World news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump said president under indictment would create ‘constitutional crisis’

      by

      The election of a president under indictment and facing criminal trial would “create an unprecedented constitutional crisis” and “cripple the operations of government”, Donald Trump said.But the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, who faces 71 criminal counts in state and federal cases and is expected to face more, was not speaking about himself – or speaking this year.As reported by CNN, which unearthed the comments, Trump was speaking on 3 November 2016, at a rally in North Carolina during his first presidential campaign, against Hillary Clinton.“She is likely to be under investigation for many years,” Trump said, “and also it will probably end up – in my opinion – in a criminal trial. I mean, you take a look. Who knows? But it certainly looks that way.”Clinton did not face indictment or a criminal trial over her use of a private email server while secretary of state to Barack Obama. An FBI investigation did prove politically damaging, in a campaign Trump won.Seven years later, Trump has become the first former president ever indicted – and he has been indicted twice.In New York, he faces 34 counts regarding hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels during that 2016 race. In a federal investigation, he faces 37 counts relating to his retention of classified material after leaving the White House in 2021.In New York, his trial is set to begin in late March. In the federal case, a judge in Florida has said a trial could begin as soon as 14 August.Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges and continues to deny all accusations of wrongdoing.Further indictments are expected, not least in state and federal investigations of Trump’s attempts to overturn his 2020 defeat by Joe Biden, culminating in his incitement of the deadly attack on Congress on 6 January 2021.Back before he became president, in Concord, North Carolina, in November 2016, Trump also said Clinton “has no right to be running, you know that. No right.”He returned to the subject two days later, CNN reported, telling a crowd in Reno, Nevada: “We could very well have a sitting president under felony indictment and ultimately a criminal trial. It would grind government to a halt.”The same day, CNN said, Trump told rally-goers in Denver, Colorado, that because Clinton was “the prime suspect in a far-reaching criminal investigation”, it would be “virtually impossible for her to govern”.In 2023, Trump’s legal problems have not made his campaign grind to a halt, or even slow significantly.He dominates polling averages, leading his nearest challenger, Ron DeSantis, by about 30 points. The Florida governor is well clear of the rest of the field.Trump did not immediately respond to the CNN report about his comments about Clinton.He has continued to complain that Clinton was not indicted, alleging investigatory bias and a political witch hunt against him.Responding to such complaints, Joe Conason, a reporter, commentator and biographer of Clinton’s husband, former president Bill Clinton, wrote: “Contrary to Trump’s lying mantra, Hillary Clinton kept no classified documents, defied no subpoenas, engaged in no conspiracies, and stole nothing. So unlike him she is innocent of wrongdoing.” More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Why was Trump hoarding classified government documents? | Moira Donegan

