SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Global health did not come up in Monday night's final presidential debate, which focused on U.S. foreign policy. Both candidates, however, made reference to women's issues, primarily voicing support for women's empowerment in the Middle East.
Global health did not come up in Monday night's final presidential debate, which focused on U.S. foreign policy. Both candidates, however, made reference to women's issues, primarily voicing support for women's empowerment in the Middle East.
President Obama's remarks reflected what has become a pillar of his administration's views on foreign policy and international assistance--a strong and integrated focus on women and girls. As the president explained, "because these countries can't develop unless all the population, not just half of it, is developing." And then later, "These countries can't develop if young women are not given the kind of education that they need."
Such statements represent the success of Secretary of State Clinton's work to normalize the inclusion of women, girls, and gender equality as a cross-cutting principle central to the State Department's goals.
Even Governor Romney cited "gender equality" as a key element of how the U.S. could "help the Muslim world."
Perhaps his most quotable quip of the evening, the president took aim at Governor Romney for what he described as a dangerously outdated view of the greatest threats to our nation:
"In the 1980s, they're now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War's been over for 20 years."
For supporters of women's health, this zinger hit home, harkening to another 1980s policy, the global gag rule.
Governor Romney has regularly stated on the campaign trail that he would "reverse the president's decision on using U.S. funds to pay for abortion outside this country" by reinstating the Mexico City Policy, also known as the global gag rule. This is a misleading claim to say the least, considering that U.S. policy already prohibits foreign assistance to fund abortion overseas under the Helms amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act. The global gag rule is a more extreme restriction that denies U.S. foreign aid to any organization that provides or refers for abortion services or advocates to expand access to safe and legal abortion, even with their own funds.
The effects of this policy are onerous. The global gag rule cuts women off from some of the most experienced and reliable health care providers (those that provide comprehensive services, including safe and legal abortion), ultimately limiting women's access to preventive care, including birth control and cancer screenings. It undercuts the doctor-patient relationship, forcing doctors to withhold information about legal services to women who wish to know all of their options about a pregnancy. And it undercuts our international diplomacy and the promotion of democracy by limiting freedom of speech as a condition of receiving foreign aid. Americans do not like the idea of politicians in Washington making health care decisions for them. And they do not like politicians in Washington making health care decisions for women in other countries either. These are among the reasons President Obama, during his first week in office, lifted the global gag rule that had most recently been in place since President Bush's first week in office.
The stark difference in the candidates' views on issues of global reproductive health and rights does not end at the global gag rule, but rather spans a number of major areas of human rights and international development.
The Democratic platform states the value of U.S. support for international family planning, while the Republican platform focuses on the international fight against HIV/AIDS as the extent of its global health discussion.
Despite no mention of international family planning, the Republican platform does reiterate support for the global gag rule and opposition to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Congressman and Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan also has a consistent voting record against international family planning and UNFPA, and in favor of the global gag rule.
Women's health has not always been a partisan issue. Indeed, global health has enjoyed bipartisan support in recent years, with broad recognition that such programs are not only compassionate, lifesaving, and extremely successful but also very strategic and a low-cost investment with large payoffs for national security goals. Given the recognition that these health investments have across all parts of Congress, it is too bad that women are left out of the equation.
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
Global health did not come up in Monday night's final presidential debate, which focused on U.S. foreign policy. Both candidates, however, made reference to women's issues, primarily voicing support for women's empowerment in the Middle East.
President Obama's remarks reflected what has become a pillar of his administration's views on foreign policy and international assistance--a strong and integrated focus on women and girls. As the president explained, "because these countries can't develop unless all the population, not just half of it, is developing." And then later, "These countries can't develop if young women are not given the kind of education that they need."
Such statements represent the success of Secretary of State Clinton's work to normalize the inclusion of women, girls, and gender equality as a cross-cutting principle central to the State Department's goals.
Even Governor Romney cited "gender equality" as a key element of how the U.S. could "help the Muslim world."
Perhaps his most quotable quip of the evening, the president took aim at Governor Romney for what he described as a dangerously outdated view of the greatest threats to our nation:
"In the 1980s, they're now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War's been over for 20 years."
For supporters of women's health, this zinger hit home, harkening to another 1980s policy, the global gag rule.
Governor Romney has regularly stated on the campaign trail that he would "reverse the president's decision on using U.S. funds to pay for abortion outside this country" by reinstating the Mexico City Policy, also known as the global gag rule. This is a misleading claim to say the least, considering that U.S. policy already prohibits foreign assistance to fund abortion overseas under the Helms amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act. The global gag rule is a more extreme restriction that denies U.S. foreign aid to any organization that provides or refers for abortion services or advocates to expand access to safe and legal abortion, even with their own funds.
