27 August 22
RSN: A Clear Steady Voice for Justice
RSN never wavers in its commitment to pressing the case for social justice. For over 14 years you have been able to rely on us being there day in and day out. No matter how difficult or unpopular an issue might be we do not waiver or back down.
How important is something you can depend on?
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611
Follow us on facebook and twitter!
26 August 22
Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News
Bernie Sanders is holding rallies in cities across the country — not to stump for candidates but to broadcast ordinary people’s struggles, build enthusiasm for the labor movement, and promote pride among the working class. That’s exactly what we need.
Sanders was joined at these events by Association of Flight Attendants president Sara Nelson and International Brotherhood of Teamsters president Sean O’Brien, just as he was in Chicago earlier this summer. Bernie’s team called these rallies in Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia “The Working Class: Fighting Back Against Corporate Greed.”
Before the rallies, Sanders met with workers, activists, and local progressive elected officials. I was lucky enough to be part of the meeting in Philadelphia. He opened up our meeting by saying, “I don’t want you to tell me what I want to hear, I want you to tell me what you are seeing and experiencing with your own eyes and your own lives. What is going on?”
People stood up and shared stories about how their massive student debt is holding them back, how they could barely continue to afford rent as costs rise and wages stay stagnant, the dismal conditions of our city’s public schools and the school workers who earlier that day took a vote to strike if they don’t get a fair contract, and the need for legislation like the PRO Act to help workers organize without employer interference.
I shared that while both my husband and I have good, union jobs, we still aren’t quite sure how we’ll be able to pay for childcare for our first child, who is due in the next month or so. Even though logically I understand that our country’s childcare system is broken, I have still felt like a failure for not yet being able to “figure it out” on my own, and to balance our budget well enough to easily squeeze in an extra $1,000-2,000 monthly payment. I am sure we’ll end up being fine, or at least better-off than most, but I have felt very alone in this process. I’ve sometimes felt like there’s something wrong with us, or we’re bad with money, or we’re just not deserving of what everyone else has.
But being in the room with so many other people sharing their problems — drowning in student debt, fears about the conditions of our public school buildings, low wages, increasing rents — reminded me that there isn’t anything wrong with me if so many of us are trying our best and still struggling. It’s one thing to know this logically, as I think many of us do, but it’s another to understand it on an emotional level. Too often we don’t share the things we’re scared of or can’t figure out on our own because there’s so much individualism and shame in our society. We’re meant to go at everything alone, believing that if we fail it’s a reflection on us, not the larger systems.
But that’s what makes Bernie Sanders so special: he brings regular working people together, breaks down the barriers between them, and identifies who is truly to blame: the rich and the ruling class. The point of these rallies wasn’t to stump for the Democratic party or any particular candidate, but to gather working people together to, as he put it, “stand up, fight back, and grow the trade union movement.”
At the rally, Sanders said to a crowd of over a thousand people, “We all have to stand up and say, ‘I am a member of the working class, and I am not ashamed of that reality.’” In a country where we’re all meant to imagine ourselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires, it’s a breath of fresh air to claim being working-class — and to be proud of that fact.
Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky said on August 24 that Russia had 'put the world on the brink of radiation catastrophe' by turning the plant into a 'war zone.' (photo: Alexander Ermochenko/Reuters)
She had kept working at the Zaporizhzhia complex for months after it was stormed by the Russians in March, among hundreds of Ukrainian workers effectively kept hostage to enable the power station -- the largest nuclear power plant in Europe -- to keep running.
But eventually, the constant explosions and fears for her young son's life made her take the risk to leave.
"It's scary," Elena told CNN. "Everything explodes there."
CNN agreed to use only Elena's first name out of respect for her safety concerns.
The Ukrainians have accused the Russian troops of using the plant as a shield, and risking serious damage or a potential disaster at the plant. In response, the Kremlin has repeatedly claimed Ukrainian forces are shelling the plant.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said during an address to the UN Security Council on Wednesday that Russia had "put the world on the brink of radiation catastrophe" by turning the plant into a "war zone," and called for demilitarization of the plant.
"At night (the Russians) are firing somewhere behind the reservoir," Elena said. "There are many, many explosions at the same time, like big cars firing."
Fears about the consequences of the actions of Russian troops around the plant have hastened an exodus of workers.
"For the last two weeks, there has been a crazy outflow of staff," said Daria, an employee who is still working at the nuclear plant. CNN agreed not to use her real name in light of her safety concerns. "We have people leaving en masse, dozens of them, in packs."
Elena said employees at the plant are terrified of the Russian troops based there, as they walk around with machine guns and, at night, often "get drunk and shoot in the air."
