US Politics

Republicans won’t stop until abortion is banned across America. And it could beMoira DoneganIt is time for liberal Americans, and all American women, to face this reality: there will soon be no safe states Republicans want to ban abortion nationwide, and they have the nerve to claim that this is a compromise. This week, Senator Lindsay Graham, of South Carolina, introduced a bill to ban all abortions everywhere in the United States at 15 weeks. Abortion is already banned before 15 weeks in 15 states.It is banned outright in Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin. Indiana’s ban on abortion went into effect just this Wednesday. It is banned at six weeks – in practice a total ban – in Georgia and Ohio. West Virginia passed an abortion ban, too. It won’t be the last.The Republican national 15-week ban that Graham has introduced will do nothing to help the women in these states, who will not have their rights restored. It’s not a floor for abortion legality: it is a ceiling. The goal is to ban abortion in blue states. Currently, 58% of American women of childbearing age live in states that are “hostile or extremely hostile” to abortion rights, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Republicans want to raise that to 100%.One way that we know that the Republicans will ban abortion nationally as soon as they get the chance is because they keep saying that they want to. This is the sixth time Graham has introduced a national abortion ban bill. The previous five were, by his standards, less extreme: they all banned abortion at 20 weeks. That Graham has pushed his ban back earlier in pregnancy is a sign of the rapidly lowering standards for American women.We’re now told that 15 weeks is a compromise. But 15 weeks is not a compromise. It is the very beginning of the second trimester – before fetal abnormalities and other health risks are detected, before many women in red states, burdened by poverty and travel and the medically needless burdens imposed by their states, can get an abortion at all. And there is no stage of pregnancy where a woman deserves the indignity of a ban. There is no point at which she becomes unworthy of controlling her own life and health; there is no point at which a legislator knows more about what’s best for her than she does. Any ban is unacceptable; a national ban, like the kind that the Republicans are now pursuing, is abhorrent.This was always their plan. The anti-choice movement, and their servants in the Republican party, have long understood the overturning of Roe v Wade – the long-desired goal that they achieved this summer, on 24 June, when the US supreme court issued its decision in Dobbs v Jackson – as just the opening salvo in their assault on women’s rights.Their real goal is a national ban on abortion, beginning with the kind of legislation introduced this week by Graham. They have made no secret of this: anti-choice groups announced their plan for a national ban even before the Dobbs decision was officially released. They don’t have the votes for it now, but they could get the votes in the future. And when they do, a combination of factors, including pressure from fundraisers and their base and what seems to be a genuine hatred for abortion and the freedom that it provides to women, combine to make a political certainty: the next time Republicans hold both houses of US Congress and the White House, they will ban abortion nationwide.It is time for liberal Americans, and all American women, to face this reality: there will soon be no safe states, no place in America where abortion is legal. In the future, we will come to see this horrible era – the time after Roe fell, but before abortion was banned nationally – as an interregnum, when the suffering and loss enforced on women by abortion bans was only confined to red states.As horrible as this state of affairs is, one day we will look back on it fondly. As women bleed for days, and little girls are pushed out of school, and thousands of dreams are abandoned to forced birth – even these, eventually, might come to seem like the good old days.Because though the Republicans will certainly ban abortion nationally at their first opportunity, they may not even need to wait for an electoral victory to do so. A group calling itself Catholics for Life has already asked the supreme court to declare fetuses and embryos to be persons under the 14th amendment, a move that would grant them constitutional rights. From there, “it’s a short step to saying that laws allowing abortion are unconstitutional because they deny equal protection to those persons that are unborn human beings,” the Berkeley Law School dean, Erwin Chemerinsky, told Ms magazine. “I believe that there may be a majority on the Court to take that position.” The unelected, lifetime-appointed judges on the court could extend their assertion in Dobbs that it’s legal to ban abortion, and instead say that it’s actually illegal to allow it. To get that outcome, the Republicans don’t need to win even one more vote.These are the stakes of every election now, for the rest of our lives. A national abortion ban will be on the ballot every time Americans vote for congressmen and senators; it will be on the ballot every time they vote for president. In previous years, while Roe was still in place, voting for a governor or state legislatures could affect practical abortion access within a state quite substantially. Red states were able to cut funding, impose labyrinthine requirements, up the cost for patients and impose uniquely onerous burdens on providers. But Roe preserved a bare-bones floor for abortion rights: no state could ban abortion before viability.Now, any state – or the United States at the federal level – can ban abortion as early as they want. There is no bottom, and Republicans are determined to keep pushing further and further back, dragging the rights and dignity of American women further and further down into the dirt. This is the possibility that we have to resist every time we vote. It’s also the possibility that Democrats accept – every day that they do not expand the court.
Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist
TopicsUS politicsOpinionAbortioncommentReuse this content More

Why is mainstream US TV spreading moral panics about affirmative action run amok?Robert ReichTelevision talkshows have huge power to influence what issues dominate American discourse. And that power demands responsibility A few days ago, I received an email from an associate producer at the Dr Phil Show. They recently came across my film Inequality for All and wanted to know if I’d be “interested in joining Dr Phil as an expert guest for an upcoming episode”.Hey, why not? The Dr Phil Show is the No 1 rated daytime TV talkshow in America. It has over 2 million viewers. I have lots to say to those viewers about the perils of widening inequality.Then I read the rest of the email:
For this conversation we will be asking questions like: do college admissions enroll minorities over prospective Caucasian students? Are Caucasian teachers and professors being laid off to “make up for past discriminations” against minority educators, as seen in Minneapolis?
