GIVING BIRTH IS DANGEROUS IN USA
VP Kamala Harris issues call to action on first Maternal Health Day of Action

By Simon Druker


Vice President Kamala Harris delivers remarks about the White House Maternal Health Day of Action on Tuesday. Photo by Shawn Thew/UPI | License Photo


Dec. 7 (UPI) -- Vice President Kamala Harris marked the White House's first Maternal Day of Action on Tuesday, holding a summit aimed at improving health for recent mothers across the United States.

The summit included both celebrities and politicians at various levels, as she implored both the public and private sectors to do more to reduce the U.S. maternal mortality rate -- about 16.7 per 100,000 live births.

Harris used the occasion to highlight investments proposed in the Build Back Better Act, which would support safer pregnancies and childbirth, while reducing complications in the first year after a child is born.

She also urged lawmakers to spend an additional $3 billion on maternal healthcare, which would include expanding postpartum Medicaid coverage to one year.

The Department of Health and Human Services also released a report Tuesday estimating that 720,000 more people would gain Medicaid postpartum coverage if states act independently from the federal government. The report also provides guidance to states on how to provide Medicaid coverage for a full year postpartum.

The summit is part of President Joe Biden's Build Back Better Plan and the administration's push to expand Medicaid coverage and provide a greater safety net of social services. The bill is currently being negotiated in the Senate.

Black and Native American mothers are more likely to die from complications during or after childbirth than any other race or ethnicity in the United States, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

RELATED Report: Pregnancy, childbirth complications cost U.S. billions

"In the United States of America, in the 21st century, being pregnant and giving birth should not carry such great risk," said Harris, while pointing out the United States has the highest maternal death rate among developed countries.

"So, let us all say unequivocally, maternal mortality and morbidity is a serious crisis, and one that endangers both public health and economic growth, which means everyone is impacted by it."

A Mathematica and the Commonwealth Fund report released last month estimated that pregnancy and delivery complications for all births in 2019 will cost the United States more than $30 billion in healthcare expenses over the first five years of the infants' lives.

RELATEDHouse passes expanded workplace protections for nursing mothers

Most dog breeds are highly inbred, and unhealthy, researchers say

By HealthDay News

Many well-known features of certain breeds of dog have been the product of inbreeding, and many increase the risk for health problems, researchers say. Photo by Kamracik/Pixabay.

Traits particular to certain dog breeds -- the distinctive spots of a dalmatian or the stubby legs of a dachshund -- are often achieved through inbreeding.

But most breeds are now highly inbred, increasing a dog's risk of health problems, a new study confirms.

"It's amazing how inbreeding seems to matter to health," study leader Danika Bannasch said.

Her genetic analysis of 227 breeds found an average inbreeding rate of 25%. That's the equivalent of sharing the same genetic material with a full sibling.

RELATED Head shape, breed function play a part in dog-to-human communication

That level is far above what would be safe for either wild animals or humans. For example, high levels of inbreeding in humans -- 3 percent to 6 percent -- are associated with increased rates of complex diseases and other health conditions, according to the study team.

"Data from other species, combined with strong breed predispositions to complex diseases like cancer and autoimmune diseases, highlight the relevance of high inbreeding in dogs to their health," Bannasch, a veterinary geneticist at the University of California, Davis, said in a school news release.

"While previous studies have shown that small dogs live longer than large dogs, no one had previously reported on morbidity, or the presence of disease. This study revealed that if dogs are of smaller size and not inbred, they are much healthier than larger dogs with high inbreeding," Bannasch noted.

RELATED Search and rescue dogs fared well after work at 9/11 sites

The reason some dog breeds are more inbred than others is often a combination of a small original population followed by breeding for specific traits that are often based on appearance rather than purpose, Bannasch explained.

While she isn't sure there is a way out of inbred breeds, there are ways to preserve the genetic diversity and health of a breed.

That includes careful management to avoid the loss of existing genetic diversity through breeder education and monitoring of inbreeding levels.

RELATED Sled dogs are closely related to 9,500-year-old 'ancient dog'

Every effort is needed to maintain genetic diversity in the few breeds with low inbreeding levels, Bannasch emphasized.

The findings were published this week in the journal Canine Medicine and Genetics.

More information

The American Kennel Club offers a guide to responsible dog breeding.

Copyright © 2021 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Snow, floods and hurricane-force winds pound Hawaii

By Mark Puleo, Accuweather.com

Hawaii has looked like anything but a tropical oasis this week.

