Friday, September 24, 2021

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M

WPP pays $19 million in bribery settlement with U.S. SEC

FILE PHOTO: Branding signage is seen for WPP, the world's biggest advertising and marketing company, at their offices in London

Katanga Johnson
Fri, 24 September 2021,

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Britain's WPP has agreed to pay more than $19 million in a settlement with U.S. authorities relating to bribery allegations and accounting controls for its subsidiaries, including in India and China.

The world's largest advertising firm did not admit or deny allegations that it violated provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act but agreed to pay the penalty, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said.

The SEC order found that WPP failed to ensure that subsidiaries it acquired implemented its internal accounting controls and compliance policies.

WPP implemented an aggressive business growth strategy that included acquiring majority interests in many localized advertising agencies in high-risk markets, it said, citing potential conflicts in India, China, Brazil and Peru during a period between 2013 and 2018.

WPP said it had changed its business practices since then.

"As the Commission's Order recognises, WPP's new leadership has put in place robust new compliance measures and controls, fundamentally changed its approach to acquisitions, cooperated fully with the Commission and terminated those involved in misconduct," the company said in a statement.

WPP founder Martin Sorrell, who declined to comment to Reuters on the settlement, led the company for more than 30 years before he quit in April 2018. He was replaced as chief executive by Mark Read, another company veteran.

WPP failed to "promptly or adequately respond to repeated warning signs of corruption or control failures at certain subsidiaries," the SEC said.

In one example cited by the commission, a subsidiary in India continued to bribe Indian government officials in return for advertising contracts even though WPP had received seven anonymous complaints relating to the conduct.

"A company cannot allow a focus on profitability or market share to come at the expense of appropriate controls," said SEC FCPA Unit Chief Charles Cain.

Friday's move comes as the nation's top securities watchdog seeks to stamp out abuses in U.S. markets due to a lack of required controls by companies.

(Reporting by Katanga Johnson; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama, Keith Weir and Dan Grebler)

Petrofac to plead guilty to bribery after ‘deeply regrettable period’

- September 24, 2021
© Reuters.
By Yadarisa Shabong and Kirstin Ridley

(Reuters) -British oil services group Petrofac (LON:PFC) said on Friday it would plead guilty to seven counts of failing to prevent bribery to secure projects in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the UAE between 2012 and 2015, calling it a “deeply regrettable period”.

The company indicated its plans at London’s Westminster Magistrates’ Court after being formally charged by the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO), drawing a line under a four-year criminal investigation. Its shares surged 25% in relief.

Petrofac, which has struggled to secure key contracts in the Middle East and has seen its shares battered during the SFO investigation, will formally enter its pleas and await sentencing at London’s Southwark Crown Court on Monday.

Petrofac said offers or payments to agents to help secure projects were made between 2011 and 2017 but that all employees involved had left.

“This was a deeply regrettable period of Petrofac’s history,” said Chairman René Medori in a statement, adding that the company’s “comprehensive programme of corporate renewal” had been acknowledged by the SFO.

“Petrofac has been living under the shadow of the past, but today it is a profoundly different business, in which stakeholders can be assured of our commitment to the highest standards of business ethics, wherever we operate,” he said.

Former executive David Lufkin, who has separately pleaded guilty to 14 charges of bribery to secure billions of dollars worth of contracts for Petrofac in the Middle East, is also expected to be sentenced on Monday.

His lawyer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In March, the UAE’s state-backed oil firm, ADNOC, barred Petrofac from competing for new contracts in the country.

It is the second corporate guilty plea secured by the SFO in five months.

Former Airbus subsidiary GPT Special Project Management pleaded guilty to corruption over military contracts for Saudi Arabia in April.

BOOSTERS ARE A POLITICAL DECISION

CDC director overrules experts, allows Pfizer boosters for health workers

Boosters also OK'd for frontline workers, day care providers, teachers, grocery workers.

BETH MOLE - 9/24/2021

Enlarge / CDC Director Rochelle Walensky testifies during a Senate committee hearing in July 2021.
Stefani Reynolds-Pool/Getty Images 167WITH 76 POSTERS PARTICIPATING

Just past midnight last night, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention overruled a committee of independent advisers, allowing for use of a Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine booster dose in people with increased risk of occupational and institutional exposure to the pandemic coronavirus. That includes health care workers, front-line workers, teachers, day care providers, grocery store workers, and people who work or live in prisons and homeless shelters, among others.