These were the only questions included in the email. In other words, it would be a show about favoritism to Black people over white people.What’s going on here? The Dr Phil Show isn’t on Fox News. It’s shown on CBS.Phil McGraw himself isn’t a rabid rightwinger. At least not that I know of.(He did appear on Fox News soon after the start of the pandemic to argue against temporarily closing down the economy – claiming that the likelihood of dying from Covid was no greater than the likelihood of dying in a car accident or drowning in a swimming pool. By that time 3,000 people had died of the infection. Two years later, it had taken the lives of 1 million.)But the point I want to make isn’t solely about Dr Phil. It’s about the people who produce popular TV talkshows.They decide two hugely important things: (1) the topics to be discussed, and (2) how those topics are framed.These two decisions determine what issues the public focuses on (out of an almost infinite number bubbling up each day) and what’s debatable about them (out of an almost infinite number of possibilities).And these two determinations in turn fuel public emotions – ranging from anger, indignation and outrage, to hope, pride and confidence. They affect our daily conversations. They shape our politics. They divide or connect Americans. They help set the national agenda.Take the recent contract agreement between the Minneapolis teachers union and the Minneapolis school district – the issue Dr Phil’s associate producer wanted me to talk about.That contract says that if school budgets must be cut, white teachers will be laid off before those from “underrepresented” populations, regardless of seniority. If school budgets then expand, “underrepresented” teachers will be reinstated before white teachers, regardless of seniority.Maga outlets, blogs and social media sites have gone nuts over this. Racial preferences for Black people have become a hot-button issue, especially among struggling working-class whites.Viewed this way, this issue lends itself to the rightwing argument that “coastal elites” have rigged the economic game against white working people in favor of “less deserving” people of color. Naturally, this infuriates a lot of working-class whites.Presumably, this is the debate Dr Phil’s producer has in mind. But it’s the wrong issue and the wrong debate.Go a bit deeper and you’ll see why. The goal of the Minneapolis school board is to remedy continuing effects of past discrimination, by supporting “the recruitment and retention of teachers from underrepresented groups”. (Emphasis added.)This is a particularly important goal in Minnesota’s schools, where 5.6% of licensed teachers identify as a teacher of color or American Indian, compared with 30% of students.Research shows having teachers of color in the classroom has a positive impact on students – not just students of color but also white students – including improved test scores and higher graduation rates.But in a last-in-first-out seniority system, teachers of color are more likely to be laid off when budgets are cut. That’s because they’ve entered the profession more recently, so have less seniority.In the Minneapolis public schools, fewer teachers of color are tenured than white teachers. State law requires that teachers be on probation until completing three consecutive years of work.So the new Minneapolis contract is serving a particularly important public purpose in a system where seniority and tenure would otherwise discriminate against people of color. The contract is leveling the playing field and helping insure that more teachers of color are in classrooms.But do you think for a moment that I’d be able to explain all this on the Dr Phil Show?Not a chance. I’ve been doing television interviews for 40 years. I’d be lucky if I got out two sentences before another guest, representing the “other side” of the issue, jumped down my throat, charging “racism!”So what are millions of daytime TV viewers likely to learn from this discussion about whether “Caucasian teachers” are “being laid off to ‘make up for past discriminations’ against minority educators, as seen in Minneapolis?”That government is favoring Black teachers over white teachers – and that lots of people are mad about it.I’m sending my regrets.My biggest regret is that the national conversation is in the hands of producers chasing ratings and advertising dollars, with no regard for how they’re distorting the public’s understanding of what’s important or the core choices lying ahead.
Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com
TopicsUS politicsOpinionDaytime TVTalk showsTelevisioncommentReuse this content More

Republicans planning legal assault on climate disclosure rules for public companiesThe SEC’s proposed new rules, which would require public corporations to disclose climate-related information, have been critized by industry groups Republican officials and corporate lobby groups are teeing up a multi-pronged legal assault on the Biden administration’s effort to help investors hold public corporations accountable for their carbon emissions and other climate change risks.The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed new climate disclosure rules in March that would require public companies to report the climate-related impact and risks to their businesses.The regulator has since received more than 14,500 comments. Submissions from 24 Republican state attorneys general and some of the country’s most powerful industry associations suggest that these groups are preparing a series of legal challenges after the regulation is finalized, which could happen as soon as next month.“I would expect a litigation challenge to be brought immediately once the final rule is released,” Jill E Fisch, a business law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, told the Guardian. “They probably have their complaints already drafted, and they’re ready to file.”Some opponents claim that requiring companies to publish climate-related information infringes on their right to free speech. Others (often the same ones) say that the rule exceeds the SEC’s legal authority.Both critiques feature prominently in comments from the Republican attorneys general and the US Chamber of Commerce, which spent more than $35m lobbying the federal government in the first half of 2022, according to OpenSecrets. The Republican letter warns that if the new disclosure requirements are finalized, “capitalism will fall by the wayside.”The SEC proposal does not establish environmental policy or require that companies take any climate-related actions other than making more information publicly available.The free speech and legal authority objections have been met with profound skepticism from legal experts and former SEC officials.In a letter to the commission, John Coates, a Harvard Law School professor and former SEC general counsel, said that instead of challenging the climate disclosure rule on its merits, “critics have resorted to mischaracterizing the proposal, and inventing their own, fictional rule”.How a top US business lobby promised climate action – but worked to block effortsRead moreIn another letter, a bipartisan group of former SEC officials, legal scholars, securities law experts and corporate lawyers noted that “the SEC has mandated environmental disclosure at least as far back as the Nixon administration.” Even though not all of the letter’s authors support the substance of the rulemaking, they agreed without exception “that there is no legal basis to doubt the commission’s authority to mandate public-company disclosures related to climate.”