Image of Sri Lankan rally doctored to add Tamil Tigers symbol


AFP Sri Lanka
Mon, May 9, 2022,

An image has been shared hundreds of times in Facebook posts that claim it shows Sri Lankan anti-government protesters waving flags bearing the symbol of the Tamil Tigers, separatist rebels who waged a decades-long civil war against the island nation’s government. The image, however, has been doctored to add the Tamil Tigers symbol to the flags. The original image shows demonstrators at a May Day rally waving flags featuring a labour union's logo.

The image was shared here on Facebook on May 2, 2022.

It has been shared more than 270 times.

The image appears to show a group of protesters waving red flags that bear the symbol of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a militant separatist group also known as the Tamil Tigers.

The group was crushed by government forces in 2009 -- when current President Gotabaya Rajapaksa was the island nation's top defence official -- bringing an end to a decades-long ethnic civil war that claimed the lives of at least 100,000 people.

Sinhala-language text on the image appears to suggest that protesters calling for "Gota" -- President Gotabaya Rajapaksa -- to resign over his government's handling of an unprecedented economic crisis are LTTE supporters.

"Independent LTTE representation of the non-partisan protest ground. May 1, 2022, Galle Face #gotagohome #prabhakarancomeback," reads the text.

The post's caption reads: "Was there not one [person] with a backbone at the protest site?"

Screenshot of the misleading Facebook post, captured on May 3, 2022

It circulated after May Day demonstrations in which Sri Lanka's fractious opposition joined together to call for the ouster of Rajapaksa and his powerful ruling family.

The image was also alongside a similar claim here and here.

The claim, however, is false; the flags have been doctored to add the symbol of the rebel group.

A keyword search on Facebook found this photo published on May 1 by Thilina Kaluthotage -- a photographer who has been covering the public protest at Galle Face, near the embattled president's office.

In his photo, the flags do not feature the LTTE symbol.

Below is a screenshot comparison between the image in the misleading Facebook posts (left) and the original photo (right):

A screenshot comparison of the flags in the misleading posts (left) and the flags in the original photo (right).

Thilina told AFP his photo had been doctored.

"The red flags in the picture were carried by free trade zone workers who joined the May Day commemoration at Gotagogama," he explained.

"Gotagogama" translates as "Gota Go Village" -- the name protesters have given to the stretch of Galle Face near the president's office.

More photos of the workers' rally were published in this album on their Facebook page.

A closer examination of Thilina's original image confirmed it shows flags featuring the logo for the Free Trade Zone Workers' union, as seen in the comparison below:

The logo in the misleading posts' image (above) was confirmed as that of the Free Trade Zone Workers' Union (below).

The flags can also be seen in this live stream from Gotagogama titled "May Day of the protest! At the protest site!"

Anton Marcus, general secretary of the Free Trade Zone Workers' union, told AFP that the red flags in the image feature their logo.

AFP has debunked a wave of misinformation since protests flared up in early April 2022 over the Sri Lankan government's handling of the country's economic crisis -- including here, here, and here.

PROVOCATUERS

Sri Lanka's ruling party supporters storm anti-govt protest camp, at least 9 injured


People block a main road as they wait for the gas trucks to arrive, in Colombo

Mon, May 9, 2022
By Alasdair Pal and Uditha Jayasinghe

COLOMBO (Reuters) -Supporters of Sri Lanka's ruling party stormed a major protest site in the country's commercial capital Colombo on Monday, attacking anti-government demonstrators and clashing with police who used tear gas and water cannon to drive them back.

Protests against President Gotabaya Rajapaksa's government have raged for weeks amid the country's worst financial crisis since independence, with thousands demanding Rajapaksa and his influential family quit for mishandling the economy.

On Monday, hundreds of ruling party supporters rallied outside the official residence of Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, the president's elder brother, before marching to a anti-government protest site outside the presidential office.

At the "Gota Go Gama" protest site, a tent village that emerged that last month to become the focal point of national protests, pro-government supporters - some armed with iron bars - attacked anti-government demonstrators, according to a Reuters witness.

Police used dozens of tear gas rounds and water cannon to break up the confrontation, the first major clash between pro-and anti-government camps after a wave of nationwide protests began in late March.

At least nine people injured in the clashes and facing breathing difficulties after inhaling tear were taken to Colombo's National Hospital, a hospital official said, declining to be named.

"This is a peaceful protest," Pasindu Senanayaka, an anti-government protestor told Reuters. "They attacked Gota Go Gama and set fire to our tents."

"We are helpless now, we are begging for help," Senanayaka said, as rings of black smoke spiralled out of a burning tent nearby and parts of the protest camp lay in disarray.

Dozens of paramilitary troops with riot shield and helmets were deployed to keep both groups apart after the initial clashes, and a curfew has been imposed across Sri Lanka's Western Province, which includes Colombo, a police spokesman said.

'BANKRUPT NATION'

Facing escalating anti-government protests, Rajapaksa's government last week declared a state of emergency for the second time in five weeks, but public discontent has steadily simmered, most recently because of a lack of cooking gas.

Sri Lankan energy companies said on Monday they were running low on stocks of liquid petroleum gas mainly used in cooking, as shortages of foreign exchange put renewed pressure on the island nation.

Hit hard by the pandemic, rising oil prices and tax cuts, Sri Lanka has as little as $50 million of useable foreign reserves, Finance Minister Ali Sabry said last week.

State-run Litro Gas chairman Vijitha Herath told Reuters Sri Lanka's foreign exchange crisis was causing a severe gas shortage with the company struggling to find adequate dollars for payments.

"With the involvement of the President we will get $7 million from the central bank to pay for a 3,500 metric tonne (MT) shipment, which is expected to arrive on Tuesday," he said.

Sri Lanka needs a minimum 40,000 MT a month for gas, which at current prices costs about $40m.

Long queues for cooking gas seen in recent days have frequently turned into impromptu protests as frustrated consumers block roads.

