United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Allows, for Now, Emergency Abortions in Idaho

      by

      A majority of the justices dismissed the case, reinstating a lower-court ruling that paused the state’s near-total abortion ban.The Supreme Court said on Thursday that it would dismiss a case about emergency abortions in Idaho, temporarily clearing the way for women in the state to receive an abortion when their health is at risk.The brief, unsigned opinion declared that the case had been “improvidently granted.” The decision reinstates a lower-court ruling that had halted Idaho’s near-total ban on abortion and permitted emergency abortions at hospitals if needed to protect the health of the mother while the case makes its way through the courts.The decision, which did not rule on the substance of the case, appeared to closely mirror a version that appeared briefly on the court’s website a day earlier and was reported by Bloomberg. A court spokeswoman acknowledged on Wednesday that the publications unit had “inadvertently and briefly uploaded a document” and said a ruling in the case would appear in due time.The joined cases, Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States, focus on whether a federal law aimed at ensuring emergency care for any patient supersedes Idaho’s abortion ban, one of the nation’s strictest. The state outlaws the procedure, with few exceptions unless a woman’s life is in danger.The decision was essentially 6 to 3, with three conservative justices siding with the liberal wing in saying they would drop the case.It was the first time that the court was confronted with the question of statewide restrictions on abortion, many of which swiftly took effect after the court eliminated a constitutional right to the procedure two years ago.Tracking Abortion Bans Across the CountryThe New York Times is tracking the status of abortion laws in each state following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 200 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Hillary Clinton: He debatido con Trump y con Biden. Esto es lo que creo que veremos

      by

      Debatir con el expresidente es como hacer malabarismo con disparates, divagaciones y fanfarroneríasLa semana pasada la pasé increíble en los premios Tony cuando presenté una canción de Suffs, el musical de Broadway que coproduje sobre las sufragistas que lograron que las mujeres tuviéramos derecho a votar. Me sentí emocionada cuando nuestra obra ganó los premios a la mejor partitura original y al mejor libreto.Desde Suffs hasta Hamilton, el teatro político me fascina. Pero no al revés. Con demasiada frecuencia analizamos momentos clave como el debate de esta semana entre el presidente Biden y Donald Trump como si fuéramos críticos de teatro. Pero elegiremos a un presidente; no al mejor actor.Yo soy la única persona que ha debatido con ambos (con Trump en 2016; con Biden en las primarias presidenciales demócratas de 2008). Conozco la insoportable presión que supone subir a ese escenario, y sé que, con Trump en la ecuación, es casi imposible centrarse en lo importante. En nuestros tres debates de 2016, dio rienda suelta a un torbellino de interrupciones, insultos y mentiras que abrumó a los moderadores y perjudicó a los millones de votantes que querían conocer nuestras visiones para el país (tan solo nuestro primer debate tuvo la cifra récord de 84 millones de espectadores).Tratar de refutar los argumentos de Trump como si se tratara de un debate normal es una pérdida de tiempo. Incluso descifrar sus argumentos es casi imposible. Comienza por decir disparates; luego divaga. Esto no ha hecho sino empeorar en los años que han pasado desde que debatimos. No me sorprendió enterarme de que, tras una reunión reciente, varios directores ejecutivos comentaran que Trump, en palabras de uno de los periodistas, “no podía seguir el hilo de la conversación” y “hablaba de todo y de nada”. Por otro lado, las expectativas puestas en él son tan bajas que si el jueves por la noche no se prende fuego –literalmente– habrá quienes digan que estuvo muy presidencial.Puede que Trump despotrique en parte para evitar dar respuestas directas sobre sus posturas impopulares, como las restricciones al aborto, las exenciones fiscales a los multimillonarios y la venta de nuestro planeta a las grandes petroleras a cambio de donaciones de campaña. Interrumpe y acosa (en cierto momento incluso me persiguió por el escenario) porque quiere parecer dominante y desequilibrar a su oponente.Estas estratagemas fracasarán si Biden es tan directo y contundente como lo fue cuando enfrentó a los republicanos que lo abuchearon durante su discurso sobre el Estado de la Unión en marzo. El presidente, además, tiene los hechos y la verdad de su parte. Él encabezó la recuperación de Estados Unidos tras una crisis sanitaria y económica histórica, con más de 15 millones de empleos creados hasta la fecha, aumentó los ingresos de las familias trabajadoras, frenó la inflación y elevó las inversiones en energías limpias y fabricación avanzada. Si logra transmitir todo eso, él ganará.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Cómo ver el debate presidencial Biden-Trump