"A man was killed there just before I left. That's why we left," Elena said.
Three Ukrainian plant workers have been killed by the Russian military since March by beating or being shelled, and at least 26 others have been detained on accusations of leaking information, Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights Dmytro Lubinets said on Wednesday.
'Very dangerous' conditions
For those who remain at the plant, the situation is "getting worse with each day," Petro Kotin, the president of the Ukrainian state-run nuclear power operator Energoatom, told CNN.
"It is a very difficult situation," Kotin said. "They are heroes actually, continuing working in these conditions in the plant."
Kotin said Russian forces had placed 20 trucks in two turbine halls, as revealed in a recent leaked video that was verified by CNN.
"We believe there (are) explosive materials inside these trucks," Kotin said. "And that is very dangerous."
A potential fire could spread to the nearby reactor, because the entrance for the fire brigade is blocked, he said.
He believes that the Russians will attempt to switch the output of the Zaporizhzhia plant from the Ukrainian power grid to the Russian network, a process that would involve a "full shutdown" of the plant using diesel generators to cool the reactors. Such an operation would be highly dangerous, he said.
On Thursday, the plant was completely disconnected from Ukraine's power grid for the first time in its history, according to the country's nuclear operator, Energoatom. It said fires at nearby ash pits had caused the last remaining power line connecting to Ukraine's energy grid to disconnect twice, adding that the "actions of the invaders" were to blame.
The Russian-installed regional governor later said work was underway to restore the power supply to the region. He in turn blamed Ukrainian military action for the outages.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said late on Thursday that all six reactors remained disconnected from Ukraine's power grid.
'Powerless anger'
The growing dangers of working at the plant have added to the psychological pressure on the skeleton staffing left behind. Plant employee Daria said only 10-15% of staff now remain in her department, who live day-to-day in a "state of powerless anger."
"Mentally it's already very hard," Daria said. "But I don't know when and how we will leave."
Daria said the technical staff at the plant are "doing the impossible" to keep it running without incident, but she added that the world "has no idea how serious everything is, how much everything hangs on a thin thread."
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said on Wednesday that Russia had "put the world on the brink of radiation catastrophe" by turning the plant into a "war zone."
"The human psychological state can lead to accidents," Daria said. "At plants like ours, it's not really the equipment that is to blame. What matters here are people, their decisions, their reactions to signals, to any violations, to any damage."
The IAEA is currently negotiating with Russia for an urgent inspection of the nuclear plant to assess the safety of the operation. But Daria said she thinks "nothing will change" even if this happens.
"My only hope is the Ukrainian army," Daria said, but she fears what the Russians will do if they arrive. "They are so fond of saying 'we will destroy you,' and they already have their orders for that. That's why people leave."
Former president Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida. (photo: AP)
The newly released affidavit sheds light on the classified documents at the center of Trump’s growing legal problems.
As expected, the document is heavily redacted. Or, rather, almost entirely redacted, after the DOJ asked the judge to conceal any parts of it that would hinder its investigation or compromise participants in it.
Still, the affidavit does shed new light on federal investigators’ fight to retrieve classified documents from Trump’s home in Florida, and includes several new bits of information:
- It notes that, among the 15 boxes that Trump returned to the National Archives earlier this year, there were “184 unique documents bearing classification markings, including 67 documents marked as CONFIDENTIAL, 92 documents marked as SECRET, and 25 documents marked as TOP SECRET.”
- The FBI believed there were additional documents at Mar-a-Lago, but that they’d also find evidence of obstruction of justice there as well: “Further, there is probable cause to believe that additional documents that contain classified NDI [National Defense Information] or that are Presidential records subject to record retention requirements currently remain at the PREMISES [Mar-a-Lago]. There is also probable cause to believe that evidence of obstruction will be found at the PREMISES.”
- Politico’s Andrew Desiderio noted on Twitter that some of the documents allegedly contained human intelligence source information and foreign intelligence intercepts. That is, information that could reveal the actual identities of intelligence sources or closely guarded intel on US adversaries allies. This kind of intelligence is obviously extremely closely guarded and its exposure could put lives or sources at risk.
- Classified and sensitive documents were allegedly stored at multiple unsecure locations at Mar-a-Lago.
The affidavit itself is the result of months of back-and-forth between federal investigators and Trump and his legal team, which spurred the FBI to ask a judge for permission to conduct its August search of Mar-a-Lago. During that search, the bureau found a cache of classified and sensitive documents.
