July, 20 2015, 02:00pm EDT
Ignoring Objections of Major Medical Groups, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker Signs Cruel Ban on Abortion at 20 Weeks of Pregnancy
WISCONSIN
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed a measure into law today which bans safe and legal abortion after twenty weeks of pregnancy with an extremely narrow exception for medical emergencies.
HB179--which is slated to take effect next year--was opposed by major medical groups in the state, including the Wisconsin Section of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the Wisconsin Medical Society, the Wisconsin Academy of Family Physicians, and the Wisconsin Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics because of the dangers to a woman's health and wellbeing. A group of 100 obstetrician-gynecologists directed a letter to Governor Walker and the Wisconsin legislature opposing the ban because "SB 179 would block Wisconsin ob-gyns from being able to treat our patients in a medically appropriate and humane manner. This bill would undoubtedly place us in the unconscionable position of having to watch our patients and their loved ones undergo emotional trauma, illness and suffering during what is already a difficult time."
Wisconsin women who seek abortion services already face extreme barriers to care, as there are only four clinics providing abortion services in the entire state. Additionally, Wisconsin clinics have been fighting to keep their doors open in the face of a clinic shutdown law since 2013.
Said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights:
"Wisconsin politicians have criminalized safe, legal abortion services at the same time they are attempting to eliminate all abortion services by shutting down clinics with sham laws and red tape.
"With this law, women in Wisconsin will soon face a catch-22 of shrinking options earlier in pregnancy and a complete ban on services later in pregnancy. Women deserve to make their own health care decisions with the medical professionals she trusts, not interference from her governor or legislature who presume to know better. "
The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held--first in Roe v. Wade and again in Planned Parenthood v. Casey--that states cannot ban abortion prior to viability. Last year, the Supreme Court refused to review a decision permanently blocking Arizona's ban on abortion at 20 weeks of pregnancy, and courts in Idaho and Georgia have also recently blocked similar pre-viability bans.
Bans on abortion at 20 weeks take critical medical decisions out of the hands of women and their trusted health care providers at a time when those services may be the best medical option for a variety of reasons. Furthermore, measures like Wisconsin's prohibit services at a point at which a woman is just receiving the results of critical tests to determine the health of her pregnancy--and potentially the presence of life-threatening complications and severe fetal abnormalities.
The devastating impact of these cruel laws are evident in stories like Whitney's, a woman who has spoken out about her experience needing an abortion after 20 weeks in North Carolina, one of 11 states in the U.S. where the services are currently banned. After receiving a difficult diagnosis, she was forced to travel out of state to get the safe, legal care she needed and had a constitutional right to obtain.
Harmful and unconstitutional restrictions like these further underscore the need for the federal Women's Health Protection Act (S. 217/HR. 448)--a bill that would prohibit states like Wisconsin from imposing unconstitutional restrictions on reproductive health care providers that apply to no similar medical care, interfere with women's personal decision making, and block access to safe and legal abortion services.
The Center for Reproductive Rights is a global human rights organization of lawyers and advocates who ensure reproductive rights are protected in law as fundamental human rights for the dignity, equality, health, and well-being of every person.
(917) 637-3600LATEST NEWS
Roughly 900 US Troops Still in Syria as Rebels Close in on Damascus
"Whether the Pentagon wants to admit it or not," U.S. troops "are likely involved in the broader conflict unfolding there right now," warned one analyst.
Dec 07, 2024
Syrian rebel groups' rapid advance on the nation's capital city of Damascus and the possible collapse of President Bashar al-Assad's government after more than a decade of civil war has brought renewed attention to the continued presence of U.S. forces in the country, despite the absence of a clear legal authorization.
The U.S. is believed to have around 900 troops deployed to Syria, mostly in the northeast, as well as an unknown number of private contractors. Nick Turse, a contributing writer for The Intercept, observed Thursday that American forces in Syria "have, on average, come under fire multiple times each week since last October," according to internal Pentagon statistics.
"Keeping military personnel in harm's way for the sake of foreign policy credibility has become increasingly risky with the Gaza war and the flare-up of the Syrian civil war," Turse wrote.
Kelley Vlahos, senior adviser to the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote Saturday morning that "whether the Pentagon wants to admit it or not," U.S. troops "are likely involved in the broader conflict unfolding there right now."
Reutersreported Tuesday that as rebels advanced toward the city of Hama, "fighters from a U.S.-backed, Kurdish-led coalition battled government forces in the northeast, both sides said, opening a new front along a vital supply route" and "compounding Assad's problems."
As the coalition of groups led by the Islamist organization Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and factions of the Turkey-backed Syrian National Army has quickly seized control of large swaths of territory, the White House National Security Council (NSC) said in a statement last weekend that the U.S.—which has previously armed and trained Syrian rebels—"has nothing to do with this offensive."