FURTHER READINGCDC advisors OK boosters for 65+, those with health risks—not occupational risks

Hours earlier, the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) concluded a two-day meeting on booster recommendations—and voted 9-6 against recommending boosters for this group.

"As CDC Director, it is my job to recognize where our actions can have the greatest impact," Director Rochelle Walensky said in a statement. "At CDC, we are tasked with analyzing complex, often imperfect data to make concrete recommendations that optimize health. In a pandemic, even with uncertainty, we must take actions that we anticipate will do the greatest good."

She further noted that the inclusion of people at high risk of COVID-19 from occupational and institutional exposure "aligns with the FDA’s booster authorization." The Food and Drug Administration last Wednesday issued an amended Emergency Use Authorization for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, which allowed booster doses for people 65 and older as well as people ages 18 to 64 who are at high risk of COVID-19 either from underlying medical conditions or occupational and institutional exposures.

Though the CDC's advisory committee was torn over endorsing that use, they ultimately decided that the need was not there—vaccine effectiveness against severe disease and hospitalization remains very strong in those under age 65. And recommending boosters for anyone with a conceivable occupational or institutional risk could create a booster free-for-all.

By taking the unusual move to overrule the ACIP's decisions, Walensky puts the booster efforts more in line with the Biden administration's preliminary plans to offer booster doses to all vaccinated adults, starting this week.

Still, the current recommendations only apply to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and those who received that vaccine for their two-dose "primary series." Those who initially received two doses of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine or one shot of Johnson & Johnson's vaccine are advised to wait for further booster data and recommendations.

For now, here are the CDC's official recommendations of who should get a Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine booster—to be given at least six months after the primary Pfizer/BioNTech series. (Emphasis added by CDC).

people 65 years and older and residents in long-term care settings should receive a booster shot of Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine at least 6 months after their Pfizer-BioNTech primary series,

people ages 50–64 years with underlying medical conditions should receive a booster shot of Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine at least 6 months after their Pfizer-BioNTech primary series,

people ages 18–49 years with underlying medical conditions may receive a booster shot of Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine at least 6 months after their Pfizer-BioNTech primary series, based on their individual benefits and risks, and

people ages 18-64 years who are at increased risk for COVID-19 exposure and transmission because of occupational or institutional setting may receive a booster shot of Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine at least 6 months after their Pfizer-BioNTech primary series, based on their individual benefits and risks.

Biden’s chaotic messaging on Covid-19 boosters is pitting the White House against the government’s scientific advisers

By Lev Facher and Helen Branswell Sept. 24, 2021

Reprints

President BidenBRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES

WASHINGTON — The White House’s chaotic, contradictory messaging on Covid-19 vaccine booster shots has given Americans whiplash. But more concerning, experts say, is that it risks undermining President Biden’s campaign pledge that he would listen to the scientists and adhere to official approval processes.

The administration’s latest move — a midnight Friday decision to expand booster eligibility — puts the spotlight on Rochelle Walensky, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who overruled her own advisory panel of scientists to make the call. Now, she finds herself caught between the White House, which had been pushing for the expanded eligibility for months, and an advisory body of experts that recommended booster shots only to a smaller part of the adult population — and that the CDC has almost never overruled.

The communications debacle comes as millions of Americans are seeking clarity about whether it’s safe to get a third shot, and whether doing so will help keep them safe from Covid. It has highlighted tensions between the White House, its scientific agencies, and their outside advisers. For many, the move was reminiscent, too, of the Trump administration’s chaotic pandemic-response communications and frequent hostility toward its own public health officia

“It’s been muddled, mixed, contradictions galore,” said Eric Topol, a physician-researcher who founded the Scripps Research Translational Institute. “It’s been checkered by political issues, rogue FDA scientists, infighting among leadership groups of the different agencies and the White House. It’s really been troubling.”

Despite the communications debacle, Topol defended the administration’s eventual decision to give most Americans access to booster shots, handed down at 1 a.m. Friday by Walensky. So, too, did an array of public health leaders, like Brown University School of Public Health Dean Ashish Jha and former CDC Director Tom Frieden.