      by

      There are many surreal revelations in Jack Smith’s federal indictment of Donald Trump. There are the texts between various Trump underlings and Walt Nauta, the Trump body man who has also been indicted, showing the president directing his employees to move the boxes containing classified information back and forth to various locations around his properties in Palm Beach and Bedminster, New Jersey. There is the annoyed missive from Trump’s wife Melania, trying to make sure the boxes don’t crowd out room for her luggage on a private plane. There is the claim from Trump’s former attorney, compelled to testify against him in an unusual arrangement, that the former president suggested, with a Grinch-like pinching gesture, that the lawyer destroy confidential documents to prevent them from being produced in a subpoena. There is a text message Nauta sent to another Trump underling, showing a box having fallen over in a storage room at Mar-a-Lago, secret documents spilling on to the floor – whoops.What there is not, conspicuously, is a motive. Over the course of more than a year following his departure from office, it appears that Trump spent considerable effort and resources in transporting the documents with him and keeping them near at hand – and that later, as the federal government began to demand the boxes back, that he then went out of his way to keep and conceal them, going to great length, sparing no expense, and ultimately breaking the law so much that he incurred himself a series of felony charges. Anyone can tell you how this behavior is typical of Trump: how it reflects his pettiness, his contempt for the law, his willingness to sacrifice and endanger others. What no one can tell you is why he did it.It would be more convenient – legally, for Jack Smith and his prosecutors, and politically, for Joe Biden, for the Democrats, and for the growing number of Republicans who are looking to challenge Trump in the 2024 Republican primary – if we could say precisely why Trump wanted to keep the documents so badly, exactly what he wanted them for. It would be very easy to make a case to a skeptical jury – or to a divided American people – that Trump was a danger and could not be trusted with national secrets again if it could be said that he wanted to keep the documents for any of the straightforwardly dangerous and nefarious reasons that have been speculated: if he was seeking to sell national security secrets to the Saudis, say, or to Israel; if he was hoping, as some have suggested, that he one day might be able to blackmail someone powerful, like the president of France.It’s very possible that Trump had concocted such a plan. There is much that we do not know about the investigations into Trump, including about the special counsel’s query into his illegal document retention. But we do know that in the past, we know that he has gone further, and risked more, in the pursuit of even more harebrained schemes.But what seems the most likely explanation is the simplest, stupidest, and most aggravating one: that Trump had no plan for the documents, except perhaps for use as souvenirs, trophies to be shown off, maybe as evidence for petty score-settling. That the documents that Trump smuggled out of the White House and squirreled away around Mar-a-Lago and Bedminster were not instruments in a coherent, well-formed plan, but instead mere ornaments to Trump’s ego. In transcripts of Trump’s statements about the documents that were included in the indictment, and in audio of Trump showing some of the secret papers off to a writer that was recently released by CNN, Trump uses the documents to contradict a former national security official he was then in a spat with in the press; he tells one interlocutor not to get too close to one of the secret papers, seeming to want to create a hush of reverence for the documents in place of respecting their confidentiality in the first place. At these moments, Trump does not sound as if he has a plan. He sounds as if he wants to impress the people in the room with him, and like he can think no further ahead than to how good it will feel to get their praise.Why did Trump want the secret documents? Why did he refuse to return them? The answer may be the one truest to Trump’s piddling, puerile character: because they looked cool; because they reminded him of his own importance; because the government had asked for them back, and Trump has never missed an opportunity to throw a petulant little tantrum.It is this smallness of Trump’s character, and the possible triviality of his motives, that poses a peculiar risk to both of the cases being made against Trump – the one being pursued in a Miami courthouse, and the one being pursued in public. Because there has always been an uncanny mismatch with Trump, an incongruence: between the awesome and vast powers he had in office, the historical forces he unleashed on America, and the horrible ways his presidency warped millions of lives, on the one hand; and on the other, his pettiness, his vanity, his short-sightedness, his piddling personal grievances and constant need to be flattered and reassured.The gap between the seriousness of Trump’s role in history and his unseriousness as a person is the strange place where the documents case – and, now, much of American political thought – risks getting stuck. The very silliness of Trump’s use of the documents undercuts the grave risks posed by his hoarding of them. How can such a powerful country have been made so vulnerable by someone so stupid?
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      US set to rejoin Unesco after leaving during Trump presidency

      by

      The US is set to rejoin Unesco this month after a four-year absence from the global cultural and educational body that the country abandoned during the Donald Trump presidency over what his administration called “anti-Israeli bias”.The United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s reunion with the US came after a two-day special session held at the body’s headquarters in Paris.Of Unesco’s 193 member states, 142 participated in Friday’s vote. Ten states voted against the US rejoining, including Russia, Belarus, Iran, North Korea and Nicaragua. China, which had become the organisation’s biggest financial backer in the absence of the US, also voted against readmittance.US efforts to rejoin Unesco have been building since last year when the Joe Biden White House said within a $1.7tn spending bill that the administration would seek to rejoin the organisation in order to “counter Chinese influence”.“I am encouraged and grateful that Unesco members have accepted the US proposal that will allow us to continue steps toward rejoining the organisation,” the American secretary of state Antony Blinken said in a statement.The US ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, described the decision as “very good news”.“If we are not engaged in international institutions, then we leave a void and lose an opportunity to advance American values and interests on the global stage,” she added.Meanwhile, the UN’s director for the International Crisis Group, Richard Gowan, told CBS News on Tuesday: “The Biden administration has always made it clear that it is suspicious of China’s rising influence in the UN.“Biden’s team believes that Trump ceded a lot of ground to China with its anti-UN attitude. The decision to rejoin Unesco is just the latest example of the US deciding it can do more to counter China by actively engaging in UN institutions than sitting on the sidelines.”As a condition of readmission, the US will repay around $619m in unpaid dues, meet 22% of Unesco’s annual budget, and make contributions to programs supporting education access initiatives in Africa, Holocaust remembrance and journalists’ safety.Beyond stepping up actions for Africa, Unesco said it would be able to increase its efforts toward gender equality, a strategic priority.“With this return, Unesco will be in an even stronger position to carry out its mandate,” said Audrey Azoulay, Unesco’s director general.“Unesco’s mandate – education, science, culture, freedom of information – is absolutely central to meeting the challenges of the 21st century. It is this centrality, as well as the easing of political tensions within the organisation and the initiatives launched in recent years, that have led the United States to initiate this return.”Last month, the US acknowledged in a letter to Unesco that it noted the organisation’s “efforts to implement key management and administrative reforms, as well as its focus on decreasing politicized debate, especially on Middle East issues”.The organisation in 2011 had voted to admit Palestine, which is not formally recognized by the US or Israel as a UN member state. The Barack Obama White House cut Unesco contributions, sending the US into owing millions in arrears to the organization.Five years later, in 2016, the Unesco World Heritage Committee adopted a decision ruling that Israeli actions related to archaeology, tourism and freedom of movement in the Old City of Jerusalem contravened cultural heritage laws and practices.US and Israeli officials complained that not including the full Jewish history in any decision about Jerusalem was equivalent to a denial of Jewish history.In 2017, a year into the Trump presidency, the US cited “mounting arrears at Unesco, the need for fundamental reform in the organisation, and continuing anti-Israel bias at Unesco” as reasons for the decision.The decision by Unesco to readmit the US, which has 24 properties inscribed on the world heritage list, is the second time it has left and rejoined since the organisation was founded in 1945.In 1983, Ronald Reagan’s administration pulled the US out over what it saw as anti-Western bias. Unesco, it complained, “has extraneously politicized virtually every subject it deals with”.“It has exhibited hostility toward a free society, especially a free market and a free press, and it has demonstrated unrestrained budgetary expansion,” the Reagan White House added.But beneath that expressed rationale was frustration that Unesco, with an increasing number of members, no longer acted in consort with US foreign policy objectives.“The countries which have the votes don’t pay the bill, and those who pay the bill don’t have the votes,” the US ambassador to the UN Jeane Kirkpatrick said at the time.But in 2002, George W Bush’s administration negotiated readmittance as part of an effort to foster international goodwill to counter deep misgivings over the US “war on terror” in the Middle East.Reuters contributed reporting. More