      by

      El debate será transmitido desde Atlanta a partir de las 9 p. m. hora del Este el jueves.El momento se ha estado gestando durante cuatro años: el presidente Joe Biden y el expresidente Donald Trump en el escenario de un debate, otro punto álgido de sus largas hostilidades.El debate, organizado por CNN en sus estudios de Atlanta a partir de las 9 p. m., hora del Este, se llevará a cabo sin público y antes de que Trump y Biden acepten formalmente las candidaturas de sus partidos este verano, en un cambio radical respecto al pasado.¿Dónde puedo verlo?The New York Times retransmitirá el debate con comentarios y análisis en tiempo real de los periodistas.CNN emitirá el debate en todas sus plataformas, incluido su principal canal por cable, así como CNN International, CNN en Español y CNN Max. La cadena también tiene previsto retransmitir el debate en CNN.com. No será necesario iniciar sesión ni estar suscrito para ver la transmisión.CNN también compartirá su señal con otras cadenas de televisión y de noticias por cable para que puedan emitir el debate simultáneamente. Eso significa que también podrás verlo en Fox News, ABC News y probablemente en otros sitios.¿Robert F. Kennedy Jr. estará en el escenario?No. No cumplió los requisitos de CNN, lo que significa que Ross Perot sigue siendo el último candidato independiente que se ha clasificado para un debate presidencial de elecciones generales, y eso fue en 1992. Para este debate, los participantes tenían que recibir al menos un 15 por ciento de apoyo en cuatro encuestas nacionales aprobadas y clasificarse para la votación en suficientes estados para tener la oportunidad de obtener los 270 votos electorales necesarios para ganar la presidencia.¿Quién moderará el debate?Los moderadores serán Jake Tapper y Dana Bash, quienes son presentadores fijos en la mesa de CNN y los anfitriones del programa dominical de entrevistas políticas de la cadena, State of the Union. Tapper es el corresponsal jefe de CNN en Washington y Bash es jefa de la corresponsalía política de la cadena.Neil Vigdor cubre temas políticos para el Times, y se enfoca en cuestiones relacionadas con el derecho al voto y la desinformación electoral. Más de Neil Vigdor More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Rampant Identity Theft Is Taxing the I.R.S.

      by

      The National Taxpayer Advocate criticized the agency for being too slow to resolve cases, leaving victims waiting years for their refunds.Rampant identity theft has overwhelmed the Internal Revenue Service, resulting in a backlog of 500,000 unresolved fraud cases, leaving taxpayers without refunds and credits that they are due, the agency’s watchdog wrote in a report to Congress on Wednesday.The report by the National Taxpayer Advocate described the slow pace of addressing the identity theft cases as a “blemish” on the performance of the I.R.S., which is in the midst of a sweeping modernization campaign that aims to improve taxpayer services. While the I.R.S. was criticized by the watchdog for identify theft delays last year, the backlog has gotten only worse.The I.R.S. is taking nearly two years to resolve identity theft victims’ assistance cases and has an inventory of approximately 500,000 cases, up from 484,000 cases in September.“I.R.S. delays in resolving identity theft victim assistance cases are unconscionable,” Erin Collins, the taxpayer advocate, wrote in the report.Calling on the agency to prioritize assistance for victims, she added: “Delays of nearly two years make a mockery of the right to quality service in the Taxpayer Bill of Rights.” The backlog of cases is likely to give congressional Republicans more fodder to criticize the I.R.S. and to call for cleaving back more of the $80 billion in funding that the agency received through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Critics of the agency have been arguing that it is bloated and failing to put that money to good use.Identity theft has long been a problem for the I.R.S. Criminals often steal taxpayers’ identifying information and file paperwork to fraudulently claim their refund. Taxpayers realize this only when they try to claim their refund, leading to a laborious process in which they have to submit an identity theft affidavit and a paper tax return before the agency will open a case to investigate the matter.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Biden Administration’s Contacts With Social Media Companies

      by

      The case, one of several this term on how the First Amendment applies to technology platforms, was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue.The Supreme Court handed the Biden administration a major practical victory on Wednesday, rejecting a challenge to its contacts with social media platforms to combat what administration officials said was misinformation.The court ruled that the states and users who had challenged the contacts had not suffered the sort of direct injury that gave them standing to sue.The decision, by a 6 to 3 vote, left fundamental legal questions for another day.“The plaintiffs, without any concrete link between their injuries and the defendants’ conduct, ask us to conduct a review of the yearslong communications between dozens of federal officials, across different agencies, with different social-media platforms, about different topics,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority. “This court’s standing doctrine prevents us from exercising such general legal oversight of the other branches of government.”Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch, dissented.“For months,” Justice Alito wrote, “high-ranking government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech. Because the court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent.”The case arose from a barrage of communications from administration officials urging platforms to take down posts on topics like the coronavirus vaccine and claims of election fraud. The attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, both Republicans, sued, saying that many of those contacts violated the First Amendment.Judge Terry A. Doughty of the Federal District Court for the Western District of Louisiana agreed, saying the lawsuit described what could be “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Women Are Paying for Birth Control When They Shouldn’t Have To