“The SEC is promulgating a disclosure rule that’s square within its wheelhouse,” said Fisch, of the University of Pennsylvania. “It’s exactly what Congress told it to do, and which it has done consistently since 1933.”But the legal authority and free speech charges, however tenuous, are not the only grounds on which opponents of the climate disclosure rule have hinted at litigation.In a recent analysis, the Guardian revealed how the Business Roundtable, a lobbying group for CEOs of America’s biggest companies, opposes a key provision of the SEC proposal that would require some large companies to measure and report emissions generated throughout their supply chains – known as Scope 3 emissions.Chart showing the difference between Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions.In addition to challenging the substance of the rule, the Business Roundtable also rejects the SEC’s estimate of how much it would cost businesses to comply. (The organization said in an email that its comments “[are] focused on identifying challenges in the proposed rule in the hopes the SEC will address them.”)The SEC projects that companies will face compliance costs of $490,000 to $640,000 in the first year of climate reporting, and less in subsequent years. (By comparison, a 2019 study predicted that climate change could cost firms around $1trn over the following five years.)A detailed assessment from Shivaram Rajgopal, Columbia Business School professor of accounting and auditing, concluded that even without taking into account any benefits from the climate disclosure rule, the costs would prove negligible for most firms. “The loss in market capitalization, if any, from compliance costs is likely too tiny for any outsider to detect and to separate from daily volatility in the stock returns for unrelated reasons,” Rajgopal wrote.Last quarter ExxonMobil earned nearly $18bn in profit, the largest quarterly earning in the company’s history. Over the same period, General Motors generated more than $35bn in revenue, while Walmart reported revenues of nearly $153bn. The Economist recently reported that after-tax corporate profits as a share of the US economy have surged to their highest level since the 1940s.ExxonMobil, GM and Walmart are members of the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable. According to a report from the nonprofit Center for Political Accountability, during the 2020 election cycle each company donated at least $125,000 to the Republican Attorneys General Association, which supports the political campaigns and legal agendas of GOP attorneys general across the country.In their letter to the SEC, 24 of these attorneys general called the commission’s cost-benefit analysis “woefully unfinished” and warned that finalizing the climate disclosure rules “will undoubtedly draw legal challenges”.The Business Roundtable, meanwhile, described the analysis as “fundamentally flawed” and said that its member companies “believe [the costs of the rule] will be orders of magnitude more than what the SEC estimates.” The chamber issued a similar condemnation, writing in its voluminous submission that the SEC’s “economic analysis … is incomplete and substantially underestimates compliance costs.”Asked to comment, neither organization responded specifically to questions of whether it planned to pursue legal action against the SEC if the final rule is not changed significantly.Trade associations might be expected to instinctively oppose new regulations, but in the past such statements have proven to be more than routine political rhetoric. On multiple occasions in response to prior rulemakings, the chamber and the Business Roundtable have successfully sued the SEC on cost-benefit grounds.In 2011, following a suit filed by the two groups, the DC circuit struck down an SEC rule that would have made it easier for shareholders to consider new board members for public companies, deeming the rule “arbitrary and capricious”. The decision in Business Roundtable v SEC said that the commission “neglected its statutory obligation to assess the economic consequences of its rule”, citing, among other figures, a cost estimate submitted to the SEC by the chamber.In their comments on the climate disclosure proposal, the Republican attorneys general and the chamber each cite Business Roundtable v SEC in claiming that the SEC’s cost-benefit analysis is flawed.The Republican letter is co-led by Patrick Morrisey, the West Virginia attorney general who recently helmed a successful legal challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).In West Virginia v EPA, the Supreme Court endorsed a relatively novel legal notion – the so-called “major questions doctrine” – to halt an EPA effort to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. As the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists explained, “Under this doctrine, when a regulation crosses a certain threshold of being ‘major’ – a line which remains poorly defined – the court rejects the regulation unless it has been clearly authorized by Congress.”The major questions doctrine looks to be the basis of Morrisey’s campaign against the climate disclosure rule. In a July TV appearance, Morrisey said that the Biden administration “can’t get the congressional majorities behind their policies, so they’re trying to resort to the [regulations]. But as we saw with West Virginia v EPA, I don’t think the courts are going to let that happen.” (Morrisey’s office did not respond to emails requesting comment.)“I don’t think there’s any natural reason to infer that the court’s decision [in West Virginia v EPA] would have any implications for the SEC,” said the University of Pennsylvania’s Jill Fisch. “At the same time, you can read the West Virginia case, and you can say: ‘This is part of the Supreme Court, and the federal courts generally, taking a different look at government agencies. This is cutting back on the fourth branch, on the power of the administrative state.’ And if that’s true, in theory, everything is up for grabs.”“Historical legal precedent suggests that the SEC has a pretty strong case,” Tyler Gellasch, the president and CEO of the nonprofit Healthy Markets Association, said. “But if you’re the Business Roundtable, you don’t necessarily need historical legal precedent on your side. You just need a court today. And that seems far more likely today than it would have been at any time in modern history.”TopicsClimate crisisBiden administrationSecurities and Exchange CommissionUS politicsReuse this content More

Trump chief of staff used book on president’s mental health as White House guideJohn Kelly secretly consulted The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, according to new book by Peter Baker and Susan Glasser Donald Trump’s White House chief of staff secretly bought a book in which 27 mental health professionals warned that the president was psychologically unfit for the job, then used it as a guide in his attempts to cope with Trump’s irrational behavior.Trump feared assassination by Iran as revenge for Suleimani death, book saysRead moreNews of John Kelly’s surreptitious purchase comes in a new book from Peter Baker of the New York Times and Susan Glasser of the New Yorker. The Divider: Trump in the White House, 2017-2021, will be published next week. The Guardian obtained a copy.The book Kelly bought, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, was a bestseller in 2017. In January 2018 its editor, then Yale psychiatrist Bandy Lee, described its aims in a Guardian column.She wrote: “While we keep within the letter of the Goldwater rule – which prohibits psychiatrists from diagnosing public figures without a personal examination and without consent – there is still a lot that mental health professionals can tell before the public reaches awareness.“These come from observations of a person’s patterns of responses, of media appearances over time, and from reports of those close to him. Indeed, we know far more about Trump in this regard than many, if not most, of our patients.