More stories

  • in

    Who is E Jean Carroll, the woman who alleges Trump sexually assaulted her?

    E Jean Carroll is an 80 year-old former journalist who, until she accused Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her, was best known as an advice columnist for Elle magazine for 26 years.The column was praised for its forthright writing including Carroll’s view that women should never build their lives around men and the compassion of her replies to readers seeking advice. Elle terminated Carroll’s contract in 2019. She said the magazine fired her because of her dispute with Trump. Elle denied it.Born in Detroit and raised in Indiana, Carroll began writing for leading magazines of the era, including Rolling Stone and Playboy, after drawing attention with a “witty literary quiz” about Ernest Hemingway and F Scott Fitzgerald for Esquire.Carroll left her husband and moved to New York where she established herself as “feminism’s answer to Hunter S Thompson”. By the mid-1980s she was writing for Saturday Night Live. A decade later she turned the advice column into a television talk show, Ask E Jean.Carroll was well known within New York’s literary set. But she is now likely to be best remembered for her book, What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal, and for suing Trump. The book describes the alleged assault by the now former president and attacks by other men, including the former chief executive of CBS Les Moonves, who was forced out over allegations of sexual harassment. More

  • in

    AOC: ‘Better for country’ if Dominion had secured Fox News apology

    Dominion Voting Systems would have better served the US public had it refused to settle its $1.6bn defamation suit against Fox News until the network agreed to apologise on air for spreading Donald Trump’s lie about voter fraud in the 2020 election, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said.“What would have been best for the country, would have been to demand that and to not settle until we got that,” the New York congresswoman said.Dominion and Fox this week reached a $787.5m settlement, shortly before trial was scheduled to begin in a Delaware court.Legal filings laid out how in the aftermath of Joe Biden’s election win and the run-up to the January 6 attack on Congress, Fox News hosts repeated claims they knew to be untrue, as executives feared viewers would desert the network for rightwing competitors One America News and Newsmax.Rupert Murdoch, the 92-year-old media mogul and Fox News owner, was among witnesses due to testify.Fox faces other legal challenges but its avoidance of an apology to Dominion caused widespread comment, with some late-night hosts moved to construct their own on-air mea culpas.Ocasio-Cortez, popularly known as AOC, acknowledged Dominion was not beholden to public opinion.“This was a corporation suing another corporation for material damages,” she told the former White House press secretary Jen Psaki, now an MSNBC host, on Sunday. “Their job is to go in and get the most money that they can. And I think that they did that. They are not lawyers for the American public.”The congresswoman continued: “I think what is best for the country, what would have been best for the country, would have been to demand that and to not settle until we got that. But that is not their role.“And so for us, I think this really raises much larger questions. Very often, I believe that we leave to the courts to solve issues that politics is really supposed to solve, that our legislating is supposed to solve.“We have very real issues with what is permissible on air. And we saw that with January 6. And we saw that in the lead-up to January 6, and how we navigate questions not just of freedom of speech but also accountability for incitement of violence.”Nine deaths have been linked to the January 6 Capitol attack, including law enforcement suicides. More than a thousand arrests have been made and hundreds of convictions secured. Trump was impeached a second time for inciting the attack. Acquitted by Senate Republicans, he is the leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination.Asked if media platforms should be held accountable for incitement, Ocasio-Cortez said: “When it comes to broadcast television, like Fox News, these are subject to federal law, federal regulation, in terms of what’s allowed on air and what isn’t.“And when you look at what [the primetime host] Tucker Carlson and some of these other folks on Fox do, it is very, very clearly incitement of violence. And that is the line that I think we have to be willing to contend with.” More