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      If Trump wins, he’ll turn the justice department into a vendetta machine | Robert Reich

      by

      Last week Donald Trump said that, if re-elected, he’d appoint a “real special prosecutor” to “go after the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family”.In other words, if Trump is re-elected, you can kiss nonpartisan criminal justice goodbye.His remark made me think back almost a half century ago, to when I was a rookie lawyer in the Department of Justice.The department was in shambles, discredited by the political abuse and corruption of Richard Nixon and John Mitchell, the attorney general.To restore trust in the department, President Gerald Ford appointed Edward Levi attorney general. In naming Levi, who had been president of the University of Chicago and the dean of its law school, Ford found someone whose reputation for integrity was impeccable.As Levi said at his swearing-in: “Nothing can more weaken the quality of life or more imperil the realization of the goals we all hold dear than our failure to make clear by words and deed that our law is not an instrument of partisan purpose.”Levi set out to insulate the justice department from politics, instituting rules limiting White House involvement in law enforcement decisions.The Senate Watergate committee chairman, Sam Ervin, didn’t think Levi’s rules went far enough to protect the department from an unscrupulous future president. Ervin wanted to make the justice department an independent agency with an attorney general appointed by the president every six years and removable only for neglect.At the time, I thought Ervin’s proposal too extreme. I assumed America had learned its lesson from Watergate and would never again elect a president as repugnant as Nixon, willing to sacrifice the institutions of government to his own political ambition.Yet there was some precedent for Ervin’s view. The position of US attorney general was originally viewed as an independent, semi-judicial role – analogous to that of judges.Congress established the office of the attorney general in the Judiciary Act of 1789 – the same act that created the federal court system, as distinct from acts establishing executive departments.In the original draft, attorneys general would be appointed by the US supreme court, not the president. Congress changed this so that attorneys general would be appointed exactly like federal judges.When George Washington appointed the nation’s first attorney general in 1789, Thomas Jefferson referred to him as “the attorney general for the supreme court”.Early attorneys general shared offices with the court. Their budgets were line items under the federal judiciary, not the executive. Originally, the attorney general was not even in line to succeed to the presidency.Even after the attorney general became a key part of the executive branch and the Department of Justice was established in 1870, presidents continued to respect the need for prosecutorial independence.Until Nixon and the scurrilous John Mitchell.But surely, I said to myself at the time, Nixon and Mitchell were the extremes. Edward Levi’s reforms were adequate.Then came the worst offender of all. During his presidency, Trump viewed the department as an extension of his own will – even claiming: “I have an absolute right to do what I want to with the justice department.”Trump interfered in the department’s prosecutions of Michael Flynn and Roger Stone, fired the FBI director James Comey for investigating possible collusion between Russia and Trump associates, and demanded that the department reopen a criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton.John Dean, former White House counsel to Nixon, described Trump’s efforts to use the justice department for personal gain as “Nixon on stilts and steroids”.Now, Trump threatens that if re-elected he’ll turn the department into his own personal vendetta machine. If there weren’t already enough reason to fear a second Trump presidency, this would be it.Public trust in our governing institutions has already sunk to a new low – due in large part to Trump’s first term, his subsequent big lie that the 2020 election was “stolen”, and now his second big lie that Biden is orchestrating a “witch-hunt” against him.Even if Biden is re-elected, it will be necessary to deal with the damage Trump and his Republican enablers have wrought.Perhaps Sam Ervin’s proposal for an independent justice department should be given more serious consideration.
      Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Wagner rebellion reveals ‘cracks’ in Putin government, says Blinken