The second player in Sri Lanka's duopoly, Laugfs Gas, has less than 2000 MT of gas, which has been reserved for industries and hospitals. The company is also struggling to find dollars and is currently in talks to use its overseas assets to open letters of credit.

"We are a bankrupt nation. Banks don't have sufficient dollars for us to open lines of credit and we cannot go to the black market. We are struggling to keep our businesses afloat," Laugfs chairman W.H.K Wegapitiya said.

He estimated it would take at least another week for the company to secure a gas shipment.

Sri Lanka has approached the International Monetary Fund for a bailout, and will begin a virtual summit on Monday with officials from the multilateral lender aimed at securing emergency assistance.

(Reporting by Alasdair Pal and Uditha Jayasinghe in Colombo; Writing by Devjyot Ghoshal; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan)

Sri Lanka deploys troops to capital after clash at protest



Sri Lankan man pushes his bicycle as people demanding for cooking gas sit with their empty gas cylinders blocking a busy intersection for the second consecutive day in Colombo, Sri Lanka, Sunday, May 8, 2022. Diplomats and rights groups expressed concern Saturday after Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa declared a state of emergency and police used force against peaceful protesters amid the country's worst economic crisis in recent memory. 

(AP Photo/Eranga Jayawardena)

KRISHAN FRANCIS and BHARATHA MALLAWARACHI
Mon, May 9, 2022, 

COLOMBO, Sri Lanka (AP) —

Authorities deployed armed troops in the capital Colombo on Monday hours after government supporters attacked protesters outside the offices of the president and prime minister of Sri Lanka.

Hundreds of armed soldiers were deployed in Colombo as protesters made accusations on local TV that police did not interfere to prevent the attack, despite using tear gas and water cannons on protesters as recently as Friday.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. AP’s earlier story follows below.

COLOMBO, Sri Lanka (AP) — Authorities deployed armed troops in the capital Colombo on Monday hours after government supporters attacked protesters outside the offices of the president and prime minister of Sri Lanka.


Hundreds of armed soldiers were deployed in Colombo as protesters made accusations on local TV that police did not interfere to prevent the attack, despite using tear gas and water cannons on protesters as recently as Friday.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. AP’s earlier story follows below.

___

Government supporters on Monday attacked protesters who have been camped outside the offices of Sri Lanka's president and prime minster, as trade unions began a “Week of Protests” demanding the government change and its president to step down over the country’s worst economic crisis in memory.

The Indian Ocean island nation is on the brink of bankruptcy and has suspended payments on its foreign loans. Its economic woes have brought on a political crisis, with the government facing widespread protests and a no-confidence motion in Parliament.

Supporters of Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa rallied inside his office earlier Monday, urging him to ignore the protesters' demand to step down and requesting he remain in office.

After the meeting, they went to the front of the office where protesters have been demonstrating for several days. Local television channel Sirasa showed pro-government supporters attacking protesters with clubs and iron bars, demolishing and later burning down their tents.

Protesters made accusations on Sirasa TV that police did not interfere to prevent the attack, despite using tear gas and water cannons on protesters as recently as Friday.

At the main hospital in the capital Colombo, 23 wounded people have been admitted and their condition is not critical, an official said on condition of anonymity as she is not authorized to speak to the media.

The attack came as protesters marked their 31st day outside the president’s and prime minister's offices. They have been demanding that the president, his older brother Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa and other powerful Rajapaksa family members quit. Similar protests have spread to other locations, with people setting up camps opposite the prime minister’s residence and in other towns across the country.

So far, the Rajapaksa brothers have resisted calls to resign, though three Rajapaksas out of the five who were lawmakers stepped down from their Cabinet posts in April.

Meanwhile, trade unions on Monday called for protests throughout this week, trade union activist Saman Rathnapriya said, and more than 1,000 unions representing health, port, education, and other key service sectors have joined the “Week of Protests" movement.

He said during the week, the workers will stage demonstrations at their workplaces across the country. At the end of the week, they will launch a huge march up to Parliament, demanding President Gotabaya Rajapaksa's removal and a new government.

For several months, Sri Lankans have endured long lines to buy fuel, cooking gas, food and medicine, most of which come from abroad. Shortages of hard currency have also hindered imports of raw materials for manufacturing and worsened inflation, which surged to 18.7% in March.

People blocked main roads to demand gas and fuel. On Sunday, local television channel Hiru showed people in some areas fighting over fuel.

Sri Lanka was due to pay $7 billion of its foreign debt this year out of nearly $25 billion it must pay by 2026. Its total foreign debt is $51 billion.

Sri Lanka’s finance minister announced earlier this week that the country’s usable foreign reserves have plummeted below $50 million.

As oil prices soar during the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Sri Lanka’s fuel stocks are running out. Authorities have announced countrywide power cuts will increase to about four a day because they can’t supply enough fuel to power generating stations.

Protesters have crowded the streets since March, maintaining that Rajapaksa and his family — who have dominated nearly every aspect of life in Sri Lanka for most of the last 20 years — are responsible for the crisis.

On Friday, Rajapaksa declared a state of emergency, which empowers him to authorize detentions, property seizure and search of any premises. He can also change or suspend any law in the interests of public security and for the maintenance of essential supplies. Diplomats and rights groups have expressed concern over the move.

Sri Lanka has been holding talks with the International Monetary Fund to get an immediate funding facility as well as a long-term rescue plan but was told its progress would depend on negotiations on debt restructuring with creditors.

Any long-term plan would take at least six months to get underway.

Chinese tech firms pull out of Russia: report


Lexi Lonas
Fri, May 6, 2022

Chinese tech firms are leaving Russia amid crippling sanctions the international community has put on the region, people familiar with the issue told The Wall Street Journal.

Tech companies such as Lenovo Group Ltd. and Xiaomi Corp. are restricting shipments to Russia as sanctions have made it difficult to operate financially in the country, sources told the outlet.