"The United States, together with its partners and allies, urge de-escalation, protection of civilians and minority groups, and a serious and credible political process that can end this civil war once and for all with a political settlement consistent with UNSCR 2254," said NSC spokesperson Sean Savett. "We will also continue to fully defend and protect U.S. personnel and U.S. military positions, which remain essential to ensuring that ISIS can never again resurge in Syria."
On Friday, the White House said in a letter to Congress that "a small presence of United States Armed Forces remains in strategically significant locations in Syria to conduct operations, in partnership with local, vetted ground forces, to address continuing terrorist threats emanating from Syria."
President-elect Donald Trump, who during his first term opted to keep U.S. troops in Syria for the openly stated purpose of exploiting the country's oil fields, wrote in a social media post on Saturday that "the United States should have nothing to do with" the current conflict.
"This is not our fight," he wrote in all caps. "Let it play out. Do not get involved!"
Trump's post, as The Associated Pressreported, came as rebels' "stunning march across Syria gained speed... with news that they had reached the suburbs of the capital and with the government forced to deny rumors that President Bashar al-Assad had fled the country."
Hassan Abdul-Ghani, an insurgent commander, said in a Telegram post that rebels are entering the "final stage" of their offensive as they began to encircle Syria's capital. Citing unnamed local sources, Al Jazeerareported that "a state of panic has spread as army troops withdraw from their positions around Damascus."
"They also confirmed that opposition forces had advanced in the western Damascus countryside and the withdrawal of army forces from cities and towns in Eastern Ghouta," the outlet added. "There was a rush for food items in markets in the capital."
Government forces have been backed by Russian airstrikes, Hezbollah, and Iraqi militia fighters.
Reutersreported that "Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said in an Arabic-language interview that Tehran would consider sending troops to Syria if Damascus asked, and Russian President Vladimir Putin urged an end to 'terrorist aggression' in Syria."
In a video statement on Saturday, a Syrian military commander said that "our valiant army continues to carry out its operations against terrorist gatherings at high rates in the directions of the Hama and Homs countrysides and the northern Daraa countryside, inflicting hundreds of deaths and injuries on the terrorists."
Anti-war lawmakers in the U.S. have repeatedly questioned the role of American troops in Syria in recent years and launched efforts to force their withdrawal.
In March 2023, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the U.S. House put forth a resolution that would have required full withdrawal of American forces from Syria within 180 days of passage in the absence of congressional action authorizing their continued presence.
The resolution was voted down by 170 Republicans and 150 Democrats.
Months later, the U.S. Senate tanked a similar effort.
Erik Sperling, executive director of the advocacy group Just Foreign Policy, told The Intercept on Thursday that the Biden administration hasn't "put the war in Syria up for debate because they know the American people don't want another war in the Middle East."
"They know there is no popular support for putting U.S. troops at risk for this," said Sperling, who warned that "many of Trump's advisers will try to drag him deeper into this regional conflict in the Middle East."
The explosion of Syria's civil war in recent days has been disastrous for civilians in the crossfire.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) said Wednesday that "the outbreak of major hostilities... raises concerns that civilians face a real risk of serious abuses at the hands of opposition armed groups and the Syrian government."
"The bloody record of atrocities by all parties to the conflict in Syria is bound to persist until leaders go beyond words and support accountability efforts," said Adam Coogle, HRW's deputy Middle East director. "Without credible justice, there will be no end in sight to the suffering Syrians have endured, no matter who controls the land."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Fury as South Korea's Conservative Party Thwarts Impeachment Vote
"Today, citizens witnessed democracy taking a step backward," said the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions.
Dec 07, 2024
A bid to impeach South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol over his short-lived imposition of martial law failed Saturday after lawmakers from his conservative party left the National Assembly chamber and refused to take part in the vote.
Supporters of impeachment needed at least eight members of Yoon's People Power Party (PPP) to support removing the president, who apologized to the nation in a one-minute-long address Saturday morning but refused to step down after he briefly instituted martial law in a stated attempt to "eradicate shameful pro-North Korea" forces, plunging the country into a political crisis.
Yoon's gambit sparked immediate and sustained protests and was widely seen as a coup attempt.
Saturday's impeachment effort drew a massive number of people into the streets outside the National Assembly building despite below-freezing temperatures, and demonstrators voiced outrage when they learned that Yoon's allies thwarted the initial attempt to oust him. Just two PPP members returned to the National Assembly chamber to cast a ballot Saturday.
"I am so angry. I can't find the words to describe my frustration," 23-year-old Kim Hyo-lim toldThe New York Times. "I am devastated, but I feel honored to be a part of this historic moment for my country."
Another demonstrator said they intend to protest "every weekend" until Yoon is removed.
