Abortion

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      How Trump Could Wreck Things for Republicans in 2024

      by

      Things just got a whole lot more interesting in New Hampshire politics. Just below the presidential churn, the governor’s race in the politically quirky Granite State has some superjuicy drama percolating — the kind that offers a vivid reminder of just how much trouble Donald Trump stands to cause for his party in 2024.Gov. Chris Sununu, currently enjoying his fourth two-year term, recently announced that he would not run for re-election next year. This instantly gave Democrats their best shot at flipping a governorship from red to blue in 2024, and the race is now rated as a tossup. Quick as a bunny, Republican contenders began hopping into the field, and both parties started gearing up for a brawl.Of the candidates so far, the best known is the former senator Kelly Ayotte. Like Mr. Sununu, Ms. Ayotte is from the more moderate, pragmatic, bipartisan end of the Republican spectrum — as you might expect in this staunchly independent, politically purple state. Elected to the Senate in 2010, she was considered a serious up-and-comer in the party until, with a little help from Mr. Trump’s lousy coattails, she narrowly lost her 2016 re-election race against the Democrat Maggie Hassan.It’s hard to know precisely how much of a drag Mr. Trump, who also lost New Hampshire that year, exerted on Ms. Ayotte. But the senator’s wild waffling over Mr. Trump’s fitness for office surely didn’t help: Did she see as him a role model? “Absolutely.” Oops, make that no! Would she endorse his candidacy? Um, not really. Did she personally support him? Yes. Wait, no!The voters of New Hampshire were unimpressed.Seven years later, Ms. Ayotte is looking to make a comeback. Unfortunately for her, so is Mr. Trump, who may be popular in deep red states but will be a source of agita for Ms. Ayotte and other Republicans in swing states who might have to share the ticket with him. Republicans are hopeful about picking up Senate, House and governors’ seats in 2024, but they have barely started to contend with how the once-and-aspiring president could complicate things for down-ballot candidates.Nowhere is this clearer than in New Hampshire, a key presidential battleground. The state’s Trump-infected political landscape looks even more treacherous in 2024 than it did in 2016. Not just because of the former president’s latest campaign, which is shaping up to be even nastier and more divisive than his first two, but also because of Mr. Sununu’s high-profile crusade to tank that campaign.One of the nation’s most popular governors and one of his party’s most prominent Trump critics, Mr. Sununu has grown increasingly adamant that his party must move beyond the 45th president, and he has publicly pledged to work against Mr. Trump’s nomination. If Mr. Trump is the nominee in 2024, “Republicans will lose again. Just as we did in 2018, 2020 and 2022. This is indisputable, and I am not willing to let it happen without a fight,” Mr. Sununu wrote in The Washington Post last month.This move may burnish Mr. Sununu’s independent rep nationwide. (He is seen as a future presidential player.) But it only complicates life for many down-ballot Republicans in the state. Especially ones, like Ms. Ayotte, who have a somewhat … troubled history with the fealty-obsessed Mr. Trump.For the G.O.P., the New Hampshire governor’s office is one of the shrinking number of outposts where a pragmatic, old-school breed of Republican leader has been able to thrive in the midst of the party’s MAGAfication. Republicans felt confident Mr. Sununu had the juice to win, no matter who topped the ticket next year. Any other Republican is a shakier bet for winning the independent and crossover votes needed to win statewide in New Hampshire. The governor’s departure is being talked about as yet another step in the party’s ideological constriction.Although broadly popular, Mr. Sununu is not beloved in New Hampshire’s conservative circles. His anti-Trump mission will do nothing to improve this. “I think Sununu is trying to dance the same tightrope I am and a lot of us are: being very forceful about the fact that we need a new nominee and yet trying not to take too big of a dump on the former president,” said Jason Osborne, the Republican leader of the state House and one of Ms. Ayotte’s early endorsers.Fancy footwork aside, the Trumpnunu rift is going to make it harder for the governor’s aspiring successors to avoid getting sucked into the Trump vortex — the dangers of which Ms. Ayotte knows too well. She is already trying to get out ahead of the issue, asserting that she will support whoever winds up the party’s standard-bearer.“I do wonder whether she’s going to hold to that line of, ‘Hey, that’s between Sununu and Trump,’” said Dante Scala, a professor of political science at the University of New Hampshire. “She may be able to do that for some time.”But as campaign season heats up, look for Ayotte et al. to be increasingly pressed to clarify their views on the whole mess. (Trust me: Intraparty feuding is catnip for political journalists.) Staying out of the muck will very likely require elaborate tap dancing on a tightrope while juggling hot potatoes.The situation will be even thornier for whomever Mr. Sununu decides to endorse — which, at this point, is expected to be Ms. Ayotte. Sure, a popular governor’s nod in the race to succeed him will serve as a vote of confidence in the eyes of many. But it could also “fire up the conservative base even more” to undermine his pick, said Mike Dennehy, a G.O.P. strategist in the state. The territory is “more complicated than in 2016,” he asserted. And some think it would be best for the governor to delay endorsing until much later in the game.All of this, mind you, is piled on top of Ms. Ayotte’s specific challenges as a candidate. (Pro-life in a pro-choice state post-Dobbs? Oof.) And the basic political disposition of New Hampshire. “In general, it has become a slightly uphill battle to beat Democrats,” observed Mr. Scala.Stay tuned. As with so much in Mr. Trump’s Republican Party, this promises to be quite the show.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      How Nikki Haley Responded to a Question About Illegal Abortions