The archipelago has been socked by a potent storm that has unleashed pounding rainfall, high winds and even blizzard conditions to the mountain summits. The state's Big Island has taken some of the worst impacts thanks to "catastrophic flooding" after 2 feet of rain fell in some areas.

According to the National Weather Service office in Honolulu, the locations of Nene Cabin and Keaumo in Hawaii County received the biggest amounts of rainfall in the state. On Monday, the rain grew so intense that Hawaii Gov. David Ige declared a state of emergency in anticipation of the potential flooding damage to public and private property.

Some of the top rainfall reports in Hawaii as of Tuesday morning, Dec. 7, 2021.

Rescues were required for stranded residents in the Nuuanu Stream after a 911 caller reported multiple people struggling to get out of the rushing waters near the Pali Highway, the Star-Advertiser reported.

RELATED 'Weather bomb' brings heavy rains, flooding to Ireland, Northern Ireland

The rush of floodwaters also necessitated the rescuing of five young boys, ages 9 and 10, who were swept away by the rapid waters of a creek while playing after school.

Far above those flooding rains, heavy snow has blanketed the Big Island's tallest mountains, notably sparking a blizzard warning that ran through Monday morning. According to the NWS, totals of 8 inches of snow were reported on the roads near the dormant volcano Mauna Kea, the highest peak in the state.

Although vacationers don't think of Hawaii for its snow, blizzard warnings aren't uncommon for the volcanic peak, as the last warning for the summit was issued in 2018. On top of the weekend's heavy snow, wind gusts of nearly 90 mph were also recorded at the peak, the equivalent of a Category 1 hurricane.

The catalyst behind the week of quirky weather was a storm system known as a Kona low. According to AccuWeather forecasters, Kona lows are storms that change the wind direction near Hawaii and bring heavy rain to areas that don't typically receive high amounts of precipitation.

On top of the unsavory precipitation totals, the state's capital city of Honolulu has also dealt with abnormally cold conditions in recent days, including a record low of 56 degrees Fahrenheit on Saturday.

According to AccuWeather meteorologist Jessica Storm, Honolulu has already reported over 93 times more rain in the first week of December than it did in all of November.

"Aside from the flooding rain, cities such as Honolulu have experienced quite chilly conditions compared to average and have even set record lows," Storm added. "The Big Pineapple typically doesn't stray too far from its average temperatures, which remain in the lower 80s Fahrenheit in the day and around 70 degrees at night."

The stormy conditions also left thousands of customers on the islands without power. As of Tuesday morning, over 4,000 residents were still in the dark, according to PowerOutage.us.


According to AccuWeather senior meteorologist Alex Sosnowski, the rain may not stop falling any time soon, either.

"There is the potential for up to a foot of rain to fall on Honolulu with an AccuWeather Local StormMax of 40 inches possible for the south- and southwest-facing mountainsides of the islands," Sosnowski warned, adding that a firehose effect would continue to focus on Oahu and Kauai through much of Tuesday.

AccuWeather senior meteorologist Michael LeSeney added that the Kona low will shift westward as the week progresses, with the heavy rain being isolated to certain islands by midweek.

"By the second half of the week, the typical trade wind pattern should return to the Hawaiian Islands," LeSeney said.

Melting glaciers may create new Pacific salmon habitat, study finds


Salmon can colonize streams created by glacier melt but face many other challenges from climate change, researchers say. Photo courtesy of Freshwaters Illustrated

Dec. 7 (UPI) -- Melting glaciers may produce thousands of miles of new Pacific salmon habitat, a study published Tuesday by Nature Communications found.

As glaciers in the mountains of western North America melt, or retreat, they could produce around 4,000 miles of new Pacific salmon habitat by the year 2100, the data showed.

After modeling glacier retreat under different climate change scenarios, the glaciers could reveal potential new Pacific salmon habitat nearly equal to the length of the Mississippi River under moderate temperature increases, the researchers said.

"We predict that most of the emerging salmon habitat will occur in Alaska and the transboundary region, at the British Columbia-Alaska border, where large coastal glaciers still exist," co-author Kara Pitman said in a press release.

RELATED Dams may help against climate change, but harm fish, freshwater ecosystems

"Once conditions stabilize in the newly-formed streams, salmon can colonize these areas quite quickly," said Pitman, a spatial analyst at Simon Fraser University in Canada.