  • in

    New York trial could confer new title on Donald Trump: rapist

    Donald Trump won’t be there to see it, but the former US president’s deeply tarnished reputation may be about to take another serious hit as a New York jury decides whether he is a rapist.E Jean Carroll, a former advice columnist and author, will finally get her day in court this week, nearly four decades after she alleges that Trump pinned her against the wall of a New York department store and sexually assaulted her.Carroll is suing Trump for damages under a recent New York state law opening a one-year window for adult victims of sexual assault to file civil cases after the statute of limitations has expired. Jury selection is scheduled to begin in a Manhattan court on Tuesday.The trial comes as Trump already faces criminal fraud charges over the payment of hush money to the porn star Stormy Daniels, and the prospect of looming federal and state prosecutions over attempts to fix the 2020 election, the January 6 storming of the Capitol and the hoarding of classified documents.But Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, said the case stands out even amid Trump’s myriad legal problems because it revives memories some of his most egregious behavior as he once again runs for president.“One of the things that happened because of Trump’s election in 2016 was this collective outrage from women across the country for a whole host of reasons, but in many ways encapsulated by that video of him talking about grabbing women by their genitalia. There was this moment for many women who thought it would not be possible for someone caught saying that to ever become president of the United States. And then he was,” she said.“This case brings all that up and in some ways adds to that outrage that women feel about him. He has been accused of this kind of behaviour so many times and he’s never been held accountable. This time it seems like he may in fact be held accountable.”Carroll accuses Trump of raping her in a dressing room of the New York department store, Bergdorf Goodman, some time in late 1995 or early the following year. She claims that the New York businessman recognised her as she shopped and asked for help in choosing a present for a woman who is not named in the litigation.Carroll told National Public Radio she thought it was “just charming” that Trump wanted advice on buying a present. But then he led the way to the lingerie department.“He had grabbed up from the counter a little see-through bodysuit and told me to go try it on,” said Carroll. “And that’s where I got into trouble, because we went into the dressing room and he closed the door and that was it.”Carroll alleges that Trump pushed her against a wall and forcibly kissed her until she pushed him away.“Then he pressed her against the wall once more, pulled down her tights, and forcibly raped her for several minutes until she managed to push him off and fled the store,” according to the lawsuit.Carroll said that she immediately told one friend about the assault and a second in the following days. Lisa Birnbach and Carol Martin have since corroborated the account.But Carroll did not file a complaint with the police because she “was in shock and did not wish to think of herself as a rape victim”.“The two friends in whom she confided gave her conflicting advice about reporting the event. Ultimately, she was persuaded by the advice of the friend who advised her to keep quiet. That friend stressed that Mr Trump was powerful and would ‘bury’ Ms Carroll if she came forward,” the complaint alleges.Carroll changed her mind when Trump was elected president and following the accusations against the film producer Harvey Weinstein that led to the #MeToo movement. She wrote a book, What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal, detailing abuse of one kind or other by a number of men, including Trump. Excerpts were published in New York magazine.Trump responded with his usual vigor, claiming never to have met Carroll even though there is a photograph of the pair with their respective spouses a few years before the alleged assault. He called her allegations “a complete con job” and said Carroll’s book “should be sold in the fiction section”.“She completely made up a story that I met her at the doors of this crowded New York City Department Store and, within minutes, ‘swooned’ her. It is a Hoax and a lie,” Trump wrote on his social media site, Truth Social.“And, while I am not supposed to say it, I will. This woman is not my type!”Trump said that Carroll’s inability to pin down an exact date for the assault was evidence that it never happened.“Now all I have to do is go through years more of legal nonsense in order to clear my name of her and her lawyer’s phoney attacks on me. This can only happen to ‘Trump’!”Trump’s defence team appears likely to accuse Carroll of a politically motivated attack on the former president. The judge is permitting the defence to submit evidence that her lawsuit is funded in part by the billionaire co-founder of LinkedIn, Reid Hoffman, who is a harsh critic of Trump.The former president told the trial judge, Lewis Kaplan, that he would not be attending the hearing as he did not want to disrupt New York’s traffic with his motorcade. Kaplan scoffed at that explanation.But Carroll will give testimony along with the two friends who corroborate her account that she sought their advice immediately after the alleged assault.Walsh said this could be a dangerous moment for Trump because Carroll is likely to make a highly credible witness.“It’s not that you hear this story from her, and you go, ‘Oh, that couldn’t be. That’s not him.’ It fits a pattern with him,” she said.Nonetheless, Walsh is not sure if the Carroll trial will prove the moment of reckoning she says Trump deserves to face.“It’s sometimes quite astonishing to watch how much he can get away with. Is this all a moment of reckoning? With these other cases that are pending, could this be the moment where he finally can’t talk himself out of this stuff? I don’t know,” she said.Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, said that if the jury finds that Trump did rape Carroll, there will be a political consequence but it will not be immediate.“It will not affect his base that is powering him potentially to another nomination. They don’t care. Not only will this not hurt him, it’s going to reinforce the image that his core supporters have that he is being persecuted. So, for the nomination, it could even be a plus, I’m sorry to say,” he said.“But it’ll hurt him in a general election. Carroll is very believable and it should have some effect on Americans who are not in the Maga base.”Walsh agrees, saying that, combined with Trump’s other legal problems, it will remind white female Republican voters, who supported him in 2016 despite the comments about grabbing genitalia, why they then turned away from him four years later and played an important part in his defeat.“It’s one thing when you are boasting to your buddy and showing off. It’s another thing when you have a woman stepping forward saying ‘you raped me’,” she said.“College-educated white women who are Republicans have pulled away from the party. In the past, the party sort of trumped everything. In a way, that’s what happened in 2016. But after watching Trump be the president, it became harder and harder for those women to continue to pull the lever for Donald Trump. These women who used to be pretty solid Republican women voters couldn’t go there. I think these women would have a very hard time if he is the nominee again.”Carroll has two separate cases against Trump. The first accuses him of defaming her in 2019 when he denied her accusations.But that case is on hold pending the second lawsuit made possible after New York passed the adult survivors act last year opening the window for people who were sexually assaulted as adults to bring legal actions against their attackers in the wake of the #MeToo movement. More