The effects of this policy are onerous. The global gag rule cuts women off from some of the most experienced and reliable health care providers (those that provide comprehensive services, including safe and legal abortion), ultimately limiting women's access to preventive care, including birth control and cancer screenings. It undercuts the doctor-patient relationship, forcing doctors to withhold information about legal services to women who wish to know all of their options about a pregnancy. And it undercuts our international diplomacy and the promotion of democracy by limiting freedom of speech as a condition of receiving foreign aid. Americans do not like the idea of politicians in Washington making health care decisions for them. And they do not like politicians in Washington making health care decisions for women in other countries either. These are among the reasons President Obama, during his first week in office, lifted the global gag rule that had most recently been in place since President Bush's first week in office.
The stark difference in the candidates' views on issues of global reproductive health and rights does not end at the global gag rule, but rather spans a number of major areas of human rights and international development.
The Democratic platform states the value of U.S. support for international family planning, while the Republican platform focuses on the international fight against HIV/AIDS as the extent of its global health discussion.
Despite no mention of international family planning, the Republican platform does reiterate support for the global gag rule and opposition to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Congressman and Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan also has a consistent voting record against international family planning and UNFPA, and in favor of the global gag rule.
Women's health has not always been a partisan issue. Indeed, global health has enjoyed bipartisan support in recent years, with broad recognition that such programs are not only compassionate, lifesaving, and extremely successful but also very strategic and a low-cost investment with large payoffs for national security goals. Given the recognition that these health investments have across all parts of Congress, it is too bad that women are left out of the equation.
Global health did not come up in Monday night's final presidential debate, which focused on U.S. foreign policy. Both candidates, however, made reference to women's issues, primarily voicing support for women's empowerment in the Middle East.
President Obama's remarks reflected what has become a pillar of his administration's views on foreign policy and international assistance--a strong and integrated focus on women and girls. As the president explained, "because these countries can't develop unless all the population, not just half of it, is developing." And then later, "These countries can't develop if young women are not given the kind of education that they need."
Such statements represent the success of Secretary of State Clinton's work to normalize the inclusion of women, girls, and gender equality as a cross-cutting principle central to the State Department's goals.
Even Governor Romney cited "gender equality" as a key element of how the U.S. could "help the Muslim world."
Perhaps his most quotable quip of the evening, the president took aim at Governor Romney for what he described as a dangerously outdated view of the greatest threats to our nation:
"In the 1980s, they're now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War's been over for 20 years."
For supporters of women's health, this zinger hit home, harkening to another 1980s policy, the global gag rule.
Governor Romney has regularly stated on the campaign trail that he would "reverse the president's decision on using U.S. funds to pay for abortion outside this country" by reinstating the Mexico City Policy, also known as the global gag rule. This is a misleading claim to say the least, considering that U.S. policy already prohibits foreign assistance to fund abortion overseas under the Helms amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act. The global gag rule is a more extreme restriction that denies U.S. foreign aid to any organization that provides or refers for abortion services or advocates to expand access to safe and legal abortion, even with their own funds.
The effects of this policy are onerous. The global gag rule cuts women off from some of the most experienced and reliable health care providers (those that provide comprehensive services, including safe and legal abortion), ultimately limiting women's access to preventive care, including birth control and cancer screenings. It undercuts the doctor-patient relationship, forcing doctors to withhold information about legal services to women who wish to know all of their options about a pregnancy. And it undercuts our international diplomacy and the promotion of democracy by limiting freedom of speech as a condition of receiving foreign aid. Americans do not like the idea of politicians in Washington making health care decisions for them. And they do not like politicians in Washington making health care decisions for women in other countries either. These are among the reasons President Obama, during his first week in office, lifted the global gag rule that had most recently been in place since President Bush's first week in office.
The stark difference in the candidates' views on issues of global reproductive health and rights does not end at the global gag rule, but rather spans a number of major areas of human rights and international development.
The Democratic platform states the value of U.S. support for international family planning, while the Republican platform focuses on the international fight against HIV/AIDS as the extent of its global health discussion.
Despite no mention of international family planning, the Republican platform does reiterate support for the global gag rule and opposition to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Congressman and Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan also has a consistent voting record against international family planning and UNFPA, and in favor of the global gag rule.
Women's health has not always been a partisan issue. Indeed, global health has enjoyed bipartisan support in recent years, with broad recognition that such programs are not only compassionate, lifesaving, and extremely successful but also very strategic and a low-cost investment with large payoffs for national security goals. Given the recognition that these health investments have across all parts of Congress, it is too bad that women are left out of the equation.