The Gulf of Alaska is predicted to see the most gains in salmon habitat, with a 27% increase by 2100, she said.

Most salmon return to the streams they were born in, but some will migrate into new streams to spawn.

RELATED EPA to restore protections for Alaska's Bristol Bay

Salmon colonization can occur relatively quickly after glacial melt creates favorable spawning conditions, the researchers said.

For example, Stonefly Creek in Alaska was colonized within 10 years by pink salmon that grew rapidly to more than 5,000 spawners, according to earlier studies.

Using computer modeling, Pitman and her colleagues "peeled back the ice" from 46,000 glaciers between southern British Columbia and south-central Alaska.

RELATED Survey: Innovation, oversight needed to make aquaculture more sustainable

The analysis was designed to assess how much potential salmon habitat would be created when underlying bedrock is exposed and new streams flow over the landscape, the researchers said.

Low-gradient streams, or those with a less than 10% incline, connected to the ocean with retreating glaciers at their headwaters are most desirable to salmon, they said.

Based on the analysis, 315 of the glaciers studied met this criteria.

While the newly created habitat is a positive for salmon in some locations, climate change still poses grave challenges for some salmon populations, according to the researchers.

"On one hand, this amount of new salmon habitat will provide local opportunities for some salmon populations," Pitman said.

"On the other hand, climate change and other human impacts continue to threaten salmon survival, via warming rivers, changes in stream flows and poor ocean conditions," she said.

Carbon capture and storage: where should the world store CO₂? It’s a moral dilemma


Boundary Dam power station in Saskatchewan, Canada, claims to be the world’s first coal plant with incorporated carbon capture and storage. SEE LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for CCS  

Orjan Ellingvag/Alamy Stock Photo

Kian Mintz-Woo 

December 6, 2021

The recent Glasgow climate pact committed 197 countries to “phas[ing] down unabated coal”. Unabated coal refers to when power stations or factories burn coal without capturing and storing the carbon dioxide (CO₂) generated.

Because the world has made such little progress in eliminating coal, oil and fossil gas, climate modellers foresee some use of carbon capture and storage as necessary to reach zero emissions in enough time to avert catastrophic warming. The technology to capture carbon is in development, but one burning question remains: where on Earth should we store all that carbon?

Different methods of carbon capture will take place at different sites. Some involve absorbing emissions immediately after burning fossil fuels in chimneys and smokestacks where the CO₂ is highly concentrated. Other methods capture carbon directly from the air, either by using chemical reactions that bind the carbon using lots of energy or by growing carbon-hungry plants which can be burned for energy and the resulting emissions subsequently captured.

In new research, myself and environmental engineer Joe Lane at Princeton University in the US argued that, regardless of the method, leaving decisions about where to store carbon to commercial entities would mean avoiding an important moral dilemma.

Get news that’s free, independent and based on evidence.Sign up for newsletter

Read more: We can't let markets decide the future of removing carbon from the atmosphere

Funding for carbon capture and storage is insufficient. At the current rate of deployment, 700 million tonnes of CO₂ storage capacity will be added by 2050 – 10% of what is required.

Countries would have to massively ramp up investment to be compliant with the Paris aqgreement’s target of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Some of this money would be public funding, and people would reasonably expect it to fund projects which are morally sound.

On the one hand, it might be deemed important to develop storage sites with the best prospects for storing lots of greenhouse gas for the longest duration. This argument maintains that the most important consideration for deploying carbon capture and storage is making the largest possible contribution to arresting climate change.

To give carbon storage sites the greatest chance of success, it makes sense to develop them in places where the geology has been thoroughly explored and where there is lots of relevant expertise. This would imply pumping carbon into underground storage sites in northern Europe, the Middle East and the US, where companies have spent centuries looking for and extracting fossil fuels. Storing carbon is roughly the reverse of extracting it from the ground, and there is an opportunity for workers in the oil and gas industry to lend their skills and expertise to this endeavour.

Some US companies have been extracting oil for well over a century. 

Alizada Studios/Shutterstock

On the other hand, it might be important to develop storage sites in economies where the current and future demand for carbon capture and storage is greatest. These competing aims pull in different directions. The regions with the best prospects are not often those with the greatest expected need.