      by

      A day after renegade Wagner mercenaries almost sparked a civil war in Russia, the top US diplomat has said the uprising showed “real cracks” in Vladimir Putin’s government and may offer Ukraine a crucial advantage as it conducts a counteroffensive that could influence the outcome of the war.Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, said the upheaval triggered by the aborted advance on Moscow by Yevgeny Prigozhin’s Wagner mercenaries on Saturday was far from over. Neither Prigozhin nor Putin have been heard from since coming to a last-minute agreement on Saturday to avert clashes near Moscow between mercenaries and regular Russian troops.“This is an unfolding story and I think we’re in the midst of a moving picture,” Blinken told the CBS News programme Face the Nation. “We haven’t seen the last act.”The rebellion, fuelled by anger at the Kremlin’s leadership of the invasion and occupation of Ukraine, represented the most direct threat to Putin’s grip on power since he first became president 23 years ago.With no word from Putin or Prigozhin throughout the day, it was unclear whether Russia’s immediate crisis had passed, let alone what implications it had for the vast country’s longer-term stability. Wagner troops abandoned the positions they had held in the city of Rostov-on-Don and near Moscow, while Russian officials claimed to have dropped criminal charges against Prigozhin and reopened Wagner recruiting centres.Russian military insiders eagerly discussed rumours of an impending shake-up at the ministry of defence, one of the main demands issued by Prigozhin during his uprising.However, the Kremlin appeared keen to slow down developments, saying that Putin had no more plans to address the country and that the invasion of Ukraine would continue as planned.Other top Russian officials and propagandists also remained quiet, leaving an information vacuum that has been filled with rumours about the deal hammered out with Prigozhin, and whether the Kremlin will seek revenge once the immediate threat to Putin’s power recedes.Blinken described the weekend’s events as “a direct challenge to Putin’s authority”.“So this raises profound questions,” he said. “It shows real cracks. We can’t speculate or know exactly where that’s going to go. We do know that Putin has a lot more to answer for in the weeks and months ahead.”He said there was no sign so far of senior Kremlin figures being dismissed as part of any deal between Prigozhin and Moscow. Prigozhin had demanded the removal of the defence minister, Sergei Shoigu, and the chief of general staff, Valery Gerasimov.Russian military bloggers focused attention on Aleksey Dyumin, the Tula region governor and former Putin bodyguard who is said to have a close relationship with Prigozhin and to have taken part in Saturday’s negotiations. He said he had not participated in the discussions.In the wake of the uprising, an uneasy calm descended across Russia, with regional authorities cancelling emergency measures, fixing roads that had been barricaded against the Wagner convoy, and reopening public spaces such as museums and parks.According to the New York Times, US intelligence agencies briefed senior Biden officials on Wednesday that Prigozhin was preparing to take military action against the defence leadership in Moscow.Nothing was made public about the intelligence at the time, the officials said, for fear of Putin accusing Washington of orchestrating a coup, and there was no incentive for the US to help Putin avoid a big dent in his authority.Under the few reported terms of the agreement, Wagner troops turned around on the road to Moscow and returned to their camps in eastern Ukraine. Prigozhin is to move to Belarus with immunity from reprisals, but it is not clear who, if anyone, is allowed to accompany him. Wagner fighters who took part in the uprising are to be pardoned, and those who took no part are to be absorbed by the regular army.With Wagner forces returning to Ukraine, where they have spearheaded some key offensives, it was also far from certain what impact the rebellion would have on the conflict in the midst of a slow-moving and gruelling Ukrainian counteroffensive.Blinken said: “To the extent that it presents a real distraction for Putin, and for Russian authorities, that they have to mind their rear … I think that creates even greater openings for the Ukrainians to do well on the ground.”The secretary of state said US officials had been in touch with their Russian counterparts throughout the crisis to remind them of their legal obligations to protect US citizens on their territory.“A number of people have engaged to make sure that the Russians got that message,” he said.As for concerns that any of Russia’s substantial nuclear arsenal could become the focus of internal power struggles, Blinken said: “We haven’t seen any change in Russia’s nuclear posture. There hasn’t been any change in ours, but it’s something we’re going to watch very, very carefully.”As of Sunday evening, the whereabouts of Prigozhin, a media addict who issues a steady stream of commentary in voice messages on his Telegram page, were unknown. The Wagner leader had gone silent for almost 24 hours. His last post came at 6.30pm on Saturday, when he said that his troops were standing down after holding a “march of justice” and having “not spilt one drop of blood”. Reports in Russia said Wagner fighters had shot down seven helicopters, resulting in the deaths of 20 Russian soldiers.“Now is the moment when blood can be shed,” he said. “Therefore, realising the full responsibility for the fact that Russian blood will be shed … we will turn our columns and go in the opposite direction to our field camps.”Prigozhin was then photographed leaving Rostov-on-Don alongside his men, and given the kind of rapturous reception that would resemble the departure of a rockstar after headlining a concert. Local men grasped his hand through the window of an SUV and posed for selfies. They berated the police who took up the positions previously held by Wagner, chanting “disgrace” and clapping their hands.Then, Prigozhin went silent, apparently on his way to a Belarusian exile that observers said seemed unlikely for the ambitious Kremlin hanger-on.Putin was also silent on Sunday, a day after he appeared on Russian television and said Prigozhin’s uprising would be put down “brutally”, calling it an “internal treason”.The Russian president did not directly comment on the deal that Lukashenko said he had negotiated with Prigozhin. Lukashenko’s press office said the Belarusian president spoke with Putin on Sunday morning, but did not confirm that they had discussed the uprising.Late on Saturday evening, Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s press secretary, said Prigozhin would be allowed safe passage to Belarus, as confirmed by the Russian president.“If you ask what the exact guarantee of the fact that Prigozhin will be able to leave for Belarus is, it is the Russian president’s word,” Peskov told journalists.Additional reporting by Adam Gabbatt More