      by

      The former South Carolina governor — who is trying to break out in a packed 2024 Republican presidential primary — gave a nuanced response on one of the thorniest issues facing Republicans.At town halls and political events in New Hampshire, where she has made far more campaign stops than her rivals, Nikki Haley has mostly sidestepped any discussion of abortion, a fraught issue for the Republican Party.As the G.O.P. activist base tries to pull state lawmakers further to the right in curbing access to abortion, moderates worry that the hard-line stance has already handed electoral wins to Democrats and could have dire consequences in 2024. Ms. Haley, a former governor of South Carolina and United Nations ambassador, has tried to pull off a difficult balancing act on the issue, and her attempts haven’t always resonated — partly because, her critics say, she has avoided discussing details.On Tuesday, with more than 100 people gathered in a drizzle for a town hall at a picturesque vineyard in Hollis, Christina Zlotnick, 55, an undeclared voter from Amherst, posed a hard question. Ms. Haley provided little by way of concrete policy proposals, but this time she drew an enthusiastic response.A Question for Nikki Haley“You said on TV that women who get abortions should not be put in jail and should not be subject to the death penalty. But how exactly should women who get illegal abortions — women like me — how do you specifically think we should be punished?”The SubtextSince the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Republican-dominated state legislatures have rushed to institute new laws outlawing or imposing stringent restrictions on abortion, even as the issue has fueled Democratic victories across the nation, with Americans supporting at least some access to the procedure at record levels. Most abortions are now banned in 14 states. Some state laws stipulate narrow but vague exceptions, and carry years of prison time. Last week, a teenager in Nebraska who used abortion pills to end her pregnancy, and who pleaded guilty to illegally concealing human remains, was sentenced to 90 days in jail. At the time, abortion was banned in Nebraska after 20 weeks.In the past, anti-abortion activists have largely maintained that they don’t support punishing women who seek out the procedure illegally. But more recently, some state lawmakers have proposed legislation with criminal consequences for patients as well as those who may help them.Haley’s Answer“In order for us to have a federal law, we’re going to have to have consensus. What does that consensus look like? Can’t we all agree that we don’t want late-term abortion? Can’t we all agree that we want to encourage more adoptions and good-quality adoption so that children feel more love, not less? Can’t we all agree that doctors and nurses who don’t believe in abortion shouldn’t have to perform them? Can’t we all agree that contraception should be accessible? And can’t we all agree that a woman who gets an abortion should not be subject to the death penalty or get arrested? That’s where I think we start — we start, and we do it with a level of respect. No more demonizing this issue. We’re going to humanize this issue. I had a roommate who was raped in college. I wouldn’t wish on anyone what she went through, wondering if she was OK. Everybody has a story. Let’s be respectful of everybody’s story, and let’s figure out what we can do together instead of sitting there and tearing each other apart.”The SubtextMs. Haley began her reply by flatly stating that she did not believe women needed to be punished, adding that she was “unapologetically pro-life,” but did not “judge anyone for being pro-choice.” She went on to explain her support for the Supreme Court decision that thrust the issue back to the states but said she did see a role for the federal government in setting abortion policy, as long as there was congressional consensus between Republicans and Democrats.Her answer mostly echoed her previous remarks on abortion, but delivered with passion, it seemed to pack a more powerful punch in front of a smaller, friendlier audience. Attendees nodded along or expressed whoops and hollers in agreement, breaking into applause as she ended.Many Republican and independent women at her events this week have said they see Ms. Haley as a strong leader and messenger on abortion, as the only Republican woman in the presidential race, and believe she might be able to blunt attacks from Democrats on the issue. Ms. Haley’s positions on the topic tend to be more moderate than the rest of the field, and it is among the issues she has used to set up her bid as a test of the Republican Party’s attitudes about female leaders, without leaning too far into her gender.After the event, Ms. Zlotnick, who once had to take a drug to end an unviable pregnancy — a procedure that is not illegal — said she phrased her question as a hypothetical because if she found herself in different circumstances, she would consider having an illegal abortion. She said she was a strong believer in reproductive rights but had been satisfied with Ms. Haley’s response. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans target abortion pill access as government shutdown threat looms