In total, according to the New York Times, Trump “took more than 700 pages of classified documents, including some related to the nation’s most covert intelligence operations, to his private club and residence in Florida when he left the White House in January 2021.” The documents authorities searched for in Trump’s home included classified nuclear secrets and information that is “among the most sensitive secrets we hold,” the Washington Post reported.
Earlier this year, the National Archives recovered at least 15 boxes of presidential documents from Mar-a-Lago. But investigators began to believe that there was more, and that Trump’s team was not being totally forthcoming with them.
The potential legal exposure for Trump and his team is serious. A search warrant released earlier this month revealed that the FBI searched Trump’s home because of potential violations of three federal laws, including the Espionage Act, the willful destruction or concealment of federal records, and obstructing an investigation.
Protesters march in the street during an abortion rights rally on June 25, 2022, in Austin, Texas. (photo: Sergio Flores/Getty)
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
We spend the rest of the hour looking at how millions of pregnant people in the United States have now lost access to abortion in their state since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. The Washington Post reports this includes at least one in three women.
Meanwhile, more restrictions are being implemented in state after state. This week alone, anti-abortion “trigger laws” went into effect in Texas, Tennessee and Idaho, and on Saturday, Oklahoma will increase penalties for doctors who perform illegal abortions for pregnant people to include a $100,000 fine and up to 10 years in prison. The Texas anti-abortion trigger law that went into effect Thursday makes it a felony to perform an abortion, also punishable by a $100,000 fine and up to life in prison. Tennessee’s similar trigger law has no exceptions for rape, incest or fatal fetal anomalies.
Meanwhile, a trigger law set to take effect today in North Dakota was blocked Thursday in state court when a judge granted a preliminary injunction against the measure that makes it a felony to perform an abortion with limited exceptions for rape, incest or medical emergency.
Abortion access is now a key issue in the 2022 midterm elections. Many states report a surge in women registering to vote. This is President Biden kicking off his midterm campaigning Thursday night in Maryland.
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: So, how extreme are these MAGA Republicans? Just take a look what happened since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. In red state after red state, there’s a race to pass the most restrictive abortion limitations imaginable, even without exception for rape or incest. But these MAGA Republicans won’t stop there. They want a national ban. They want to pass a legislative national ban in the Congress. If the MAGA Republicans win control of the Congress, it won’t matter where you live: Women won’t have the right to choose anywhere. Anywhere. Let me tell you something: If they take it back and they try and pass it, I will veto it.
AMY GOODMAN: This comes as Arizona’s Republican Senate nominee, far-right venture capitalist Blake Masters, is now downplaying his support for a “fetal personhood” law as he seeks to challenge incumbent Democratic Senator Mark Kelly in November. This week, Masters’s campaign quietly overhauled his website, scrubbing it of many of his extreme anti-abortion views.
Last week, South Carolina Republican state Rep. Neal Collins said he’s reconsidering his support of his state’s so-called fetal heartbeat bill after hearing how it had led to one of his constituents being denied abortion care for her unviable fetus because it required her to wait until a heartbeat could no longer be detected. Collins spoke before the South Carolina House Judiciary Committee.
REP. NEAL COLLINS: A 19-year-old girl appeared at the ER. She was 15 weeks pregnant. Her water broke. And the fetus was unviable. … The attorneys told the doctors that because of the fetal heartbeat bill, because that 15-week-old had a heartbeat, the doctors could not extract. … There’s a 50% chance — greater than 50% chance that she’s going to lose her uterus. There’s a 10% chance that she will develop sepsis and herself die. That weighs on me. I voted for that bill.
AMY GOODMAN: State Representative Collins was one of three Republicans who abstained from a vote on the measure, which passed along party lines in the committee and is set for a floor debate on Wednesday.
For more, we’re joined by two guests. In Texas, Dr. Bhavik Kumar is with us, medical director of primary and trans care at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast in Houston, co-chair of the Committee to Protect Health Care’s Reproductive Freedom Task Force. And in Philadelphia, Mini Timmaraju is with us. She is the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
We welcome you to Democracy Now! I should add, Mini Timmaraju, that today is also the 102nd anniversary of the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote. When you look at what’s happening around this country, I mean, the fact that women — new women voters are surging all over this country now, it looks like it has changed the prospects for the midterm elections. Can you talk about what has taken place just this week with trigger ban after trigger ban?
MINI TIMMARAJU: Thank you so much for having me, Amy.
