23 August 22
Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News
The constitutional authority to call out the military is vested in the president of the United States. So what was Pence doing on January 6?
This is a problem—one that has been overshadowed by the larger events of January 6. The constitutional authority to call out the military to defend the Capitol is vested in the president of the United States, not in the vice president. Why did Pence seize constitutional authority that wasn’t his? The country needs answers to this question, and it needs them from Pence, not from his chief of staff or his counsel.
In ordinary circumstances, Pence’s actions would be unconstitutional. Indeed, a vice president who usurped the president’s constitutional authority, and the Cabinet and military officers who followed his orders, could be committing an impeachable offense. But these were no ordinary circumstances: With Pence huddled in a secure location protected by his security detail, his actions were almost certainly justified.
Constitutional government depends on following the law, but emergency circumstances may provide for what the 17th-century political philosopher John Locke called prerogative power: power that in ordinary circumstances is unlawful, but that in extraordinary circumstances is warranted. There is a long-standing debate about whether the public should view such power as constitutional because necessary or as extra-constitutional but justified. In “Federalist No. 23,” Alexander Hamilton argued that people should see emergency power as constitutional because “the circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite.” The Constitution, Hamilton insisted, must provide the lawful power for its preservation.
In contrast, Thomas Jefferson argued that people ought to recognize that emergency power is extra-constitutional but justified. As Jefferson famously wrote in a letter to John B. Colvin—the author of the early-19th-century book The Magistrate’s Guide, and Citizen’s Counsellor, who was then writing about Aaron Burr’s treason—“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest duties of a good citizen: but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation.” For Jefferson, preserving the nation was more important than “a scrupulous adherence to written law.”
Yet, as Jefferson also insisted, the officer who exercises emergency power must justify his actions to “his fellow citizens generally.” For Jefferson, “the good officer” must throw “himself on the justice of his country and the rectitude of his motives.” Whether one sees emergency power from the perspective of Hamilton (constitutional because necessary) or Jefferson (extra-constitutional but justified), it is crucial that the officer who exercises emergency power justify himself to the public. The public must know what constitutional ends the officer thought he was serving and why the circumstances commanded extraordinary action. But Pence has retreated to silence, allowing some proxies to speak for him while ducking the crucial constitutional questions that surround his actions on January 6.
Did Pence think he was acting to preserve the constitutional transfer of power and save the country when it was in danger? Did Pence think that President Donald Trump was threatening the peaceful transfer of power? General Milley and those who followed Pence’s commands seem to think this. But the public should not have to guess at Pence’s motives—he has a constitutional obligation to explain why he thought the nation was in peril and how he acted to obviate that peril.
American history is replete with claims to emergency power. Whether people think they are justified depends on the circumstances and how they are attached to larger constitutional ends.
In the opening months of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, called up state militias, and blocked southern ports and harbors. Critics thought many of these actions unconstitutional and unjustified. Lincoln insisted that they were necessary to preserve constitutional ends and therefore justified. In a special message to Congress on July 4, 1861, Lincoln explained his actions to the people and Congress, while also asking for congressional approval. Squarely taking up the question of extra-constitutional action, Lincoln asked with a rhetorical flourish, “Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the Government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated? Even in such a case, would not the official oath be broken if the Government should be overthrown when it was believed that disregarding the single law would tend to preserve it?”
Similarly, on 9/11, just after two hijacked civilian planes were flown into the World Trade Center, Vice President Dick Cheney, from a secure location in Washington, D.C., acted to prevent further attacks on the United States and keep the government operational under emergency conditions while President George W. Bush was on Air Force One. (With so many unknowns, the Secret Service thought Bush was safest aboard Air Force One rather than in D.C.) While there is dispute over whether Cheney issued the order before or after authorization from Bush, Cheney did ask Bush to authorize him to order the military targeting of civilian planes if necessary, as communications aboard Air Force One were spotty. Bush gave the authorization, which happily did not need to be carried out.
Americans can understand why Cheney exercised such power. They can understand why it was justified. Cheney was not grabbing power for himself, but issuing a truly awful order that was seen as necessary to prevent further casualties and, especially, an attack on the White House and Congress. People also understand that Cheney asked the president for authorization because Bush was unable to discharge his duties.