      by

      A Republican-backed spending bill threatens to end national access to mail-order abortion pills and cut billions from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap) that provides low-income families with food benefits.The legislation is part of a spate of appropriations bills that lawmakers will debate this month, and which Congress must reach a decision on by the end of September in order to pass a budget for the 2024 fiscal year and avoid a federal shutdown. It was already approved by a House appropriations subcommittee in May, while being condemned by Democrats and causing internal rifts among Republicans. Republicans have added several provisions to the bill that would have wide-ranging effects on reproductive rights, health policy and benefits.The food and agriculture spending bill is the latest front in the rightwing campaign against reproductive rights. In the year since the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade, Republicans have passed bills in more than a dozen states that ban or severely restrict abortion access. Ending access to mail-order pills that induce abortions would complicate and limit efforts from abortion rights groups and physicians to provide care for people in states with abortion bans.Specifically, the bill would reverse a 2021 Food and Drug Administration policy that allowed people to get the abortion-inducing drug mifepristone – which can be used up to 10 weeks after conception – through the mail rather than via in-person visits to providers. The FDA had temporarily lifted restrictions on the drug during the Covid-19 pandemic, before later making those changes permanent. But the drug, which is widely used for abortion and can also be used for managing miscarriages, has been the center of legal challenges and rightwing attempts to prevent its use ever since.House Republicans’ messaging on the bill claims that their provision “reins in wasteful Washington spending” and “protects the lives of unborn children”. The bill would also decrease the Snap benefit program – formerly known as food stamps – by $32bn compared with 2023 levels, as well as prevent the health and human services department from putting limits on the maximum amount of nicotine in cigarettes.The approaching fight over spending bills has echoes of the standoff over debt ceiling negotiations earlier this year, when Democrats accused Republicans of holding the government hostage in an attempt to exact sweeping cuts to federal programs. Hardline Republicans similarly pushed to shift their party towards far-right policies during those negotiations as well.Democrats are eager to prevent a government shutdown such as the one in 2018 during the Trump administration that left about 800,000 government workers without pay and lasted longer than any previous closure in US history. But some have called for establishing red lines around what compromises they are willing to make, with a number of House Democrats such as the Massachusetts representative Jim McGovern pushing back against attempts to cut Snap funding and other conservative provisions in recent legislation. House Democrats previously tried to add two amendments to the food and agriculture spending bill that would have eliminated the anti-abortion provision, but both failed.Several Republicans have also spoken out against the food and agriculture bill, including the New York representative Marc Molinaro, who told Politico he will vote against the legislation if it comes to the floor. Molinaro, along with another New York Republican lawmaker, previously denounced a conservative Texas judge’s ruling that threatened to remove FDA approval of mifepristone.Molinaro’s opposition to the bill highlights a rift within the Republican party over just how far to push an anti-abortion agenda that has proven nationally unpopular and contributed to electoral losses in many states.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAbortion policy has divided the GOP as hard-right Republicans, as well as powerful Christian conservative activist groups, have demanded far-reaching bans on abortion access. Others, such as the South Carolina Republican Nancy Mace, have warned that Republicans need to “read the room” on abortion or face defeat in elections.The Republican speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, has meanwhile been left scrambling to manage the different factions of his party as votes on must-pass appropriations bills loom. In addition to limiting abortion access and benefits, far-right Republicans have sought to use spending bills to greatly reduce military aid to Ukraine in its fight against the Russian invasion.An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll from earlier this year saw that support for abortion access was at an all-time high, and included a finding that about one-third of Republicans also broadly back the right to abortion access. More

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Fact-Checking Mike Pence on the Campaign Trail