A number of Chinese companies have avoided publicly announcing why they are pulling business from Russia after the Chinese government said businesses had to fight against Western sanctions.

China’s Ministry of Commerce told companies in April “not to submit to external coercion and make improper external statements,” according to the Journal.

SZ DJI Technology Co. is one of the few Chinese companies that said they will be halting business in Russia and Ukraine until further notice.

After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, there was an exodus of Western companies who were condemning Russia’s attack.

However, Chinese companies have a hard line to toe, as China is one of the few nations that have stood by Russia’s side.

China has refused to put Russia at blame for the war and has condemned the West’s response to isolate Russia.

Despite the condemnation of the West, companies have had to work to stay in compliance as U.S. chip businesses have threatened not to supply Chinese companies if they don’t abide by international sanctions, the Journal noted.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.

New Charter School Rules Are an Assault on the Rights of Families of Color

Dr. Howard Fuller
Sun, May 8, 2022,


It has been obvious since his presidential campaign that President Joe Biden is not a supporter of charter schools. The reason has never been clear to me. Does he oppose the movement for philosophical reasons, or does he believe it is the most politically advantageous path to travel? No matter what his reasons are, his administration is pursuing a path to act on his disdain for charter schools. On March 11, his Department of Education put forth a new set of rules that, if adopted, will cripple and maybe even eventually help kill the chartering effort.

The department claims the rules will improve charter schools and “hold them accountable.” But, in fact, it is proposing onerous regulations as a way to remove the ability of charter schools to sustain what was the very bargain the movement was founded upon. Specifically, the idea of freedom in exchange for accountability. These new proposed rules are supposedly bringing about accountability, but what they will truly do is stifle the freedom charter schools need to be successful. This is not just a veiled effort against the charter movement, I believe it is an intentional strategy to deny access of low-income and working-class Black families to an educational option that has been a positive lifeline for their children. It is clear that Biden has chosen to side with the organized special interests of the traditional public school system rather than those families. He has chosen to be a protector of the traditional system and not the families whom he sometimes gives lip service to supporting.

Since the first charter school law was passed in Minnesota in 1991, charters have been a welcome opportunity for families who historically have been poorly served by the traditional public school system. By proposing these new rules, the administration has bought into the argument that by protecting the traditional public school system, he is protecting public education. The fact is the traditional system is not public education; it is one delivery system for public education. Biden and his administration are conveniently ignoring the fact that charter schools are public entities and that they are an important element in the delivery systems aimed at achieving the goal of educating the public.

Related: Open Letter to Joe Biden: The Votes of Black and Brown Charter School Parents Matter. Ignore Us at Your Own Peril

Let me be very clear that my objection to what is being done here is not meant to be an attack on the Biden administration writ large. I happen to agree with many actions that have been taken by the administration on other fronts. But this misguided effort is an assault on the right of self-determination for low-income and working-class Black and brown families and communities in two ways: It attacks the rights of families who intentionally choose these schools for their children; and it attacks Brown and black people who govern and lead some of these schools.

Let me cite some of the specific concerns I have:

First, the proposed rule to demand that charter schools partner with a local district is obviously aimed at ending their independence and forcing them under the control of the traditional public school system. Charters should be free to determine whether partnering with a school district is in the best interests of the students and families they serve. Historically, charter schools have thrived when they are independent of their local district — particularly where, as is the case in so many places, the local districts have been hostile to the charter school efforts in their locale. This rule would put an end to that freedom.

Related: Watch: A Conversation about Charter Schools, the Biden Administration & the Uncertain Future of Parental Choice

Second, the proposed “diversity” requirement, under which charter schools would need to have the same socio-economic and racial makeup as the local district, is a serious problem. What happens if a charter school is located in a district that is predominantly white, but the children who are falling through the cracks are Black and brown kids from low-income and working-class families? This rule would prevent a charter school from serving those students.

The Biden administration is attempting to reverse the pro-chartering stance of the Clinton and Obama administrations, to return to the days when teachers unions’ interests were placed ahead of the interests of the families that supposedly this administration cares about. It is crucial that the Education Department continue to support policies on a variety of fronts that will aid the families who have chosen charter schools as the best educational option for their children. I urge the administration to back down on this assault.

Dr. Howard Fuller is a distinguished professor emeritus at Marquette University and former superintendent of Milwaukee Public Schools.

THEY ARE OXYMORONS
Sunny Hostin: ‘I don’t understand Black Republicans and I don’t understand Latino Republicans’



Natalie Prieb
Fri, May 6, 2022,

“The View” co-host Sunny Hostin went after Black and Latino Republicans during the talk show Friday, saying that Black Republicans are an “oxymoron” and that she doesn’t understand how people who are Black or Latino can affiliate themselves with the Republican Party.

Hostin’s comments came as the panel was discussing the news that Karine Jean-Pierre, the current White House deputy press secretary, will replace Jen Psaki as the White House press secretary upon her departure, making Jean-Pierre the first openly gay person and first Black woman to hold the position.

The co-hosts were discussing whether it was a conflict of interest for Jean-Pierre to step into the job given that she is in a relationship with CNN reporter Suzanne Malveaux when guest co-host Lindsey Granger said “we have to be realistic about what happens when you’re in bed with somebody and that’s your partner or your best friend.”

Hostin pushed back against Granger’s argument, arguing that Republicans shouldn’t “mention anything about pillow talks or conflicts of interest” due to the recent news that Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, texted White House chief of staff Mark Meadows leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot urging him to keep former President Trump in office.

Later in the conversation, Hostin asked Granger, a Black woman, if she’s a Republican, to which Granger responded that she is.

“I feel like that’s an oxymoron, a Black Republican,” Hostin said.

“You feel like it’s an oxymoron? Why? Your friend right here is a Republican,” Granger said, gesturing to co-host Ana Navarro, who is Nicaraguan-American.

Granger then argued that it’s an oxymoron that Hostin is Catholic and disagrees with abortion due to her faith but also believes abortion should be legal.