(Photo: Daniel Ceng/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Organizers said roughly a million people took part in demonstrations Saturday in support of Yoon's impeachment. Many also demanded his arrest.
The Financial Timesreported following the failed impeachment effort that Yoon—whose term expires in 2027—and PPP leaders "appeared to have reached a deal whereby the president would hand over political direction of the country to his party and agree to stand down at a time of the party's choosing, in return for support in the impeachment vote."
The Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), which has over 1.1 million members, called PPP lawmakers who boycotted Saturday's vote "accomplices in treason."
"The People Power Party has turned its back on the people's wishes, effectively admitting their complicity," KCTU said in a statement posted to social media. "More than one million citizens gathered in front of the National Assembly. They came together because they cannot forgive a president who declared martial law and aimed weapons at his own people. Despite the cold winter weather, they took to the streets hoping desperately for the impeachment to pass."
"Today, citizens witnessed democracy taking a step backward," KCTU added. "They saw clearly who stands with those who would harm our democracy. The People Power Party must be dissolved. Those who protect Yoon must face consequences. It would be a grave mistake to think this can be resolved through compromise or constitutional amendments for an early resignation. Through the people's judgment, Yoon, his associates, and the People Power Party will face severe consequences."
Opposition lawmakers are expected to file a fresh impeachment motion next week as pressure mounts for Yoon to step down.
Additionally, as The Washington Postreported, "the national police have opened an investigation into Yoon on treason accusations by opposition parties and activists."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Top Democrat Issues Warning Over Trump Plot to 'Steal' From Federal Programs
"The Constitution provides no impoundment power to the president to unilaterally withhold funds appropriated by Congress," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro.
Dec 07, 2024
The top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee warned Friday that President-elect Donald Trump is planning to "steal from the programs and services that affect middle-class, working, and vulnerable families" by refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said in a statement that Trump's strategy, known as "impoundment," is "uninformed and unconstitutional," adding that "the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, and the Government Accountability Office are all in agreement—the Constitution provides no impoundment power to the president to unilaterally withhold funds appropriated by Congress."
"It is the sworn duty of the president of the United States to faithfully execute the law," DeLauro added, "and appropriations laws are no exception."
In a new fact sheet, Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee note that "the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, and nowhere does it give the president any unilateral power to either temporarily or permanently impound—steal, withhold, or prevent from being spent—funds appropriated by Congress."
"The Framers were right to give Congress the power of the purse," the fact sheet states. "If the president had the unilateral power to decline to spend resources as directed by Congress, then those who rely on Social Security, Medicare, Veterans Medical Care, and other federal spending programs would be subject to the whims of the executive branch. The American people would be unable to depend on promises made by Congress in appropriations laws."
Trump has explicitly vowed to use impoundment to "squeeze the bloated federal bureaucracy for massive savings," a plan endorsed by the billionaire pair tapped by the president-elect to run a new commission tasked with identifying spending and regulations to slash.
"With impoundment, we can simply choke off the money," Trump declared in a campaign ad.
"They have no authority. Does anybody get that?"
Following Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's visit to Capitol Hill on Thursday to discuss their plans for the "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE) with GOP lawmakers, The Washington Postreported that Republicans are "keen on expanding the president's power to impound spending—or refuse to spend money Congress authorizes."
"Musk and Ramaswamy said they were eager to test the constitutional limits of Trump's ability to unilaterally control spending decisions," the Post reported, citing two unnamed lawmakers. "Republicans largely left the more than two-hour meeting giddy."
Analysts argue Trump's plan to withhold federal spending would run afoul of the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The law, as Propublica's Molly Redden explained, "forbids presidents from blocking spending over policy disagreements."
"A similar power grab led to his first impeachment," Redden wrote. "During his first term, Trump held up nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine while he pressured President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to open a corruption investigation into Joe Biden and his family. The U.S. Government Accountability Office later ruled his actions violated the Impoundment Control Act."
Democrats on the House Budget Committee recently pointed out that "although decided after the ICA passed, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Train v. City of New York that even without the ICA, the president does not have unilateral authority to impound funds."
That hasn't stopped Trump, Musk, and Ramaswamy from exploring ways to cut or block spending without congressional approval.
In a Wall Street Journalop-ed published last month, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that "even without relying on" the view that the ICA is unconstitutional, "DOGE will help end federal overspending by taking aim at the $500 billion-plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended, from $535 million a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $1.5 billion for grants to international organizations to nearly $300 million to progressive groups like Planned Parenthood."
Housing assistance, childcare aid, student loan programs, and other spending would also be vulnerable under such an approach.
"They want [to cut] $2 trillion," DeLauro told reporters Thursday. "Think about the discretionary budget. It's $1.7 trillion. Where are they going for the money? Where are they going?"
"They have no authority," she added. "Does anybody get that?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular