US Politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Israel has ‘legitimate problem’ with Hezbollah on border, says Blinken

      by

      Israel has a legitimate interest in seeking to remove Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group, from the borders of northern Israel, the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, said as he rebuffed calls to take a tougher line over the Israeli bombardment.Speaking before an emergency meeting of the security council in New York, Blinken emphasised that he would prefer a diplomatic solution to the crisis, but his tone is unlikely to be seen as a warning to Israel to stop, or to reconsider its plan for a ground offensive.“Israel’s got a legitimate problem here. Starting on 8 October, Hezbollah in the north, from southern Lebanon, started lobbing rockets and missiles into Israel,” he said. “People living in northern Israel had to flee their homes – about 70,000 – and Israel understandably, legitimately, wants a secure environment so people can return home.”He added: “The best way to get that is through diplomacy, an agreement to pull back forces, allow people to return home in northern Israel – also many Lebanese in southern Lebanon forced from their homes. We want to get people back home. The best way to do that is not war; it’s diplomacy.”Blinken also reverted to his claim that it was Hamas, and not Israel, that was holding up a ceasefire agreement in Gaza – the precondition set by Hezbollah to stop the fighting with Israel.Insisting 15 of the 18 paragraphs in the ceasefire agreement had been signed off, he said: “The problem we have right now is that Hamas hasn’t been engaging on it for the last couple of weeks, and its leader has been talking about an endless war of attrition. Now, if he really cares about the Palestinian people, he’d bring this agreement over the finish line.”Blinken added: “Hard decisions remain to be made by Israel. But the problem right now in terms of bringing this across the finish line is Hamas, its refusal to engage in a meaningful way.”The Lebanese foreign minister, Abdallah Bou Habib, has described the US approach as “not promising”, adding: “It will not solve the Lebanese problem. The US is the only country that can really make a difference in the Middle East with regard to Lebanon.”View image in fullscreenThe Israeli ambassador to the UN, Daniel Meron, said: “We have been restrained now for 12 months, but … life in the north of Israel has to go back to what it was.”He reiterated Israel’s claim that it was “doing everything it can” to avoid hitting civilian targets, saying: “Hezbollah is using civilians in Lebanon as human shields.”“They would like us to shoot back and hit civilians so that we can be blamed for killing civilians,” he said.The foreign ministers of Egypt, Jordan and Iraq, meanwhile, said in a joint statement that “Israel is pushing the region towards total war”, condemning what it called Israeli aggression against Lebanon. Qatar said at a meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council that the crisis was becoming more and more worrying.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIran so far shows no signs of sending direct help to Hezbollah, which it supports, and Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, admitted that the group his country had helped to create had suffered damage. But he added: “Until today, the victory has been on the side of the Palestinian resistance and Hezbollah. The final victory in this battle will belong to the resistance front and Hezbollah.”A White House official said that the US would come to Israel’s aid if Iran came to the aid of Hezbollah.The French president, Emmanuel Macron, met the Iranian president, Masoud Pezeshkian, in New York urging him to use his influence to persuade Hezbollah to accept a ceasefire. Pezeshkian is under conflicting pressures: unwilling to abandon the group his country helped create, or the Palestinian cause, but reluctant to go into a direct war with Israel that will undermine his goal of improving relations with the west.In his speech to the UN, in the face of criticism at home, he declared: “I intend to establish solid foundations for my country to enter the new era and play a constructive and effective role. To establish a foundation in the emerging global system, to remove the obstacles and challenges and to organise the relations of my country based on the requirements and realities of today’s world.”In Iran, Hassan Khomenei, one of the grandsons of the leader of the 1979 revolution, Ruhollah Khomenei, sent a letter to the Hezbollah leadership offering to volunteer in support of the resistance. More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Chappell Roan isn’t endorsing Kamala Harris. She’s taking a stand for critical thinking instead

      by

      ‘No, I’m not voting for Trump and yes, I will always question those in power,” Chappell Roan said in a recent TikTok video clarifying why she is not stumping for Kamala Harris in the forthcoming US presidential election. As she had explained to the Guardian last week, she doesn’t “feel pressured to endorse anyone” – having previously denounced the Biden-Harris administration’s failure to robustly defend queer rights against hundreds of anti-LGBTQ+ bills tabled by Republicans, and their ongoing support for Israel during the assault on Gaza that has killed more than 40,000 Palestinians.She followed up with another video on Wednesday: “Obviously fuck the policies of the right,” she said, while also castigating what she called “some of the left’s completely transphobic and completely genocidal views”. She said she was voting for Harris, “but I’m not settling for what has been offered … this is not me playing both sides. This is me questioning both sides.”It’s refreshing to hear a pop star talk about politics with conviction and nuance. If only her recent comments had been received that way online. The year’s breakout pop star went viral this weekend when a popular X account that aggregates pop culture titbits cherrypicked a quote from Roan’s Guardian interview in which she said of Democrats and Republicans: “there’s problems on both sides”.While some users supported Roan’s stance, many others called her “cowardly”, criticised her supposedly “neutral” stance, and accused her of being “uneducated”. The backlash suggests that the majority of those pillorying Roan never read the full interview (which wasn’t linked in the original X post), hence Roan hitting out about “being completely taken out of context”.What happened to Roan is emblematic of two things. The first is the parasitic, reductive way that Pop Crave-style news aggregation accounts on X extract quotes from articles in a way that prioritises engagement over substance. Would the outcry have been the same if the account published Roan’s full quote, in which she encourages people to use “critical thinking skills” and “vote for what’s going on in [their] city”, along with her vociferous support for trans rights? I doubt it.The second is that many musicians’ fanbases are now often admirably politically conscious and demand stars speak out against injustice, meaning they will make it known if they are unhappy with an artist’s position. The difficulty comes when those fans expect stars to fit a particular way of performing their politics.Pop stars weren’t always expected to be as politically literate as they are today. The worst of 80s pop was well meaning but wince-inducingly shallow. Later, being political could often be detrimental to mainstream success: in 2003, the Chicks were blacklisted from the country music industry after Natalie Maines said she was ashamed that then-US president George W Bush was from their home state of Texas.But the rise of social media in the early 2010s created an ecosystem of liking, following and sharing, where a user’s tastes reflected back on them and could be used to signal their own political morality. The Tumblr blog “your fave is problematic” documented celebrities’ perceived moral transgressions. Celebrities, particularly pop stars, quickly adapted accordingly.Then came 2016. Hillary Clinton had everyone from LeBron James and Bruce Springsteen to Beyoncé and Kim Kardashian helping her try to stop Donald Trump from becoming president – everyone except Taylor Swift. Swift’s political silence was heavily criticised and conspiracies swirled that she was a Republican. She would later tell the Guardian the pressure she felt “making statements that go out to hundreds of millions of people” and that she worried that her then-maligned reputation (in the wake of beef with Kardashian and Kanye West) might have been “a hindrance” to Clinton.View image in fullscreenShe endorsed Biden in 2020, but more recently, fans have questioned why she has hung out with Brittany Mahomes, a Trump supporter (and wife of a teammate of Swift’s football player boyfriend). Swift backed Harris and Tim Waltz earlier this month – though she explicitly framed her decision to back Harris as triggered by a personal crisis of Trump using AI-falsified images of her appearing to endorse him, rather than leading with a broader social conscience.The furore around both Roan and Swift speaks to the febrile environment dominating US politics. Poll after poll has shown this could be the closest presidential race this century. Women’s right to bodily autonomy is at stake – which is partly why there’s so much more scrutiny on female musicians. The threat of a second Trump presidency, coupled with fears of the far-right activating Project 2025, have made this election feel like a battle for the soul of American democracy. With the race on a knife-edge, leftwing pop fans are grasping at any positive endorsement that might help Harris. It’s not without precedent. Back in 2008, it was estimated that Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement of Barack Obama translated into one million votes. Swift’s post endorsing Harris led to more than 400,000 people going to voter registration sites. The potential power of these endorsements is also evident from rightwing attempts to debunk them: after Paramore singer Hayley Williams spoke out against a potential Trump “dictatorship” at a festival last week, Elon Musk called her a “puppet of the machine”.But there’s an argument that we shouldn’t look to them for political guidance, given that wealthy musicians live in a world mostly unburdened by the hardships and struggles faced by everyday people and marginalised communities, and they seem as prone as anyone to accepting disinformation. Many fans of Janet Jackson – the artist behind the radical, progressive politics of 1989 album Rhythm Nation 1814 – were crushed this weekend when in a Guardian interview she parroted Trump-propagated misinformation that Harris is “not Black”. Pharrell Williams is also currently in hot water with fans for saying that he doesn’t “really do politics” and gets “annoyed” when celebrities tell people who to vote for.I would argue it’s fair to want celebrity musicians to be politically astute, particularly if, like Jackson, they’re willing to comment on politics in interviews. The key thing is not to simplify complex political stances to fit the narrow bounds of what a hive mind on social media has deemed acceptable. Think of the way Nick Cave has been accused of being “conservative” – though it’s fine to question his beliefs about religion, boycotts and dogma, those beliefs do not neatly map on to that term and it diminishes the debate to suggest they do.What separates Roan’s political interventions from her peers is the way she wants to empower her young fanbase to think smarter and harder about how they can actively engage in politics. She had asked for critical thinking, but the kind of narrow, hardline stance her comments were met with is the antithesis of the tolerance, empathy and self-reflection that should be part of leftwing thought. Roan is right not to tell fans what to do this election. Instead she’s a valuable demonstration of what it means to live your politics. As she clarified on TikTok: “Actions speak louder than words and actions speak louder than an endorsement.” More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Secret Service made numerous errors before first near-assassination of Trump, Senate report says

      by

      The breadth of known Secret Service errors that led up to Donald Trump’s first near-assassination in July widened on Wednesday with the release of a report by the US Senate that found there was no one clearly in charge of decision-making for security at the rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, that day – causing “foreseeable, preventable” failings before the former president was shot.The catalogue of security errors that allowed a would-be assassin to fire seven rounds at Trump at the election rally include failing to set up sight-line barriers around the outdoor rally area, the absence of a plan to secure the building the shooter took aim from and general communication chaos.A bullet clipped the former president’s ear, while one rally-goer was killed and two others were badly wounded.An agent with only informal training with drone equipment called a toll-free tech support hotline for help, delaying security operations involving surveillance drone equipment, according to a preliminary summary of findings made public on Wednesday.A request ahead of time for additional unmanned security assets was denied, the report said. Thomas Crooks, 20, fired at Trump before being killed by government snipers.“Multiple foreseeable and preventable planning and operational failures by [the Secret Service] contributed to Crooks’ ability to carry out the assassination attempt of former president Trump on July 13,” the preliminary report said.“These included unclear roles and responsibilities, insufficient coordination with state and local law enforcement, the lack of effective communications, and inoperable C-UAS systems, among many others,” it continued, referring to equipment such as drones, or counter-unmanned aircraft systems.The Secret Service chief of communications, Anthony Guglielmi, said: “The weight of our mission is not lost on us and in this hyper-dynamic threat environment, the US Secret Service cannot fail.“Many of the insights gained from the Senate report align with the findings from our mission assurance review and are essential to ensuring that what happened on July 13 never happens again,” Guglielmi added.The Secret Service has already openly admitted failures, both to the US Congress and in press conferences, and the head of the service at the time quit after the Butler shooting.The bipartisan Senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee found that key resource requests were also denied, and some were not even made. Secret Service advance agents did not request a surveillance team for the rally’s 15,000 attendees.About 155 law enforcement officers were at the Butler rally on 13 July, compared with 410 security personnel dispatched to guard the first lady, Jill Biden, who was in the state about an hour away.The report found that many of the problems identified by the committee “remain unaddressed” by the Secret Service.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Overall, the lack of an effective chain of command, which came across clearly when we conducted interviews,” said the Connecticut Democratic senator Richard Blumenthal on Tuesday. “It was almost like an Abbott and Costello farce, with ‘who’s on first?’ finger-pointing by all of the different actors.”But the central failure to secure a roof of a nearby factory within shooting distance of the rally stage, from where the shots were fired, remains unanswered. The first reported sighting of would-be assassin Crooks was at 4.26pm, more than 90 minutes before Trump would begin speaking.At 5.38pm, a Beaver county sniper, stationed inside the building from which Crooks would later shoot atop its roof, sent photos of Crooks to the local team’s group chat, but Secret Service counter-snipers on a roof close to where Trump was due to speak were not notified.“What I saw made me ashamed,” said the acting Secret Service director, Ronald Rowe Jr. “I cannot defend why that roof was not better secured.”The report was released as investigators investigate a second domestic assassination attempt on the former president, as well as an apparent Iranian plot to kill him.In the second domestic attempt, Ryan Routh, 58, was arrested on 15 September, suspected of pointing a rifle through the fence at Trump’s golf club in West Palm Beach, Florida, where the former president was playing.On Tuesday, federal prosecutors filed a charge of attempted assassination against Routh, on top of previous charges. More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump briefed on suspected Iranian assassination plot

      by

      US intelligence officials have briefed Donald Trump about a suspected Iranian plot to kill him, his campaign has said.The briefing, from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), is believed to have focused on a scheme unrelated to two failed domestic assassination attempts against the Republican nominee for president, and came amid reports suggesting that Iran is conducting an ongoing hack against Trump’s campaign.Steven Cheung, the Trump campaign’s spokesperson, said the briefing concerned “real and specific threats from Iran to assassinate [Trump] in an effort to destabilize and sow chaos in the United States”.He added: “Intelligence officials have identified that these continued and coordinated attacks have heightened in the past few months, and law enforcement officials across all agencies are working to ensure President Trump is protected and the election is free from interference.”The ODNI confirmed to the Guardian on Wednesday morning that the briefing took place.Trump referred to the briefing in a post on his Truth Social site and predicted that another assassination attempt would be made against him.“Big threats on my life by Iran,” he wrote. “Moves were already made by Iran that didn’t work out, but they will try again. Not a good situation for anyone. I am surrounded by more men, guns, and weapons than I have ever seen before….An attack on a former President is a Death Wish for the attacker!”Intelligence officials were reported to have been tracking an Iranian-backed conspiracy to kill Trump even before the 13 July attempt, which was carried out by a lone gunman, Thomas Crooks, who killed one rally attendee before being killed himself by a Secret Service agent.Investigators have found no evidence that Crooks, 20, was part of a larger plot and have concluded that he acted alone.The Iranian motivation to kill Trump is believed to stem from a desire for revenge over his decision when he was president to order the US strike that killed Maj Gen Qassim Soleimani, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ elite Quds force in January 2020.Iran has denied plotting to assassinate Trump.It came as a Senate report was issued on Wednesday on Trump being shot in July in an attempt to kill him at an election rally in Pennsylvania. It concluded that there was a failure of leadership among the Secret Service team assigned to protect him.The plot identified by the ODNI is thought not only to be distinct from the Pennsylvania attempt but also from a second suspected domestic assassination bid that took place at Trump’s golf club in West Palm Beach, Florida, earlier this month that was foiled after a Secret Service agent fired on an armed man who was spotted lurking in bushes.That alleged gunman, Ryan Routh, was apprehended after fleeing and was charged on Tuesday with the attempted assassination of Trump.In August, federal prosecutors charged a Pakistani man said to have ties to Iran with taking part in an alleged murder plot against an unidentified US politician.Last week, US intelligence officials said Iranian hackers stole materials from the Trump campaign and passed them to media outlets and the now-defunct campaign of Joe Biden, which all declined to publish them. A Microsoft threat assessment analysis has linked the hack to a group within the Iranian revolutionary guards. More

    • 213 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Elon Musk’s Twitter coup has harmed the right. They are now simply ‘too online’ | Paolo Gerbaudo

      by

      In the aftermath of Donald Trump’s shock victory in 2016, one common explanation for why the Democrats had not seen it coming was that they had succumbed to the social media echo chamber. The fact that many digital platforms, such as Twitter (now X), tended to be dominated by liberals had lured Democrats into a false sense of security. This, so the explanation went, made them complacent, leading to inconsiderate gestures that alienated sections of the electorate: Hillary Clinton’s infamous jab at Trump’s supporters as “deplorables” was often cited as a prime example.With the internet ever more captive to the caprices of timeline algorithms, the risk of echo chambers is even greater in this election cycle. However, it is now Trump and the broader political right that is – to use the internet lingo – “too online”.The rightwing surge seen in many countries’ recent elections, especially in Europe, has been paralleled (and supported) by a significant rise of the right’s influence online. As documented by much academic research on social media and politics, the leading influencers on platforms such as YouTube, X and the instant messaging platform Telegram are rightwing. On many of these platforms, the conversation has increasingly shifted towards rightwing themes and positions, with rightwing messages tending to circulate more widely.This social media hegemony, which has been in the making for many years and was cemented by Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover, has now created a right that harbours a similar sense of delusion and complacency to the one that, in the past, has proved so detrimental for progressives.Consider the way vice-presidential candidate JD Vance has brazenly doubled down on his 2021 comment about “childless cat ladies”; or widely ridiculed – and dangerous – online hoaxes about cats and dogs being eaten by Haitian immigrants, which appear to have travelled from Facebook to the mouth of the Republican candidate in a matter of days; or Musk’s creepy rebuke concerning Taylor Swift after the pop singer endorsed Kamala Harris, offering to “give her a child”. Such extreme messaging does cater to the Maga (Make America great again) crowd of true believers – but it comes at the electoral cost of potentially alienating large swaths of the moderate voting-age population.As political scientists have long observed, a party’s rank and file is more ideologically extreme than its electorate. If leaders get trapped in the militant core, they can end up developing an unrealistic appraisal of the opinion of their target voters. This is precisely what 24/7 immersion in social media, with their plebiscitary pseudo-democracy of instant reactions and echo chambers, is all too likely to produce.Obsession with social media and its popularity contest can also lead to unwise choice of political personnel. JD Vance was appointed as running mate by Trump on the back of vocal support from Silicon Valley and the fervour of his social media followers. Yet, Vance is viewed favourably by a miserly 36% of the electorate, compared with 48% support for his opponent Tim Walz, according to a recent USA Today poll. Trump himself has been criticised by allies because of his closeness to internet personality Laura Loomer, a self-described “white advocate” who has built a successful career by catering to far-right digital cesspits.A key factor in this radicalisation spiral has been Musk’s transformation of broadly liberal Twitter into the reactionary X. Spending $44bn on the purchase certainly made no economic sense, but it seemed to make much political sense. Taking the reins of a platform widely recognised as a sort of “social media of record”, or official debating chamber of the internet, capable of shaping the news agenda and public perception, offered the opportunity to fiddle with the formation of public opinion – and this is precisely what Musk did in three waysFirst, he has shamelessly granted himself enormous algorithmic privileges, which reportedly boost his messages by a factor of 1,000. He has used this colossal power of amplification by conversing with, and therefore boosting, hard-right extremist accounts, spreading fake news and publishing AI-manufactured images, such as one showing Kamala Harris in communist attire.Second, by reactivating tens of thousands of accounts – including those of Nazis and antisemites – who had been suspended or banned for violating community guidelines, Musk has goaded liberal and left users to leave the platform out of disgust, therefore effectively shifting the balance of the conversation to the right.Third, there have been the effects of his “blue check” scheme, which has fundamentally transformed the dynamics of participation on the platform. Now, in any conversation, the top replies are from people with blue checks, who appear to be overwhelmingly right-leaning, largely because of the way more progressive users have boycotted the service out of their animosity towards Musk.Musk’s “Twitter coup” has offered a new home to those who had retreated to Maga platforms such as Truth Social and Parler. But in so doing it has also led to the creation of a macroscopic reactionary echo chamber, which feeds into the right’s confirmation bias and self-complacency.Ultimately, the reason why rightwing politicians and their billionaire allies invest so much energy and resources into social media is that these platforms can influence people’s opinions in a more organic way than traditional forms of political communication. The irony here is that in attempting to use its money and power to shift the discursive dial, the right might have inadvertently undermined its own prospects.