"Spending $1 trillion on the Pentagon while hollowing out resources for diplomacy and launching a global trade war is a recipe for international conflict and American decline," warned one analyst.
President Donald Trump on Monday publicly backed an annual budget of roughly $1 trillion for the U.S. military as his administration rushed ahead with a destructive tariff scheme that amounts to a major tax increase on American households, with working-class families set to bear much of the pain.
Speaking to reporters at the White House during a sit-down with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump said his administration has signed off on an upcoming military budget in the vicinity of $1 trillion, which would be a record sum. The military budget for the current fiscal year is $892 billion, more than half of the federal government's discretionary budget.
"Nobody's seen anything like it," Trump said Monday of his $1 trillion budget proposal.
Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth later chimed in on social media, voicing enthusiastic support for a $1 trillion military budget and vowing to spend those dollars "on lethality and readiness."
Watch Trump's comments:
Thank you Mr. President!
COMING SOON: the first TRILLION dollar @DeptofDefense budget.
President @realDonaldTrump is rebuilding our military — and FAST.
(PS: we intend to spend every taxpayer dollar wisely — on lethality and readiness) pic.twitter.com/WcZlNAHgDG
— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) April 7, 2025
William Hartung, senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, warned in a statement Tuesday that "spending $1 trillion on the Pentagon while hollowing out resources for diplomacy and launching a global trade war is a recipe for international conflict and American decline."
"The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should have taught us that a military-first approach to foreign policy is both ineffective and immensely costly in blood and treasure," said Hartung. "As for dealing with the challenge posed by China, we need a more balanced approach that mixes diplomacy with deterrence and keeps open the option for dialogue and cooperation on urgent issues like climate change, pandemics, and the perilous state of the global economy."
"Pursuing a trillion-dollar Pentagon budget at the expense of other priorities," he added, "would be a trillion-dollar blunder."
Trump and Hegseth's remarks indicate that the Pentagon—long a hotbed of waste and egregious abuse of taxpayer money, largely for the benefit of private contractors—will likely remain insulated from the Elon Musk-led effort to dismantle federal agencies under the guise of boosting government efficiency.
In February, Hegseth authored a memo instructing Pentagon leaders to draw up plans to reduce the military budget in each of the next five years. But it soon became clear that the Pentagon leadership is pushing to divert funds to Trump priorities—including his proposed Iron Dome for America boondoggle—rather than reduce overall spending.
Under Democratic and Republican presidents, and with overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress, the U.S. military budget has been steadily racing toward the $1 trillion mark year after year, despite the Pentagon's inability to pass an audit and mounting evidence of large-scale fraud and misuse of taxpayer money.
Trump's budget proposal would have to be approved by the Republican-controlled Congress, which is currently working—with the president's support—to further slash taxes for the rich and large corporations and cut Medicare, food aid, and other federal assistance programs.
"Trump plans on liquidating Medicaid and SNAP benefits while giving the Pentagon a trillion dollars," wrote Stephen Semler, co-founder of the Security Policy Reform Institute. "If the Democrats can't make a coherent political message out of these basic facts, they're not an opposition party, or even a party."
This story has been updated to include a statement from William Hartung of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
"Our government's responsibility is to protect its citizens," said U.S. Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. "Instead, we're arming their murderers. Arms embargo now."
As U.S. President Donald Trump rolled out the White House red carpet for fugitive Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday, Palestine defenders demanded justice after Israeli troops opened fire on a group of children in the illegally occupied West Bank, killing one Palestinian-American boy and wounding two others.
Fourteen-year-old Omar Mohammad Rabea and two other Palestinian-American boys, ages 14 and 15, were shot by Israeli occupation forces in Turmus Ayya, northeast of Ramallah.
"Two of them were transported by ambulance to a nearby medical center and then to the hospital," said Turmus Ayya Mayor Adeeb Lafi. "The army arrived at the scene and detained the third injured boy, who is 14 years old and holds U.S. citizenship."
Rabea's father said his son was shot six times—twice each in the face, chest, and shoulder.
The Palestinian National Authority's Foreign Ministry condemned Israeli forces' "use of live fire against three children," adding that "Israel's continued impunity as an illegal occupying power encourages it to commit further crimes."
The Israel Defense Forces claimed on social media that troops "identified three terrorists who were throwing rocks at a highway with civilian vehicles" and subsequently "fired at the terrorists who posed a danger to civilians, killing one of them and wounding the other two."
In the United States, the slain teen's relatives in New Jersey expressed anger over the killing. Rabea's father told Agence France-Presse that the U.S. government habitually ignores or downplays Israeli crimes against Palestinians, including "assaults, killings, arson, and theft of Palestinian land."
"All of these things—the U.S. Embassy turns a blind eye to them," he said.
U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), the only Palestinian-American member of Congress, said on the social media site X: "Our government's responsibility is to protect its citizens. Instead we're arming their murderers. Arms embargo now."
Rep. Chuy García (D-Ill.) also took to X, noting reporting that Rabea "was denied medical aid and left to die."
"This atrocity must be condemned and investigated," the congressman added. "We cannot turn a blind eye."
The Institute for Middle East Understanding said on the social media site Bluesky that "Israel must be held accountable for its killings of American citizens—from aid workers, journalists, and humanitarian observers to children and the elderly."
However, "instead of pursuing justice for its citizens, the U.S. government is backing Israel's impunity by arming its violence," IMEU continued.
"The U.S. government's refusal to demand accountability for Israel's endless killings of Palestinians‚ even when it kills U.S. citizens—has deadly consequences," the group added. "That impunity emboldens Israeli soldiers and settlers to keep brutally attacking Palestinian children and families. Enough."
Other American citizens killed by Israeli occupation forces in the West Bank include International Solidarity Movement (ISM) activist Rachel Corrie, age 23 (2003); Orwah Hamad, age 14 (2014); Mahmoud Shaalan, age 16 (2016); journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, age 51 (2022); Omar Assad, age 78 (2022); Tawfiq Hafez Tawfiq Ajaq, age 17 (2024); Mohammad Ahmed Mohammad Khdour, age 17 (2024); and Ayşenur Ezgi Eygi, a 26-year-old ISM activist (2024).
Successive U.S. administrations have provided Israel with more than $300 billion in aid since the modern Jewish state's founding, largely through terrorism and ethnic cleansing, in 1948—far more than any other nation has received.
On Monday, Trump welcomed Netanyahu at the White House. The prime minister's flight from Hungary, where he met with far-right President Viktor Orbán, reportedly went out of its way to avoid the airspace of European nations that might enforce an International Criminal Court arrest warrant for the Israeli leader for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. Israel is also facing a genocide case brought by South Africa before the International Court of Justice.
Israel's 539-day genocidal assault continued Monday in Gaza, where more than 180,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded—including thousands of missing people who are presumed dead and buried beneath rubble—since October 2023, when Hamas led the deadliest-ever attack on Israel.
In the West Bank—which Israel has illegally occupied and colonized since 1967 and where more than 700,000 Jewish colonists have settled—United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk last week lamented Palestinians' "catastrophic suffering," calling the situation there "extremely alarming."
Türk noted that his office has verified that Israeli soldiers and settlers—sometimes working together—have killed at least 909 Palestinians across the West Bank including East Jerusalem since October 2023, including 191 children and five people with disabilities. Attacks by Palestinian militants have killed 51 Israelis including 15 women and 4 children over that same period.
Thousands of West Bank Palestinians have been
killed or wounded by IDF troops and Israeli settlers since October 2023. Last week, Roland Friedrich, who heads the West Bank division of the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees, said that the scale of forced displacement is unprecedented during the 58 years of Israeli occupation.
One IDF officer said that not only are Israeli troops killing military-age males, "we're killing their wives, their children, their cats, their dogs. We're destroying their houses and pissing on their graves."
An Israeli human rights group on Monday published a report in which Israel Defense Forces officers and soldiers who took part in the creation of a buffer zone along Gaza's border with Israel described alleged war crimes including indiscriminate killing, as well as the wholesale deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure in what multiple whistleblowers called a "kill zone."
The new report from Breaking the Silence (BTS) details how Israel—which for decades has dubiously relied upon defensive buffer zones in territories it conquers or controls—decided on a policy of "widespread, deliberate destruction" in order to create a security perimeter ranging between roughly half a mile and a mile in width on the Gaza side of the Israeli-Palestinian border.
"To create this area, Israel launched a major miltary engineering operation that, by means of wholesale destruction, entirely reshaped about 16% of the Gaza Strip... an area previously home to some 35% of Gaza's agricultural land," the report states. "The perimeter extends from the coast in the north to the Egyptian border in the south, all within the territory of the Gaza Strip and outside of Israel's internationally recognized borders."
"The mission given to soldiers in the field, as revealed in their testimonies, was to create an empty, completely flat expanse about a kilometer wide along the Gaza side of the border fence," the publication continues. "This space was to have no crops, structures, or people. Almost every object, infrastructure installation, and structure within the perimeter was demolished."