    • 88 Shares109 Views

      in World Politics

      Tentative Steps Toward a New Saudi-Israeli Relationship

      by

      The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

    • 250 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘How dare they?’ Kamala Harris says in fiery speech on Roe’s overturn as protests mark anniversary – as it happened

      by

      From 4h agoVice-President Kamala Harris took the stage in North Carolina on Saturday and delivered an impassioned address on restoring nationwide reproductive freedoms following a year since the supreme court’s decision to strip them.Speaking to a crowd full of supporters including healthcare professionals and activists, Harris said:
      “How dare they? How dare they attack basic healthcare? How dare they attack our fundamental rights? How dare they attack our freedom?…
      In the midst of this healthcare crisis, extremist so-called leaders in states across our nation have proposed or passed more than 350 new laws to restrict these freedoms and the right to have access to reproductive healthcare. Right now in our country, 23 million women of reproductive age live in a state with an extreme abortion ban in effect…
      Most of us here know is that many women don’t even know they are pregnant in six weeks. Which by the way tells us most of these politicians don’t even understand how the body actually works. They don’t get it,” Harris continued.
      She went on to issue a strong warning towards Republican lawmakers in Congress, saying:
      Extremist Republicans in Congress have proposed to ban abortion nationwide. But I have news for them. We’re not having that. We’re not standing for that. We won’t let that happen. And by the way, the majority of Americans are with us.
      The majority of Americans, I do believe, agree that one does not have to abandon their faith or deeply held beliefs to agree the government should not be telling her what to do with her body…
      The United States Congress must put back in place what the Supreme court took away.”
      It is slightly past 4pm in Washington DC. Here is a wrap up of the day’s key events:
      President Joe Biden has issued a statement to mark the one-year anniversary of the supreme court’s overturn of Roe, which he said “has already had devastating consequences.” “States have imposed extreme and dangerous abortion bans that put the health and lives of women in jeopardy, force women to travel hundreds of miles for care, and threaten to criminalize doctors for providing the health care that their patients need and that they are trained to provide.”
      Vice-President Kamala Harris took the stage in North Carolina on Saturday and delivered an impassioned address on restoring nationwide reproductive freedoms following a year since the supreme court’s decision to strip them. Speaking to a crowd full of supporters including healthcare professionals and activists, Harris said: “How dare they? How dare they attack basic healthcare? How dare they attack our fundamental rights? How dare they attack our freedom?”
      A handful of Democratic lawmakers have pledged their support on Saturday to protect and fight for reproductive rights as the country marks first anniversary of Roe’s overturn. “House Dems are working hard to stop these extremists and restore reproductive freedom. Together we will win,” wrote Hakeem Jeffries, House minority leader. US representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland tweeted: “Pro-choice America won’t rest until we restore women’s freedom as law of the land.”
      As reproductive rights activists protested against the end of Roe v Wade, anti-abortion leaders celebrated one year since the landmark decision was overturned. Speaking at the Faith & Freedom Coalition’s Road to Majority conference in Washington, Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion group Susan B Anthony Pro-Life America, framed the end of Roe as just the beginning of right-wing activists’ work.
      Arizona’s Democratic governor Katie Hobbs has signed an executive order that will further protect reproductive rights across the state and curtail restrictive reproductive legislation from Republicans. On Friday, Hobbs tweeted about her executive order, saying, “I will not allow extreme and out of touch politicians to get in the way of the fundamental rights of Arizonans.”
      Several reproductive rights organizations have announced their endorsement of the Biden-Harris administration in the upcoming 2024 presidential election. The organizations include Planned Parenthood, NARAL (National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws) Pro-Choice America , and EMILYs List, a political action committee dedicated to electing Democratic pro-choice women into office.
      More than a quarter of registered US voters say they will only vote for candidates who share their beliefs on abortion, according to a poll released earlier this week, a total (28%) one point higher than last year. The survey, from Gallup, was released before the first anniversary of Dobbs v Jackson, by which conservatives on the supreme court removed the right to abortion that had been safeguarded since Roe v Wade in 1973.
      That’s it from me, Maya Yang, as we wrap up the blog for today. Thank you for following along.Human rights organization Amnesty International has issued a statement condemning the supreme court’s decision a year ago to strip federal reproductive right protections.Tarah Demant, the national programs director at Amnesty International USA said:
      “One year after the Supreme Court shamefully stripped millions of their rights, women, girls, and people who can become pregnant in the United States are facing an unprecedented human rights crisis.