      by

      The former vice president has made misleading claims about abortion, fiscal policy and military spending.Since beginning his long-shot presidential campaign in June, former Vice President Mike Pence has struggled to gain traction among Republican primary voters.Mr. Pence has consistently polled in the single digits behind the two leading contenders: his onetime running mate, former President Donald J. Trump, and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida. The former vice president has broken with them most starkly on their approaches to Social Security and Medicare. He has also carved out clear positions supporting a 15-week national abortion ban and wholeheartedly backing American involvement in the war in Ukraine.Mr. Pence has made some inaccurate claims along the way. Here’s a fact check of some of his recent remarks on the campaign trail.AbortionWhat Mr. Pence Said“I did, this week, call on every other candidate for the Republican nomination to support a minimum standard of a 15-week ban on abortion at the national level that would align American law with most of the countries in Europe that literally ban abortion after 12 to 15 weeks. Our laws at the national level today are more aligned with North Korea, China and Iran than with other Western countries in Europe.”— in a June interview on Fox News SundayThis is misleading. Mr. Pence’s comparison is overly simplistic and glosses over how abortion laws in Europe work in practice. It is also worth noting that many European countries are moving toward relaxing abortion restrictions, not imposing additional ones, as The Upshot has reported.Of some four dozen countries in Europe, almost all have legalized elective abortion before 10 to 15 weeks of pregnancy. All of these countries allow abortions after the gestational limit if the mother’s life is in danger and about half do so for cases involving sexual violence — two exceptions that Mr. Pence has said he also supports. But many also allow for broader exceptions, like the socioeconomic circumstances or mental health of the mother, which Mr. Pence’s proposal does not include.In Britain, for example, an abortion must be approved by two doctors, but those requests are generally granted up to 24 weeks. In Denmark and Germany, exceptions for gestational limits of 12 weeks are made for mental and physical health as well as living conditions.At least three countries also have more permissive gestational cutoffs than Mr. Pence’s proposal: Iceland at 22 weeks, the Netherlands at 24 weeks and Sweden at 18 weeks.In contrast, China allows elective abortions without specifying gestational limits in its national laws, according to the World Health Organization. China also has said in recent years that it will aim to reduce the number of “medically unnecessary” abortions, and at least one province has prohibited abortions after 14 weeks.North Korea’s laws on abortion are unclear. In 2015, the authorities issued a directive barring doctors from performing abortions, according to the World Health Organization, but “there are no documents after 2015” on the legality of the procedure.In the United States, after the Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion last summer, the legal status of abortion varies widely from state to state. In some, the procedure is banned with no exceptions, and in others it is enshrined as a right with no gestational limits. A spokesman for Mr. Pence cited nine such states as exceptionally nonrestrictive.Fiscal policyWhat Mr. Pence Said“Well, first off, look, Joe Biden’s policy on our national debt is insolvency. And, sadly, my former running mate’s policy is identical to Joe Biden’s. Both of them say they’re not even going to talk about common sense and compassionate reforms to entitlements to spare future generations of a mountain range of debt.”— in the Fox News Sunday interviewThis is exaggerated. Asked about his calls to overhaul Social Security and Medicare, Mr. Pence criticized Mr. Trump’s and Mr. Biden’s approaches to the social programs as irresponsible. While both have said they would not cut benefits, only Mr. Biden has proposed tax increases to shore up both programs. But equating that position to one of accepting total insolvency is overstated.Currently, Social Security and Medicare both face financial shortfalls. The fund that pays for Social Security retirement benefits is projected to be depleted by 2033, and the fund that pays hospitals for Medicare patients will be exhausted in 2031. At those points, the funds will be able to pay for only 77 percent of retirement benefits and 89 percent of scheduled fees to hospitals.During the 2020 campaign, Mr. Biden proposed increasing taxes on high-income earners to pay for additional Social Security benefits. The extra funding would reduce the program’s financial shortfall, though the revenue would not close the gap entirely. While his latest presidential budget, released in March, does not mention that proposal, it does include a plan to extend the solvency of Medicare by 25 years by imposing higher taxes on the wealthy.Mr. Trump’s position on social safety net programs is a bit harder to pin down. In January 2020, he said he would be willing to consider cuts to the social safety nets “at some point” — though he quickly tried to walk back his comments and vowed to protect Social Security. His last presidential budget proposal, in February 2020, did not cut benefits to either program, but sought Medicare savings through a dozen tweaks like reducing payments to providers and reducing the cost of prescription drugs.More recently, Mr. Trump vowed in a speech in March at the Conservative Political Action Conference that “we are never going back” to proposals to raise the Social Security retirement age or cut Medicare benefits. But Mr. Trump has not yet outlined his stance on either program in more detail or addressed their solvency issues in this campaign cycle.The Pence campaign argued that neither Mr. Trump nor Mr. Biden has a current plan for Social Security, and that Mr. Biden’s plan for Medicare just delays the financial shortfall.Mr. Pence has made misleading claims about abortion, fiscal policy and military spending.Jordan Gale for The New York TimesClassified documentsWhat Mr. Pence Said“I mean, when I informed the Department of Justice that we had classified materials potentially in our home, they were at my home. The F.B.I. was on my front doorstep the next day. And what we found out was that, when Joe Biden apparently alerted the Department of Justice, 80 days later, they showed up at his office.”— in a CNN town hall in JuneThis is exaggerated. Upon the discovery of classified documents in their personal residences, Mr. Pence and Mr. Biden both cooperated with government inquiries. Mr. Pence has a point that the Justice Department’s responses to the discoveries were not identical, but he is overstating the differences.In Mr. Biden’s case, the searches occurred a few weeks — not three months — after the discovery of classified documents. In Mr. Pence’s case, the search occurred about three weeks later.On Nov. 2, lawyers for Mr. Biden discovered classified documents at the offices of the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement, a think tank in Washington. On the same day, according to Biden administration officials, the lawyers alerted the National Archives and Records Administration, which is responsible for securing such documents. The next day, the National Archives retrieved the documents and referred the matter to the Justice Department. The F.B.I. searched the think tank in mid-November.On Dec. 20, Mr. Biden’s aides discovered a second set of classified documents at his home in Wilmington, Del. The same day, they alerted the U.S. attorney leading the investigation about the discovery. A month later, on Jan. 20, the F.B.I. searched the residence and seized additional documents. And on Feb. 1, the F.B.I. searched Mr. Biden’s vacation home in Rehoboth Beach, Del., but did not find additional classified documents.The discovery of classified documents in Mr. Biden’s possession prompted aides for Mr. Pence to search his home in Indiana out of caution. They found about a dozen documents with classified markings on Jan. 16 and alerted the National Archives to the discovery in a letter dated Jan. 18. The Justice Department, rather than the records agency, then retrieved the documents from Mr. Pence’s home on Jan. 19. Nearly a month later, on Feb. 10, the F.B.I. searched Mr. Pence’s home and found one additional document.The Pence campaign argued that the Justice Department, in directly requesting the documents from Mr. Pence, bypassed the standard procedures, which did not occur in Mr. Biden’s case.Unlike the Biden and Trump cases, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland did not appoint a special counsel to investigate Mr. Pence’s handling of classified materials. The Justice Department has also declined to prosecute Mr. Pence while the inquiry into Mr. Biden remains ongoing.Funding for the militaryWhat Mr. Pence Said“Since Joe Biden took office, he’s been working to cut military spending.”— at the Family Leadership Summit in Iowa in JulyThis is false. Mr. Biden’s annual budgets have generally asked for more funding for the military, and actual spending has increased each year.Mr. Biden’s first budget, released in 2021, proposed $715 billion for the Pentagon, essentially keeping funding level. That was a 1.6 percent increase from the previous year and a 0.4 percent decrease when adjusted for inflation. In December of that year, he signed into law a $770 billion defense package.After Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Mr. Biden’s proposals and congressional appropriators amped up military spending even more.The budget he released in 2022 requested $773 billion in military spending, a nearly 10 percent increase from the previous year. He eventually signed into law an $858 billion spending policy bill.And Mr. Biden’s latest budget, released in March, asked for $842 billion for the military, a 3.2 percent increase from the previous year, and $886 billion total for national defense. That legislation is currently going through the appropriations process in Congress. The Pence campaign argued that this amounted to a cut, as the rate of inflation outstrips the rate of increase.At the Iowa event, Mr. Pence cited Mr. Biden’s debt ceiling deal with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy as an example of a proposed 1 percent cut to the military. Under that deal, military spending is set at the president’s proposed amount of $886 billion and would rise to $895 billion in 2025. But all spending, for both the military and domestic programs, would be subject to a 1 percent cut if Congress does not pass annual spending bills by January.We welcome suggestions and tips from readers on what to fact-check on email and Twitter. More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Why Maryland became a haven for abortion care after Roe’s fall