Developing storage sites in economies where expected demand for carbon capture is highest overwhelmingly favours developing regions of Asia. In India and China, for instance, coal power stations and cement plants are expensive to decommission and will need lots of carbon capture and storage capacity to decarbonise. If developing regions are expected to decarbonise without sufficient support to roll out carbon capture and storage, it could mean they have to throttle development to reduce emissions.

There are no easy answers in this debate. Increasing carbon capture and storage capacity as quickly as possible could benefit future generations by reducing the severity of climate change. So, you could argue that developing the most promising sites in Europe is the best way forward. But directing investment for storage facilities from wealthy countries to developing regions could help address the debt the former owes the latter for causing the brunt of the climate crisis.

World leaders should recognise this moral dilemma and consider the choices with urgency. The need to remove and safely store carbon becomes more severe by the day. Given the time and costs involved in developing storage sites, and the real possibility that the storage sites may not be sufficient for the carbon countries emit, this is a question which cannot be delayed.

Author

Kian Mintz-Woo
Lecturer in Philosophy, Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork
Disclosure statement
Kian Mintz-Woo is a guest researcher at the Equity and Justice group at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
Partners

University College Cork provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.

Greenpeace Activists to Canadian RBC Bank: 'Stop Funding Climate Chaos and Injustice'

"We are not going to let bank CEOs ignore the deadly consequences of their actions."


Greenpeace Canada campaigners disrupt business as usual in Toronto's financial district on December 7, 2021. (Photo: Ian Willms/Greenpeace)


KENNY STANCIL

COMMONWEALTH

December 7, 2021

Climate justice advocates suspended fellow activists from 15-foot-tall tripods in Toronto's financial district on Tuesday, blocking entrances to the Royal Bank of Canada's corporate headquarters as part of a campaign to pressure the nation's five biggest banks to "stop funding climate chaos and injustice."

"Bankers' business-as-usual... is destabilizing the climate, destroying biodiversity, and violating Indigenous rights."

According to Greenpeace Canada's latest report on fossil fuel financing, Canada's five largest banks are among the world's top 25 funders of coal, oil, and gas. Collectively, Canadian banks have provided more than $820 billion to fossil fuel corporations since the 2015 signing of the Paris agreement, which seeks to curb greenhouse gas pollution in order to avert catastrophic global warming. That sum is over 13 times more than the $60 billion the federal government has invested in climate action during the same period.

"I'm a middle-aged dad with a mild fear of heights who has been politely asking Canadian banks to stop funding fossil fuels for decades," Keith Stewart, a senior energy strategist at Greenpeace Canada and one of the climbers, said in a statement. "I'm dangling from a tripod today because the banks' response has been to continue providing over a hundred billion dollars a year to fossil fuel companies."

"That money pipeline is fueling the climate crisis," said Stewart. "After what has happened in B.C. this year we are not going to let bank CEOs ignore the deadly consequences of their actions."

Stewart was referring to last summer's record-shattering heatwave in British Columbia—which killed hundreds and sparked multiple wildfires, including one that incinerated the entire town of Lytton—and last month's devastating floods in the same province.

During his address at last month's COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau alluded to the destruction of Lytton, a disaster of the sort that scientists say will become increasingly common in the absence of ambitious policy changes. Such warnings haven't stopped Canada from forging ahead with its plan to expand the production of fossil fuels—the key driver of the climate crisis—over the course of this decade.

Related Content

Five Rich Nations Jeopardizing Future With Plans for Fossil Fuel Expansion: Report
Kenny Stancil

According to Greenpeace Canada, demonstrators at Tuesday's action urged bank CEOs to "come down from their towers and accept charred wood fragments from Lytton homes, with the hope that the fragments would remain on the bankers' desks to remind them of the life-and-death consequences of all of their investment decisions."

Juan Ortiz, a spokesperson at Greenpeace Canada who joined others in handing out flyers at the protest site, said that "we are in the heart of Canada's banking district today to interrupt bankers' business-as-usual because it is destabilizing the climate, destroying biodiversity, and violating Indigenous rights."

Activists also encouraged passersby to watch video testimonials from Lytton, Shackan, and Kamloops residents whose lives have been turned upside down by extreme weather.

"We call on CEOs like RBC's Dave McKay to meet face-to-face with communities devastated by climate change and fossil fuel projects, listen to their lived experience, and take corrective actions," said Ortiz.

As Greenpeace Canada noted:


Ortiz, Stewart, and the other activists pointed to RBC's financing of the Coastal GasLink pipeline as an example of a project whose funding should be stopped immediately due to the violation of Indigenous rights and failure to obtain free, prior and informed consent from the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs.