      Paolo Gerbaudo is a sociologist and the author of The Great Recoil: Politics after Populism and Pandemic More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘One death is too many’: abortion bans usher in US maternal mortality crisis

      by

      In Louisiana, doctors will no longer be able to carry a lifesaving medication with them during pregnancy emergencies. In Texas, the infant mortality rate is soaring. In Idaho, pregnant people drive hours just to give birth. And in Oklahoma and Georgia, women are bleeding out in hospital parking lots and facing dangerous infections before they can find care – and sometimes, that care comes too late.The limitations and outright bans on abortion that have taken hold in half of the US in the wake of the Dobbs decision have wreaked enormous changes to the reproductive health landscape.The restrictions put a growing burden on the health and wellbeing of patients and providers, even as more Americans find it difficult to find and access care.“The United States is, and has been for quite some time, in the midst of a maternal and infant mortality crisis,” said Dr Jamila Perritt, a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist and president of Physicians for Reproductive Health.Banning access to reproductive healthcare, including abortion care, is “directly causing an increase in morbidity and mortality in our community”, she said. “We have really robust evidence that shows us that when people have sought abortion care and are unable to obtain it, their psychological, social, physical and emotional health is harmed.”Maternal and infant mortality will probably increase because of the restrictions – especially if national limitations, like enforcement of the Comstock Act, are put into place.“I expect in the next few years, we’re going to start to see the infant mortality, pre-term birth, maternal mortality, and maternal morbidity numbers rise for everyone, and particularly for folks from racially marginalized and low-socioeconomic communities,” said Rachel Hardeman, professor of reproductive health and founding director of the Center for Antiracism Research for Health Equity at the University of Minnesota.Calculating mortality is often a complicated and controversial endeavor. When maternal mortality dropped in 2022, anti-abortion advocates credited the success to the Dobbs decision.But that’s not the case, according to new research in Jama Network Open.Maternal deaths surged during the first two years of the pandemic, when Covid, a deadly illness during pregnancy, accounted for one-quarter of all maternal deaths. But in 2022, that rate dropped to levels similar to pre-pandemic levels, from 32.9 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2021 to 22.3 in 2022.That rate is still higher than maternal mortality rates in peer nations, and research indicates it will increase if officials clamp down on abortion nationally – which, with the Comstock Act, would require no additional anti-abortion legislation or bans.Right now, “people can still travel to other states, but once there’s a federal ban, that won’t be an option any more,” says Amanda Jean Stevenson, co-author of the new Jama research and a sociologist at the University of Colorado Boulder. “And there could be this very different set of outcomes when people’s options are gone.”In the United States, more than 80% of pregnancy-related deaths and more than 60% of infant deaths in the first week are preventable – and those figures were estimated before the Dobbs decision.Because of abortion restrictions, there are already significant challenges to accessing reproductive healthcare – and it’s not just abortion care.In Louisiana, misoprostol – a drug used for medication abortion and other lifesaving purposes – will be labeled a controlled substance beginning on 1 October. One of its uses is keeping patients from bleeding out after childbirth, which is the No 1 cause of postpartum mortality.Yet physicians cannot keep controlled substances in their emergency carts, and they fear they won’t have enough time to fill prescriptions for patients when minutes and even seconds make the difference between life and death.In the year following Texas’s abortion ban, child mortality shot up by 12.9% – compared with a 1.8% increase in the rest of the country, according to a recent study. Congenital anomalies are the leading cause of infant death in the US – but while they went down by 3.1% in the rest of the country, they went up by 22.9% in Texas.“That study was chilling. That is a huge change,” Stevenson said.It echoed previous research finding that states with the most restrictive abortion laws saw 16% more infant deaths between 2014 and 2018.The trauma and costs of carrying to term pregnancies that are incompatible with life inflict an incalculable toll on families and providers.States are closing obstetric units and losing experienced providers who worry about not being able to offer lifesaving care as patients die on the table in front of them, and facing jail time if they provide care.More than two-thirds (68%) of obstetricians and gynecologists say the Dobbs decision has made it harder for them to respond to pregnancy-related emergencies, according to the non-partisan health research organization KFF. They also believe it has worsened mortality in pregnancy while increasing racial and ethnic inequities, and fewer doctors are now interested in entering the field.In 2022, soon after the Dobbs decision, medical residency applications dropped for states with bans.More than half of doctors surveyed in states with bans and limitations said they were very concerned about legal repercussions to providing the standard of care in pregnancy.“That can just exacerbate already pretty large gaps in the workforce,” said Usha Ranji, associate director for women’s health policy at KFF.In the past two years, more than 100 hospitals have closed their obstetric units entirely, according to a new March of Dimes report. More than one-third of US counties are now maternity care deserts, with no obstetricians or places to give birth. North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Oklahoma and Nebraska have the least access to maternity care.The majority of rural hospitals (57%) no longer deliver babies, with more than 100 of the rural hospitals ending labor and delivery services in the past five years.“We’ve created policy and legislation to limit access to abortions and also have closed the exact places that people need to go to get care if they are pregnant,” Hardeman said. That puts pressure on neighboring states that still provide care, she said.“Where you live matters for your health. And I think that the Dobbs decision and the fall of Roe have demonstrated that in a very real and very obvious way, because there are literally places in this country where there is essentially no access to reproductive healthcare,” she said.“It started out in rural spaces, but more and more, there’s reports popping up of labor and delivery units closing in, like, urban Chicago.”In states with restrictions on abortion, women of color and pregnant people from low-income communities often suffer the most, said Hardeman. “Taking away access to reproductive healthcare is exacerbating those disparities.”Black women die because of pregnancy at twice the national rate, and three times more than white women, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.“The fact that black women and birthing people are dying at three to four times greater risk than white women is shameful – and it’s preventable,” Perritt said.It’s important to shore up protections for reproductive health for all Americans before health complications and mortality rise even more, she said. “One death is too much. One is too many.” More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s on Truth Social MAKING NO SENSE AT ALL AGAIN | Arwa Mahdawi