And, you know, the trigger bans are outrageous. They’re horrifying. It’s important to note, however, in many of these states, as these trigger bans are coming into place, these are states that already passed really horrific restrictions, including Texas, where my colleague Dr. Kumar is. I mean, look, we’ve already had a six-week ban that was left to stand by the Supreme Court with a vigilante enforcement mechanism and outrageous fines and penalties in Texas since last year. So, Texans have been living under a draconian nightmare for a very long time. Now, you add the other states you mentioned — you know, Idaho, Oklahoma, Tennessee — it’s small comfort that we have some limited restrictions now by the courts. It’s good news that the court struck the North Dakota trigger ban, or at least held an — put an injunction.
But I want to note something about North Dakota and the dystopian situation in this country. The one abortion clinic in North Dakota that existed has already crossed lines and moved over to Minnesota, because they understand they can’t functionally provide healthcare in the state of North Dakota with everything going on. So, even though the court put an injunction on that trigger ban, there is no abortion access in North Dakota.
And that is the landscape we’re talking about. We’re talking about women and pregnant people having to travel hundreds of thousands of miles to get access to care, working moms, people with kids already — most folks who seek abortion care already have children — having to figure out how to get child care, how to get gas, how to get transportation, how to take some days off work, just to have access to what should be a basic, fundamental human right that they’ve had guaranteed for almost 50 years in this country. So, it’s nothing short of horrific. And I know my colleague is going to be able to tell you a lot more about what’s happening on the ground.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Mini Timmaraju, I wanted to ask you about some of the high-profile cases that have already come to public light. Some of them are really absolutely chilling.
MINI TIMMARAJU: Yeah.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: There was a Baton Rouge, Louisiana, resident who was 10 weeks pregnant, was denied an abortion at a Louisiana hospital, even though an ultrasound showed her fetus was developing without a skull. The condition, known as acrania, does not appear on a list of accepted conditions for an abortion in Louisiana. In Florida, there was a 16-year-old orphan ordered to carry her pregnancy to term, after she petitioned the court for the right to have an abortion, testifying that she was, quote, “not ready to have a baby.” But a three-judge panel denied the request, ruling that the girl “had not established … she was sufficiently mature to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy.” These cases, as they become more and more apparent to the public, what do you expect to happen?
MINI TIMMARAJU: So, I think two major responses I have to this. And thank you for asking this question. One, advocates have been talking about these cases for decades to Republican extremists in these states. So, you played the clip of the South Carolina legislator acting completely shocked of the consequences of his actions supporting a really problematic bill and a ban. This is what happens with abortion bans. And we’ve seen decades of targeted restrictions against abortion providers throughout many, many states in this country that have already put abortion care out of reach for the majority of people in rural areas, people of color, people without means, because of federal bans on funding for abortion. So, it’s really important to understand, these horrific stories that are coming to public light have already been happening in many parts of the country.
The other point I want to make is this is why bans — total bans are problematic, but this is also why just passing bans and then adding exceptions doesn’t work. Right? You just talked about how a three-judge panel had to make a determination of a lifesaving procedure for a mother and her situation, right? Do you want three-judge panels and hospital administrators making decisions in life-and-death cases? It’s an absolutely intolerable way to manage reproductive healthcare in this country. And considering how devastating and dangerous pregnancy is — it’s the most dangerous time for most women in their life, is pregnancy — do we really need to be waiting weeks upon weeks and asking legislators, panels, administrators to make these lifesaving decisions?
So, these cases are increasingly horrific. What you saw a few weeks ago in Kansas is an indication of what the American public thinks of these bans. And when asked directly how they feel about it, they are unequivocally clear: They do not want government in their business, they do not want these bans and restrictions, and they’re ready to fight back.
AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Bhavik Kumar, you’re in Texas, and you’re a doctor. The trigger law that just went into effect makes it a crime for you to perform an abortion. You face a $100,000 fine and life in prison. Your response?
DR. BHAVIK KUMAR: Yeah, this is now the third abortion ban since the overturning of Dobbs. And as Mini said, Texas has been in a post-Roe world for almost a year now, with Senate Bill 8. So, practically, on the ground, this doesn’t change anything. Abortion has not been accessible in Texas for some time now, and it continues to be inaccessible, which means people that are trying to access care, whether it’s abortion, folks that are experiencing a miscarriage, folks with a wanted pregnancy that have had something go wrong, or even folks with an ectopic pregnancy, may not be able to get the care that they need. And we’re seeing the same thing play out in a number of other states.
What’s important to note here with this trigger law — like you said, it has penalties of life in prison, fines of $100,000 — is that it adds another boulder, another weight onto healthcare providers’ shoulders as they try to navigate what they can and can’t do, think about who they need to contact, whether it’s attorneys in a hospital or an emergency room, contacting an ethics committee. And as a healthcare provider, as a physician, when I’m thinking about taking care of a patient, the last thing I should be thinking about is which attorney I need to ask, which law I need to consider, what the penalties may be, as I go through options with a patient.