According to research commissioned by Greenpeace Canada, RBC Capital Markets is currently providing CAD 390.7 million in loans directly to the Coastal GasLink project and an additional CAD 400.6 million to the project's parent company TC Energy. TC Energy rents office space in the Royal Bank tower whose entrances were blocked today. Collectively, Canada's big five banks are providing $1.95 billion in project financing to the Coastal GasLink pipeline.

More broadly, Greenpeace is imploring Canadian banks to immediately halt all financing of new fossil fuel projects, develop a plan to slash financed emissions in half by 2030, and ensure that any funded projects obtain the free, prior, and informed consent of Indigenous communities.

More than 9,400 of the group's supporters have demanded in writing that the nation's most powerful bank CEOs—Daryl White of BMO, Victor Dodig of CIBC, Dave McKay of RBC, Brian Porter of Scotiabank, and Bharat Masrani of TD—stop funding fossil fuels.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Filibuster Reform for Debt Ceiling Fight 

But Not Voting Rights or Reproductive Freedom?

"If our senators are willing to suspend the filibuster to protect our economy, they should be willing to suspend it to protect our democracy and our freedom to vote."


Advocates of killing the filibuster protest at the Manhattan office of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on July 26, 2021. (Photo: Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images)


JESSICA CORBETT

COMMONDREAM

December 7, 2021

Progressives on Tuesday responded to reports that U.S. Senate leadership reached a deal to allow Democrats to raise the nation's debt ceiling by suggesting similar maneuvers on other key priorities for the party, from voting rights and reproductive freedom to gun violence prevention and immigration reform.

"Faced with the frightening prospect of the United States defaulting on our debt, the proposed solution is a convoluted legislative maneuver that highlights the Senate's growing dysfunction," said Sean Eldridge, president and founder of the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America.

"This deal makes clear the need to reform the filibuster to make the Senate work for the American people," he added. "If our senators are willing to suspend the filibuster to protect our economy, they should be willing to suspend it to protect our democracy and our freedom to vote."

In a tweet Tuesday, Stand Up America highlighted two specific pieces of legislation that Republicans in the evenly split Senate have prevented from reaching President Joe Biden's desk: the Freedom to Vote Act—a compromise that followed the twice-blocked, bolder For the People Act—and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

"Allowing the 33 voter suppression laws passed by state Republicans this year to go into effect isn't an option," the group said. "Senate Democrats must end the filibuster to pass the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. Our democracy depends on it."

Earlier in the day, responding to reporting by Punchbowl News, Stephen Spaulding of the group Common Cause noted that the deal "will increase pressure for doing something similar" on other top legislative issues.

Along with passing the voting rights bill named for the late John Lewis, the Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Representatives recently approved the Women's Health Protection Act, which has gained greater attention as the right-wing majority Supreme Court has heard arguments for a case that could reverse abortion rights affirmed by Roe v. Wade in 1973.

GOP state legislators' growing attacks on both voting rights and reproductive freedom this year have fueled demands for U.S. Senate Democrats to reform or fully kill the filibuster so they can swiftly advance legislation on both issues. However, a couple of key Democrats—namely Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.)—remain opposed to such a move.

Rather than Democrats taking broader action related to the filibuster or garnering Republican support to raise the debt ceiling before the rapidly approaching December 15 deadline, Senate leaders have settled on "a complicated legislative maneuver to help them stave off another high-stakes battle and prevent the U.S. government from experiencing a catastrophic default," according to The Washington Post.

The newspaper noted that each party's top Senate member—Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)—"expressed a measure of confidence that they had the votes to proceed with their plans, while Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) put the House on track to adopt the measure Tuesday evening."

Politico reported that "at a party leadership meeting on Tuesday, McConnell pitched his lieutenants on a convoluted strategy that would require at least 10 Republicans to approve legislation that would later allow Senate Democrats to raise the debt ceiling by a simple majority vote. Though Republicans would still be facilitating an easier debt ceiling increase for Democrats by carving out an exception to the Senate's supermajority requirement, it's increasingly likely enough Republicans view it as the least-bad scenario."

Explaining that filibuster rules would be suspended for about a month to increase the debt ceiling, Politico added:

But it would require Democrats to raise the debt ceiling to a specific number rather than suspend it for a length of time, such as through the election.