In contrast, Pence has given us no justification for or explanation of why he seized constitutional authority that was not lawfully his. Article II of the Constitution provides that in the event of the president’s removal, resignation, death, or “inability to discharge the powers and duties” of the office, those powers devolve on the vice president. If Pence thought Trump was unable or unwilling to discharge the constitutional powers and duties of his office, that informs the constitutional analysis of his decision. The formal constitutional mechanism for suspending such a president is by way of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. It provides that the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet may convey to Congress a written declaration of the president’s inability, allowing the vice president to assume those powers as acting president.
Given the circumstances, following the formal terms of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment was nearly impossible. With the Capitol under siege, Pence’s actions were probably justified. We can surmise that he sought to protect the lives of the people in Congress and to ensure that he remained at the Capitol to officially preside over the counting of electoral votes. But Pence himself should explain to America why he feared for those in Congress, why he would not leave with the Secret Service, and why the sitting president was unable to carry out his duties. The president, after all, was not incapacitated as far as we know.
Justifying Pence’s actions turns almost entirely on Trump’s state of mind both before and on January 6—something Pence is uniquely situated to speak to. We can guess much of what Pence would say. Still, his explanation will help us better understand the events that led to that day. And it will very likely require him to explain that he acted to thwart a sitting president’s unlawful attempt to stay in power.
In retreating to silence, Pence is acting to preserve his own interests, not the country’s. One assumes that he does not want to explain why he used emergency power because it will implicate Trump—and doing so will make Pence unpopular with Republicans. This is the sort of self-serving use of authority that makes emergency power so dangerous.
To put it plainly: Pence either acted extra-constitutionally to preserve the constitutional transfer of power or unlawfully seized power from a sitting president who was acting in accord with his constitutional responsibilities. Pence is trying to have the best of both options, but those two components don’t square. The January 6 committee should force his hand.
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky attends an interview with some of the Russian media via videolink in Kyiv, Ukraine, March 27, 2022. (photo: Reuters)
Zelenskyy cites media reports that Russia is preparing to put Ukrainian fighters on public trial on Independence Day.
Zelenskyy cited media reports that Russia was preparing to put Ukrainian fighters captured during the siege of Mariupol on a public trial to coincide with the independence anniversary on Wednesday.
Ukraine’s Independence Day, August 24, will also mark six months since Russia invaded Ukraine, in a devastating war that has cost thousands of lives.
“If this despicable show trial takes place, if our people are brought into these settings in violation of all agreements, all international rules, there will be abuse,” Zelenskyy warned in an evening address on Sunday.
“This will be the line beyond which no negotiations are possible.”
The capital, Kyiv, has already announced a ban on public gatherings. Kharkiv too declared a curfew around the holiday.
Zelenskyy was returning to a subject he had already raised in the previous night’s remarks.
“Russia could try to do something particularly disgusting, particularly cruel,” he warned late on Saturday.
“One of the key objectives of the enemy is to humiliate us” and “to sow despondency, fear and conflict”.
But he added: “We have to be strong enough to resist all provocation” and “make the occupiers pay for their terror”.
‘Be vigilant’
A presidential adviser, Mykhaylo Podolyak, said Russia could intensify its bombing campaign.
“Russia is an archaic state that links its actions to certain dates, it’s an obsession of sorts,” the Interfax-Ukraine news agency quoted him as saying.
“They hate us and will try to increase … the number of bombings of our cities including Kyiv with cruise missiles,” Podolyak added.
Kyiv authorities on Sunday banned public gatherings from August 22 to August 25.
In the northeastern city of Kharkiv, the regional governor announced a curfew from the evening of August 23 to the morning of August 25.
“We will not allow any provocation by the enemy. Be as vigilant as possible during our independence holiday,” Oleg Synegubov wrote on Telegram.
Kharkiv has been under regular Russian bombardment for weeks and on Sunday emergency services said a woman was killed and two other civilians were wounded in overnight raids.
Four civilians were reported killed by Russian fire in Donetsk, said the region’s pro-Kyiv governor, Pavlo Kyrylenko.
Five cruise missiles were fired at Odesa from the Black Sea, a regional administration spokesman said. Two were shot down by air defences and three hit a silo without causing injury.