What I’ve seen over the last seven years of providing abortion care in Texas is that politics has found its way into my exam room, into my health center. It’s, you know, soaked its way into everything that I do as a healthcare provider. And it’s really unfair, because people are suffering. We’ve heard a couple of stories from South Carolina, from Ohio and other places, in Louisiana, about what’s happened to some folks. But these are stories that we hear every single day. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people that are experiencing the same things. And I’m worried that things will only continue to get worse if we don’t do anything and vote these folks out.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Dr. Kumar, you mentioned having to consult lawyers. With these new restrictions, what is considered aiding and abetting an abortion? Is that legally clear yet?
DR. BHAVIK KUMAR: Absolutely not. Again, these laws are passed by politicians who are not healthcare providers. So, whether it’s aiding and abetting, whether it’s these vague exceptions for medical emergencies, these are not well defined. And we’re seeing that play out, where there’s chaos, and there’s confusion, and there’s also this chilling effect where folks, whether they’re providing information, like abortion funds, or physicians or nurses that are trying to take care of patients when it comes to medical emergencies, it is not well defined. So clinics and hospitals are instead left to figure out what they can and can’t do, and figure out how much risk they want to take. And again, that’s simply unfair. There are people trying to get care, trying to get information, and they’re sort of in this limbo of not sure what to do, what to ask, what they can and can’t say. And these things are starting to vary by clinic, by state. And again, it’s really unfair, because people are suffering in the meantime.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Dr. Bhavik Kumar, be very specific. I mean, you are with Planned Parenthood in Houston, in Texas. What does it look like? What does Texas look like now, when it comes to trying to access reproductive care? How many clinics have closed? I mean, what do you do? Did you perform abortions before, and you don’t now?
DR. BHAVIK KUMAR: Yeah, absolutely. When we were able to, we would provide abortion care. So, before Senate Bill 8 went into effect, which was about a year ago, we could provide abortion care up to the legal limit. So, the vast majority of folks that we would see qualified for an abortion here in the state, closer to where they live. Of course, there were a number of restrictions that were already on the books, and so the situation wasn’t ideal. Folks still had to wait at least 24 hours, go through a number other hurdles to get the care that they need. Folks weren’t allowed to use their insurance. But since Senate Bill 8 went into effect, and, of course, in the last two months with now three abortion bans, today I’m essentially not allowed to provide any abortion care to anybody if there’s a viable pregnancy. And the same is true for folks that present to an emergency room. Now, we are able to see folks before an abortion. So, if they need an ultrasound, if they need any kind of blood work, we can provide that. And then, for folks that have had an abortion in another state, we can still see them for follow-up care.
It’s important to note that folks are traveling out of state. And that’s what’s happening in Texas and in about 16 states where there’s some abortion ban in effect. And folks are traveling sometimes hundreds, if not thousands, of miles, which means time off of work, finding child care, navigating the multiple jobs that they may have. And, of course, there are some folks that aren’t able to travel. I’ve seen folks that are undocumented and say, “I can’t risk somebody finding out my documentation status or my family being deported.” I’ve seen folks that are tethered to an abusive partner, who tell me, “It’s been difficult for me to even get to the clinic here today, which is about five, 10 miles away. I can’t travel to another state.” And sometimes I don’t know what happens to these folks. They’re either able to make it to another state to get the care they need, or they’re forced to stay pregnant. And that’s simply unfair, unjust. They’re making sound decisions about what’s best for them. They know they can’t be pregnant. They know that it’s not the right time for them to parent. And instead, they’re left with no other option. And that’s been a reality for almost a year now in Texas.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Dr. Kumar, since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and, in Texas, S.B. 8, what’s the climate been like in terms of harassment by anti-abortion activists and potential violence to healthcare providers?
DR. BHAVIK KUMAR: Yeah, the harassment and, quite frankly, the terrorism that we see among anti-abortion folks has been there for some time, and of course it’s remained there. Even though we’re not providing abortion care now in Texas, we still have protesters harassing staff, harassing patients that are trying to access other care, whether it’s family planning care, such as contraception, or STI testing, or just coming in for breast and cervical cancer screenings. They’re harassing everybody that comes into our clinic.
