Subterms
Donald TrumpTrump reportedly nears DC hotel rights sale as ally says ‘I think he’s gonna run’Hotel, which opened in 2016, was hub for government businessJim Jordan tells supporters in Ohio that Trump is likely to run Martin Pengelly@ More
US politics‘I’m not Rambo’: Republican unrepentant about attempt to enter AfghanistanCongressman Markwayne Mullin, criticized for rogue rescue effort, says he would do it again ‘without hesitation’ Edward Helmore in New YorkSat 4 Sep 2021 11.31 EDTLast modified on Sat 4 Sep 2021 11.36 EDTThe Oklahoma Republican congressman Markwayne Mullin has said he has no regrets about trying to enter Afghanistan on a rescue mission last month, saying that though he is “not Rambo” he would make such an attempt again “without even hesitation”.Afghanistan: militia endure ‘heavy assaults’ from Taliban in Panjshir ValleyRead moreMullin, a former wrestler described on his own website as “a former mixed martial arts fighter with a professional record of 5-0”, told Fox News he tried to enter Afghanistan as thousands of westerners and their Afghan allies attempted to flee the Taliban.“I wasn’t trying to go over there and be a cowboy or anything like that,” Mullin said. “It was just, ‘What else do you do when you see a problem? How do you say no if you can be an asset?’”Afghanistan fell to the Taliban last month, nearly 20 years after the US-led invasion. The Biden administration has said it evacuated about 124,000 American citizens and Afghans deemed at risk under Islamic militant rule.Mullin said he received requests to help thousands of people. He also said he was asked to accompany people with US military connections – “Delta [Force] guys” and “special forces” – into the war-torn country.“I’m not Rambo,” he said. “Never pretended to be Rambo. We were surrounded by great people. Out of all the guys I was working with, I’m the low man on the totem pole. And I understood that.”John Rambo is a character played by Sylvester Stallone in a series of action films first made in the 1980s, one concerning a mission to find Americans left behind after the Vietnam war.Mullin said he planned to help his companions by “open[ing] the doors for them, making phone calls and being able to take in the [special immigrant visa applicants] or the [American citizens] as they came onto the plane. That was the plan.”But, he said, “that plan changed. And it changed when we wasn’t allowed to get into Afghanistan.”According to the Washington Post, Mullin first attempted to enter Afghanistan via Greece, only to be denied permission by the defense department.He then reportedly called the US ambassador to Tajikistan with a request to help transport a large amount of cash into the country, saying he would be going on to Afghanistan to rescue a woman and her four children, all US citizens.Mullin told the embassy he planned to fly to Dushanbe in Tajikistan from Tbilisi in Georgia, then to rent a helicopter. The embassy turned him down. Officials told the Post Mullin threatened the US ambassador, John Mark Pommersheim.Mullin told Fox News: “Unfortunately, the ambassador, Pommersheim, was not helpful at all.”Mullin’s attempts to reach Afghanistan followed an unauthorized and widely criticised visit to Kabul by a Republican congressman, Peter Meijer, and a Democrat, Seth Moulton. The two military veterans have defended their actions.US troops completed their withdrawal from Afghanistan this week. The state department says Americans should not visit the country “due to civil unrest, armed conflict, crime, terrorism, kidnapping, and Covid-19”.Congressmen criticized over Kabul visit say they were ‘uniquely situated’ for tripRead moreMullin, who told Fox News he and others had estimated they had “a 50-50 chance of coming back” from their planned mission, wrote on Instagram on Wednesday that he had nonetheless helped Americans out of the country.“I am heading home,” he wrote, without specifying where he was.“Have we been helping get Americans out of Afghanistan? Yes. Is the mission continuing? Yes. Am I missing? No. Did I go dark for a little? Yes, because it wasn’t safe to be communicating. Am I extremely disappointed in how we (United States) left Americans behind … that would be an understatement.”Biden and members of his administration have said between 100 and 200 US citizens remain in Afghanistan. The White House has said it will continue efforts to help any who wish to leave the country. Veteran-led rescue groups have said the official estimate overlooks hundreds of permanent legal residents with green cards.After claiming Joe Biden was “absolutely lying to the American people about Americans and our friends being left behind”, Mullin added a hashtag: #Ordinarypeopledoingextraordinarythings.TopicsUS politicsUS foreign policyUS militaryAfghanistanSouth and Central AsianewsReuse this content More