      A patchwork of devastating laws now blankets the country. One in three women and girls of reproductive age now live in states where abortion access is either totally or near-totally inaccessible…and a climate of fear is being purposefully sewn to restrict women, girls, and people who can get pregnant from finding legal abortion care.
      “Yet despite these coordinated and vitriolic attacks on our rights, Americans continue to overwhelmingly support access to safe and legal abortion, multiple states have added new protections, and activists across states continue to advocate for their rights. Abortion is a human right and basic healthcare, and activists across the country and around the world are more determined than ever to ensure that people across the USA will be able to access this right.”
      A Planned Parenthood abortion-providing clinic in Fairview Heights, Illinois saw a 700% increase in abortion-seeking patients from out of state.According to a new report by Jezebel, Planned Parenthood said that the 700% increase in out-of-stage patients seeking abortions in their Fairview Heights clinic comes along with a 35% increase in abortion patients overall who came to the clinic in the last year.Speaking to the outlet, Yamelsie Rodriguez, president and CEO of Reproductive Health Services of St. Louis region’s Planned Parenthood branch, said that the patients coming to her clinic hail from 29 states and are “mostly from the South.”The Guttmacher Institute has categorized Illinois as a state with “protective” abortion policies. Currently, abortion is banned at fetal viability, generally 24–26 weeks of pregnancy, and state Medicaid funds cover abortions.In addition, Illinois has a shield law that protects abortion providers from investigations launched by other states.Following the overturn of Roe vs. Wade, women of color have found themselves struggling even more to access reproductive healthcare in a medical and political landscape that has traditionally failed them.The Guardian’s reproductive rights reporter Poppy Noor profiled two women, Anya Cook and Samantha Casiano, on their experiences of being denied abortions in post-Roe America.Here is the full story on Cook and Samantha’s experiences and how they reflect the harsh realities faced by countless of other women of color in America:In a video address on Saturday, New York attorney general Letitia James reaffirmed New York’s status as a safe haven for abortion seekers and promised to continue fighting for reproductive rights. James said:
      “A ban on abortions will not ban abortions. It will only ban safe abortions.
      But it’s important to know that New York is a sanctuary city and state and that we provide assistance to young women, individuals who need reproductive care…
      Here in New York, we believe in you having control over your body and we believe in providing you with healthcare.
      I will continue to fight and to use the law to protect your rights each and every day.”
      Barbara Lee, a US representative from California since 1998, has pledged to continue fighting for reproductive rights in light of the first anniversary of Roe’s overturn.“I’m going to keep fighting for every person who finds herself in the same situation I was once in: pregnant, out of options, and forced to take extreme measures,” Lee tweeted.Lee, a longtime champion of women’s rights, is the author of the EACH Woman Act which would repeal the discriminatory Hyde Amendment that has restricted many women’s access to reproductive healthcare, her website said.Singer Demi Lovato has released a new song inspired by the first anniversary of Roe v Wade’s overturn.Lovato titled the pro-choice song “Swine,” which was released on Thursday.
      “It’s been one year since the Supreme Court’s decision to dismantle the constitutional right to a safe abortion, and although the path forward will be challenging, we must continue to be united in our fight for reproductive justice.
      I created ‘SWINE’ to amplify the voices of those who advocate for choice and bodily autonomy. I want this song to empower not only the birthing people of this country, but everyone who stands up for equality, to embrace their agency and fight for a world where every person’s right to make decisions about their own body is honored,” Lovato wrote in an Instagram caption.
      The music video features Lovato in front of men who appear to represent supreme court justices as she leads a revolt.
      “My life, my voice/My rights, my choice/It’s mine, or I’m just swine,” she sings. “My blood, my loins/My lungs, my noise/It’s mine, or I’m just swine,” she sings.
      Here are some images coming through the newswires as people across the country attend rallies marking the one-year anniversary of Roe’s overturn:Chelsea Clinton has also chimed in on first anniversary of the supreme court’s decision that stripped federal protections of reproductive rights from women, saying that she’s “really f**king angry.”In an interview at Aspen: Health in Aspen, Colorado, NBC host Kristen Welker asked the daughter of former president Bill Clinton and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton on her thoughts about the supreme court’s decision.Clinton replied:
      “I’m really f**king angry and I am — and that is an uncomfortable place to be because of the historical women tropes that so often have been used to kind of silence and diminish women and our voices, not just in this country but throughout human history. But I’m really angry because we know that women have died.”
      Vice-President Kamala Harris took the stage in North Carolina on Saturday and delivered an impassioned address on restoring nationwide reproductive freedoms following a year since the supreme court’s decision to strip them.Speaking to a crowd full of supporters including healthcare professionals and activists, Harris said:
      “How dare they? How dare they attack basic healthcare? How dare they attack our fundamental rights? How dare they attack our freedom?…