“Nevertheless, the personal health of a public figure is her private affair – until, that is, it becomes a threat to public health.”Kelly, a retired general, became Trump’s second chief of staff in July 2017 – after Trump fired Reince Priebus by tweet – and left the job in January 2019.His struggles to impose order on Trump and his underlings and his virulent falling out with the president have been extensively documented. According to Baker and Glasser, who interviewed Kelly, the retired Marine Corps general bought a copy of The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump as he “sought help to understand the president’s particular psychoses and consulted it while he was running the White House, which he was known to refer to as ‘Crazytown’.”“Kelly told others that the book was a helpful guide to a president he came to consider a pathological liar whose inflated ego was in fact the sign of a deeply insecure person.”The authors report that Kelly’s view was shared by unnamed senior officials, quoting one as saying: “I think there’s something wrong with [Trump]. He doesn’t listen to anybody, and he feels like he shouldn’t. He just doesn’t care what other people say and think. I’ve never seen anything like it.”The 25th amendment, which provides for the replacement of a president unable to meet the demands of the job, was seriously discussed at the end of Trump’s presidency, after the Capitol attack he incited.Baker and Glasser say the amendment was tentatively discussed by cabinet members “within months of Trump taking office”. However, its flaws – if Trump opposed its use he would be all but impossible to shift – precluded further action.Trump regularly dismissed claims about his mental health and his staff’s worries about it. In January 2018, after the publication of Michael Wolff’s tell-all book Fire and Fury, Trump memorably told reporters he was “a very stable genius”.Kelly has regularly attacked Trump. In October 2020, CNN reported that Kelly told friends Trump’s dishonesty was “astounding … more pathetic than anything else” and called Trump “the most flawed person” he had ever met.Trump backed failed campaign coup against Kushner, Navarro book saysRead moreTrump blasted back, claiming Kelly “didn’t do a good job, had no temperament and ultimately he was petered out. He got eaten alive. He was unable to handle the pressure of this job.”The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump was a bestseller, hailed by the Washington Post as “the most daring book” of 2017. But it also stoked controversy over its discussion of the mental state of a public figure.In May 2020, Lee lost her job at Yale, in part, she said, over tweets about Trump. This month, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit in which Lee said she was wrongfully fired.TopicsBooksUS politicsDonald TrumpPolitics booksnewsReuse this content More

Near-total abortion ban with narrow exceptions takes effect in IndianaLaw effectively wipes out abortion access for 1.5m people in the state, which was a safe haven for those seeking the procedure A sweeping abortion ban went into effect in Indiana on Thursday, containing only extremely narrow exceptions for medical emergencies, rape and incest and making it the latest state to largely outlaw the procedure in the US.The ban is being challenged in court by the ACLU and several abortion care providers, with hearings set to start on 19 September.Indiana lawmakers passed the legislation during a special legislative session in early August, with a six-week pause before it came into effect. Then, Indiana was the first in the nation to bring in a new law banning abortion after Roe fell. Before that, anti-abortion activists had relied on so-called “trigger laws”, written pre-Roe, to ban the procedure once the supreme court decision came down.But earlier this week West Virginia followed and also passed a sweeping ban.“We will always have more work to do because we need to make it unimaginable to end an unborn baby’s life,” the Republican state senator Liz Brown said when she backed the bill six weeks ago.The law effectively wipes out abortion access for 1.5 million Indianans of reproductive age, and will have far-reaching consequences as Indiana had become a safe haven for those seeking abortion in other nearby states.Now, residents in places like Ohio, Wisconsin and Kentucky, which have total or near-total abortion bans in place, will have to travel hundreds of miles to neighboring Illinois for the procedure. Meanwhile, other midwestern states, like Michigan, will put abortion rights directly to the public in a ballot in November.The Indiana law – known as SB 1 – is an all-encompassing abortion ban with some extreme restrictions. It limits abortions to cases where there is serious risk to the health or life of the pregnant person, and in the case of a lethal fetal anomaly up to 20 weeks post-fertilization.Similar abortion restrictions in other states have already put the lives of pregnant people at risk, which is of huge concern in a state like Indiana, which has some of the worst maternal and infant mortality rates in the US.The Indiana law allows abortions in the case of rape or incest – but only up to 10 weeks of pregnancy. Indiana threw rape and incest exceptions into the spotlight on an international stage early this year, after a 10-year-old girl travelled to the state from Ohio after being raped. Dr Caitlin Bernard, the girl’s OB-GYN, spoke out about the case after the 10-year-old was denied an abortion in her home state due to a trigger law in Ohio that does not include exceptions for rape.The ban puts a limit on where abortions can be performed, specifically banning abortion clinics from performing the procedure. Instead, abortions must be performed in hospitals or surgical centers owned by hospitals. That has left hospitals scurrying to set up special units and work out their options – previously hospitals performed only a tiny fraction of abortions happening in state.TopicsIndianaAbortionUS politicsRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

Self-confessed “car guy” Joe Biden is about to take the podium at the Detroit motor show to tell Americans why they should be buying electric vehicles.The president, who owns a vintage Corvette, has set what the White House calls “a bold goal” for electric vehicles to make up 50% of all vehicles sold in the US by 2030. Biden is in Detroit touting the Inflation Reduction Act, the marquee spending bill he signed last month that includes incentives for buying electric vehicles, as part of a larger strategy to lower America’s carbon emissions.President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act makes it easier and cheaper to purchase an electric or fuel-cell vehicle – new or used – through tax credits for consumers.Learn more at https://t.co/KTCwt5Tmue.— The White House (@WhiteHouse) September 13, 2022
While we await Biden’s words, here’s the White House factsheet, which says that since Biden took office last year, companies have invested nearly $85bn in manufacturing electric vehicles, batteries, and EV chargers in the US.The number of electric vehicles sold in that time has almost tripled, the handout claims.But there are concerns that his plans to build a nationwide network of charging stations will leave behind disadvantaged and lower income areas and communities of color.Read more:Is Biden’s goal to build charging stations for electric cars leaving low-income areas behind?Read morePresident Joe Biden struck a triumphant note in a Detroit speech where he promoted his administration’s efforts to revitalize manufacturing and get Americans behind the wheel of electric vehicles. Meanwhile, the January 6 committee has signaled it will resume public hearings later this month, and potentially share more of its evidence with justice department investigators looking into the attack on the Capitol.Here’s what else happened today:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed optimism that Democrats would gain, not lose, seats in the chamber in the November midterms, despite widespread expectations that voters will elevate the Republicans into the majority.