Donald Trump walks to Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House, December 2017, in Washington. (photo: Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images)
According to a new poll, "threats to democracy" have overtaken the cost of living as the chief issue facing American voters, most of whom believe that Donald Trump should remain under legal investigation over his failed plot to subvert the election.
“Politically, for Joe Biden and the Democrats, the news is not all bad,” Democratic pollster Jeff Horwitt, who conducted the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff, told NBC News.
The Democrats still have an uphill battle to win: The president’s approval ratings are up, but remain in the low 40s; his party has notched a number of legislative wins in recent weeks, but voters as a whole remain pessimistic about the direction of the country; and while the GOP may be running a bunch of dangerous weirdos this fall, it still enjoys a historical advantage in off-year elections that tend to serve as a referendum on the party in power. There are also some caveats in the NBC News poll: For one, Republicans and Democrats may have different definitions of what constitutes “threats to democracy.” Are they Donald Trump's bogus claims of election fraud, which are Republican orthodoxy at this point? Or is it, say, the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago, which Trump has sought to convince his supporters was politically motivated “assault” that “could only take place in broken" country? Another caveat: “Threats to democracy” ranked higher than “cost of living” and “jobs/economy” individually — but combined, those economic concerns may still be the biggest consideration for voters this cycle. All of this is to say that Democrats shouldn’t get cocky; they’re going to have to fight to keep the House and Senate. “Heading into Labor Day, the political dynamics could be worse” for Democrats, as Horwitt explained. “But they also need to get a lot better and fast.”
Still, there are a few reasons to be optimistic. Notably, the poll revealed that most Americans believe the various investigations into Trump's alleged improprieties should remain underway. The poll also bore out a narrowing enthusiasm gap between Democrats and Republicans. Not six months ago, Republicans held a 17-point advantage over Democrats when it comes to voter interest in the midterms. But in the poll released Sunday, that lead had shrunk to two points, with 68 percent of Republicans expressing high interest in the November election compared to 66 percent of Democrats.
The most significant change over that timespan, of course, was the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, clearing the way for abortion to be immediately outlawed or dramatically scaled back in half the country. For many voters, Roe's rescission laid bare the dangers of minoritarian rule by the GOP. "You don’t have to agree with abortion to want to honor peoples’ rights,” as one voter told NBC News. (Abortion itself, it should be noted, ranked seventh among voters in the polls.)
Democrats have also built more momentum of late with a series of legislative victories, including the landmark Inflation Reduction Act, whose passage was more expeditious than usual, as Politico notes, because Republicans were too busy defending Trump against potential Espionage Act and obstruction charges related to the raid. Republicans do still hold a small advantage in NBC News’ poll: Among registered voters, 47 percent said they prefer GOP control of Capitol Hill while 45 percent preferred the Democrats. But that Republican advantage could evaporate if voters continue to grow concerned about the party's radical agenda as Democrats rally Americans around a better alternative.
Trump Mar-a-Lago home in Florida searched by FBI in probe into handling of classified documents, August 2022. (photo: USA TODAY)
Trump ally and National Archives liaison John Solomon posted a letter on Monday noting that more than 700 pages of classified documents were retrieved from Mar-a-Lago in January
This trove of documents, separate from the stash of materials seized by the FBI earlier this month, was reviewed by archivists tasked with storing and cataloging materials from the Trump presidency in January. The trove of documents was not made available to federal investigators until after a series of negotiations with Trump’s legal team.
In the letter, written by archivist Debra Wall, the Archives outlined that in their review of the recovered materials “NARA identified items marked as classified national security information, up to the level of Top Secret and including Sensitive Compartmented Information and Special Access Program materials.”
“Special access program” is a classification protocol specific to highly sensitive materials and information that can include everything from “black projects” to information regarding presidential communications and transportation security. Access to these types of materials is extremely limited, often to just a select group of high-level intelligence and military officials. Additionally, some of these materials may only be stored and accessed in secure facilities.
“I mean, if he had actual Special Access Programs — do you know how extraordinarily sensitive that is? That’s very, very sensitive. If that were actually at his residence, that would be a problem,” Rep. Chris Stewart told Politico earlier this month. “But we just don’t know that. So let’s find out.”
Stewart’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Rolling Stone.
Following the discovery, NARA sought to inform the Justice Department of the discovery, leading to a protracted negotiation between the DOJ and the Trump camp to allow federal investigators, including the FBI, to review the documents.
According to a DOJ letter obtained by Politico, this was necessary in order to assess “the potential damage resulting from the apparent manner in which these materials were stored and transported and take any necessary remedial steps.”
The New York Times reported on Monday that federal officials recovered more than 300 individual classified documents from Mar-a-Lago in the last eight months, more than 150 in the 15 boxes that were turned over to NARA in January. In the August raid on Trump’s residence, at least one of the boxes retrieved by the FBI had received the highest level of classification.
On Monday, Trump filed a lawsuit seeking to block the FBI and Department of Justice from reviewing the materials confiscated at Mar-a-Lago. The lawsuit claims that since the documents “were created during his term ms President. Accordingly, the documents are ‘presumptively privileged’ until proven otherwise… Only an evaluation by a neutral reviewer, a Special Master, can secure the sanctity of these privileged materials.”
Trumpworld has played dumb about the former president stashing classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. When asked by Fox News host Steve Doocy on Tuesday why the president would have so many classified documents, referring to the I report of the 300 documents, former first son-in-law Jared Kushner argued that this was another instance of the Trump’s being falsely accused of misconduct. “So I’m not exactly familiar with what exactly the contents were,” he said.
We might not know “exactly” what the contents of the classified documents are, but we now know they were among the government’s most sensitive secrets.
Michigan governor, Gretchen Whitmer. (photo: Bill Pugliano/Getty Images)
The feds scored a win in one of the scariest extremist plots of the 2020 election cycle, just months before Gretchen Whitmer seeks a second term.
Adam Fox was found guilty of kidnapping conspiracy and conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction. Barry Croft was convicted of the same charges—and possession of an unregistered destructive device. The convictions come four months after a jury was deadlocked on charges against Fox and Croft Jr., which led prosecutors to try their case all over again.
Fox and Croft now face up to life in prison.
The guilty verdict came after eight hours of deliberation, ending one chapter in a case that was marred by misconduct allegations against some of the FBI agents involved—and even included a “double agent” informant the feds effectively disavowed.
In April, a Michigan jury acquitted two of Croft and Fox’s co-defendants, Daniel Harris and Brandon Caserta of several charges, after five days of deliberation. The shocking result came after a lengthy trial in which prosecutors alleged the group staged a depraved scheme born out of anti-government anger at the Democratic leader’s COVID-19 restrictions.
Two other alleged conspirators, Ty Garbin and Kaleb Franks, previously pleaded guilty to federal kidnapping conspiracy and testified on behalf of the government in both trials. Ten other individuals accused in the plot are still facing state charges.
“I want to thank the prosecutors and law enforcement officers for their hard work and my family, friends, and staff for their support,” Whitmer said in a statement after the verdict. “Today’s verdicts prove that violence and threats have no place in our politics and those who seek to divide us will be held accountable. They will not succeed.”
Prosecutors say the group, which included militia members and self-described patriots, spent months in 2020 hatching the violent plan after Whitmer locked down the state in an effort to mitigate the pandemic. The plot allegedly included plans to kidnap Whitmer, detonate a bridge to prevent cops from rescuing her, and even leave her stranded on a boat in the middle of Lake Michigan.
“Don’t forget the most important thing: These defendants were outside a woman’s house in the middle of the night with night-vision goggles, and guns, and a plan to kidnap her. And they made a bomb. That’s real enough, isn’t it?” Assistant U.S. Attorney Nils Kessler said in closing arguments on Monday. “They didn’t want to just kidnap her.... They wanted to execute her.”
Fox—whom prosecutors described as one of the plot’s ringleaders—and Croft were said to be affiliated with the “Three Percenter” far-right, anti-government movement. The group name is a reference to the false notion that only a tiny fraction of residents of the 13 colonies fought in the American Revolution. Several current or former adherents to the bogus worldview were charged with conspiracy over the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.
Throughout both trials, defense attorneys for the two men said they were entrapped by an FBI informant, coaxed to participate in a plot they otherwise would never have become involved in.