It’s also important to note that these terrorists that are outside of our clinic are very closely linked to the politicians that are passing these anti-abortion laws. It’s one movement, that is not rooted in the well-being of our patients, in the well-being of Texans and folks trying to access reproductive care. And it has to stop. We’ve been saying this for some time. We’ve been telling politicians about the harms that will happen if we pass these laws. You know, it’s exhausting, as a physician, to tell people that aren’t medical professionals about these harms, about what these violent acts are doing, whether it’s outright violence against people or it’s violence in the form of these racist and classist laws. But they haven’t listened, and, unfortunately, they’re seeing the consequences of these things play out now. So, again, I really, really want to call on people to take action. We’ve had some success in Kansas, and I’m hoping we’ll see the same success in November.
AMY GOODMAN: I also wanted to, very quickly, ask you, Dr. Bhavik Kumar, about the federal appeals court ruling against an Arkansas law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender children, three-judge panel ruling temporary injunction against the law — that the law should remain in effect while legal challenges proceed. The whole issue of trans care and how it links to reproductive care?
DR. BHAVIK KUMAR: Yeah, thank you for asking that question. I think there are a lot of similarities between the two. I’m an abortion provider. I also provide trans care. And so it’s very clear to me that the playbook that we saw with abortion care, where it was one law, it was one group that was targeted — in this case, minors — it was one state, and slowly, slowly, we saw an overturning of everybody’s rights. And here we are with Roe overturned. Abortion is inaccessible in so many states. And I can see a similar pattern with trans care, where we have Alabama that’s passed a law, we have Arkansas now, we have courts deciding what can and can’t happen.
At the end of the day, we know that this care is safe. We know that — and I say this as a physician who provides this care, who’s trained in providing this care — this trans care is lifesaving. It reduces people’s ability — it reduces people’s suicidality. It saves people’s lives. It’s important to have people be able to access this care, especially minors.
And what we’re seeing with the opposition is that they’re targeting folks in Southern states and targeting the most vulnerable among us. In this case, it’s children. And so, again, this is another issue that’s very closely linked to anti-abortion movements, where folks that support anti-abortion laws also support these anti-trans laws.
At the end of the day, for me as a physician, these decisions should be left between me, my patients. We should use science and medicine and counsel our patients on what’s best for them and let them decide what they want to do with their lives and their bodies and uphold their dignity and humanity.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And I’d like to bring Mini Timmaraju back into the conversation. The recent decision — I think it was on Wednesday — by a federal judge in Idaho —
MINI TIMMARAJU: Yeah.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: — blocking portions of a trigger ban on abortion, could you talk about that?
MINI TIMMARAJU: Sure. In Idaho, the Department of Justice brought suit on the provision on EMTALA, the emergency care provision piece. And, look, in Idaho, the court did say, “Look, you” — the ban is still in place, which is deeply problematic. But a good step is that now if a patient — again, has to prove it, and the doctor has to prove it, so it’s not ideal — but if a patient can prove that they have an emergency, they can have access in an emergency room to abortion care. For all the reasons Dr. Kumar just laid out, this is still very problematic, but it’s an important first step, because this is an example of how the Biden administration is taking a strong stance for reproductive freedom and reproductive rights and trying to use all the tools in their tool box, particularly the DOJ, to intervene in some of these most problematic cases.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you for being with us. There’s so much to talk about it, and we will continue to. Mini Timmaraju is president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. She’s speaking to us from Philadelphia. And Dr. Bhavik Kumar is the medical director of primary and trans care at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast in Houston.
Democracy Now! is currently accepting applications for a people and culture manager. You can learn more and apply at democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González. Stay safe.
Immigrants argue their experience in Georgia's largest ICE detention center violated anti-slavery laws. (photo: David Goldman/AP)
In what could become a class-action lawsuit, immigrants argue their experience in Georgia’s largest ICE detention center violated anti-slavery laws.
The detainees were being held at Stewart Detention Center, one of the busiest immigrant prisons in the U.S., operated like many such facilities by CoreCivic, a Nashville-based corrections company.
Immigrants say threats of punishment — and a need to earn money to buy food to supplement the center’s diet — pressured them to take prison jobs that pay between $1 and $4 per day. Earlier this summer, the plaintiffs’ legal team asked for class certification, meaning upwards of 40,000 migrants currently or formerly under the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) could be covered by the suit, first filed in 2018.
“Prison corporations that have for years enriched themselves by exploiting detained immigrant labor and profiting off of human pain must be held accountable,” said Azadeh Shahshahani, a lawyer in the suit and legal director of Project South, an Atlanta-based organization that advocates for detained immigrants.
Wilhen Hill Barrientos, a Guatemalan asylum seeker, was detained at Stewart intermittently from July 2015 to June 2018. In a declaration submitted to the court, he said he was not asked whether he wanted to work upon arriving at Stewart but was instead told that failure to do so would result in solitary confinement.