Texas‘Outraged, sickened, terrified’: Guardian readers on the Texas abortion banNine Guardian readers share their thoughts on the ruling that bans most abortions – and what it means for reproductive rights Guardian readers and Rachel ObordoSat 4 Sep 2021 06.00 EDTLast modified on Sat 4 Sep 2021 06.01 EDTThe US supreme court voted 5-4 to allow a Texas law banning most abortions to remain in force. The law prohibits abortions once medical professionals can detect cardiac activity, usually around six weeks and before most women know they’re pregnant.Nine people share their reaction to the ruling and what they think it means for women’s rights.‘Women’s rights are being stolen out from under us’We have all these yahoos down here screaming about their rights being taken away (guns, vaccines and maskless), but women’s rights are being stolen out from under us. Abortion should not be a political decision – it is a moral decision. No one has the right to tell me what I can do with my body. One day “I” will answer to my Lord, no one else will stand in place during my judgment day. It is very disheartening. Women’s rights are slowly being taken away. What will they take away next? Michelle, 52, Texas‘How can I still be afraid of my voice not mattering?’It’s absolutely not right to have control over a woman’s body like this. I had one abortion when I was 22. My now husband and I had just started dating and we weren’t financially or emotionally ready to have children. If we were not allowed to have an abortion then, our relationship would not have survived. I would have been a single mother, trying to support a baby I wasn’t ready for and didn’t want. How do you think that child would have been raised? We now have two children and we are able to support them with love and everything they need to thrive. To this day my husband and I do not regret the extremely hard choice we had to make. We were both grieving for a while but, it was the right decision and it was my body, my choice.I had to have two C-sections with both of my sons as they were too large for me to give birth naturally. During my last C-section, I chose to get sterilized and my tubes tied. This was a difficult choice, but it was my choice for a healthy life. I decided for myself that day so no one could for me another day. I live in the USA, it’s 2021, how can I still be afraid of my voice not mattering? Kelsi, 30, Arizona‘This law is deeply and blatantly misogynistic’Saying I’m appalled does not begin to cover it. I am speechless. I just want to emphasize what others have been saying: there are no laws dictating what men can do with their bodies. For there to be full equality under the law, there can be no laws dictating what a woman can do with hers. I will be boycotting Texas in every way I can. The unintended consequences of this law will be deadlier and more horrific than the unintended consequences of Prohibition. This law is deeply and blatantly misogynistic. All women everywhere should be protesting in the streets. Valerie, 69, New York‘I spent my life fighting for abortion rights and now I feel defeated’I am outraged, sickened and terrified. I spent my life fighting for abortion rights, and now I just feel defeated. I’d leave this sick and evil country if I could, but I’m too old and too poor to be able to get out. I’ll stay and battle on, but the future looks increasingly bleak and dark.I fear for the lives and health of Texas women, and for the future of anyone in America who is not a white, straight, Christian, rightwing male. I am absolutely horrified and feel like a lifetime’s worth of work by so many people just went up in smoke. American women are in grave danger, and not just in Texas. Linda, 71, Maryland‘This is not the country I fought for’This is Handmaid’s Tale stuff. When I was young, I was a Goldwater Republican, but I left the party after Newt Gingrich was elected speaker. They [the Republicans] see Trump as America’s Viktor Orbán, running a “soft” dictatorship. The abortion ruling is one more step in their plan to eliminate freedom. Their stance on gun control is to ensure that their followers will be armed to the teeth the next time they try to pull off an insurrection. As a retired disabled veteran of the Vietnam war, this is not the country I fought for. Back in 1968 it was a different country – Republicans were the good guys – I’m not sure I want to keep living here if this is the way things are going. Bill, 74, Georgia‘The burden will be on the lower socioeconomic people’An absolute outrage. How dare a white male majority make choices about our bodies? I had two negative pregnancy tests when pregnant with my daughter, and didn’t get confirmation until I was 16 weeks pregnant. I am a social worker and know there are thousands of children who are languishing in the foster care system and will never be adopted. Who will care for these unwanted children? The burden, as usual in the USA, will be on the lower socioeconomic people. We are going backwards and it is beyond distressing. The wealthy will have access to abortions and other women will be forced to carry and bear children they don’t