“The FBI turned up the heat in early June by putting big talkers together at meetings,” Fox’s lawyer Christopher Gibbons said during closing statements Monday.
Whitmer is seeking a second term this fall against Tudor Dixon, a Republican who won an endorsement from Trump.
Protesters against the Supreme Court decision at the Wisconsin Capitol in Madison, June 22. (photo: Todd Richmond/AP)
Texas, Tennessee and Idaho all have existing restrictions on abortion, but the laws slated to begin Thursday will either outlaw the procedure entirely or heighten penalties for doctors who perform an abortion, contributing to a seismic shift in who can access abortion in their home states.
At least 11 other states have banned most abortions, prohibiting the procedure with narrow exceptions from the time of conception or after fetal cardiac activity is detected, at about six weeks of pregnancy, with legislation known as “heartbeat” laws. Five more states have similar bans temporarily blocked by the courts. If those injunctions are lifted, abortion could soon be inaccessible for millions more — in total, 36 percent of U.S. women between the ages of 15 and 44 would be largely unable to obtain an elective abortion in the state where they live.
The rapid pace of change has shocked even the closest observers.
“I just thought there would be a little more time to help providers and patients cope with these changes,” said Elizabeth Nash, who tracks abortion legislation in the states for the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research center that supports abortion rights. “It was very clear that that sort of grace period was not going to be provided.”
Advocates and doctors in favor of abortion rights fear that the newest trigger laws — which in Texas will carry a potential life sentence for doctors who perform an abortion — will have a chilling effect on helping people who either need an abortion because they are facing life-threatening complications or are trying to travel and get one elsewhere. The stiffer laws come as patients and providers navigate a confusing tangle of policies amid ongoing legal challenges that at times have made abortion accessible one day and completely illegal the next. Even more changes are on the horizon as lawmakers in South Carolina and West Virginia consider new bills during special legislative sessions.
Patients in states such as Tennessee have rushed in recent days to try to make last-minute appointments before they lose access to abortion completely — some only to be turned away, ineligible for an abortion because of the state’s “heartbeat” law.
Kaydria, a 28-year-old from Jackson, Miss., started researching the changing abortion laws as soon as she found out she was pregnant in mid-August. With abortion already banned in her home state, she decided to drive three hours to Memphis.
She knew she’d have to hurry: On Aug. 25, all elective abortions would be banned there, too.
“I needed to go ahead and take care of it,” said Kaydria, who spoke on the condition that only her first name be used to protect her privacy. “I knew I didn’t have time.”
‘A very confusing landscape’
Roughly 14 states have bans outlawing most abortions, with varying exemptions and penalties for doctors. In all, nearly 21 million — about 1 in 3 girls and women in the United States between the ages of 15 and 44 — have lost access to the procedure, according to U.S. census data. The restrictions apply to both medication and surgical abortions.
The states that bar abortion from conception tend to be located in the South and the Midwest, including Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri and Oklahoma. Wisconsin has conflicting laws that leave the legality of abortion uncertain, but clinics stopped providing abortions in the state after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, effectively ending abortion within its borders. Georgia, Idaho, Ohio and Tennessee have bans that begin when fetal cardiac activity can be detected, which can occur before many people realize they are pregnant.
“This has been fast-moving and frightening,” said Melissa Grant, chief operations officer for Carafem, which operates abortion clinics in several states, including Tennessee, Georgia, Illinois and the D.C. region.
Antiabortion advocates were jubilant after the high court overturned Roe and are now setting their sights on building on their victory, including measures that would prevent out-of-state travel, remove exemptions for victims of sexual assault and provide legal rights for fetuses.
“When you say, ‘Hey, we want to protect all of our unborn residents,’ you want to make sure that that is effective,” said Peter Breen, the vice president and senior counsel for the Thomas More Society, a conservative legal organization aiming to help state GOP lawmakers enact further restrictions.
Millions more live in states where abortion access is uncertain as legal challenges wind their way through the courts and lawmakers consider passing new laws. In some states, abortion access has changed day by day as courts have blocked and unblocked bans.