      In the midst of this healthcare crisis, extremist so-called leaders in states across our nation have proposed or passed more than 350 new laws to restrict these freedoms and the right to have access to reproductive healthcare. Right now in our country, 23 million women of reproductive age live in a state with an extreme abortion ban in effect…
      Most of us here know is that many women don’t even know they are pregnant in six weeks. Which by the way tells us most of these politicians don’t even understand how the body actually works. They don’t get it,” Harris continued.
      She went on to issue a strong warning towards Republican lawmakers in Congress, saying:
      Extremist Republicans in Congress have proposed to ban abortion nationwide. But I have news for them. We’re not having that. We’re not standing for that. We won’t let that happen. And by the way, the majority of Americans are with us.
      The majority of Americans, I do believe, agree that one does not have to abandon their faith or deeply held beliefs to agree the government should not be telling her what to do with her body…
      The United States Congress must put back in place what the Supreme court took away.”
      A handful of Democratic lawmakers have pledged their support on Saturday to protect and fight for reproductive rights as the country marks first anniversary of Roe’s overturn.“House Dems are working hard to stop these extremists and restore reproductive freedom. Together we will win,” wrote Hakeem Jeffries, House minority leader.“A year after SCOTUS’ disastrous Dobbs decision, I’m highlighting that districts like mine – and Black women in particular – are hurting the most,” said US representative Jasmine Crockett of Texas’s 30th district.
      “My district is 40% Black and majority women. It’s the people I represent that are hurt by life-saving medical care the most … North Texas has the highest rate of hospitalization due to pregnancy complications in the entire state … For all their talk about protecting babies, let me ask you this: What happens to the already born children of a mother who dies from pregnancy complications because she can’t get the treatment she needs during an ectopic pregnancy? Who’s protecting them?” Crockett added.
      US representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland tweeted: “Pro-choice America won’t rest until we restore women’s freedom as law of the land.”Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois echoed similar sentiments, saying:
      “Let’s be honest: Republicans’ anti-choice agenda is not about protecting life. If it was, perhaps they would help us tackle our maternal mortality crisis or do something–anything–to help end gun violence. But they don’t. Because it’s not about saving lives. It’s about control…
      Look, I know that a lot of us are tired from the seemingly endless fight to protect our most basic human rights. But we have to do more. Congress has to do more.”
      House Democrats also joined the pledges as they released compilation of various members promising to protect reproductive freedoms:As reproductive rights activists protested against the end of Roe v Wade, anti-abortion leaders celebrated one year since the landmark decision was overturned.Speaking at the Faith & Freedom Coalition’s Road to Majority conference in Washington, Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion group Susan B Anthony Pro-Life America, framed the end of Roe as just the beginning of right-wing activists’ work.
      “We are at the starting line,” Dannenfelser said. “We have just begun. We have just begun a journey to start saving lives.”
      More people are feeling backed into a corner after the supreme court struck down the nationwide right to abortion last year, with many turning to birth control. In one of our latest features in our ‘A year without Roe’ series, Ema O’Connor explores the way that people’s relationships with birth control have evolved over the past year.O’Connor reports:Dr Rachel Neal, an OB-GYN working out of Atlanta, Georgia, said she has seen a trend toward LARCs nationally over the past six years, in part due to Trump’s presidency, as well as medicaid expansion and more insurance plans covering long term contraceptives. But in the past year Dr Neal has also seen an increased skepticism about any methods – including many birth control pills and IUDS – that pause or stop menstruation altogether. Before Roe was overturned, Dr Neal said that patients often saw not getting their periods as a positive side effect because they didn’t have to deal with cramps or spend money on tampons.
      “Now they’re uneasy towards methods that cause them to have no periods because they want to … prove to themselves that they’re not pregnant,” Dr Neal said.
      For the full story, click here:President Joe Biden has issued a statement to mark the one-year anniversary of the supreme court’s overturn of Roe, which he said “has already had devastating consequences.”
      “States have imposed extreme and dangerous abortion bans that put the health and lives of women in jeopardy, force women to travel hundreds of miles for care, and threaten to criminalize doctors for providing the health care that their patients need and that they are trained to provide.
      Yet state bans are just the beginning. Congressional Republicans want to ban abortion nationwide, but go beyond that, by taking FDA-approved medication for terminating a pregnancy, off the market, and make it harder to obtain contraception. Their agenda is extreme, dangerous, and out-of-step with the vast majority of Americans.
      My administration will continue to protect access to reproductive health care and call on Congress to restore the protections of Roe. vs. Wade in federal law once and for all.” More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      US conservative group apologizes for using Hitler quote in newsletter