      by

      Ladies, are you DEPRESSED and UNHAPPY? Do you feel POORER and LESS HEALTHY than you did four years ago? Do you pray one day your little woman brain will NO LONGER BE THINKING ABOUT ABORTION all the time? Well, don’t worry, Donald Trump is going to FIX ALL OF THAT.So he says, anyway. At 11.42pm on Friday night Trump flexed his fingers, hit the all-caps key, and ranted on Truth Social about how UNHAPPY women are under the Biden administration. What happened at 11.41pm to prompt this, I wonder? Did he get a preview of some new polls which show him trailing Kamala Harris, partly thanks to a historic gender gap that sees Harris leading among women 58% to 37%? Did Trump decide, in his infinite wisdom, that the best way to fix this was an all-caps rant? Because I am not sure that is a winning strategy.I know you’d probably rather bleach your own eyeballs, but I do encourage you to have a look at Trump’s incoherent post for yourself. Really take in his rambling – unedited by journalists desperately trying to make his various unhinged utterances coherent – and remind yourself that there is a very real chance that this guy might become president again. We are all so desensitised to Trump that we sometimes forget that he lacks the ability even to string a sentence together. No respectable employer would hire someone who posted the sort of stuff he does, yet he might soon land the biggest job in the world. Again. While Harris may be leading Trump in the latest polls, the numbers are still within the margin of error. The race is extremely close.Like many people who desperately want the carnage in Gaza, and now Lebanon, to end, I have lost hope that Harris will do any meaningful work towards a ceasefire. I dread a Trump presidency, but I also have no enthusiasm for a Harris presidency. Still, the fact that, with just weeks to go to the election, we are in a situation where a highly credentialled woman is neck and neck with an extremist sexual predator and convicted felon who writes late-night rants in all-caps is an astounding indictment of US politics. GOD HELP US ALL. Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist More

    • 250 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Judge in federal Trump election interference case to allow special counsel to file hundreds of pages of evidence – live