North Dakota has an abortion ban from conception that has been temporarily blocked by the courts, but it could go into effect Friday if it is not enjoined this week. South Carolina has a six-week ban that was in effect for weeks until the state Supreme Court temporarily blocked it from being enforced last Wednesday. That same day, a district court judge reinstated a 1973 law that bars abortion after 20 weeks in North Carolina, although the state remains one of the few with first- and second-trimester abortion access in the South, where most of its neighbors have outlawed the procedure.
Three new laws triggered by the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Roe that are slated to take effect Thursday in Texas, Tennessee and Idaho will stiffen penalties for abortion providers or restrict access even further.
Immediately after the Supreme Court’s decision in June, abortion was almost completely outlawed in Texas under a statute that predated Roe, and clinics closed their doors to patients.
On top of those restrictions, Texas legislators passed a trigger law in 2021 that makes providing an abortion a first-degree felony, which can result in a life sentence, and raises the civil penalty to a $100,000 fine. There are no exceptions for rape or incest in the Texas abortion ban.
“The criminal penalties will further chill the provision of care to women who need it,” said Elisabeth Smith, director of state policy and advocacy for the Center for Reproductive Rights, a legal advocacy organization that represented the clinic at the center of the Supreme Court case.
In Idaho, the state’s “heartbeat” ban on abortion went into effect this month. Now a near-total abortion ban is expected to kick in, further limiting access and imposing criminal penalties of up to five years’ imprisonment on providers. The ban slated to take effect Thursday includes exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the pregnant person — but not when their health is at risk.
The Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against the ban, arguing that the state’s law violates a federal requirement to provide medical care when a patient’s life or health is at stake. A federal judge said he would issue his opinion by Wednesday.
“It’s a very confusing landscape,” said Caitlin Gustafson, a family physician and abortion provider in rural Idaho, who is suing the state over three different abortion laws that took effect at different times after the Supreme Court struck down Roe.
Tennessee will also see a trigger law completely ban abortion Thursday, with no exception for victims of rape or incest.
‘A generational push’
For some antiabortion activists, the current restrictions in many states do not go far enough, and they are itching to narrow the limited exceptions for victims of rape and incest as soon as politically possible.
“I drafted the heartbeat law, and it was a tough pill to swallow when we had to make that compromise to create the exceptions for rape and incest,” said Blaine Conzatti, the president of the Idaho Family Policy Center. “And so that’s something that I would like to fix in the future.”
Yet he acknowledged that doing so will probably be an uphill battle — even in Idaho, where Republicans control both the governor’s office and the legislature.
“I think that’s going to be a generational push,” Conzatti said, adding that it will take time to convince some reluctant lawmakers as well those who belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a key constituency that supports some exceptions in the cases of rape and incest.
Republican state Rep. Brent Crane, chairman of the Idaho House committee overseeing abortion legislation, said he isn’t planning on pushing bills further restricting abortion in the upcoming session, believing that the state needs to move “slowly and deliberately.” He said he’s comfortable with the current exemptions in the law and predicted that if removing the exception for rape and incest were brought up, it would not pass his panel.
Even in some Republican strongholds, antiabortion lawmakers and activists have run into opposition in trying to push through no-exemption bans, finding there is a limit to how far even many conservative voters are willing to go. This month, voters in Kansas resoundingly rejected a ballot measure that would have stripped protections for abortion from the state constitution. Days later, Nebraska’s governor announced that he would not call a previously anticipated special session to pass an abortion ban.
Lawmakers in West Virginia and South Carolina are pushing new bans in legislative sessions that could stretch into late summer. Republicans in those states are bitterly debating whether those bills should include exceptions for victims of rape or incest.
Meanwhile, a slew of new restrictions in several states is probably coming before the end of the year.
Next month, Indiana will join the states with near-total abortion bans after legislators passed a law set to take effect Sept. 15. That ban includes exceptions for rape, incest or lethal fetal abnormality, or to save the life of the pregnant person.
Several states, including South Carolina, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota and West Virginia, have pending court cases that will decide the fate of abortion bans that were triggered by the fall of Roe. If all of those bans prevail, at least 23.2 million women will live in a state where abortion is banned from conception or around six weeks.
‘Get here now’
As soon as Roe was overturned, staff members at Choices, an abortion clinic in Memphis, began preparing for the courts to lift an injunction on a six-week abortion ban, a change they knew could come at any time and would outlaw most abortions in Tennessee. Within hours of the Supreme Court decision, staff started calling patients scheduled for the following week, urging them to get to the clinic as soon as possible.