"Palestinians were denied entry into the area altogether, a ban which was enforced using live fire, including machine gun fire and tank shells. In this way, the military created a death zone of enormous proportions," the report adds. "Places where people had lived, farmed, and established industry were transformed into a vast wasteland, a strip of land eradicated in its entirety."
"The testimonies demonstrate that soldiers were given orders to deliberately, methodically, and systematically annihilate whatever was within the designated perimeter, including entire residential neighborhoods, public buildings, educational institutions, mosques, and cemeteries, with very few exceptions," the paper says. "Industrial zones and agricultural areas which served the entire population of Gaza were laid to waste, regardless of whether those areas had any connection whatsoever to the fighting."
"Places where people had lived, farmed, and established industry were transformed into a vast wasteland."
Palestinians who dared enter the perimeter, even accidentally were also targeted, including civilian men, women, children, and elders. The officers and soldiers interviewed by BTS struggled to explain whether noncombatants were informed of the no-go zone's limits, with one saying civilians knew to stay away when they saw that "enough people died or got injured" crossing the unmarked boundary.
Some people who entered the perimeter out of sheer desperation were targeted. Israel's blockade of Gaza has fueled widespread and sometimes deadly starvation, and Palestinians entered the "kill zone" to pick hubeiza, a nutritious wild plant, after the area's farmland was razed.
"The IDF really is fulfilling the public's wishes, which state: 'There are no innocents in Gaza. We'll show them,'" one reserve warrant officer explained. "People were incriminated for having bags in their hands. Guy showed up with a bag? Incriminated, terrorist. I believe they came to pick hubeiza, but... boom," tank shells were fired at him from half a mile away.
In a separate interview with The Guardian, that same officer said that at first, his attitude toward invading Gaza was, "I went there because they killed us and now we're going to kill them."
"And I found out that we're not only killing them—we're killing them, we're killing their wives, their children, their cats, their dogs," they added. "We're destroying their houses and pissing on their graves."
Another IDF reservist officer told BTS that he was briefed that "there is no civilian population" in the area, where Palestinians are "terrorists, all of them." Asked what the area looked like after the IDF clearing operation, the officer replied: "Hiroshima."
A captain in an armored division of the IDF reserves said "the borderline is a kill zone" where "there are no clear rules of engagement" or "proper combat procedure."
"Anyone who crosses a certain line, that we have defined, is considered a threat and is sentenced to death," the captain added.
The BTS report follows an investigation published last December by Haaretz, Israel's oldest newspaper, in which IDF soldiers and veterans described a "kill zone" in the Netzarim corridor in the heart of Gaza, where troops were ordered to shoot "anyone who enters."
"The forces in the field call it 'the line of dead bodies,'" one commander said. "After shootings, bodies are not collected, attracting packs of dogs who come to eat them. In Gaza, people know that wherever you see these dogs, that's where you must not go."
The new report comes as Israeli forces are carrying out an ethnic cleansing campaign in which hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are being forcibly expelled from areas of Gaza including the south and an expanded border perimeter. The Associated Press reported Monday that Israel "now controls more than 50% of the territory and is squeezing Palestinians into shrinking wedges of land."
Israeli troops are moving to seize large tracts of the Gaza Strip for a so-called "security zone" and Jewish recolonization. Members of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's far-right government have said the campaign is being coordinated with the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump, who in February said that the United States would "take over" Gaza, remove all of its Palestinians, and transform the Mediterranean enclave into the "Riviera of the Middle East."
On Monday, Netanyahu arrived in Washington, D.C. from Hungary for talks with Trump and other U.S. officials regarding topics including a Gaza cease-fire, release of the remaining hostages held by Hamas, Iran policy, and tariffs. Netanyahu is a fugitive from the International Criminal Court, which last year issued arrest warrants for him and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, including extermination and using starvation as a weapon of war.
Israel is also facing a genocide case at the International Court of Justice for its conduct in a war that has left more than 180,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing in Gaza and almost all of the strip's more than 2 million people forcibly displaced—often multiple times.
Israel's bombing and invasion of Gaza continued on Monday. An early morning IDF strike on a tent where numerous journalists were sleeping outside Nasser Hospital in the southern city of Khan Younis killed Palestine Today reporter Hilmi al-Faqaawi and another man, who were burned alive as helpless witnesses were unable to douse the flames or rescue victims.
Nine others were reportedly wounded in the attack, which the IDF said targeted a Hamas member posing as a journalist. More than 230 journalists have been
killed by Israeli bombs and bullets since October 2023.