      by

      A federal judge overseeing Donald Trump’s federal election interference case will allow special counsel Jack Smith to submit a 180-page brief that could contain new evidence.The oversized brief contains legal arguments and evidence reflecting how the supreme court’s ruling regarding presidential immunity will affect the case against Trump, which include felony charges for his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election.The supreme court’s ruling regarding presidential immunity affects the charges against Trump, who is facing four felony counts related to his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.Trump’s legal team called the request to submit the brief “fundamentally unfair” in part because it was so much longer than most opening briefs.The Trump campaign is holding a bus tour this week in Wisconsin featuring campaign surrogates and local party activists. The bus stopped in Appleton today, drawing around 100 spectators and featuring a lineup of activists, including an activist with the rightwing organization Moms for Liberty, the president of the Faith and Freedom Coalition – Wisconsin, and Trump loyalist Kash Patel.During the event, John Pudner of Wisconsin’s chapter of the Faith and Freedom Coalition handed out pamphlets for attendees to hand out to the public and stressed that faith-focused voters could have an outsize impact on the election if the Republican party can turn them out.“Let me tell you something,” said Pudner. “Florida in 2000 is Wisconsin in 2024.”In 2000, Florida’s election was decided by roughly 500 votes and a supreme court decision to end the recount there.The first ballots have been sent out for the hotly contested November elections that will determine the nation’s future.What is early voting?States – with the exception of Mississippi, New Hampshire and Alabama – offer all voters the opportunity to cast a ballot in person at a polling place before election day, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.In those places, registered voters can head to their polling location within the early voting time frame and cast a ballot. Most states begin counting those ballots on election day, and some require officials to wait until polls are closed to begin counting.Some states offer a version of early voting called “in-person absentee” voting, in which a voter can obtain and submit an absentee ballot in person at a polling place before election day.What about absentee voting?Most states allow for some form of absentee voting, in which a voter requests a ballot ahead of time, which officials then send to them in the mail to fill out and return by mail. Some jurisdictions offer voters the option of returning absentee ballots to a secured dropbox. Fourteen states require an excuse for voters to cast a ballot by mail, such as an illness or work-scheduling conflict. Eight states practice “all-mail” elections – in those places, all registered voters receive a ballot in the mail, whether or not they plan to use it.Federal law requires states to send absentee ballots to military voters and voters overseas.States regulate the “processing” and counting of absentee ballots; most states allow officials to immediately process ballots, which typically entails verifying the signature on the ballot with the voter’s signature from when they registered to vote. Other states require officials to wait until election day to begin processing ballots – which can slow the release of election results.One morning in February, 16-year-old Levi Hormuth took off school as his parents called out of work, and the three began a five-and-a-half-hour drive.The purpose of the 350-mile trip from their home in St Charles county, Missouri, to Chicago, Illinois, was a routine doctor’s appointment.Levi, a transgender boy, now 17 and in his final year of high school, had been a patient at the Washington University (WashU) Transgender Center since he was 13. The center, a short drive from home, had helped Levi in his transition, providing counseling and eventually hormone treatments at age 15. The testosterone had profoundly positive impacts, Levi and his parents said, helping him overcome significant mental distress stemming from his gender dysphoria.But in June 2023, Missouri’s Republican governor enacted a bill banning gender-affirming healthcare for youth under 18. The law had an exception for youth like Levi who were already accessing the care, but WashU, fearing legal liability, stopped prescribing medications to all trans youth.The best alternative for Levi and his family was to cross state lines.“The fact that I have to drive five hours both ways for treatment just shows our government in Missouri doesn’t care about things that are actually important,” Levi said one afternoon, sitting on his backyard deck with his parents in St Charles county, which is more conservative than neighboring St Louis. “We have potholes galore that should be fixed, we have horrible crime rates. It’s enraging that they’re not focusing on what matters and listening to our voices.”The stakes of the presidential election are enormous for people like Levi and the broader LGBTQ+ community.Donald Trump has promised aggressive attacks on LGBTQ+ rights, with a focus on trans youth, who have been a central target of the GOP’s culture war. The former president’s proposed “plan to protect children from leftwing gender insanity” includes ordering federal agencies to end all programs that “promote … gender transition at any age”; revoking funding from hospitals that provide gender-affirming care to youth and subjecting them to US justice department investigations; punishing schools that affirm trans youth; and pushing a federal law stating the government doesn’t legally recognize trans people.Read more:A federal judge overseeing Donald Trump’s federal election interference case will allow special counsel Jack Smith to submit a 180-page brief that could contain new evidence.The oversized brief contains legal arguments and evidence reflecting how the supreme court’s ruling regarding presidential immunity will affect the case against Trump, which include felony charges for his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election.The supreme court’s ruling regarding presidential immunity affects the charges against Trump, who is facing four felony counts related to his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.Trump’s legal team called the request to submit the brief “fundamentally unfair” in part because it was so much longer than most opening briefs.Seeking to secure every last electoral vote he can get, Donald Trump had been pushing allies in Nebraska to change the state’s electoral system to a winner-takes-all system. The state currently awards its five electoral votes based on congressional district.But after a key Republican legislator declined to support the last-minute effort to change the state’s system, the state’s governor has said that he won’t be calling a special legislative session to make the changes.