“I don’t understand either of you,” Hostin said.

“You don’t understand yourself then,” Granger responded.

“I don’t understand either of you,” Hostin repeated as the segment came to a close. “I don’t understand Black Republicans, and I don’t understand Latino Republicans.”

Ted Cruz Said Jan. 6 Wasn’t a ‘Violent Insurrection.’ Now He Labels Peaceful Pro-Choice Protesters ‘Mob Violence’

Peter Wade

ROLLING STONE
Sun, May 8, 2022,

PNG-image - Credit: Fox News

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz seems very confused about the definition of violence. In a Sunday interview, he characterized peaceful pro-choice protesters standing outside the homes of Supreme Court justices as “violent.” But when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6 a “violent insurrection,” Cruz said he strongly disagreed.

Crowds of activists opposed to the Supreme Court’s voting to overturn Roe v. Wade — news that broke when someone leaked a draft opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito — have gathered outside the homes of Justice Bret Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts to voice their opposition. But reports from the scene have shown around 100 protesters marching peacefully from Kavanaugh’s home to Roberts’ home and have not reported incidents of violence.

In a Sunday interview with Maria Bartiromo, Cruz tried to paint those activists as violent. “Now they’re embracing mob violence to get their partisan outcome,” Cruz said, not of the Jan. 6 mob, but of the pro-choice protesters.

The senator went on to say that Americans are “sharply divided” on the issue of abortion. But according to a CNN poll from just a few months ago, seven in ten Americans do not want Roe v. Wade overturned.

Later in the interview, Cruz claimed without a shred of evidence that the leak came from “almost certainly one of the 12 law clerks that are clerking for the three liberal justices.” So while Cruz is opposed to people gathering outside the homes of justices, he has no problem with singling out the clerks working for justices appointed by Democratic presidents.

But it’s clear that all Cruz’s bluster is play-acting. He’s aware that these are peaceful pro-choice protests, just as he at one point knew and admitted that Jan. 6 was indeed violent, calling the events of Jan. 6 a “violent terrorist attack.” But when that truth became politically damaging, Lyin’ Ted backtracked, and insisted that there was no violence in people who fought past police lines to storm the U.S. Capitol, promising to take lawmakers lives.

More from Rolling Stone

Inside the Fight to Make Abortions-by-Mail Possible -- No Matter Which State You Live In

Louisiana Moves to Charge Women Who Get Abortions With Murder

Matt Gaetz Lashes Out At 'Over-Educated' Women Protesting For Abortion Rights

DRAMA QUEEN WILL DEFEND SLAVERY NEXT 
Graham says Roe v. Wade created ‘constitutional right that didn’t exist’


Brad Dress

THE HILL
Sun, May 8, 2022

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C) on Sunday said the 1973 Supreme Court precedent Roe v. Wade “created a constitutional right that didn’t exist” when justices ruled Americans have a right to privacy and legalized abortion in the U.S.

Graham told “Fox News Sunday” anchor Bret Baier the ruling has divided the public since its inception.

“Roe v. Wade created a constitutional right that didn’t exist in the writ constitution,” Graham said. “This created division from the day it was decided until now.”

Last week’s leak of a draft opinion from Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito showed the court’s conservative majority was ready to overturn the precedent, which has drawn fierce debate on abortion rights.

Graham on Sunday said Roe v. Wade has long shut out debate on abortion rights and prevented challenges to limiting abortions.

“You had no avenue,” he said, adding a handful of judges had “determined when life begins and how it ends.”

“If it does get repealed, which I hope it will, the issue will go back to the states,” Graham said. “The abortion debate will not go away in the country, it will be decided by the people, not a handful of judges.

“Now finally elected officials have a say about life and the conditions of an abortion,” the senator added.

Supreme Court Justices See Pro-Choice Activist Protests Outside Their Homes

Bruce Haring
Sun, May 8, 2022,


Saturday night saw pro-choice activists take to the streets outside the homes of Supreme Court justices Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts, Bloomberg reported. .

The gathering of about 100 demonstrators armed with signs and chanting slogans marched from Kavanaugh’s house in Maryland to Roberts’ nearby home. They were ordered to disperse after returning to Kavanaugh’s residence. It is unclear if either Justice was at home.

Both incidents come days after the leak of a draft opinion indicating the Supreme Court is considering overturning Roe v. Wade, the federal opinion govering abortion rights.

“The time for civility is over, man,” protests organizer Lacie Wooten-Holway, 39, told Bloomberg. “Being polite doesn’t get you anywhere.”

The demonstration Saturday follows similar protests in cities nationwide following the leak of the draft opinion. There were also counter-protest gatherings in support of the Justices in some locations.

The actual Supreme Court ruling is expected in June.

More from Deadline

Helmer Audrey Diwan Says Abortion Drama 'Happening' Irrefutable "Reality Of One Girl" As Film Opens With Reproductive Choice At Risk - Specialty Preview


SAG-AFTRA & IATSE Join Chorus Of Hollywood Unions Condemning Supreme Court's Draft Ruling On Roe v. Wade


New York Gov. Kathy Hochul "Absolutely Horrified" As Supreme Court Poised To Reverse Roe V. Wade

FAUX NEWS OUTRAGED

Activist group threatens to 'burn Eucharist' in display of 'disgust' toward Catholics: 'Bigotry'


Jon Brown

FOX NEWS
Sun, May 8, 2022

Pro-choice group Ruth Sent Us, a reference to late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, threatened to burn the Eucharist in response to a Twitter user who offered to pray for them after they called for protests at Catholic churches and justices' homes.

"Stuff your rosaries and your weaponized prayer. We will remain outraged after this weekend, so keep praying. We’ll be burning the Eucharist to show our disgust for the abuse Catholic Churches have condoned for centuries," tweeted the organization, which has called on abortion supporters to protest at Catholic churches across the country over the Mother's Day weekend.

St. Joseph's Catholic Church and St. Peter's Church Catholic Church, both of which are on Capitol Hill, reportedly requested increased police presence amid fears that protesters will attempt to disrupt Sunday morning Mass.

The tweet, which also included an image of Jesus chasing moneychangers out of the temple and a woman wearing the red garb from "The Handmaid's Tale," was in a response to a user who said she would be praying the rosary for the protection of the clergy, parishioners, police, and "for the safety and change-of-heart" of pro-abortion protesters.

Anti-abortion activists and church members are confronted by a pro-choice activist outside of a Catholic church in downtown Manhattan on May 7, 2022. (Photo by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)

The reaction to the latest tweet from Ruth Sent Us was overwhelmingly negative, with many Twitter users denouncing it as "evil" or "demonic."

NYC CHURCH SWARMED BY PRO-ABORTION PROTESTERS: ‘I’M KILLING THE BABIES'

"A pro-abortion group is not only calling for the targeting of justices at their homes for protests but declaring ‘We’ll be burning the Eucharist’ to protest the Catholic Church's view of abortion as a sin," wrote Fox News legal analyst Jonathan Turley. "It is the liberating license of rage."

"Promises to ‘burn the Eucharist’? Fighting words. This is NOT a peaceful protest," wrote NewsBusters executive editor Tim Graham.

PENCE DECRIES PLANNED ABORTION ACTIVIST DISRUPTIONS OF MOTHER'S DAY CHURCH SERVICES: 'TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE'

"The Catholic Church is the moral foundation of the West. Nowhere in the history of humanity have women achieved more equality than in the West," wrote journalist David Marcus. "This isn’t a coincidence."

"Bigotry and idiocy aside, how does this help their cause? How many supporters does it gain compared to how many it loses?" asked author Jonah Goldberg. "[Its] self indulgence is what amazes me."

"This is pure evil, and it’s not surprising from those who treat abortion like a sacrament," said journalist Alexandra DeSanctis Marr.

"I actually feel sad for these creeps," commentator Liz Wheeler wrote. "Even though they’re blaspheming Christ, someday they’re going to get to hell & realize eternal damnation is very real. And it makes me sad to think of anyone missing eternity with Christ."

"And we will pray for all of you. Even when you kill a child you are its mother forever and this is also your day. These truths are unavoidable. Happy Mothers Day," wrote Matt Schlapp. "See you at church today."

Ruth Sent Us did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Abortion rights activists gather outside of a Catholic church in downtown Manhattan to voice their support for a woman's right to choose on May 7, 2022, in New York City. Photo by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images

The Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) told Fox News Digital they are "aware of potential disruptions associated with First Amendment demonstrations."

"MPD will be monitoring, assessing and planning accordingly with our local and federal partners. We have increased available resources, including the activation of our Civil Disturbance Units, in preparation for these activities," they said in a statement.

Of wombs and chambers: 

The Supreme Court is poised to 

go in radically different directions

 on abortion and guns

Daily News Editorial Board, 

New York Daily News

Sat, May 7, 2022

For 49 years, under a ruling of the nation’s highest court and subsequent precedent, Americans have gotten used to the idea that women have the freedom to terminate a pregnancy until the point of fetal viability. They don’t have to travel from state to state to access a right that, while not explicitly named in the Constitution, courts have consistently said springs from its protections for privacy and due process.

Now, unless a draft Supreme Court majority ruling is dramatically revised or becomes a dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito and his band of not-so-merry conservatives are poised to de-nationalize that right, making reproductive liberty wholly contingent on the state in which a woman happens to live and the disposable income she happens to have at the ready. A New Yorker will be able to get an abortion in the 12th or 20th week. An Oklahoman won’t be able to get one after the sixth week, not even if her pregnancy is the product of a rape.

It should not be lost on Americans that on another life-and-death question, the very same court looks poised to rush in the exact opposite direction, barring states from legislating as they deem necessary.

The Second Amendment says, “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Those words have been interpreted variously over the generations (with judges increasingly tuning out those first 12 words), but since the very start of the Republic, different states have had wide latitude to put different curbs on firearm possession. New York’s firearm law, stating that concealed weapon permits are granted only after demonstrated need, has been on the books since 1913. That’s different than Wyoming’s statute, and understandably so. Wyoming’s biggest city has one-fortieth the population of Brooklyn.

If the court in one breath creates a state-by-state abortion-rights free-for-all, and in the next cuffs state gun laws by making the right to carry a concealed weapon uniform, it will beclown itself.

CEOs and Twitter trolls take on Roe v. Wade

Andy Serwer

·Editor in Chief

Sat, May 7, 2022,

The Supreme Court is apparently poised to repeal the federal abortion protection of Roe v. Wade, and CEOs around the country are being called out. Some are decrying the move. Others are saying nothing. Few, if any, are publicly cheering.

There is no easy playbook here. While companies have zero obligation—legal or otherwise—to take a stand on any social or political issue, they have in recent years waded into those waters (consider after George Floyd's killing, North Carolina's bathroom ban, and Georgia's voting laws). And of course companies don’t have opinions, CEOs do, which they may or may not share, and—as Brian Moynihan, CEO of Bank of America stressed this week on CBS re: Roe—may or may not be the prevailing view of their constituents.

“It's the settled law of the land. We believe people should have that access," Moynihan said, cautioning that his opinion does not reflect that of all the company's 200,000 U.S. employees. "I could have a personal point of view, but that's not what we do," he said.

Then, there's the issue itself — its fate still hanging in the balance. Abortion has long been a third rail of American politics. Some CEOs are stating their positions more forcefully than Moynihan, either because they feel strongly about the issue or because doing so is good for their business—or both. Those who are loathe to speak out about abortion may believe they risk alienating 40% or so of not just their employees, but customers and shareholders—never mind local citizens and politicians. (BTW, parsing pro-choice and pro-life opinion polls is a fraught science all its own.)