  • in

    Democratic states stockpile abortion pills as legal fight for access looms

    Despite a reprieve by the US supreme court, a growing number of Democratic states are stockpiling abortion pills as the legal fight for access to the abortion drug mifepristone is set to continue.On Friday, the supreme court decided to temporarily block a lower court ruling that would have significantly restricted the availability of mifepristone, an FDA-approved abortion medication.Nevertheless, as the case continues to wind through America’s court system and remains challenged by anti-abortion groups, more Democratic states are now stockpiling abortion pills amid an unpredictable legal battle.Earlier this month, Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump-appointed federal judge in Texas issued a preliminary injunction that suspended the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, calling it a drug that is used to “kill the unborn human”.Swiftly after Kacsmaryk’s ruling, Democratic states have been stockpiling abortion pills including mifepristone as well as misoprostol, the second drug in the abortion regimen which can also be used on its own, although less effectively.At the Massachusetts governor Maura Healey’s request, the University of Massachusetts Amherst has purchased approximately 15,000 doses of mifepristone. The stockpile is expected to offer “sufficient coverage” in the state for over a year.“Mifepristone has been used safely for more than 20 years and is the gold standard. Here in Massachusetts, we are not going to let one extremist judge in Texas turn back the clock on this proven medication and restrict access to care in our state,” Healey said last week.Meanwhile, the Democratic governors of New York and California both announced plans to stockpile misoprostol in attempts to safeguard their states’ abortion access.New York’s governor Kathy Hochul announced last week that New York will be purchasing misoprostol in order to stockpile 150,000 doses, a five-year supply.Hochul also pledged that if mifepristone is removed from the market, New York will commit up to an additional $20m to providers to support other abortion methods.In a similar move, governor Gavin Newsom of California announced last week that the state has secured an emergency stockpile of up to 2m misoprostol pills“We will not cave to extremists who are trying to outlaw these critical abortion services. Medication abortion remains legal in California,” Newsom said, adding that California has shared the negotiated terms of its misoprostol purchase agreement to assist other states in securing the pill at low cost.Since then, additional Democratic states have followed suit.The governor of Maryland, Wes Moore, recently announced a partnership with the University of Maryland’s medical system to purchase a “substantial amount of mifepristone”.“This purchase is another example of our administration’s commitment to ensure Maryland remains a safe haven for abortion access and quality reproductive health care,” said Moore, who also released $3.5m in previously withheld funding for the state’s abortion care clinical training program.On Thursday, Oregon made a similar announcement, with its governor Tina Kotek revealing the state has secured a three-year supply of mifepristone, regardless of the supreme court’s ruling on the pill.“Here in Oregon, I will make sure that patients are able to access the medication they need and providers are able to provide that medication without unnecessary, politically motivated interference and intimidation,” Kotek said.With Democratic states rushing to stock up on abortion pills, the tumultuous legal fight for abortion access is far from over. In the last nine months, 13 states have banned abortion. With anti-abortion groups fighting for increased pill restrictions nationwide, even states that have legalized the procedure may become affected.Following the supreme court’s decision to temporarily block mifepristone restrictions, the next stage of the litigious battle over the drug will take place in the fifth circuit, with oral arguments scheduled for 17 May. The case will then likely return back to the supreme court.In a statement to the New York Times, Erik Baptist, a senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal organization representing a coalition of anti-abortion groups and doctors, pledged to continue fighting against abortion care.“The FDA must answer for the damage it has caused to the health of countless women and girls and the rule of law by failing to study how dangerous the chemical abortion drug regimen is and unlawfully removing every meaningful safeguard, even allowing for mail-order abortions,” he said about the 23-year-old FDA-approved drug.Meanwhile, the Joe Biden administration and civil rights organizations promised to continue fighting for reproductive rights.“I’ll continue to fight attacks on women’s health. The American people must also continue to use their vote as their voice and elect a Congress that will restore the protections of Roe v Wade,” Biden tweeted shortly after the supreme court issued its decision.The American Civil Liberties Union echoed similar sentiments, with Jennifer Dalven, ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project director saying: “Make no mistake, we aren’t out of the woods by any means … And as this baseless lawsuit shows, extremists will use every trick in the book to try to ban abortion nationwide.”Dalven added: “But if our opponents think we will allow them to continue to pursue their extreme goals without fierce backlash, they are sorely mistaken.” More

  • in

    Trump rebuked by judge over jury request in New York civil rape trial

    Donald Trump on Thursday was rebuked by the judge in his looming civil rape trial over a request for jurors to be told that if the former president did not testify, it would be out of concern that his presence would adversely affect New York City.This week, a lawyer for Trump, Joe Tacopina, first tried to delay the trial then requested the jury instruction.In a letter to federal judge Lewis A Kaplan on Wednesday, Tacopina said jurors should be told: “While no litigant is required to appear at a civil trial, the absence of the defendant in this matter, by design, avoids the logistical burdens that his presence, as the former president, would cause the courthouse and New York City.“Accordingly, his presence is excused unless and until he is called by either party to testify.”The next day, Kaplan responded: “The decision whether to attend or testify is [Trump’s] alone to make.”Noting that Trump’s accuser, the writer E Jean Carroll, has said she does not intend to call him, Kaplan said: “There is nothing for the court to excuse.”Kaplan also said he did not accept Trump’s claim about “alleged burdens on the courthouse or the city”, because he was confident the US Secret Service – which protects all former presidents – and the US Marshals Service, in charge of federal courthouse security, would cope.Trump, Kaplan said, “will speak at a campaign event in New Hampshire on 27 April, the third day of the scheduled trial in this case. If the Secret Service can protect him at that event, certainly the Secret Service, the Marshals Service, and the city of New York can see to his security in this very secure federal courthouse.”The case concerns an alleged rape in the changing rooms of a New York department store in the mid-1990s, a claim Carroll made in 2019.Trump denies it. Carroll sued him for defamation, then sued again, for defamation and battery, under New York state’s Adult Survivors Act, a law that eliminates civil filing deadlines for alleged victims of long-ago sexual assaults.The trial in the first suit has been delayed while lawyers wrangle over whether Trump’s remarks were part of his duties as president, and thus protected. The trial next week concerns the second suit.Kaplan said the start date had been known since early February.“There has been quite ample time within which to make whatever logistical arrangements should be made for [Trump’s] attendance,” he said, “and certainly quite a bit more time than the five or six days between recent indictment on state criminal charges and his arraignment on that indictment approximately one block from the site of this case.”In the other case mentioned by Kaplan, Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsification of business records, related to his hush money payment to the adult film star Stormy Daniels, who claims an affair he denies.Since then, Trump has surged in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, notwithstanding the fact he also faces state and federal investigations of his 2020 election subversion, a federal investigation of his handling of classified material, and a civil suit in New York over his business and tax affairs.In the Carroll case, Kaplan stressed, “the question of the requested jury instruction is premature. Mr Trump is free to attend, testify or both. He is free also to do none of these things.”Trump’s attorneys, Kaplan said again, would not be allowed to tell the jury he wanted to testify but had chosen to spare court and city the “burdens” of his presence. More