He said he worked in the kitchen, regularly putting in 8- to 9-hour shifts, seven days a week — a workload in excess of ICE guidelines under its Voluntary Work Program. Other detained immigrants at Stewart cut hair, did laundry, and performed maintenance tasks.
In a statement, CoreCivic said that “All work programs at our ICE detention facilities are completely voluntary and operated in full compliance with ICE standards…. Detainees are subject to no disciplinary action whatsoever if they choose not to participate in the work program. We set and deliver the same high standard of care — including three daily meals, access to health care and other everyday living needs — regardless of whether a detainee participates in a voluntary work program.”
But plaintiffs say they were coerced to sign up to work at Stewart and threatened with punishment to keep working. The lawsuit claims that the treatment they received violated the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which prohibits modern-day slavery, as well as state rules against “unjust enrichment.”
Such alleged abuse of the work program occurred, plaintiffs’ lawyers say, because Stewart administrators have an “utter dependence on detained workers” to operate their facility. They reference a CoreCivic staffing plan that purportedly shows a small number of janitors and maintenance workers on the company’s payroll.
In a December 2021 deposition, Stewart warden Russell Washburn said detained workers continued working over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, despite a request from ICE to suspend work programs for jobs that do not afford social distancing.
In 2020, a federal appeals court rejected a motion from CoreCivic to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint. The court stated that, contrary to what the company had argued, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act does cover the conduct of private contractors operating federal immigration detention facilities.
As of Aug. 15, Stewart held 1,093 detainees, the most of any immigrant detention centers in the U.S., per federal data compiled by the Transaction Record Analysis Center.
Accounts of hunger and punishment
Gonzalo Bermudez Gutiérrez was detained at Stewart Detention Center from May 2019 to January 2020. Keysler Ramón Urbina Rojas was detained from May 2015 to June 2016. Though the men didn’t overlap at Stewart, they described their stints in detention in similar ways. They were both hungry.
In court declarations, both men said they found the food portions served at Stewart to be small and unappetizing. Urbina Rojas noted he lost 20 pounds while detained.
“I was always trying to stave off hunger while I was there,” Bermudez Gutiérrez said.
Both Bermudez Gutiérrez and Urbina Rojas said they joined the work program with the intention of spending their future wages in snacks at the commissary, to supplement their detention diets.
“Being able to purchase extra food was very important,” Urbina Rojas said.
Both men wound up working in the kitchen, performing tasks that ranged from cooking and washing dishes to scrubbing the stove and serving meals.
Stepping away from that work after signing up would trigger disciplinary action, the men noted in their declaration.
When Urbina Rojas refused to perform an additional task after finishing his work one day, he said he was taken to a single-person cell where he spent roughly 24 hours in isolation. On at least a couple of other occasions, when detained workers in his housing unit refused to go to work, Urbina Rojas said the entire unit was put on “lockdown.” During lockdowns, detainees are not allowed to leave their bed and have no access to recreation, the commissary, or to the phones, according to plaintiffs.
Additionally, Urbina Rojas said detainees were led to believe that refusing to work would impact their ongoing immigration cases.
A protester kicks a burning tire during a protest in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, Monday, Aug. 22, 2022. (photo: Odelyn Joseph/AP)
Associated Press journalists observed an unidentified man fatally shoot a demonstrator in Port-au-Prince and then flee in a car as the crowd temporarily scattered.
Demonstrator Lionel Jean-Pierre, who witnessed the shooting, said things in Haiti have gotten out of control.
“Families don’t know what to do,” he said as the crowd around him chanted: “If Ariel doesn’t leave, we’re going to die!”
Violence and kidnappings have surged in Port-au-Prince and nearby areas in recent months, with warring gangs killing hundreds of civilians in their fight over territory. They have grown more powerful since last year’s assassination of President Jovenel Moïse.
In one of the most recent killings denounced by the prime minister and Haiti's Office of Citizen Protection, suspected gang members killed eight people over the weekend in one community, including a mother and her two daughters who were set on fire while still alive.
“This collective crime adds to the list of victims...that has reached an alarming proportion,” the office said.
Poverty also has deepened, with inflation reaching 29% and some prices of some basic goods such as rice more than quadrupling. Gasoline also remains scarce and, if available, costs $15 a gallon.
“I need the gas to work,” 28-year-old moto-taxi driver Garry Larose said as he marched. “I have a family to feed, school to pay.”
In one protest, people wore black T-shirts, while at another they wore red T-shirts emblazoned with the words, “RISE UP.”
The protests come days after dozens of demonstrators staged a sit-in in front of Henry’s official residence and demanded that he resign.
