

    But life in Melitopol is anything but sweet. The city was captured by Russian troops shortly after Moscow launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February last year. Pro-Ukrainian partisans have remained active in the city, orchestrating several attacks against the pro-Russian administration installed in the place of its elected leaders. The Zaporizhzhia region in which the city lies is partially occupied by Russia and was illegally annexed last September.

    Below is the account of a Melitopol resident in her early 30s who has refused to flee the city and is living under Russian occupation. CNN is not naming her because of concerns for her safety. Her testimony was translated from Ukrainian and edited for brevity. 

    There is terror in Melitopol. But it’s quiet, you don’t see it in the streets.

    For partisans, the situation here is terrible. For those of us who rejected Russian passports and are now known as “the unreliable,” the situation is terrible. But if you go to the market, you wouldn’t think that anything is going on.

    The Russians are trying to force everyone here to get Russian passports. It’s easier to manipulate people when they have Russian citizenship. Not getting the passports makes our life very difficult. They are refusing to give us access to hospitals and so on. We are a family of farmers and we are losing our land because we don’t have any Russian documents.

    I’m afraid I will eventually have to get it. But we are delaying this moment. One relative went to the office and the queues were huge because everyone was intimidated into getting a passport. The process has sped up. Previously, you had to wait a month or two, but now they can print a passport in a week.

    Everyone was given cash welfare payments until February, but starting in March, only people with Russian passports get them. That’s why many pensioners started getting passports now because there was no need for it before. Disabled people, people on low incomes, and those who wanted to use free healthcare took the passports immediately after the Russians started offering them, because they didn’t want to lose the benefits.

    All in all, a large percentage of the population already has Russian passports. If you don’t, you’re a black sheep, and you can be subject to a frisking.

    Here in Melitopol, searches are usually conducted after shelling and after guerrilla attacks on pro-Russian collaborators. My grandmother’s house was searched because a Russian soldier deserted when he was in the village. They searched the houses in the village, trying to find him.

    The people who remained in Melitopol can be divided into several categories. There are those who are basically satisfied with the current pro-Russian government. There are those who don’t care and who would support whoever gives them more money in cash payments.  

    Those who stayed mostly support the pro-Russian government. They are convinced that it is here to stay.  

    Obviously, there are also Ukrainian patriots, those of us waiting for Ukraine to win this war. We whisper to each other in the market. You can tell that someone is supporting Ukraine at the market when you ask for high quality produce. Vendors start cursing Russia because they now have to choose between selling bad products and worse products.

    There are still a lot of partisans, God bless them, but we are in the minority. Most of the Ukrainian patriots have left, especially those who actively participated in rallies, because there was a direct threat to their lives.

    Our neighbor turned us in for supporting Ukraine, but we are not being touched, at least not yet. My neighbor works for the new government and she knows that we actively opposed Russia during the first phase of the war.

    I think we will be issued some kind of document that they give to “the unreliable” which says we have refused the passports. This means nothing except showing that we refused to take Russian passports. It’s a temporary certificate of non-citizens, but you either take this piece of paper or you have to leave Melitopol. So, we are going to take it.

    Until April, it was possible to move freely throughout the occupied zone without documents. Now you need a Russian passport or the non-citizen document, but they keep issuing warnings and saying that you need to get a Russian passport by June or you will not be allowed to leave.

    People here are encouraged to send their children to summer camps in Crimea, like they were last year. Some parents on our street voluntarily sent their children to Crimea for a month and the children came back. But our neighbors, who have since left for Germany, did not want to send their son to a Russian school or to a camp, and it was okay. Their son stayed at home all year, studying online at a Ukrainian school. Children are not taken away by force here. You have to understand that parents send them there voluntarily.

    In this file photo, Russian passports are being issued to residents in the occupied city of Melitopol.

    It’s true that the occupiers are worried about the counteroffensive. The mood in the city has changed dramatically over the past month, from “Melitopol is forever with Russia” to thinking where and how they will build defense lines.

    Of course, this is just what the ordinary soldiers in the city are saying, but there is no longer that victorious mood. I feel that something is going to happen here soon. Ukrainian hryvnias are being bought up in the market, and farmers are refusing to sell their products, because they are waiting to give it to Ukraine. And all the neighbors who are in favor of Russia have stopped communicating with us, because they are no longer sure that Russia will stay here forever and are afraid to talk.

    There are more or less no problems with getting food. There is no variety, but there are no shortages either. The standards and packaging have completely changed since the invasion started. Butter that is made at the same factory tastes so bad now that we don’t know what to do to mask the taste.

    Everything that is imported from Russia contains palm oil. That’s not an exaggeration, the ingredient list of a candy lists palm oil three times. It’s in everything. Sausages, cheese, candy, cookies, butter.

    But the biggest problem is with medicines and household goods, as well as baby food. Russia doesn’t have good quality medicines and there is no choice. You go to a pharmacy and they give you one option, take it or leave it. People inquire about medicines for 10 minutes and in the end, they only have iodine. A woman in front of me was trying to buy Nestlé baby food, but the price was out of this world. She ended up buying some Russian-made equivalent.

    My mother and grandmother have diabetes. The Russian medicines have the same active ingredient but they affect them in completely different ways. They have different dosages and excipients and my mother and grandmother started feeling much worse when they began taking them. We received some Ukrainian medicines from Ukraine through Crimea, enough for a month and a half.

    The cynicism of doctors and pharmacists here is overwhelming. No one says anything directly. We call the war a “situation” here. So, they just answer: “Well, this is the situation, if you need it, go to Ukraine or Europe.” When I told the doctor that I needed specific medication, I was told to go to the city of Zaporizhzhia to buy it. And just so you understand, to go to Zaporizhzhia, you have to go via Moscow. That’s the only way.

    A Russian flag flies in the occupied city of Melitopol on October 13, 2022.

    In Russia, they don’t have the same standards and regulations for products. Nothing like that. Russian soaps, shampoos, and toothpastes are of terrible quality. Belarusian ones are a little better, and the best option for us here is Turkish shampoo. There are a lot of Chinese and Turkish products on the market. Russian and Chinese products are of the worst quality, while Belarusian and Turkish products are more or less okay, but more expensive.

    The problem is that only the military here have a lot of money, and often they buy everything decent. The rumours that Russians themselves do not want to buy Russian products are true. Until September, Ukrainian products were smuggled to Melitopol and the Russian military bought everything themselves. Soldiers stood in line in front of me and asked for Ukrainian socks and soap. Now there are no Ukrainian goods anymore.

    Everyone is pretending to live a civilian life. There’s no talk of evacuation. People are used to the explosions and to the fact that from time to time there are burnt-out cars of pro-Russian collaborators on the main street. People are used to the fact that Russian troops and authorities can come to your house and kick you out.

    People have gotten used to everything over the year.

    [ad_2]

    Source link