Donald Trump disavowed his former vice-president Mike Pence, saying he would not choose him as a running mate again, according to a soon-to-be-published book obtained by The Guardian.
FBI agents paid a visit to prominent Trump ally and pillow mogul Mike Lindell, seizing his cellphone and questioning him in a fast food restaurant’s drive-thru lane.
Biden called Britain’s King Charles III and expressed condolences over the death of the queen. It remains unclear if the president will meet Charles III or new prime minister Liz Truss when he heads to London for the queen’s funeral.
Florida’s Republican senator Marco Rubio co-sponsored a bill to ban abortions nationwide after 15 weeks, in what could help his Democratic challenger Val Demings as she looks to energize pro-abortion sentiment among voters.
Amtrak has begun canceling long-distance routes ahead of a possible rail strike that could begin within days, Axios reports.Unions and freight rail companies are negotiating furiously to prevent the strike, which would be the first in three decades and worsen supply chains that have been plagued by delays and manpower and equipment shortages over the past two years as the United States has bounced back from the pandemic.“While we are hopeful that parties will reach a resolution, Amtrak has now begun phased adjustments to our service in preparation for a possible freight rail service interruption later this week,” Amtrak said, according to Axios.“Such an interruption could significantly impact intercity passenger rail service, as Amtrak operates almost all of our 21,000 route miles outside the Northeast Corridor (NEC) on track owned, maintained, and dispatched by freight railroads. These initial adjustments include canceling all Long Distance trains and could be followed by impacts to most State-Supported routes.”The negotiations between the railroad companies and 12 unions are complex and have drawn in the Biden administration. Here’s the latest from the Associated Press:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Members of one union rejected a tentative deal with the largest U.S. freight railroads Wednesday while three other unions remained at the bargaining table just days ahead of a strike deadline, threatening to intensify snarls in the nation’s supply chain that have contributed to rising prices.
About 4,900 members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District 19 voted to reject the tentative agreement negotiated by IAM leadership with the railroads, the union said Wednesday. But the IAM agreed to delay any strike by its members until Sept. 29 to allow more time for negotiations and to allow other unions to vote.
Railroads are trying to reach an agreement with all their other unions to avert a strike before Friday’s deadline. The unions aren’t allowed to strike before Friday under the federal law that governs railroad contract talks.
Government officials and a variety of businesses are bracing for the possibility of a nationwide rail strike that would paralyze shipments of everything from crude and clothing to cars, a potential calamity for businesses that have struggled for more than two years due to COVID-19 related supply chain breakdowns.Joe Biden’s inclination for optimism was on full display in Detroit, but he was outdone today by his Democratic colleague House speaker Nancy Pelosi, who insisted in an interview with Punchbowl News that the party was poised to gain – not lose – seats in the chamber in the midterms.“Yes, indeed,” she told Punchbowl when they asked if she thought the party’s majority would grow in the November 8 election.Let’s unpack the many reasons that statement appears improbably. First of all, it’s a reflection of how much the political climate is thought to have shifted in the Democrats’ favor over the past few months. Declining gas prices, the supreme court’s overturning of national abortion access and Biden’s legislative wins are all believed to have energized Democratic voters, while on their part, Republicans have chosen some weaker nominees for key races.But history is against Pelosi. As The Guardian’s Joan E Greve has reported, the party holding the White House has only gained seats in the House in two midterms, and Pelosi personally experienced the ruinous 2010 election that saw Democrats lose 63 seats in the lower chamber and end her speakership for eight years. She may well be poised to endure that again – poll aggregator FiveThirtyEight gives the GOP a very good shot at returning to the majority next year in the House, though the Senate may be harder to conquer. Nonetheless, analysts generally believe that the political developments over the past few months are meaningful for Democrats, and while Republicans may win the House, their gains won’t be enormous, and certainly not comparable to 2010.Here’s what Republican National Committee chairwoman Ronna McDaniel had to say about Biden’s visit to Detroit, which she described as a stop on his “failure tour”:“Whether it’s handing out tax credits for luxury electric vehicles or bailing out the wealthy’s debts, Biden and Democrats are leaving hardworking Americans behind. Democrats will be driven out of office in November because they put their left-wing special interests ahead of Americans struggling to fill grocery carts and gas tanks.”“American manufacturing is back, Detroit is back, America is back,” Biden declared at the conclusion of his speech in Detroit, where he touted the benefits of legislation passed to repair infrastructure and promote electric vehicles.The speech at the Detroit Auto Show hit familiar talking points for the president as he attempts to convince voters to re-elect Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections and preserve their majorities in Congress. Among these were his recent legislative successes, including the $1 trillion measure Democrats and some Republicans in Congress approved last year to overhaul the nation’s infrastructure. In his speech, he announced that he had authorized funding from that law for 35 states to build electric vehicle charging stations.Beyond being the center of the auto industry, Michigan is among the more crucial states to Biden’s political fortunes. It’s a perennial swing state that Biden narrowly won in the 2020 election, and its Democratic governor Gretchen Whitmer will also be on the ballot in November as she stands for second