      by

      When the US supreme court upended the federal right to abortion enshrined in Roe v Wade, the immediate task before Democrats seemed simple: keep abortion legal in as many states as possible.But over a year since Roe’s demise, some leaders in the reproductive rights movements worry that Democrats have tunnel vision, focusing their messaging and resources entirely on the legal tug-of-war over abortion bans in the midwest and south.“Voters want to understand: what are you going to do to make things better? They don’t want to just hear, oh, we’re not going to ban abortion. That’s important, but that’s not good enough,” said Andrea Miller, president of the National Institute for Reproductive Health, which supports abortion rights.Miller said the fight to keep abortion legal is just one frontier in the larger battle for reproductive healthcare. She spent the past year pushing blue states to pass legislation that makes abortion easily accessible, affordable and without stigma for patients and providers.In recent months, Maryland has emerged as an example of how Democratic lawmakers can take proactive steps to bolster abortion access, even in states where the procedure is and will likely remain legal.Maryland is one of just eight states that require private insurers to cover abortion care with no cost-sharing.In April 2022, in anticipation of the supreme court ruling on abortion, Maryland Democrats passed a bill that allows nurse practitioners, physician’s assistants, and other medical health professionals to supervise abortions.“Before, we would only allow doctors to do it, even though nurse practitioners, midwives, all these other medical professionals are able to handle the similar things like miscarriages and deliveries,” said Maryland House Delegate Joseline Peña-Melnyk, one of the bill’s sponsors.The law also directs the state to invest $3.5m a year for abortion-care training.If Roe fell, Maryland’s solidly Democratic legislature could ward off any attempts at criminalizing abortion patients or providers. But keeping abortion legal was not good enough. Peña-Melnyk and her colleagues wanted to ensure that Maryland’s abortion clinics would have the capacity to deal with an inevitable surge of out-of-state patients.“This case ending Roe didn’t come out of nowhere, we saw it coming, so when the legislative session started in 2022, we started preparing,” Peña-Melnyk said.She said Maryland’s investment in reproductive healthcare helped prepare the state for the coming months, when West Virginia, Ohio and other neighbors enacted a dizzying web of abortion restrictions.The push to bolster abortion resources in Maryland is part of what attracted Dr Anne Banfield to the state.Dr Banfield spent over a decade of her career as an OB-GYN at a rural hospital in West Virginia. She relocated to Maryland in spring 2022, just after a leaked draft opinion revealed that the supreme court was poised to upend abortion rights.“When I was in West Virginia, there was this constant hum in the background of, oh, what are the politicians going to do next,” she said. “You don’t realize how much that negatively impacts your overall outlook until the pressure is gone.”One year after Banfield moved, Maryland governor Wes Moore signed a new set of protections for abortion providers and patients, including a measure that shields the state’s doctors from legal liability if they provide an abortion to out-of-state patients.“Listen, we are a rural hospital, it is a place that typically has challenges recruiting providers,” Banfield said.But in the past few months, Banfield said she has been able to hire recent graduates from top residency programs.“I can look at these candidates and say, this is a place where you can come and practice full-spectrum reproductive healthcare,” she said. “Here is a place where you will be protected.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionStates without affirmative protections for patients and providers could see increased “brain drain”, with doctors like Banfield relocating to places like Maryland. Reproductive health workers are increasingly wary of states that do not proactively push to make abortion more affordable and freely accessible, beyond basic questions about legality.Hanan Jabril, a full-spectrum doula and abortion rights organizer in Wisconsin, is preparing to apply to medical school in hopes of becoming an OB-GYN.“Where I’m applying, where I want to end up, it’s something I’ve been thinking about for years, and the political climate of different states is a huge part of that decision,” said Jabril. “States like Wisconsin are just hemorrhaging residents in OB-GYN especially, because the work is being criminalized by these bans.”When Roe was overturned last year, an 1849 law banning abortion went back into effect in Wisconsin. The 19th century ban is currently facing a legal challenge that is expected to land before the Wisconsin supreme court.Jabril was part of a coalition of progressive organizers that helped elect a liberal justice to the state supreme court in April. With a liberal majority on the court, Wisconsin is poised to overturn the state’s 1849 law.But Jabril said that overturning the ban on abortion isn’t good enough.“It’s important, but I think people forget that this fight didn’t start last year,” they said.Jabril said there are cost barriers to accessing abortion that have long predated the overturn of Roe. Because of the Hyde amendment, passed in 1977, states are banned from using federal Medicaid dollars to pay for abortions, with very narrow exceptions.Of the 32 states following the Hyde amendment, just four states help pay for abortion in cases where a pregnancy could cause long-lasting damage to a patient’s physical health.Jabril wants to train and practice medicine in a state like Maryland or Illinois, which has voluntarily opted to use state dollars to cover all or most medically necessary abortion.“People don’t realize how much more there is to abortion access than just, the law says it’s OK,” said Jabril. “If you can’t pay for it, or if there’s no provider within driving distance, then abortion is still not accessible.” More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Lawsuit filed in Iowa to block Republicans’ six-week abortion ban