“They told me, ‘Get here now,’” said Jacretia Porter, a 24-year-old who had an abortion scheduled a week after the Dobbs decision. “They didn’t know how much longer they’d be able to do abortions.”
Porter immediately drove to the clinic, where she saw many other women who had received similar calls that morning. The other patients looked just as she felt, Porter added: “rushed, overwhelmed and super confused.”
While Porter was able to get her abortion that day, hundreds of other patients have been turned away at Choices and other clinics in Tennessee since the six-week ban took effect on June 28. Over the last seven weeks, patients have experienced “a lot of shock and anger,” said chief executive Jennifer Pepper — feelings that will only intensify when the procedure is banned altogether.
“For the first few weeks, there was not a time I left [the clinic] when I didn’t see a patient upset on the porch,” Pepper said.
After the state’s total ban goes into effect Thursday, abortions will be allowed only to save the life of a pregnant patient, such as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, or to “prevent serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.” Doctors and advocates worry that the law’s vague language will lead to potentially costly confusion.
Kaydria arrived at Choices on a recent Wednesday in August, only to find out she was already too far along to receive an abortion in Tennessee. The staff handed her a piece of paper with a list of abortion clinics in Illinois.
The closest option was more than seven hours from Kaydria’s home in Mississippi.
Angry and frustrated, Kaydria said lawmakers shouldn’t “have the right” to decide whether she gets an abortion, adding that “women aren’t breeding machines.” Already a mom, she said she used to live paycheck to paycheck and only recently began to feel on solid ground financially. By having another child, she said, she would be taking “10 steps back.”
Sitting outside the clinic, she resolved to start calling the numbers on the list that evening. She would have to find another babysitter and ask to take another day off work.
But first, a three-hour drive home.
China experiences an unrivaled 70-day heat wave. (photo: Maura Losch/Axios)
Why it matters: Based on recent studies, the question facing climate scientists is how much climate change contributed to this disaster.
The big picture: More than 260 weather stations saw their highest-ever temperatures during the long-running heat wave, according to state media reports.
- It has coincided with a severe drought that has shriveled rivers and lakes and throttled back some of China's hydropower production.
- This has led the government to cut power to Sichuan's key industrial hubs, an emergency measure extended on Aug. 21.
By the numbers: More all-time heat records fell Sunday, particularly in Sichuan province.
- Gao reached 110.3°F (43.5°C) while Jianyang and Zigong hit 110.1°F (43.4°C), according to Meteo France meteorologist Etienne Kapikian.
- The all-time high temperature of 105.8°F (41°C) in Mianyang on Sunday broke the previous record by 4°F, an unusually large margin for such a milestone.
- On Saturday, Chongqing, whose city center is home to 9 million, saw an overnight low temperature that was a few degrees hotter than its typical August daytime high, at 94.8°F (34.9°F).
- If verified, it would be the hottest overnight minimum temperature anywhere in China during August, according to weather historian Maximiliano Herrera.
- In Beibei, the temperature hit 113°F (45°C) on Aug. 19 and 20, the highest reliable temperature ever recorded in the country outside of Xinjiang.
Threat level: This heat wave has also set records for its geographic reach, with nearly 530,000 square miles within China seeing high temperatures exceed 104°F (40°C).
- This is equivalent to the states of Texas, Colorado and California combined.
- In China, such a footprint encompasses well over 100 million people.
What they’re saying: "I can't think of anything comparable to China's heat wave of summer 2022 in its blend of intensity, duration, geographic extent and number of people affected,” meteorologist Bob Henson, a contributor to Yale Climate Connections, told Axios.
- Henson noted the simultaneous extreme heat events and droughts also occurring this summer in Europe, East Africa and the U.S.
- “We know that when drought happens, a warming climate accentuates the impacts, parching the landscape and allowing temperatures to rise even further. We've seen the drought-and-heat playbook in action across the Northern Hemisphere this summer,” Henson said.
The bottom line: The human and economic tolls from this event are serious and will become clearer with time. For one, the drought and extreme heat are further slowing China's economic growth.
- They are also throwing another wrench into the supply chain.
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.