The paradox is the more these difficult issues come to the fore, the more chief executives are being asked to weigh in. And they’ve watched with alarm as Disney CEO Bob Chapek fumbled the handling of his company’s response to Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Act, or what critics have dubbed the "Don't Say Gay" bill.

At the Milken Conference this week, I asked Mary Barra, CEO of GM—and Disney board member—about this.

Serwer: Social issues are difficult right now. How do you think about that?

WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 03: Pro-choice activists protest in response to the leaked Supreme Court draft decision to overturn Roe v. Wade (Getty Images)

Barra: “Well, at General Motors, we really focus on what are our values, and because we know our employees joined the company, because they want to join a company that has, you know, values that they share. And so when we make statements, it's usually around our values of what we believe. And, you know, General Motors stands for inclusion, we want everyone to participate in our all electric future. And we value all of our customers and all of our employees. So that's our focus. And when we make statements, it's associated with our values and what we believe.”

Not a lot of meat on them bones, but to be fair, depending on where you sit and what you believe, it’s tricky stuff.

Last Saturday in Omaha I listened as Warren Buffett offered sage context at his annual meeting:

“…The last time that the country was [this] tribal was when I was a kid and Roosevelt was in. Either you hated Roosevelt, or you loved him… People are always going to be partisan. They're going to have religious beliefs. They [always] had a certain amount of tribal[ism] always…but I don't think it's a good development for society…”

As for abortion rights specifically, the controversy is both a moral debate between a women’s right to choose and when life begins, and a political one over which entity should adjudicate that question, federal or state government. With the potential demise of Roe v. Wade, state abortion laws, which are already quite varied, will become even more so, further accentuating the distinction between blue states and red states. Will it follow that we will have blue companies and red companies? Well, we kind of already do.

As Yahoo Finance’s Alexis Keenan reports: “Amazon (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Bumble (BMBL), Citigroup (C), Levi Strauss (LEVI), Match Group (MTCH), and Yelp (YELP) reimburse travel expenses incurred to obtain abortion care that's legally unavailable within their home state.

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) joins demonstrators during a pro-choice protest outside the U.S. Supreme Court to support abortion rights (Getty Images)

Meanwhile, Salesforce (CRM) is offering to pick up moving expenses for its employees who live in a state with an abortion ban exceeding that of Roe, and move to another without such restrictions.”

On the other hand companies like Walmart, American Airlines, and the aforementioned Disney have made no statements. As for CEOs who are in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade, I’m sure they’re some out there, but I couldn’t find any. However, The New York Times reports this on a related note:

“In September, John Gibson, the chief executive of Tripwire Interactive, a gaming company based in Georgia, wrote on Twitter that he was "proud" of the Supreme Court for “affirming the Texas law banning abortion for babies with a heartbeat.” His comments angered colleagues, and within a few days he was replaced.”

CEOs who are pro-life may be keeping mum because they’re scared of losing their jobs. But if abortion is such a divisive issue, why are pro-choice CEOs speaking out? If conservative CEOs think it's because they’ll be attacked by the woke, Twitter troll mob, well, the un-woke Twitter troll mob is none too friendly, either.

It’s not a coincidence that the demise of constructive government (aka gridlock) has occurred at the same time we're seeing companies having to step into the political and social arena, i.e. practice stakeholder capitalism. Someone or something has to fill the breach and take the lead. I’m glad CEOs are stepping up in many cases, but it really isn’t their purview. We need lawmakers to come together and do their jobs,

George Mitchell, a Democrat and former Senate Majority Leader, once told me he had dinner with his GOP counterpart, the late Bob Dole, every week without fail in the early 1990s. And then there’s this from an obituary this week in the New York Times of Norman Mineta, former congressman and cabinet member who as a Japanese American was interned in a U.S. prison camp as a boy: “Mr. Mineta quickly made it clear that, for him, transportation was not partisan. ‘There are no Democratic or Republican highways,’ he told reporters.”

Sadly, the tribal trolls disagree.

Do Dems have the ability — and the will — to counter Roe’s repeal?

Mike Bebernes
·Senior Editor
Sun, May 8, 2022, 
“The 360” shows you diverse perspectives on the day’s top stories and debates.


What’s happening

The Supreme Court appears poised to strike down Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that has guaranteed constitutional protections for abortion since 1973, according to a leaked draft of a majority opinion that was published by Politico on Monday.

Though the ruling could change before the final decision is issued by the court, the preliminary draft indicates there are at least five justices willing to overturn the long-standing precedent that has permitted states to impose limited restrictions on abortion access but has blocked them from banning abortion outright.

If Roe is repealed, individual states will have the power to set their own laws regulating access to abortion. Almost immediately, abortion would become illegal in as many as 26 states — including a number that have “trigger” laws that would automatically ban all abortion the moment protections provided by Roe are lifted. Other states would still be free to maintain or expand abortion access as they see fit.

The impending reversal of Roe represents a major victory for the anti-abortion movement, which has aggressively — at times violently — pushed for a nationwide end to the procedure. Most Americans, however, support at least some federal protections for abortion in all 50 states.
Why there’s debate

Beyond hoping for the slim possibility that the Supreme Court's ruling changes before the final text is released, Democrats do have some options for pushing back on the impending end of abortion access in Republican-run states. But each of those tactics has its own limitations, including questions about whether the party has the political will to pursue them.

The most comprehensive step Democrats could take, at least in theory, would be to pass a law codifying abortion protections nationwide. A bill that would do exactly that, the Women’s Health Protection Act, was passed this year in the House. But even though Democrats hold a narrow majority in the Senate, most experts say it’s extremely unlikely that they can conjure enough votes to override a filibuster given the current makeup of Congress. There is some indication that there could be bipartisan agreement on a compromise bill that provides more limited protections for abortion, but it's unclear how viable that option may be.

Wrangling over abortion rights will also play out at the state level. Several Democratic governors have said they intend to turn their states into a “sanctuary” for people from across the country to receive abortions. Some blue states are already serving that purpose at a certain scale and could increase their capacity to do so if Roe is repealed. But experts say there are significant logistical and legal obstacles that could make it difficult for those states to fulfill that promise. It’s also likely, they argue, that Republican lawmakers will move quickly to put in place new restrictions that could make it all but impossible for someone to travel across state lines to have an abortion.