Republicans can tout that as a key concession, while Democrats successfully rebuffed Republicans' efforts to force them to use the more cumbersome budget reconciliation process to raise the debt ceiling. The debt increase would likely range from $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion to ensure Congress won't have to address the debt again before November midterms, according to several people familiar with the matter.

While Politico noted that this is "a stunning turnaround for McConnell," another Republican leader made clear the maneuvering is a political calculation.

"I'm going to support Democrats raising the debt ceiling without Republican votes," Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) told the outlet on Tuesday. "To have Democrats raise the debt ceiling and be held accountable for racking up the debt is my goal. And this helps us accomplish it."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

The United States Lets Violence Against Women Thrive

From racist and xenophobic attacks against Muslim women, to the likelihood of the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, it’s clear that women’s lives carry little value.


Demonstrator join the second annual Women's March in New York City on January 20, 2018. (Photo: Ira L. Black/Corbis via Getty Images)

SARAH LAHM

December 7, 2021 by The Progressive

As Bob Dylan once noted, "it's easy to see without looking too far that not much is really sacred" in American life, despite the false front of piety that often guides our public conversations.

Just look at what the first week in December has brought us. When it comes to the contrast between what we say we care about as a nation and what our actions reveal, I'll reference the video of Republican Congressmember Lauren Boebert of Colorado targeting Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.

"If you think your rights and the rights of women are somehow guaranteed, think again."

Omar is a Muslim, making her an easy foil for Boebert and others in Trumpland. The prevailing presumption, promoted by far-right activists and media profiteers, is that Muslims are terrorists by default. This is an old line of attack, as Omar frequently points out, spun from hate, xenophobia, and racism.

In Boebert's video, she can be seen at a recent fundraising event held in Colorado, warming up the crowd with casual jokes about Omar being a backpack-carrying terrorist, as well as a member of the "Jihad Squad." Boebert appears on camera as a Sarah Palin-like version of an unapologetically harsh yet folksy and idealized Republican woman who is capable of toting a gun while wearing stiletto heels.

The camera captures only a slice of Boebert's audience, which appears to be older white men clutching pints of beer and laughing a bit nervously at her careless antics. Only a few days after this video was made public, another one emerged from a previous Boebert fundraising event, where she tells a different version of her alleged, and reportedly false, encounter in an elevator with Omar.

What's even worse, perhaps, is that the latest Boebert video to come to light includes her calling Omar and her fellow Democratic Congressmember Rashida Talib of Michigan, who is also Muslim, "blackhearted, evil women." Boebert is likely less of a source for this hatred than a mirror of it, reflecting the ugly rhetoric that appeals to the Trumpian wing of the Republican party.

Reducing this to a political game, however, isn't the right approach. Certainly, Kevin McCarthy has continuously excused Boebert's behavior, fearful that any blowback from Trump will prevent him from becoming the future Speaker of the House.

Or, as New York's Democratic Congressmember Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez put it, "Kevin McCarthy is so desperate to be speaker that he is working with his Ku Klux Klan caucus to look aside & allow violent targeting of WOC [women of color] members of Congress."

McCarthy recently brushed off Boebert's actions, along with those of her equally offensive colleagues, Marjorie Taylor-Greene and Paul Gosar, as "things we would not want to deal with." In fact, when asked by reporters about his apparent refusal to condemn Boebert's words, McCarthy played the victim, saying he had been treated poorly by both Omar and Ocasio-Cortez and never received an apology for it.

I wonder how many death threats McCarthy has received throughout his political career. One would be too many, of course, but could he possibly be dealing with anything that compares to the racist, anti-woman, anti-Muslim threats Omar has endured? I doubt it.

Women's lives are cheap in the United States, aren't they? On the one hand, we have people like McCarthy excusing the behavior of Boebert and Gosar, in particular, as if it's all no big deal.

Meanwhile, we have the U.S. Supreme Court on the brink of overturning Roe v. Wade.

This is the moment that a women's studies professor I had in college years ago warned our class about. "If you think your rights and the rights of women are somehow guaranteed, think again," she told her wide-eyed, unbelieving students.

Now we are living through it.

No one I know wants to face an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy. But, then again, no one wants to face domestic violence, or the pain of being forced to raise a child all alone, without equal access to health care, child care, or paid family leave. (Let's not forget the relatively high maternal mortality rate in this country, especially for Black women.)