“My team and I have worked relentlessly to secure a filibuster-proof 33-vote majority to get winner-take-all passed before the November election. Given everything at stake for Nebraska and our country, we have left every inch on the field to get this done,” said Jim Pillen, Nebraska’s governor. “Unfortunately, we could not persuade 33 state senators.”Mike McDonnell, a Republican state senator, announced he wouldn’t support the change. “Elections should be an opportunity for all voters to be heard, no matter who they are, where they live, or what party they support,” McDonnell said in a statement. “I have taken time to listen carefully to Nebraskans and national leaders on both sides of the issue. After deep consideration, it is clear to me that right now, 43 days from Election Day, is not the moment to make this change.”Nebraska has awarded its electoral votes by congressional district since 1991, and since then, Republican candidates have usually secured all of the state’s votes. But in 2008, Barak Obama got the vote from the state’s second congressional district in the Omaha region, and in 2020, Joe Biden took that vote.Back at the United Nations, Ukraine’s president spoke before the security council, and suggested that negotiations to end Russia’s invasion would do no good.“This war can’t be calmed by talks. Action is needed, and I’m grateful to all the nations that are truly helping in ways that save the lives of our people,” Volodymyr Zelenskyy said.“Putin has broken so many international norms and rules that he won’t stop on his own. Russia can only be forced into peace, and that is exactly what’s needed, forcing Russia into peace as the sole aggressor in this war, the sole violator of the UN charter.”Zelenskyy is also using his visit to the summit of global leaders to press US lawmakers for continued aid that he says will give his military the edge over Russia in the conflict. Here’s more on that:Joe Biden will travel to Angola next month, the White House announced, marking the first trip by a US president to sub-Saharan Africa since 2015.Biden will visit the capital, Luanda, from 13 to 15 October, and meet with João Lourenço, the southern African nation’s president, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement.“The president’s visit to Luanda celebrates the evolution of the US-Angola relationship, underscores the United States’ continued commitment to African partners, and demonstrates how collaborating to solve shared challenges delivers for the people of the United States and across the African continent,” Jean-Pierre said.Barack Obama was the last US president to visit sub-Saharan Africa, with a trip to Kenya and Ethiopia in July 2015. Biden welcomed Lourenço to the White House last year, and promised to visit Angola.Prior to arriving in Angola, Biden will visit Germany “to further strengthen the close bond the United States and Germany share as allies and friends and coordinate on shared priorities”, Jean-Pierre said.Local authorities in Tempe, Arizona, have said that someone fired shots at a Democratic party campaign office in a Phoenix suburb, causing damage but no injuries, according to the Associated Press.Tempe police told the Associated Press that the damage was discovered early on Monday and that the incident is being investigated as a property crime. Nobody was in the office at the time the shots were fired.On Tuesday, NBC News reported that the office is shared by staff for the Arizona Democratic party, the Kamala Harris campaign, and Senate and House campaigns.This comes as Harris is scheduled to visit Arizona later this week.New York’s Climate Change Superfund act was stripped from the state budget this year, but then it passed both chambers of the state’s legislature with bipartisan support in June.Modeled after the Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund program, it would require officials to work with scientists to figure out how much climate-related damage to people, ecosystems and infrastructure is attributable to big oil companies’ planet-heating pollution, then establish procedures to collect payments from big oil companies to fund those changes.At the rally on Tuesday outside the New York governor Kathy Hochul’s office, New Yorkers detailed their own experiences with climate disasters.Michael-Luca Natt from the New York chapter of the youth-led environmental group Sunrise Movement described how extreme city heat in the summer made it difficult to play outside as a youth.“It is time for the fossil fuel industry to be held accountable,” he said.If signed into law, the New York bill would be the largest policy of its kind in the nation. Vermont became the first state to pass a climate superfund bill in May.Dozens of climate activists gathered outside Kathy Hochul’s office on Tuesday demanding the New York governor pass the Climate Change Superfund act, which would force big polluters to help the state pay for damages caused by the climate crisis.“We are being played for suckers by the fossil fuel industry, and Governor Hochul is going along with it,” Bill McKibben, the veteran environmentalist who founded non-profits 350.org and Third Act, said at the rally.The activists from the fossil fuel accountability group Make Polluters Pay coalition, which includes environmental and human rights organizations such as Food and Water Watch, the New York Public Interest Research Group, Fossil Free Media, and Avaaz, carried large boxes filled with more than 127,000 petitions to Hochul’s office. They chanted: “What do we want? Climate justice,” and: “Make polluters pay.”A new poll of young voters published on Tuesday shows that among registered voters aged 18 to 29, Kamala Harris is 23 points ahead of Donald Trump, and 31 percentage points ahead among likely voters.The leader of the Haitian Bridge Alliance, a non-profit that represents the Haitian community of Springfield, Ohio, has filed criminal charges against Donald Trump and JD Vance on behalf of the group, according to an announcement from the law firm representing them.The group is charging the former president and Republican nominee for president, and his running mate and Ohio senator, with disrupting public service, making false alarms, committing telecommunications harassment, committing aggravated menacing and violating the prohibition against complicity per the press release.The Associated Press is reporting that the group has invoked its private-citizen right to file the charges in the wake of inaction by the local prosecutor.This comes as the city of Springfield has experienced an onslaught of disruption, harassment, chaos and threats since Trump and Vance began spreading false claims about Haitian immigrants there eating other residents’ pets.Last week, the mayor of Springfield issued an emergency proclamation following the continued rise in public safety threats.A new Reuters/Ipsos poll of registered voters published on Tuesday has Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump 46.61% to 40.48% in the upcoming 2024 presidential election.The Democratic vice-president’s six-point lead is a slight increase from the last Reuters/Ipsos poll from earlier this month, which had her five percentage points ahead of the former president. More