term against Republican challenger Tudor Dixon. Biden appeared at the show along with the governor, and spent much of his speech shouting out other Michigan Democrats, while closing on a note of triumph. “Folks, we’re proving it’s never, ever, ever a good bet to bet against the American people, never never, never. You just gotta remember who we are.”In the ongoing legal wrangling over documents seized by the government from Mar-a-Lago, The Guardian’s Richard Luscombe reports that the justice department is sounding the alarm over an order preventing them from reviewing the materials.Donald Trump’s lawyers are causing “irreparable harm” to the government and public by delaying the investigation into his hoarding of highly classified documents at his Florida mansion, the US Department of Justice said.The claim came in a strongly worded court filing urging a district judge, Aileen Cannon, to reconsider her ruling last week granting Trump’s request for an independent “special master” in the case.The Department of Justice argued that the order stops it continuing its review of thousands of documents, some reportedly containing details of a foreign power’s nuclear secrets, seized during an FBI search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach last month.Mar-a-Lago documents: Trump delaying tactics causing ‘irreparable harm’ – DoJRead moreSelf-confessed “car guy” Joe Biden is about to take the podium at the Detroit motor show to tell Americans why they should be buying electric vehicles.The president, who owns a vintage Corvette, has set what the White House calls “a bold goal” for electric vehicles to make up 50% of all vehicles sold in the US by 2030. Biden is in Detroit touting the Inflation Reduction Act, the marquee spending bill he signed last month that includes incentives for buying electric vehicles, as part of a larger strategy to lower America’s carbon emissions.President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act makes it easier and cheaper to purchase an electric or fuel-cell vehicle – new or used – through tax credits for consumers.Learn more at https://t.co/KTCwt5Tmue.— The White House (@WhiteHouse) September 13, 2022
While we await Biden’s words, here’s the White House factsheet, which says that since Biden took office last year, companies have invested nearly $85bn in manufacturing electric vehicles, batteries, and EV chargers in the US.The number of electric vehicles sold in that time has almost tripled, the handout claims.But there are concerns that his plans to build a nationwide network of charging stations will leave behind disadvantaged and lower income areas and communities of color.Read more:Is Biden’s goal to build charging stations for electric cars leaving low-income areas behind?Read moreCall it a magical mystery tour… migrants being sent on buses from Texas to New York by the lone star state’s governor Greg Abbott in protest at Joe Biden’s immigration policies are being moved on to Florida.That’s according to Fox 5 New York, which interviewed the city’s commissioner of immigration Manuel Castro on its Good Day New York show on Wednesday.New York City officials claim that many of the migrants who are being bused from Texas did not want to go to New York so they are helping them get to other states. https://t.co/KFbzJyMs4N— Fox5NY (@fox5ny) September 14, 2022
Castro says many of those arriving from Texas don’t want to be there, and have ties elsewhere:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Many want to go to places like Florida, where the largest community of Venezuelans live.
We’re helping them get to their actual final destination. We’re doing our best.The move probably isn’t going to go down too well with Florida’s hardline Republican governor and frequent Biden critic Ron DeSantis, who likes what he sees coming out of Texas and has been mulling his own plan to bus undocumented Cuban migrants from Florida to Washington DC.“All states and all cities have a role to play here, not just New York and Chicago and other places,” Castro told Fox 5. Joe Biden plans to nominate career diplomat Lynne Tracy, who is currently serving in Armenia, as the next US ambassador to Russia, CNN says.Tracy has experience of Moscow, having served there as deputy ambassador from 2014 to 2017. She would be the first woman in the role, the network said.The Biden administration hopes to get her in place swiftly to replace John Sullivan, who stepped down earlier this month. But the timing of her arrival and official nomination will depend on Russia agreeing to accept her as ambassador at a time of huge tension between Washington and Moscow as the war in Ukraine continues. Typically, the host country will approve the name of an ambassador pick before they are officially nominated through a process called agrément. The US has already given Tracy’s name to the Russians to begin that process, two sources told CNN.While we’re on the subject of November’s midterm elections, Martin Pengelly has this look at how Democrats got the matchup they wanted – an extremist, Trump-supporting election denier – as their Republican opponent for a New Hampshire Senate seat:A far-right Republican who backs Donald Trump’s election fraud lie and has vowed to decertify results in 2024 will be the GOP candidate for US Senate in New Hampshire.Don Bolduc, a retired special forces general who has said he suffered from PTSD and a traumatic brain injury, edged out Chuck Morse, the state senate president, to face the incumbent Democrat, Maggie Hassan, in November.Most if not all forecasters called the race for Bolduc before Morse conceded.The primary was the last in a series that have seen Republicans select candidates aligned with Trump, causing some to fear damage to their chances of winning the Senate in November.Bolduc, 61, has echoed Trump’s lie about election fraud in his defeat by Joe Biden. He has also questioned whether the FBI should be abolished following its search of Trump’s Florida estate, which turned up a cache of classified documents.Though Bolduc has courted Trump, he has not won an endorsement. Trump did call Bolduc a “strong guy”.Last October, Bolduc spoke to the New Yorker. He said he thought his “values and principles as an American, and the constitution, which I served for 33-plus years in the military, was safe with President Trump”, and that Trump’s appeal stemmed from the (notoriously reading-averse) former president’s reading and understanding of the constitution.He also said “there was a tremendous amount of fraud” in 2020, adding: “I very much believe it and I think it exists, and I think it happens and it’s been happening for a long time in this country. When you try to steal the presidency, a lot of people are going to go, ‘OK, wait a minute. What the hell’s going on here?’”Read more:Republican backer of Trump’s big lie wins New Hampshire Senate primaryRead moreFlorida Republican Marco Rubio has emerged as a co-sponsor of Lindsey Graham’s nationwide 15-week abortion ban bill, providing Democratic hopeful Val Demings new ammunition as she challenges for his Senate seat in November.Rubio’s campaign has not said why he’s signed on to the controversial and extreme bill, which has confused and angered many congressional Republicans. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell says he’s sure his members would prefer to leave the issue to the states. But Rubio’s overall position on abortion is clear. Talking to a Christian group in south Florida earlier this month, he said an unborn child’s rights outweighed those of the mother and that, in an apparent contradiction to his position on the Graham bill, “The state legislatures will decide [the] law.” “I would rather be right and lose an election than [be] wrong,” he said, according to ABC10 Miami.He may get his wish, at least the losing the election part, if Demings has her way. The former Orlando police chief and US congresswoman is a vocal pro-choice advocate and has slammed Rubio’s position.“It’s outrageous to mandate what a woman can and can’t do with their bodies,” she says in a televised campaign message.“I know something about fighting crime, Senator Rubio. Rape is a crime. Incest is a crime. Abortion is not.”Polling by RealClearPolitics gives Rubio, a former candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, a narrow lead over Demings.President Joe Biden is set to proclaim his administration’s efforts to boost the electric car business with a speech at the Detroit Auto Show set for 1:45 pm eastern time. Meanwhile, the January 6 committee has signaled it will resume public hearings later this month, and potentially share more of its evidence with justice department investigators looking into the attack on the Capitol.Here’s what else has happened today so far:
Donald Trump disavowed his former vice-president Mike Pence, saying he would not choose him as a running mate again, according to a soon-to-be-published book obtained by The Guardian.
FBI agents paid a visit to prominent Trump ally and pillow mogul Mike Lindell, seizing his cellphone and questioning him in a fast food restaurant’s drive-thru lane.
Biden called Britain’s King Charles III and expressed condolences over the death of the queen. It remains unclear if the president will meet Charles III or new prime minister Liz Truss when he heads to London for the queen’s funeral.
Let’s check in with Joe Biden, who has arrived at the Detroit Auto Show.He’s set to deliver “remarks highlighting the electric vehicle manufacturing boom in America” at 1:45 pm eastern time according to the White House, but is first getting a look at the latest models from America’s automakers.Biden is a vintage Chevrolet Corvette owner, and CNN caught him behind the wheel of the latest model:Biden at the Detroit Auto Show pic.twitter.com/54IMxuUnfO— Kate Sullivan (@KateSullivanDC) September 14, 2022
Here he is checking out Ford’s new electric offerings:The Mustang Mach-E. “0 to 60 in three seconds,” Biden said. “3.5, but who’s counting?” Bill Ford replied. pic.twitter.com/yctQP3c9LX— Josh Wingrove (@josh_wingrove) September 14, 2022
Why does Biden care so much about electric cars? In part because the Inflation Reduction Act, as the marquee spending bill he signed last month is known, includes incentives to try to get more Americans to buy the vehicles, as part of a larger strategy to lower America’s carbon emissions. The other reason is that Biden is a “car guy”, as he likes to describe himself.Electric cars to solar panels: tax breaks in Biden’s climate law for AmericansRead more More

Republican backer of Trump’s big lie wins New Hampshire Senate primaryHard-right Don Bolduc, who has vowed to decertify results in 2024, edges out Chuck Morse for right to run in November A far-right Republican who backs Donald Trump’s election fraud lie and has vowed to decertify results in 2024 will be the GOP candidate for US Senate in New Hampshire.Trump says Pence is out as potential running mate, book revealsRead moreDon Bolduc, a retired special forces general who has said he suffered from PTSD and a traumatic brain injury, edged out Chuck Morse, the state senate president, to face the incumbent Democrat, Maggie Hassan, in November.Most if not all forecasters called the race for Bolduc before Morse conceded.The primary was the last in a series that have seen Republicans select candidates aligned with Trump, causing some to fear damage to their chances of winning the Senate in November.Bolduc, 61, has echoed Trump’s lie about election fraud in his defeat by Joe Biden. He has also questioned whether the FBI should be abolished following its search of Trump’s Florida estate, which turned up a cache of classified documents.Though Bolduc has courted Trump, he has not won an endorsement. Trump did call Bolduc a “strong guy”.Last October, Bolduc spoke to the New Yorker. He said he thought his “values and principles as an American, and the constitution, which I served for 33-plus years in the military, was safe with President Trump”, and that Trump’s appeal stemmed from the (notoriously reading-averse) former president’s reading and understanding of the constitution.He also said “there was a tremendous amount of fraud” in 2020, adding: “I very much believe it and I think it exists, and I think it happens and it’s been happening for a long time in this country. When you try to steal the presidency, a lot of people are going to go, ‘OK, wait a minute. What the hell’s going on here?’”On 6 January 2021, nine senators were among 147 Republicans who voted to object to results in key states, even after the Capitol was stormed by a pro-Trump mob, a riot now linked to nine deaths, including suicides among law enforcement.Asked if he would “walk the walk” on certification in the Senate in 2024, Bolduc told the New Yorker: “Oh, absolutely … everybody I talk to believes that in me.”Bolduc also said January 6 represented “a complete failure of the political system”, blaming “the speaker of the House, the Senate majority leader, the minority leader” and the vice-president, Mike Pence, who refused to reject electoral votes.