Another major question is how the repeal of Roe might affect results of the upcoming midterms. Democrats are hopeful that voters will rally to their side, potentially giving them enough seats in the Senate to enact nationwide abortion protections in the near future. There’s significant debate, however, over whether the issue is impactful enough to counter trends that appear to suggest the GOP will be the party that gains seats in November.

What’s next

Roe is still the law of the land at the moment and will remain in place until the Supreme Court’s final ruling is released, which is expected to happen within the next two months.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has said he plans to bring a bill that would create nationwide abortion protections up for a vote next week. That vote is widely expected to fail.
Perspectives

There’s little hope for a legislative response from the current Congress

“Biden has emphasized codifying Roe as a proxy for his larger abortion messaging and has said he would sign the Women’s Health Protection Act if it were to make it to his desk. But, with anti-abortion conservatives anticipating judicial victory, it is unclear what, if anything Biden’s administration — or Democrats in Congress — can deliver legislatively.” — Amanda Becker, The 19th

The end of Roe could inspire a political movement to defend reproductive rights

“There is a good chance, however, that the far-right is overplaying its hand. American democracy is in crisis, but it is very much alive, and the prospect of losing personal rights will awaken a sense of urgency and could boost political involvement.” — Frida Ghitis, CNN

Democrats overestimate how much the issue of abortion rights will mobilize voters

“Abortion is not the powerful political issue the Left thinks it is. … Guess what? The pro-life politicians keep winning elections, especially at the state level and even when abortion becomes a major national issue.” — Editorial, Washington Examiner

Nationwide abortion protections probably wouldn’t survive even if they were passed

“It is likely that the same five justices who appear poised to overrule Roe v. Wade would find reason to strike down the Women’s Health Protection Act as exceeding Congress’s power.” — Amanda Hollis-Brusky, Washington Post

Blue states are bolstering their capacity to serve as abortion sanctuaries

“We’re at the very beginning of this. It’s just occurring to blue states that people are going to travel from out of state and maybe something should be done. No one is really getting into it in any greater kinds of depths.” — Mary Ziegler, abortion law expert, to CT Mirror

Blue states may face legal hurdles that stop them from becoming a safe haven for abortion access

“There are going to be a few states who will try to fund abortion travel and try to protect abortion providers from out-of-state lawsuits. … But if in a state like Missouri, a zealous prosecutor goes after an Illinois provider who has been providing abortions on their citizens, the courts are going to have to figure out: Can a state do that if the provider is completely following Illinois law?” — Greer Donley, health care law expert, to New York

State-level Democrats have a lot of work to do if they truly want to be safe havens for abortion

“States that want to be havens for people who need abortions should critically consider their existing policies in light of their real-life impacts.” — Amanda Jean Stevenson and Kate Coleman-Minahan, Conversation

The country will be better off once abortion laws are decided by voters, not the courts

“If the reports of Roe’s imminent demise are true, actual American voters will get to decide on abortion law for the first time in almost 50 years. It’s understandable that such a prospect would be terrifying to pro-choicers who have grown accustomed to their views on the issue being insulated from democratic accountability.” — Nate Hochman, National Review

Once Roe is gone, conservatives may feel pressure to temper their positions on abortion

“I'd be willing to bet GOP officeholders will face pressure to liberalize many of these laws once voters realize just how extreme they are and that the courts will no longer be policing their enforcement.” — Damon Linker, The Week

The end of Roe will create an entirely new legal framework that pro-choice advocates can exploit

“If legal confusions produce openings after Roe — spaces to set up new access sites and build greater networks, while finding new loopholes and ways to be ungovernable against repressive government action — we must take such advantage where we can.” — Natasha Lennard, The Intercept

Systems to promote abortion access are already in place at the local level

“Increasing abortion access through abortion funds and education on self-managed abortion, including establishing legal defense funds for abortion, isn’t just something to do while waiting for a better election outcome (maybe) to win back our rights; it’s what advocates have already been doing to survive even when Democrats win. They have secured this right even when legislators failed to.” — Melissa Gira Grant, The New Republic

Is there a topic you’d like to see covered in “The 360”? Send your suggestions to the360@yahoonews.com.

Photo illustration: Yahoo News; photos: Erin Clark/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

NPR reporter says ‘leading theory’ on SCOTUS leak is conservative clerk



Brad Dress

THE HILL
Sun, May 8, 2022

A clerk for a conservative justice is the “leading theory” amid intense speculation about who released a draft opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito showing the court is set to overturn Roe v. Wade, according to legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg of NPR.

Totenberg said on ABC’s “This Week” that the prevailing theory is that a conservative clerk released the decision in an attempt to lock in the five justices who voted to support overturning Roe as Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly attempts to pull his colleagues toward a more moderate position.

“That has never, ever occurred before,” Totenberg said of the leak. “That could only, in all likelihood, have come from a justice — that I think is less likely — or perhaps one of the clerks.”

“The only one that makes sense is it came from somebody who was afraid that this majority might not hold,” she added.

Politico leaked Alito’s draft opinion on Monday, spurring protests across the nation as liberals raised fears of abortion rights being overturned for the first time since 1973.

Roberts condemned the leak and ordered an investigation into who was behind the move, which he called “a singular and egregious breach” of trust.

Republicans have decried the leak as an injustice and suggested it is a political attack from an outraged liberal. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called it a “stunning breach” and “an attack on the independence of the Supreme Court.”

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) on Sunday theorized on Fox News that the leak was “almost certainly one of the 12 law clerks that are clerking for the three liberal justices”

“I’m confident we don’t have a master criminal working at the court. I think there are going to be electronic records,” Cruz said on “Sunday Morning Futures.”