      by

      An Indiana chapter of Moms for Liberty, a non-profit that advocates for “parental rights” in education and was recently labeled as “extremist” by an anti-hate watchdog, is apologizing and condemning Adolf Hitler after using a quotation attributed to the Nazi leader in its inaugural newsletter.The group’s Hamilton County chapter on Thursday posted a revised version of its newly launched newsletter, The Parent Brigade, on Facebook after it had previously shared a version that featured the Hitler quote on its front cover.“We condemn Adolf Hitler’s actions and his dark place in human history,” read a statement from chapter chair Paige Miller on the cover of the revised newsletter. “We should not have quoted him in our newsletter and express our deepest apology.”The first version of the newsletter included the quote, “He alone, who OWNS the youth, GAINS the future,” and cited Hitler. While the origin of the quote is not entirely clear, it has been attributed in numerous historical texts to a 1935 rally speech by the Nazi leader.Late Wednesday, after the Indianapolis Star reported on the quote, the local Moms for Liberty chapter updated the newsletter to add a “context” section.“The quote from a horrific leader should put parents on alert,” the updated version read. “If the government has control over our children today, they control our country’s future. We the people must be vigilant and protect children from an overreaching government.”By Thursday morning, the chapter had removed those versions and posted its new copy of the newsletter, replacing the Hitler quote with the chair’s apology.The quote has frequently been used by conservative Christian groups as a warning of “what they experience as liberal or leftwing attempts to indoctrinate children”, said Mark Pitcavage, senior research fellow at the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism.In 2014, for example, a church group in Alabama removed a billboard after using the quote next to images of children. And last year, a Colorado school board member faced calls to resign after posting the quote on Facebook.Moms for Liberty has faced criticism for its activism against school inclusion, including trying to remove books related to race and gender identity from school libraries.“It’s disappointing, but not surprising, that the largest anti-student inclusion movement organization has allegedly used a quote from one of the appalling figureheads in history,” said Rachel Carroll Rivas, deputy director of research, reporting and analysis for the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center.The center labeled Moms for Liberty as an “anti-government extremist” group in its 2022 annual report.Moms for Liberty has come under increasing national scrutiny as it has become a power player in Republican politics. Five presidential candidates plan to speak – and several grassroots groups plan to protest – at the group’s annual summit in Philadelphia next week. More