Even Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett's suggestion this week that abortion shouldn't be necessary, since pregnant people can simply give their babies up for adoption, stands as a form of violence against women. It is unacceptable that women's lives should be so misunderstood and poorly represented today, as if carrying a child to term (even if rape or incest occurred) and then parting with it is some easy task, for either the baby or the parent.

The stakes are incredibly high these days; the Supreme Court's pending decision regarding abortion rights in Mississippi and the entire country epitomize the degree to which women's lives are casually used as chess pieces, for political and religious purposes.

It's easy to see, as Dylan wrote, that not much is really sacred after all.

© 2021 The Progressive

Sarah Lahm is a Minneapolis-based writer and researcher. Her work has appeared in outlets such as The Progressive, where she writes the Midwest Dispatch column and contributes pieces to the Public School Shakedown site.

Amnesty Scorecard Finds Twitter Failing to Protect Women From Online Abuse

"As our world has become increasingly dependent on digital spaces during the Covid-19 pandemic, it's critical that Twitter meet this moment with demonstrated commitment to improving the online experiences of all users, regardless of their identity."


A resident of the Casa Nepal safe house stands in the upstairs common area on May 8, 2018 in Kathmandu, Nepal. The shelter houses approximately 60 women and their children annually. 

(Photo: Lauren DeCicca/Getty Images)


JESSICA CORBETT

COMMONDREAMS

December 8, 2021

Amnesty International on Tuesday urged reforms after a new report from the human rights group found that "for many women and nonbinary persons, Twitter is a platform where violence and abuse against them flourishes, often with little accountability."

The latest Twitter Scorecard follows multiple other Amnesty reports released since 2018 detailing how the tech giant has not upheld "its responsibility to protect women's rights online by failing to adequately investigate and respond to reports of violence and abuse in a transparent manner, leading many women to silence or censor themselves on the platform."

"Twitter is still falling short on its promises to protect users at heightened risk of online abuse."

Like a previous scorecard published in September 2020, the new report uses 10 indicators across four categories—transparency, reporting mechanisms, the abuse report review process, and privacy and security features—to track Twitter's global progress.

Only one of Amnesty's 10 broad recommendations has been implemented: "Improve the appeals process by offering more guidance to users on how the process works and how decisions are made."

Seven of the group's recommendations are considered a "work in progress" while the remaining two—both related to transparency—have not been implemented.

The report recognizes that Twitter has "increased the amount of information available through their Help Center and transparency reports, while also launching new public awareness campaigns, expanding the scope of their hateful conduct policy to include language that dehumanizes people based on religion, age, disability or disease, and improving their reporting mechanisms and privacy and security features."

"These are important steps; that said, the problem remains," the report continues. "Twitter must do more in order for women and nonbinary persons—as well as all users, in all languages—to be able to use the platform without fear of abuse."

Michael Kleinman, director of technology and human rights at Amnesty International USA, said in a statement Tuesday that "despite our repeated calls to improve their platform, Twitter is still falling short on its promises to protect users at heightened risk of online abuse."

"For a company whose mission is to 'give everyone the power to create and share ideas instantly without barriers,'" he continued, "it's become abundantly clear that women and/or marginalized groups disproportionately face threats to their online safety."

In one recent, high-profile example, critics called for Congressman Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) to be censured or even expelled from the U.S. House of Representatives after he tweeted an edited anime video of him killing Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).

"As our world has become increasingly dependent on digital spaces during the Covid-19 pandemic," Kleinman added, "it's critical that Twitter meet this moment with demonstrated commitment to improving the online experiences of all users, regardless of their identity."

As U.N. Women and civil society groups noted last month on the International Day Against Violence Against Women, gender-based violence has increased throughout the pandemic—just as experts had warned it would.

The scorecard's release comes on the heels of a new global campaign launched last week by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) to demand protection from online violence, particularly for women, girls, racial and ethnic minorities, the LGBTQ+ community, and other marginalized groups.

The "Bodyright" campaign highlights that corporate logos and copyrighted intellectual property receive greater protection online than people's bodies and draws attention to issues such as cyberstalking, doxxing, hate speech, and the nonconsensual use of images and video.

"Relentless, borderless, and often anonymous—the online world is the new frontier for gender-based violence," said Dr. Natalia Kanem, UNFPA's executive director, in a statement. "It's time for technology companies and policymakers to take digital violence seriously."