want or can’t support financially or emotionally. What a travesty. Allison, 50, Utah‘I think the ban starts six weeks too late’I am thrilled, though I think the ban starts six weeks too late. I’m hopeful that the supreme court will at least acknowledge a state’s options to set its own standards here. My concerns are that so much of our country is comfortable with the murder of the most innocent lives among us. It’s hard to get anything right as a society when infanticide is acceptable. Michael, Kansas‘Welcome back to the dark ages’This is utterly disgusting and abhorrent. Women of all ages should and must be able to make their own choice concerning their body. Welcome back to the dark ages. It’s OK to be against abortion but you don’t get to choose for others – it’s a matter of personal choice. I went through an abortion in my late 20s when I was living in Asia. My then boyfriend was immature and stupid and so was I. Anyway, it was a traumatic experience for many reasons and I wouldn’t go through it again, but that was my choice and I’m glad I had the option. Gally, 40, California‘Saying it’s too complicated is such a lazy response’It’s cowardice supreme. Such a twisted law – pitting people against each other. The supreme court can’t even give a good reason for blocking it other than that it’s too complicated. That is such a lazy response. It’s a sad day for women. I can only imagine what other countries think of this. I worry that other states will take approaches like this and effectively ban abortion elsewhere too. Jeremy, 24, MinnesotaTopicsTexasAbortionUS politicsHealthfeaturesReuse this content More
OpinionAbortionFeminists warned about America’s abortion crisis for years. We were written off as hystericalMoira DoneganWhy has the effective end of Roe v Wade been met with shock by so many corners of political life? Sat 4 Sep 2021 06.00 EDTLast modified on Sat 4 Sep 2021 06.01 EDTThis was predictable. In fact, it was predicted. The end of Roe v Wade and nationwide protections for abortion rights became likely in 2016, the night that Donald Trump was elected. It became inevitable in 2018, when Anthony Kennedy, the fifth pro-choice vote, retired and handed his seat to Trump to fill. But the end of nationwide legal abortion in America has been coming for decades, and there has been no ambiguity about the appetite for Roe’s overturn on the American right. And crucially, feminists have been sounding the alarm for decades, warning in increasingly desperate terms that gradual erosions of Roe’s protections in the law had led to a rapid and widespread loss of abortion access on the ground.Republicans seethe with violence and lies. Texas is part of a bigger war they’re waging | Rebecca SolnitRead morePerhaps the form of Roe’s eventual downfall was a surprise. Few thought that Roe’s fatal case would be over Texas’s new abortion law, with its privatized enforcement system of bounty-hunting civil suits designed to elide judicial review. And among a sea of legal observers, only Cardozo law professor Kate Shaw seems to have predicted that the court would dispose of a long-established constitutional right in so rushed and perfunctory a proceeding as a late-night order on the shadow docket. But this outcome was never in doubt. Trump promised to appoint antichoice judges. He kept that promise. This week his three appointees – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas – did what all of them know they were put on the court to do. They allowed the first state to outlaw abortion within its borders.So why has the effective end of Roe v Wade, coming in a one paragraph order in the wee hours of Thursday morning, been met with shock by so many corners of political life? The Republican party’s control of the federal judiciary had left little doubt that those judges most inclined to strip women of their rights would have both the power and the opportunity to do so. And yet politicians, pundits, and legal observers had for years assured the public that the justices would not gut abortion rights, despite the clear evidence that they would. We were assured that the Republicans on the court were less determined to gut Roe than they appeared to be, and that those worried about the future of abortion rights were overreacting.The court would not gut Roe, we were told by politicians and academics, because they said they wouldn’t. Kavanaugh, the ruddy-faced Trump appointee, had referred to Roe as “important precedent”. That this rather tepid comment was a disingenuous bit of posturing meant to ease his confirmation to the court was evident to everyone. Nevertheless, defenders of the confirmation process implored the public to treat it as if it had been uttered in good faith.In a speech announcing her decision to vote to confirm Kavanaugh, Senator Susan Collins said that she believed Kavanaugh would not vote to overturn Roe, or to gut it procedurally, because “his views on honoring precedent would preclude attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed not to do overtly.” Of course, the court, with Kavanaugh’s help, did effectively overturn Roe “by stealth” – in an unsigned order in the middle of the night.Of the feminists who opposed his nomination, Collins was dismissive, even patronizing. “We have seen special-interest groups whip their followers into a frenzy by spreading misrepresentations and outright falsehoods about Judge Kavanaugh’s judicial record.” She condemned these women’s concerns as “over-the-top rhetoric and distortions”.The court would not gut Roe, we were told by the legal world, because the justices were too professional. Barrett, the third of Trump’s appointees, had been a member of an antichoice faculty group while a law professor at Notre Dame. She had given a lecture to a Right to Life group; she had signed a letter condemning Roe and its “brutal legacy”. And yet despite Barrett’s extremist and evidently very passionately held views on abortion, people posing as serious told us that we could not know how she would vote on abortion rights, that the opinions and worldviews of judges would somehow not affect their legal judgement. “My personal views don’t have anything to do with the way I would decide cases,” Barrett told Senator Patrick Leahy when she was asked about her lengthy history of anti-abortion advocacy. The statement insulted both Leahy’s intelligence, and ours.And yet as conservative, antichoice judges consolidated their power, several myths about the court persisted. We were told that the people who looked like rabidly conservative justices were really reasoned moderates; or that at least they would be professional and impartial in their judgements; or that at least the removal of abortion rights would move slowly. These myths were presented as the only serious way to understand the court. Feminist claims that what appeared to be happening really was happening – that the judiciary really had been taken over by antichoice zealots, that the ability of women to control their own bodies and lives would soon be stripped away – were labeled as delusional and silly. Faith in the integrity of the conservative justices was cast as informed, mature, and intelligent. And it was contrasted with the supposed hysteria of feminists, whose passion and fear was taken as a sign of their own delusion, not as an indication of the seriousness of the problem.This notion, that the only intelligent response to a threat to women’s rights is to be calm, blasé, and preemptively assured that nothing very bad or important will result, has been weaponized with particular insidiousness over the course of the abortion debate during the past five years. In the halls of power, contempt for abortion rights activists was nearly complete.After Kennedy’s resignation, the CNN host Brian Stelter took to social media to scold a liberal activist for her fear of a Roe reversal. “We are not ‘a few steps away from the Handmaid’s Tale’,” he wrote. “I don’t think this kind of fear-mongering helps anybody.” Confronted with women opposed to the confirmation of Kavanaugh, Senator Ben Sasse all but rolled his eyes. There had been, he said, “screaming protesters saying ‘women are going to die’ at every hearing for decades.”The insistence that Roe is not in danger, and that women’s fear is silly, persists even now, after the court has effectively ended Roe. “Now breathe,” wrote the law professor Jonathan Turley in a blogpost urging women’s rights advocates to calm down, as if they were toddlers in the midst of a temper tantrum. “It is ridiculous to say that it was some manufactured excuse for a partisan ruling.”Is it ridiculous? The public has no real reason to believe that the supreme court is acting in good faith – aside from the repeated assurances of supposed experts whose predictions have usually been wrong. Instead, it was the so-called alarmist feminists, the ones warning about manufactured excuses for partisan attacks on abortion rights, who got their predictions mostly right. Maybe these women are not so ridiculous after all. Maybe it’s time to start listening to them.
Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist
TopicsAbortionOpinionUS supreme courtUS politicsTexasLaw (US)commentReuse this content More
US television‘This is about power’: the truth behind Impeachment: American Crime Story A new series relives the affair between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky and here, those involved remember and reflect on a national scandalDavid Smith in Washington@ More
California‘I barely know what the recall is’: central California voters puzzle over crucial vote The outcome of the state’s upcoming election could be decided by voters who are exhausted over the prospect of choosing a candidateMaanvi Singh in Stockton, California@ More
US Capitol attackUS Capitol rioter photographed wearing horns pleads guiltyJacob Chansley, of Phoenix, Arizona, pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding when he took part in insurrection G More