      by

      Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has called on a government watchdog to investigate. Here’s what you need to know.Last week, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, chair of the Senate health committee, called on a government watchdog to investigate why insurance companies are still charging women for birth control — a move that thrust access to contraceptives back into the spotlight.In a letter to the Government Accountability Office, the senator noted that insurance companies were charging Americans for contraceptives that, under federal law, should be free — and that they were also denying appeals from consumers who were seeking to have their contraceptives covered. Some experts estimate that those practices could affect access to birth control for millions of women.Since 2012, the Affordable Care Act has mandated that private insurance plans cover the “full range” of contraceptives for women approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including female sterilizations, emergency contraceptives and any new products cleared by the F.D.A. The mandate also covers services associated with contraceptives, like counseling, insertions or removals and follow-up care.That means that consumers shouldn’t have any associated co-payments with in-network providers, even if they haven’t met their deductibles. Some plans might cover only generic versions of certain contraceptives, but patients are still entitled to coverage of a specific product that their providers deem medically necessary. Medicaid plans have a similar provision; the only exception to the mandate are plans sponsored by employers or colleges that have religious or moral objections.Yet many insurers are still charging for contraceptives — some in the form of co-payments, others by denying coverage altogether.A Quarter of Women Are Paying Unnecessarily for Contraceptives In his letter, Senator Sanders cited a recent survey by KFF, a nonprofit health policy research organization, that found that roughly 25 percent of women with private insurance plans said they had paid at least some part of the cost of their birth control; 16 percent reported that their insurance plans had offered partial coverage, and 6 percent noted that their plans did not cover contraceptives at all. Additionally, a 2022 congressional investigation, which analyzed 68 health plans, found that the process to apply for exceptions and have contraceptives covered was “burdensome” for consumers and that insurance companies denied, on average, at least 40 percent of exception requests.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Jamaal Bowman’s Election Loss: 5 Takeaways

      by

      Representative Jamaal Bowman of New York became the first member of the House’s progressive “squad” to lose a seat in Congress on Tuesday, dealing a stinging defeat to the Democratic left after a brutal intraparty fight.The contest on the outskirts of New York City centered on Democrats’ disagreements over Israel’s war in Gaza. Progressive groups raced to try to save Mr. Bowman, a leading voice against the war. Pro-Israel political groups pumped record-shattering sums into defeating him.But by the end, it devolved into a broader spat over race and class that tested the Democratic coalition. Mr. Bowman’s opponent, the Westchester County executive, George Latimer, also benefited from old-fashioned local alliances and a series of embarrassing missteps by the incumbent.Here are five takeaways from the results.AIPAC notched its first big win.George Latimer capitalized on decades-old political alliances and an alliance with pro-Israel groups that spent more than $15 million on the race.Dave Sanders for The New York TimesAfter the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attacks, political groups aligned with Israel issued a message to its critics like Mr. Bowman: Moderate your views or prepare for stiff political opposition.Tuesday’s result showed that was no idle threat.The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Democratic Majority for Israel and other affiliated organizations ultimately spent more than $16 million to defeat Mr. Bowman, more than any outside group has ever put into a House race.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Bowman Falls to Latimer in House Primary in New York

      by

      Representative Jamaal Bowman of New York, one of Congress’s most outspoken progressives, suffered a stinging primary defeat on Tuesday, according to The Associated Press, unable to overcome a record-shattering campaign from pro-Israel groups and a slate of self-inflicted blunders.Mr. Bowman was defeated by George Latimer, the Westchester County executive, in a race that became the year’s ugliest intraparty brawl and the most expensive House primary in history.It began last fall when Mr. Bowman stepped forward as one of the leading critics of how Israelis carrying out their war with Hamas. But the contest grew into a broader proxy fight around the future of the Democratic Party, exposing painful fractures over race, class and ideology in a diverse district that includes parts of Westchester County and the Bronx.Mr. Bowman, the district’s first Black congressman and a committed democratic socialist, never wavered from his calls for a cease-fire in Gaza or left-wing economic priorities. Down in the polls, he repeatedly accused his white opponent of racism and used expletives in denouncing the pro-Israel groups as a “Zionist regime” trying to buy the election.His positions on the war and economic issues electrified the national progressives, who undertook an 11th-hour rescue mission led by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. But they ultimately did little to win over skeptical voters and only emboldened his adversaries.A super PAC affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobby, dumped $15 million into defeating him, more than any outside group has ever spent on a House race.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More