The National Domestic Violence Hotline is 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) and a live chat service is available at www.thehotline.org. Those seeking support can also text START to 88788. All services offer 24/7, free, and confidential support.

This post has been updated with details about an incident involving two members of Congress.
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Kshama Sawant v. 'Real Estate Tycoons and Developers' on Final Day of Seattle Recall Vote

"Once again, the wealthy and special interests are making a power grab for Kshama Sawant's seat because she has the guts to stand up for working people," Sen. Bernie Sanders recently said in support of the socialist council member.

Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant speaks during her second-term inauguration and "Tax Amazon 2020 Kickoff" on January 13, 2020. (Photo: Jason Redmond/AFP via Getty Images)


BRETT WILKINS

COMMONDREAMS

December 7, 2021


As Seattle residents face an 8:00 pm Tuesday deadline to cast their ballots in the recall election of District 3 Council member Kshama Sawant, supporters of the Socialist Alternative lawmaker made their final pitch to the Washington city's voters.

"Instead of spending money on the recall, businesses should focus on supporting economic recovery, our public health, addressing racial inequities, and creating a clean-fueled economy."

"Vote 'no' on the right-wing recall," the Kshama Solidarity Campaign said in a statement, calling accusations by proponents of recalling the third-term council member "dishonest."

"The courts haven't found her guilty of anything," the campaign continued. "Kshama, an immigrant woman of color, is being attacked for participating in peaceful Black Lives Matter protests. This recall is part of the racist right-wing backlash attempting to criminalize protest nationally. Big Business and the right wing want to remove Kshama because she's such an effective fighter for working people."

The recall ballot accuses Sawant, the longest-tenured Seattle council member, of "misfeasance, malfeasance, and violation of the oath of office." Specifically, it says she "used city resources to support a ballot initiative," ignored state pandemic rules "by admitting hundreds of people into City Hall" when it was closed to the public, and "led a protest march to Democratic Mayor Jenny Durkan's private residence."

Sawant's supporters, however, argue that it's her record of fighting for working-class people and against billionaires and Big Business that has made her a target of "a cabal of tech corporations, real estate interests, and business lobbyists."



"Once again, the wealthy and special interests are making a power grab for Kshama Sawant's seat because she has the guts to stand up for working people," U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said last week. "We need to unite together to stop this baseless recall."

Marxist economist Richard D. Wolff said earlier this week that "when the capitalists and their political servants see the appeal of socialist ideas and proposals, they try to destroy socialist leaders."

Accusing Sawant foes of "abusing the recall process to remove politicians who pose a mild threat to the bottom lines of real estate tycoons and developers will likely prevail," Rich Smith, associate editor of The Stranger, wrote Monday that "conservative media and right-wing activists are scraping the bottom of their barrels for more shit to throw at Sawant's campaign."

While the editorial board of The Seattle Times recently accused Sawant of "shrugging at City Hall norms" and "performative chicanery," her supporters point to her key role in making Seattle the first major U.S. city to enact a $15 hourly minimum wage, as well as in helping to lead the successful push for the so-called "Amazon tax" on large corporations and a slew of tenant protections including free legal aid for people facing eviction and the landmark Renters' Bill of Rights.

Goodman Real Estate CEO George Petrie is one of more than 100 financial backers of former President Donald Trump and hundreds of GOP donors to support the recall, as is Columbia Modern Living president Carl Haglund—described by a whistleblower as a "notorious slumlord." In 2016, Sawant successfully led the effort to pass the so-called "Carl Haglund Law" to boost tenant's rights.

Billionaire real estate developer Martin Selig, known locally as the "ICE landlord," and his apparent heir and daughter, Jordan Selig, are also among the recall's supporters. So is Egan Orion, whose unsuccessful 2019 run to unseat incumbent Sawant received nearly half a million dollars from an Amazon-backed PAC run by the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce. Orion provided the recall campaign with data on 2,500 of his donors and their employers.

Washington state Sen. Rebecca Saldaña (D-37) said last week that "instead of spending money on the recall, businesses should focus on supporting economic recovery, our public health, addressing racial inequities, and creating a clean-fueled economy that recognizes the dire climate emergency."

Saldaña added that "if Kshama were a man, she'd be treated differently."

Linguist and leftist dissident Noam Chomsky, who turned 93 years old on Tuesday, was an early opponent of the campaign against Sawant, calling it "a tribute to her achievements and the significance of the goals for which she works successfully—a serious threat to those with illegitimate power."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.