On Monday, police clashed with demonstrators in some areas, firing tear gas to break up the crowd as burning tires blocked roads.
A laborer quenches his thirst with water from a bottle on a street amid rising temperatures in New Delhi, May 27, 2020. (photo: Jewel Samad/Getty)
Under the study’s most extreme climate and heat scenarios, as many as 90 days each year could be unsafe for people to be outside.
The study, published in the open-access journal Communications Earth … Environment, found that by 2100 there are likely to be 15 days a year in which some countries near the equator experience heat indexes exceeding 124 degrees Fahrenheit, or 51 degrees Celsius.
The heat index is derived from measurements of air temperature and relative humidity. The National Weather Service identifies a heat index above 124 degrees as a condition of “extreme danger” in which heat stroke is “highly likely” and it is unsafe for people to be outside.
Researchers from the University of Washington and Harvard University identified that extreme heat scenario as one of a range of possibilities which are contingent both on the level of global greenhouse gas emissions in the decades to come and the steps that policymakers take to mitigate them. In one of the researchers’ most extreme scenarios, as many as 90 days out of each year would be too hot for people to go outside.
Lucas Vargas Zeppetello, an atmospheric scientist at Harvard who served as the lead author of the study, said his research centered on developing statistical projections of global mean temperature change based on demographic and economic growth trends for the remainder of the 21st century. He noted that there are few examples in the historical record of locales that have exceeded a heat index at the extremely dangerous level.
“If you look 50 to 100 years into the future, there are some regions in the world where, depending on how good or bad we do curbing our CO2 emissions, that could be a regular occurrence,” Zeppetello said, referring to the extremely dangerous heat index designations.
“There’s two sides of the coin here: The good side is that we still have time to prevent the worst possible scenario and make it so that we mitigate the worst possible impacts,” Zeppetello said. “But the bad side of the coin is if we don’t do anything, the consequences—particularly for people in the global subtropics, the Indian subcontinent—are going to be fairly dramatic.”
Zeppetello and his co-researchers also found that countries in the tropics and subtropics would likely experience as many as 180 days of dangerous temperatures (a heat index above 103 degrees Fahrenheit on the National Weather Service scale) by 2050. By 2100, those regions would likely experience a heat index at that level for most of the year.
The tropical and subtropical countries experienced heat indexes at the dangerous level on about 55 days each year from 1979 to 1998,
The findings of the study build on a growing body of research that attempts to identify the potential effects of rising temperatures on future generations. Earlier this month, the First Street Foundation released a model indicating that by 2053 as much as a quarter of U.S. land area—a ribbon of states stretching from Wisconsin to Texas—would become part of an “extreme heat belt” marked by extremely dangerous heat index events.
The effects of extreme heat can take a severe toll on the human body. Researchers said that a dangerous heat index designation can lead to heat cramps, heat stroke, exhaustion, fatigue, nausea, headache, excessive muscle aches, confusion, weakness, slowed heartbeat, dizziness and fainting.
An extremely dangerous heat index includes those effects and vertigo, shortness of breath, vomiting, delirium, loss of consciousness and convulsions. If people in extremely dangerous heat index conditions go untreated, death can occur within hours.
David Battisti, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington who was one of Zeppetello’s co-researchers, said that while models projecting temperature change may vary in estimating such factors as how much carbon dioxide might be released into the atmosphere in the future, the pattern of warming has remained consistent.
Although researchers found that the sharpest increases in temperature would be in sub-Saharan Africa, the Amazon rainforest, northern Australia, southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent, the effects of what researchers call “heat stress” would also increase in the United States.
In the southeastern United States, for example, locales that experienced two or three days per year of dangerous heat index levels at the end of the 20th century, might experience 20 to 30 such days by the middle of the century.
Battisti said that the high humidity levels in some parts of the country can have a dramatic effect on the heat index.
“If you live in Los Angeles or if you live in Denver, you can have these really hot days, they won’t kill you because it’s pretty dry,” Battisti said. “Whereas if you live in the southeast U.S., a day that you have even less temperature still could be more dangerous because of the humidity in the air.”
Zeppetello noted the recent record-breaking temperatures in cities in Europe and the United States and said that they may provide a glimpse of what is likely to come in the latter half of the century and beyond.
“There’s a great quote that I can’t take credit for, but there was someone in the scientific community who said, ‘Don’t think of it as the hottest year in history; think of it as the coldest year for the next hundred years,’” Zeppetello said, “And I think there’s value in that. Just seeing that we are tipping the scales pretty quickly toward really unprecedented forms of weather in the global north.”
Follow us on facebook and twitter!
PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.