      by

      Abortion providers in Iowa have filed a lawsuit to block state Republicans’ latest attempt to ban the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy, before most people even know they are pregnant.Last week, Iowa lawmakers passed a six-week ban on abortion in a rare special legislative session, called by Governor Kim Reynolds, who signed the bill on Friday afternoon. The law takes immediate effect, further shrinking the options available to people seeking abortions in the midwest.“In a rare and historic special session, the Iowa legislature voted for a second time to reject the inhumanity of abortion and pass the fetal heartbeat law,” Reynolds said on Friday.The move to restrict abortion in Iowa came less than one month after a deadlocked state supreme court blocked enforcement of a near-identical six-week ban. Reproductive justice advocates across the country condemned Reynolds’ decision to call a special session on abortion.“Every dirty trick in the book is being used to pass these extremely unpopular abortion bans,” said Kimberly Inez McGuire, executive director of Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity (Urge), a progressive advocacy group that supports abortion rights.“They don’t want to do it in the light of day, that’s why we’re seeing these special sessions, that’s why we’re seeing bans passed in the middle of the night,” she added.Abortion providers in Iowa said they were unsurprised that the state GOP used a unique legislative tool for the sole purpose of restricting reproductive freedom. Francine Thompson, executive director of the Emma Goldman Clinic – one of two abortion providers in Iowa and a plaintiff in the new lawsuit – said the ban’s passage was expected yet appalling.She said there was a cruel irony to the timing of the governor’s announcement of the special session, which came just after Independence Day, “a day we typically associate with celebrating our freedom from oppressive and tyrannical governments”.Staff at the Emma Goldman Clinic spent hours this week on the phones with nervous patients confused by the legal status of abortion in Iowa.“Since Dobbs, the phone lines are always jammed,” Thompson said. “The most recent calls are not really in an attempt to get seen before the law goes into effect, but are clients seeking information to wade through the chaos of rapidly changing access and the myriad of restrictions in surrounding states.”The six-week ban is confusing, in part, because it closely resembles a 2018 law that was blocked by an Iowa district judge years before Roe v Wade was overturned. Earlier this year, Reynolds asked the Iowa supreme court to reverse the district judge’s decision. The state justices split 3-3, leaving the lower court’s order in place, meaning the 2018 ban remains unenforceable.The lawsuit against the new six-week ban is expected to reach the Iowa supreme court, which last year ruled that the state constitution does not guarantee the right to abortion.But last month, the 3-3 deadlock happened after one justice, Dana Oxley, opted to recuse herself from the case because of a conflict of interest with her old law firm. It is unclear if Justice Oxley will recuse herself again, causing another split ruling.Iowa Republican lawmakers might not care about the outcome of the legal battle. They win political points with their core, conservative voter base simply by reconvening at the state capital to pass an abortion ban.“Because of gerrymandering, Iowa Republicans aren’t really worried about losing to a Democrat, but they are at a real risk of being primaried,” said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at University of California, Davis.If the ban is struck down, Republicans can blame the courts, a convenient boogeyman in the tug-of-war over state abortion law. The good-faith attempt to pass a six-week ban is enough to reassure anti-abortion lobbying groups and socially conservative donors.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionZiegler said ideological posturing is especially important for Governor Reynolds ahead of the Iowa caucus, which helps select the Republican presidential nominee. Reynolds’ endorsement could therefore change the future of her party.But first, Ziegler said, the governor “needs to prove her conservative credentials” on abortion.Reynolds signed the ban at the Family Leadership Summit, a gathering of evangelical Christians and social conservatives in Des Moines. The event attracted 2024 Republican presidential hopefuls such as Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, and the former vice-president Mike Pence.Just as Reynolds was signing the six-week ban, attorneys for Planned Parenthood and the Emma Goldman Clinic asked an Iowa judge to temporarily block the six-week ban from taking effect while litigation proceeds. That decision is expected this week.Dr Emily Boevers, an Iowa OB-GYN at one of the state’s last remaining rural hospitals, braced for an anxious weekend. She volunteers her weekends providing abortion care at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Iowa City, though she does not offer abortions in her everyday work at the hospital.Boevers is one of two OB-GYNs in her home county – the other is expected to retire this fall. She is worried that the six-week ban could drive doctors in her specialty out of Iowa, worsening the region’s existing shortage of maternal healthcare providers.“North of me, there is not another hospital for 50 miles,” said Boevers.She said the criminalization of abortion brings “a level of hostility towards obstetric care in all its components” that will “invariably harm” the already dwindling OB-GYN workforce in Iowa.“Forcing experts in women’s health to withhold care from our patients, it goes against many of our moral codes,” Boevers said. “As an obstetrician-gynecologist, I trust my patients to make the best decision for their situation.” More