“They failed us,” Bolduc said, “and so, therefore, now they’re trying to politicize it, turn it into something that it’s not.”He said Trump supporters should not have used violence and destroyed property, but “believed that their rights were violated. They believed that they lost their voice.”Morse was endorsed by the popular Republican governor of New Hampshire, Chris Sununu, whose decision not to take on Hassan himself disappointed many Republicans.Sununu called Bolduc a “conspiracy theorist”. Bolduc called Sununu a “Chinese communist sympathiser”. But the governor promised to “endorse whoever the nominee is, and support him, of course I will, no question”.In a newsletter on Wednesday, J Miles Coleman of the University of Virginia Center for Politics said Sununu’s endorsement of Morse had almost been enough to defeat Bolduc. But he also pointed to Democratic efforts to boost the Trumpist Republican, mirroring controversial tactics in other states.Coleman wrote: “Some Republicans complained that the Democratic-aligned Senate Majority PAC intervened against Morse – given the margin, this may have been the decisive factor, although Morse also got some help from Republican outside groups.”One national Republican group spent at least $4.6m in support of Morse.The UVA center rates the New Hampshire Senate contest as “leans Democratic”.Republican governor blasts Trump as ‘crazy’ during Washington roastRead moreLinda Fowler, a political science professor at Dartmouth, told Reuters Morse would have stood a better chance of beating Hassan because he would have appealed to independents, the majority in New Hampshire.“If Bolduc gets the nomination, the independents will go to Hassan,” Fowler said, speaking before the result was known. “If he doesn’t get the nomination, the independents will have a serious choice.”Neil Levesque, director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, told the Associated Press Bolduc was the kind of candidate who would have struggled before Trump’s rise. Bolduc has never held elected office and had just $75,000 in cash on hand last week. But he was able to position himself as an ally of Trump.“If it mirrors the former president, it’s been effective,” Levesque said.TopicsUS politicsNew HampshireDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

Revealed: rightwing US lobbyists help craft slew of anti-protest fossil fuel billsLegislation drafted by Alec part of backlash against Indigenous communities and environmentalists opposing oil and gas projects Republican-led legislatures have passed anti-protest laws drafted by an extreme-right corporate lobbying group in a third of all American states since 2018, as part of a backlash against Indigenous communities and environmentalists opposing fossil fuel projects, new research has found.The American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec) helped draft legislation criminalizing grassroots protests against pipelines, gas terminals and other oil and gas expansion projects in 24 states, under the guise of protecting critical infrastructure.Rightwing lobby group Alec driving laws to blacklist companies that boycott the oil industryRead moreAlec, which is funded by rightwing state lawmakers, corporate sponsors and trade groups, and wealthy ideologues, creates model legislation on a range of conservative issues such as gun control, abortion, education funding and environmental regulations.The laws were passed in 17 Republican-controlled states, including Oklahoma, North and South Dakota, Kansas, West Virginia and Indiana, where protesters now face up to 10 years in prison and million-dollar fines, according to a new report from the non-profit Climate Cabinet.The anti-protest bills, which were rolled out in response to the success of mostly Indigenous-led campaigns slowing down fossil-fuel infrastructure projects, have used intentionally vague language to create a chilling effect on free speech and assembly – both constitutionally protected rights, according to the report Critical Infrastructure Laws: A Threat to Protest & the Planet.“Indigenous-led demonstrations opposing fossil-fuel projects have been one of the most successful and effective forms of climate action to date … in an affront to the protected freedoms of our constitution, state legislatures have found a new legislative mechanism to oppress frontline communities and cause further harm and destruction to our planet,” said Jonathon Borja, co-author of the report.The first so-called critical infrastructure bills originated in Oklahoma in 2018, where the Republican state representative Scott Biggs referenced North Dakota’s Dakota Access pipeline (DAPL) protests and acknowledged that some anti-pipeline demonstrations had succeeded. “[The bill] is a preventative measure … to make sure that doesn’t happen here.”Other states followed after Alec created a model bill for lawmakers to copy. So far, the bills have not passed in any states where Democrats hold a majority in at least one legislative chamber, though some Democrats have voted in favor of them.In most of the bills, protesters, like those who participated in the DAPL demonstrations, could now face felony charges, while those charged with “aiding” protests could face harsh fines.Fossil fuel expansion projects halted by Indigenous-led campaigns represent the carbon equivalent of 12% of annual US and Canadian pollution, or 779m metric tons of greenhouse gases, according to data gathered by the Indigenous Environmental Network and Oil Change International.The report comes as the White House and Congress negotiate the final terms of a controversial permitting side deal with the Democratic West Virginia senator Joe Manchin, which could make it harder to legally challenge new pipelines and other fossil fuel infrastructure.In a statement Alec said: “Alec has long been a leader in promoting and protecting free speech … But protests can and do turn violent. And when they do, our critical infrastructure facilities must be protected.”TopicsUS politicsFossil fuelsEnergynewsReuse this content More