  • in

    ‘A gamechanger’: this simple device could help fight the war on abortion rights in the US

    Joan Fleischman has always had people flying in from across the world to her private abortion practice in Manhattan. In the two decades her clinic has been open, she has seen clients from far-flung places, such as Ireland, the Bahamas and Mexico, who couldn’t get abortions in their home countries. In the last year, that changed. Since the US federal right to abortion was overturned in June 2022, she is now more likely to see patients flying in from her own country.Often they are from Texas, sometimes Ohio, or Florida. Some with links to the city, others with none.After years of providing abortion care, Fleischman, 60, still finds these trips shocking. “Usually if somebody needs unusual medical care, they are willing to fly around the world for it – like for advanced neurosurgery or something. It’s always struck me as incredible that people are flying to me for the most simple procedure.”There’s a reason people fly to see Fleischman. She provides abortions through manual uterine aspiration – using a small, hand-held device to remove pregnancy tissue. The device is gentle enough that the tissue often comes out almost completely intact. It is also a quick and discreet procedure where a patient might be in and out of the door in less than an hour.Fleischman is co-founder of the MYA Network, a network of primary care clinics and clinicians in 16 states. They believe the tool could be radical in the hands of more primary care clinicians – clinicians they are amping up to train.The time to do that, they say, is now. The future of mifepristone, a major abortion pill used in more than half the abortions in the US, is in question due to a lawsuit brought by anti-abortion groups seeking to overturn the FDA’s approval of the drug. It could be determined by the same supreme court that ruled last year to overturn Roe v Wade. Manual aspiration is not new: it is used by many big abortion clinics across the US. But those are are notoriously over-stretched. In 2020, before Roe v Wade was overturned, 38% of reproductive-aged women lived in counties with no abortion provider at all.Especially given the threat to mifepristone, the MYA Network believes that primary care clinicians, who are vastly more common than abortion providers, are well-placed to help.But while more than 73% of primary care doctors believe abortion care to be within their scope of practice, a tiny fraction – less than 10% – of primary care doctors actually provide it.The network is planning to unveil an online curriculum and in-person trainings for the procedure, which many of the clinicians and institutions in the network have already been doing in their own states.“The number of clinicians who could be trained would be limitless,” says Michele Gomez, one of the doctors in the MYA network of clinicians.“There are so many clinicians out there who want to do something to help but just don’t know how, and this information and support could be a gamechanger.”As a young woman, Joan Fleischman often felt compromised. She frequently traveled overseas as a teenager to do basic aid work with a volunteer group, and would feel fear and humiliation from the unwanted sexual attention she would receive. That was the beginning of her understanding, as she describes it, of the constant vulnerability women walk around with.By the age of 18, Fleischman had her first abortion – an experience she describes as routine, mundane even. The pregnancy came as she started her first year at the University of Chicago, and was the least of her concerns. “It was a no brainer. I was like, ‘Pregnant? Nope, I’m going to be a doctor.’ So I went to Planned Parenthood and took care of it,” says Fleischman.It wasn’t until she started providing abortions that she even thought about the experience again.Fleischman was in her 30s, living in New York and already trained as a family practice doctor, when she saw an advertisement offering to teach doctors how to do surgical abortions.“I realized that after all these years in training, I’d never got to even see an abortion. I had saved lives, helped people at the height of the Aids crisis. I had delivered babies. These are things a family doctor does,” she says. “I was like, ‘why? That’s ridiculous.’ That’s where the passion started.”Fleischman took up more training, learning to perform abortions at a Planned Parenthood, in 1995.Planned Parenthood – as Fleischman pointed out herself – is the place where people “go to get it done”. It is a vital lifeline for many people, providing hundreds of thousands of abortions every year, many to low-income and uninsured clients.But the efficiency of their service contrasted with Fleischman’s training as a family doctor – which emphasizes the importance of the doctor-patient relationship. She was used to that relationship entailing a level of intimacy – her work involved home visits with patients, and entering lifelong relationships with them and their families.Fleischman recalls her Planned Parenthood training:“Women went station to station. They got their blood drawn, and then they sat in a little waiting room with other people. They got their ultrasound; they sat in another little waiting room, always with paper gowns on. They had been fasting for the whole night before. They saw a counsellor. Then they were in a bigger waiting room. And then they got called by name, to come in for their procedure. The surgeon went from room to room to room, doing 50-60 abortions a day.”She wanted to personalize the experience. For patients to be able to come in with their partners, to be talked through their options and their concerns, fully. “I just felt so disconnected. It seemed to me that the doctor was really a technician emptying uteruses,” she continues.“I was like, ‘I want to create a different model. I want people to have a different experience going through this’.”As the US is learning, ethical quandaries always arise when abortion is banned: what to do for the woman who turns up septic after a failed, self managed abortion? How to deal with life-threatening pregnancies that require intervention but also require an abortion? What about cases of rape, incest or pregnant children?Essentially: how much pain is the state willing to impose on people when it restricts reproductive freedom?In Bangladesh, a sort of answer to some of these questions came following the 1971 civil war, during which soldiers abducted Hindu and Bihari Muslim women and set up rape camps. Pregnancy as a result of rape skyrocketed; in the following years, suicide and maternal mortality also shot up. Abortions, of course, did not stop happening. In 1978, while abortion remained illegal, an estimated 800,000 abortions took place in the country, resulting in around 8,000 deaths.“Menstrual regulation”, as it came to be known – using the same manual aspiration technique that Fleischman now uses – became a sort of legal loophole, allowing safe abortions for early pregnancies.By 1974, menstrual regulation was legal and by 1979, Bangladesh started providing the procedure through its national family planning program.Now, one might walk through a busy street in Bangladesh and find a sign advertising menstrual regulation in a country where, at least officially, abortion is only allowed in life-threatening situations. A woman simply comes in and explains she has missed her period. She doesn’t take a pregnancy test before the procedure, and nobody asks her to. As long as she sees the clinician before 12 weeks, they will “restore her period” for her.“It’s just a clever policy, a wink and a nod – everybody knows what’s going on. It’s kind of a recognition that women need this care,” says Bill Powell, a senior medical scientist at IPAS, an international organization that trains medical professionals across the world to use manual aspiration.It also gives doctors discretion without explicitly violating the law. “They say: ‘I know if I don’t provide this care, this woman is going to go off and do something that is unsafe, and she’ll be back to my facility ill, needing emergency care, so therefore, I am saving her life by providing this procedure’,” Powell explains.Fleischman, who worked in Bangladesh in her youth, and her colleagues in the MYA network are adamant they are only proposing manual aspiration be used legally in the US – for abortion care where it is legal, and miscarriage management where it is not. But its use in ordinary medical settings could still provide a radical opportunity in the US, she says, by expanding the number of clinicians who can easily perform the procedure up until 12 weeks.Others have touted this idea, in a slightly different way: anyone can learn to use a manual aspiration device, and manage their own abortions, some activists argue. All they need to learn to do is to insert a cannula, which is like a large straw, through the natural opening of the cervix, and then attach the aspiration device. The device is like a syringe, which creates a vacuum. Once the pressure is released, the contents of the uterus are gently removed. The self-management option has other advantages – like cutting out the middle man in a climate where doctors are increasingly scared to provide abortion care, and equipping people with self knowledge when the future of access to abortion is unclear.Fleischman understands the necessity of self-managed abortion, especially in places where