    • 100 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Republican congresswoman accused of hypocrisy for anti-abortion vote

      by

      The fallout from the decision by House Republicans to include a divisive anti-abortion measure in Friday’s defense spending vote has snared the South Carolina congresswoman Nancy Mace, who has been accused of hypocrisy for voting for it.On Thursday, Mace, who has frequently been at odds with her party over its abortion stance, launched a profanity-laced tirade apparently against the inclusion of an amendment that would block the reimbursement of travel costs for military members who seek the procedure.“It’s an asshole move, an asshole amendment,” she told aides in an elevator, according to Politico.“We should not be taking this fucking vote, man. Fuck.”She voted for it anyway. Then in an appearance on Friday night on CNN Primetime she struggled to explain herself, attempting to portray herself as consistent on the issue of opposing reimbursements for elective surgeries for those in the military, while claiming that servicewomen would still be able to get an abortion.“Nothing in here would prohibit a woman from traveling out of state to follow state law,” Mace said, reported by the Daily Beast.“So I think that’s, you know, a really important message. Nothing would prohibit her from being able to do that. There are no limits on her travel.”Pressed by the host, Kaitlan Collins, who used Mace’s own words to question why Republicans were being “assholes” to women, and pointing out access to an abortion for a woman stationed in Texas was more difficult than for one in New York, the congresswomen admitted she was uncomfortable.“I did not like the idea of this amendment. These are not issues that I believe we should be voting on right now without some consideration of what we can do to protect women and show that we’re pro-women, which has been my frustration for the better part of the last seven months,” she said.Mace went further in an appearance on Fox News on Friday night, suggesting that her party’s control of the House could be threatened by its position on issues such as abortion that do not align with public sentiment.“The vast majority of Americans aren’t with us,” she said.“Ninety per cent of America is somewhere in the middle, especially on women’s rights, and we have to show that even if we’re pro-life, we care about women, and we’ve yet to do that this year.“Instead of playing these games with whatever woke means, whatever the flavor of the day for woke is that day, we’ve got to be balanced to show that we actually care about women.“We can do both at the same time. And with my colleagues that are forcing some of these votes on these amendments, it makes it very difficult for us to hold on to the majority.”The defense bill, which passed the House 219-210 mostly on party lines, included other controversial amendments covering healthcare costs for transgender service members and diversity initiatives.The bill is seen as dead on arrival in the Senate, where Democrats hold the majority, and another example of rightwingers in Republican ranks exerting their influence over the House speaker, Kevin McCarthy, in an attempt to change a number of the Biden administration’s policy goals.Mace told Fox: “Every single Democrat knows that if there’s an amendment they don’t like, it’s going to get tossed out in the Senate. So this is really just sort of political gamesmanship, political theater.” More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Vulnerable Republicans Take a Political Risk With Abortion Vote

      by

      In uniting his party behind a defense bill loaded with social policy restrictions, Speaker Kevin McCarthy has raised questions over whether his short-term victory could imperil his majority.Representative Jen Kiggans, a minivan-driving mom and Navy veteran, narrowly won election last year in her suburban Virginia swing district after a fiercely competitive race that focused on her opposition to abortion rights.The issue remains a top priority for voters in her district, and appearing too extreme on it could make her vulnerable again when she faces re-election in 2024. But Ms. Kiggans was one of dozens of Republicans from competitive districts who voted this week to support adding a bevy of deeply partisan restrictions to the annual defense policy bill, including one that would reverse a Pentagon policy aimed at preserving access to abortion services for military personnel, no matter where they are stationed.Democrats said the G.O.P. provision was a steppingstone to instituting more abortion bans across the nation, while Republicans argued it merely preserved a longstanding bar against allowing federal funds to be used to pay for abortions.The vote put lawmakers like Ms. Kiggans, a top target of Democrats whose seat is up for grabs in next year’s congressional elections, in a politically perilous position. And it raised the question of whether, in scoring the short-term victory of keeping his party united behind the annual defense bill — which passed on a near-party-line vote on Friday — Speaker Kevin McCarthy may have embraced a strategy that could ultimately cost his party the House majority.Ms. Kiggans and other similarly situated Republicans said they had no problem backing the abortion restriction or the bill itself, which emerged from the House loaded with other conservative policy dictates, including one barring the military health care program from providing transgender health services and another limiting diversity training for military personnel.“Taxpayers should not be paying for elective surgery,” Ms. Kiggans, who ran as a moderate focused on kitchen-table economic issues, said in an interview on Friday, explaining her vote. “This wasn’t a bill about abortion; it was about taxpayers paying for travel for military members for elective procedures.”Still, Democrats’ House campaign arm wasted no time in attacking Ms. Kiggans and other vulnerable Republicans who had backed the bill, and even some G.O.P. lawmakers conceded that embracing it was a bad look for a party trying to broaden its appeal.“The reason we’re in the majority today is because of swing districts and the reason we’re going to lose the majority is because of swing districts,” said Representative Nancy Mace, Republican of South Carolina. “That’s just lost up here. We’re 10 days out from the August recess, and what have we done for women, post-Roe? Zero.”Ms. Mace, who represents a politically split district, railed against the abortion amendment but ultimately voted for it because she said it was technically consistent with Defense Department policy. But she said she regretted being forced to take the vote at all.“I’m not happy about it,” she said. “I wish we didn’t have to do this right now.”The Republican proposal would overturn a Defense Department policy put in place after the Supreme Court struck down the constitutional right to abortion last year, setting off a rush by some states to enact curbs and bans on the procedure. The policy reimburses travel costs for personnel who must travel out of state to obtain an abortion or related services. The policy does not provide any money for abortions.Democrats pointed to the vote as a prime example of Republicans taking votes that could ultimately cost them their House majority. Strategists in both parties have suggested that the Supreme Court’s abortion decision, and Democrats’ subsequent efforts to spotlight Republican opposition to abortion rights, weakened the G.O.P. during last year’s election, costing them support from independent and suburban voters.“For the swing districts they represent, they should be doing the opposite — but they’re not,” said Courtney Rice, communications director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Their decision to put party politics over pocketbook issues is going to cost them the House in 2024.”Many vulnerable House Republicans said they consoled themselves with the knowledge that the amendments that focused on stoking battles on social issues were likely to be stripped out of the bill by the Democrat-controlled Senate and would not be in a final version of the defense policy bill.“It wouldn’t be the way I would run the place, but at the end of the day as long as we pass N.D.A.A. like we’ve done and keep the really nasty poison pills out, I think it solves the problem,” said Representative Tony Gonzales, Republican of Texas, referring to the defense bill by the initials of its full name. Mr. Gonzales, who voted for the abortion amendment and others barring transgender health services and limiting diversity training for military personnel, voted against amendments that sought to cut funding for Ukraine.Sarah Chamberlain, the president of the Republican Main Street Partnership, an outside organization allied with the congressional Republican Main Street Caucus, described the vote as a “calculated risk” for many members who gambled that it would not hurt them politically.“They made the decision that it was more important to them to get this bill out of the House than to fall on their sword on this one,” she said. “They would have preferred these amendments didn’t exist, but I think they can defend their vote because they’re supporting the men and women of the military.”Representative Nancy Mace, Republican of South Carolina, railed against the abortion amendment but ultimately voted for it.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesStill, it’s not the first time vulnerable Republicans have caved to the hard right wing of their party, even when it means taking votes that could prove to be political liabilities down the line. Mr. McCarthy, who has worked overtime to appease the right flank whose support he needs to remain in power — most of whom represent safe G.O.P. districts — has done comparatively little to protect more mainstream Republicans whose seats are at risk from having to take tough votes.In April, they voted for Mr. McCarthy’s bill to lift the debt ceiling for one year in exchange for spending cuts and policy changes, even though it gutted programs that helped veterans and older people.Last month, they voted in support of a resolution that would repeal a Biden administration rule that tightened federal regulations on stabilizing braces for firearms that have been used in several mass shootings. House leaders brought the bill to the floor in order to help end a weeklong blockade by far-right Republicans.Still, the level of G.O.P. support for the abortion amendment — only two Republicans, Representatives John Duarte of California and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, voted against it — came as a shock to Democrats.“There are those across the aisle who realize that this is bad,” said Representative Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey, a former Navy helicopter pilot who is one of two Democratic women in the House who have served in the military. Ms. Sherrill said she had heard from some Republican colleagues who told her privately, “‘This is a really bad idea, this is a mistake.’ Well then, why did everyone but two people vote for this really bad amendment?”Representative Chrissie Houlahan, Democrat of Pennsylvania and a former Air Force officer, said she was “surprised by the paucity of people who voted against the amendment. I was expecting 15 Republicans to do the right thing.”Some more mainstream Republicans sought to justify their votes by arguing that they were not voting against abortion or transgender health care — just against government funding for it.“If you look at the polling, most Americans don’t think the federal government should be paying for abortions,” Representative Stephanie Bice, Republican of Oklahoma and vice chair of the Main Street Caucus, said.Representative Don Bacon, Republican of Nebraska, said he backed the provision barring military coverage for gender transition surgeries and hormone therapy because he believed, “If you want to do it, do it on your own dime.”“I don’t think it should be the taxpayers’ responsibility,” Mr. Bacon added. More