Experts told The Hill they are divided on whether it was a liberal or conservative law clerk, each of whom could have had their own motives. But nearly everyone has agreed a sitting Supreme Court justice would not leak the draft opinion.

Court leak is catnip for those who love a juicy DC whodunit


Television news crews stand at the Supreme Court, Tuesday, May 3, 2022, in Washington, following news report by Politico that a draft opinion suggests the justices could be poised to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion nationwide. While it is unclear if the draft represents the court's final word on the matter, the leaked report represents an extremely rare breach of the court's secretive deliberation process, and on a case of surpassing importance. 

(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)More


NANCY BENAC
Sun, May 8, 2022

WASHINGTON (AP) — Washington loves a whodunit. And the latest one comes with the stunning plot twist of a leak from the famously buttoned-up Supreme Court.

The publication this past week of a draft opinion that said Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion in the United States, was wrong from the start and should be overruled, has set off sleuthing from every corner of the capital.

Who could possibly be behind such a glaring breach of trust? Why did that person choose to leak the draft? Why did that person choose a reporter from Politico? Who will investigate the matter? Will there be consequences? What will the court's ultimate opinion say?

Washington, by nature, abhors a vacuum. So the two months before the court actually issues a final ruling will be filled with guesses, surmise, false starts — and maybe even the truth about who is behind the leak.

It’s an intrigue in the tradition of Watergate’s “Deep Throat” — one of Washington's best-kept secrets for more than three decades; of Iran-Contra, with classified documents spirited out in a secretary's undergarments; of “Primary Colors,” a roman à clef about a certain Southern governor.

The Trump era provided almost an entire genre. Among them: an unidentified whistleblower's complaint about Donald Trump's phone call with the president of Ukraine and the writings of “Anonymous,” a senior administration official who only stayed anonymous for about two years after he wrote an opinion piece and subsequent book slamming the president.

The Supreme Court leak is "up there with the most important disclosures of this century and the last century — maybe ever,” said Danielle Brian, executive director of the private Project on Government Oversight. “It ranks, certainly, with the Pentagon Papers and Wikileaks and Deep Throat.”

While leaks spout daily in gossipy Washington, the explosive revelation of a draft opinion that would overturn the 1973 decision creating a nationwide right to abortion has captivated the city.

The hunt for the high court leaker is afoot. Chief Justice John Roberts has ordered an investigation into what he called an “egregious breach of trust.” Amateur detectives have been eagerly trading theories on social media.

Is it even possible to keep this kind of secret in Washington anymore?

“Of course not,” said Eric Dezenhall, a crisis communications expert who has watched decades of leaks play out in the capital.

“Very few people who leak truly just keep it to themselves,” Dezenhall said. “There's always a conversation that says, ‘You have to swear not to tell anybody this’ — and that's the beginning of the end.”

He added that there's often a psychic — and financial — incentive to make oneself known as a figure in history.

“The endgame is a book deal, a movie deal, being on TV," he said.

Even when leakers are circumspect about their doings, there's the dicey matter of digital footprints, which make it far easier for leak hunters to track down modern sources of information than it was in the past.

“The way some sources have been able to maintain their anonymity has been really impacted by the age of surveillance and technology tracking, so it's possible that we will find out who it is,” said Brian, who laments a “reflexive instinct” within government to go after leakers and clamp down on information.

Big secrets in Washington have a way of eventually coming out, one way or another.

The identity of Deep Throat, the source who guided Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in the Watergate investigation, wasn't known until 2005, when a 91-year-old former FBI official, W. Mark Felt, revealed that he was the one who used to meet the reporters in an underground parking garage at 2 a.m. to share tips about how to unravel wrongdoing by President Richard Nixon and his allies. A Post editor had dubbed him “Deep Throat” after the 1972 porn movie of the same name.

MARK FELT (L)

The secret identities of many other truth tellers, leakers and whistleblowers of different stripes have been shorter-lived.

“Anonymous” — whose 2018 New York Times opinion piece and later book bashing Trump left the president fuming and on the hunt for the leaker — chose to reveal himself six days before the 2020 election, when Trump was seeking reelection.

When he stepped out of the shadows, Miles Taylor, a former Homeland Security chief of staff, called Trump “a man without character” and urged other former administration officials to “find their conscience" and speak up, too.

In 2019, it was a CIA officer's whistleblower complaint about Trump's phone call with Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy that led to the president's impeachment. The whistleblower's identity was kept confidential under federal laws that protect whistleblowers from retaliation. But conservatives widely circulated speculation about the officer's identity.

In January 1996, a fictionalized account of Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign by an anonymous author set off a hunt for the writer who seemed to know so much about the inner workings of the political operation.

Six months later, journalist Joe Klein confessed to being the author after the Post fingered him through handwriting analysis of an annotated manuscript it had obtained. Klein said he had kept his name off the book, his first novel, because he was not sure it would be any good. He ended up with a movie deal.

Military analyst Daniel Ellsberg, who in 1971 leaked a secret study that laid bare America's misguided involvement in the Vietnam War, publicly identified himself as the source of the Pentagon Papers a few weeks after the Times and Post published articles that touched off a massive legal battle over the free press. Ellsberg was charged with theft, conspiracy and violations of the Espionage Act, but his case ended in a mistrial when evidence surfaced about government-ordered wiretappings and break-ins.

The drama swirling around the Supreme Court leaker is amplified by conjecture about motivation. Was it someone trying to head off a final opinion overturning Roe? Or someone trying to do the opposite — shore up justices who had initially voted to overturn Roe but might be getting cold feet?

Depending on the politics of the readers, the leaker has been alternately labeled a cultural hero or villain. Some speculators, on reflection, have switched theories mid-debate. The White House wants people to focus less on the leaker and more on the potential implications of the draft opinion itself.

The idea that the leak was designed to ensure the final opinion would track with the first draft "might be too Machiavellian by half,” Dezenhall postulates. “It was probably exactly who you think it is — somebody who wanted to screw this thing up.”