the procedure is illegal. But she believes that after receiving care, people should always be able to follow up with a clinician who knows their case if anything goes wrong, or even if it doesn’t. It dismays her that people are living in a climate in the US where they might not have that option; where people might be too scared to look for help; and where they may suffer with complications alone in the rare instances when something does go wrong.In states where abortion is legal, manual aspiration provides the opportunity to treat abortion like mainstream medicine, rather than something that’s siloed into abortion clinics, which are visible, small in number and under constant threat.The case brought by anti-abortion groups against the FDA’s approval of mifepristone – which is one of two abortion drugs used in more than half of all abortions in the US – will almost certainly be decided by the supreme court. The uncertainly over its future, Fleischman argues, could make the expanded use of manual aspiration critical to preserving abortion and miscarriage care.Some providers may switch to abortions using only the second drug, misoprostol. But misoprostol-only abortions are slightly less effective, and more often require care for incomplete abortions. That could result in straining already stretched abortion clinics, which will likely have more people knocking at their doors for both surgical abortions and follow-up care.With manual aspiration on the other hand, doctors can be mostly certain that the procedure is complete before the patient leaves the state.And in states with bans, clinicians could be trained to use the device to treat miscarriages. “It’s useful even where you are not allowed to provide induced abortion care … [to treat] miscarriage, or spontaneous abortion,” explains Ian Bennett, a family planning doctor who is part of the MYA network and a professor at the University of Washington.Bennett trains several dozen students a year in manual aspiration, teaching them the procedure as part of their regular medical training, and says students are actively seeking out this instruction in the new, post-Roe environment.Students “are selecting programmes where abortion care is integrated into their training, even over some that might be more prestigious,” he says.Clinicians in areas that border states with bans, which have seen big increases in demand for abortion services as a result, are also a target for training, as are “red parts of blue states”, explains Gomez. Clinicians in states where abortion is legal, who want to do something to fight the war on abortion could easily do so by integrating abortion into their practices, Fleischman and her colleagues say.“It’s done in a couple of minutes,” explains Fleischman.“When it’s done, you know that it’s done. There’s very few bleeding issues. You walk into an office, and an hour later, it’s resolved. I have people flying in and out of Dubai for this procedure. They schedule the appointment, they come in, and they depart that afternoon,” she continues.“There’s absolutely no reason this shouldn’t just be part of regular medicine.” More

  • in

    George Santos, Republican who lied in his first election, announces second run

    Disgraced Republican congressman George Santos, who has admitted to fabricating parts of his résumé in his successful bid for a seat in the House of Representatives, has announced he will stand for a second term representing his New York district.Santos, whose district is focused on New York City’s suburbs, is the subject of an inquiry by the House ethics committee, as well as complaints alleging sexual harassment and campaign finance violations.Shortly after he admitted to lying during his election campaign last year, Santos stepped down from all House committees. He is expected to face many challengers in the Republican primary for the district, which leans Democratic.Santos was characteristically forthright in his re-election announcement, ignoring the multiple scandals that have repeatedly emerged in the US media that range from puppy theft to lying about being a producer on a Broadway musical about Spider-Man and making claims to have lost family in the Holocaust.“Since the left is pushing radical agendas, the economy is struggling, and Washington is incapable of solving anything, we need a fighter who knows the district and can serve the people fearlessly, and independent of local or national party influence,” he said in a statement.He added: “Good is not good enough and I am not shy about getting the job done.”Santos has long faced calls to quit from fellow New York Republicans and voters in his Queens and Long Island district. Democrats are hopeful they will be able to grab the seat. More