There’s sound data for people over 60 to receive a booster, Topol said, though he criticized the White House for leaving people who received the Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccines in the dark — the only booster currently authorized is Pfizer’s.

Others, though, have questioned the caliber of the data being used to support giving boosters at this point. And many question whether the chaotic rollout will do more harm than good. The poll presented Thursday to the CDC’s advisory panel revealed that a third of people who are still unvaccinated say the need for a third shot would make them less likely to agree to get any doses of Covid vaccine.

One concern about the rapid rollout is that there’s little data available to support the booster shots’ safety in younger populations — particularly for men under 30, a tiny fraction of whom developed myocarditis, or heart inflammation, after receiving first or second Covid-19 doses.

“It is worrisome to me that anybody less than 30 is going to be getting a third dose without any clear evidence that that’s beneficial to them and with more than theoretical evidence that it could be harmful to them,” said Paul Offit, the director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Offit also expressed concern that in overruling the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Walensky may have damaged efforts to persuade more unvaccinated adults to be vaccinated against Covid. It’s likely, he said, that people in highly vaccinated regions, like New England, will receive a third dose while those in relatively unvaccinated regions, like the South, will remain unconvinced.

“It’s not hard to scare people who’ve already gotten two doses that they should get another dose,” he said. “I’m sure that you can get them to get 10 more doses.”

Whether or not the chaotic process will spur additional vaccine hesitancy, it has highlighted tensions and confusion between the White House, federal science agencies, and the advisory panels that exist to guide their decision-making.

The process kicked off with a shifting timeline from President Biden himself: On Aug. 18, he said Americans would be eligible for boosters eight months after their second dose. On Aug. 26, the Wall Street Journal reported that the White House was considering changing the timeline to six months. The CDC called the story “misleading” — but a day later, Biden announced that the timeline might in fact shift to five months.

Then the FDA and CDC’s scientific advisory panels weighed in.

Last week, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, a group of scientists who advise the FDA on vaccine approvals, recommended approving boosters for a dramatically smaller population than Biden first outlined: Only those over 65 and at high risk from Covid-19.

The decision was perceived as a major rebuke of the Biden administration. And it closely followed the resignations of Marion Gruber and Phil Krause, the two key FDA vaccine regulators whom Topol referred to as “rogue,” who announced their departures days after Biden’s initial booster announcement.

When the FDA authorized the booster shot, however, it brushed aside its advisers’ recommendation, adding in any American at added risk of exposure to Covid-19, like teachers, doctors, or grocery store workers.

Days later, ACIP, the CDC advisory panel, also recommended scaling back the Biden administration’s plans, recommending the shots only for the 65-plus population. But on Thursday, Walensky disregarded her own advisers, too, ruling that the younger, at-risk population could receive the shots as well.

More broadly, the administration’s disregard for the advisory boards may call into question whether the administration is “following the science,” as promised on the campaign trail.

It’s extremely rare for the CDC to buck ACIP’s recommendations on vaccination guidelines. It’s believed that a CDC director has only deviated from the committee’s guidance once before, during a 2003 controversy over how widely the George W. Bush administration should roll out to health workers and first responders a controversial smallpox vaccine that was also linked to a risk of myocarditis and pericarditis.

ACIP member Sarah Long, who voted against the recommendation that Walensky nonetheless approved, called the move “disheartening in a way.”

“I do not want to do anything now to add confusion to an already confusing situation for the public,” said Long, a professor of pediatrics at Drexel University College of Medicine. “Having said all that … I want to say that this is almost unprecedented. A surprise, would be putting it mildly.”

Grace Lee, the ACIP chair, voted for the recommendation that Walensky reinstated. She said the vote was close, Walensky had to make a decision and it is in her purview to overrule the committee.

“I respect that she has to make a call that’s difficult. And no matter what the call was that she made it would have been challenging either way. There was no winning in this situation, honestly,” said Lee, a professor of pediatrics at Stanford University School of Medicine.

In a statement, Walensky defended the decision, arguing she believed the decision would “do the greatest good” despite the lack of clear data and continued uncertainty.

Though she had clearly rejected the advice of the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee, the agency attempted to cast Walensky’s decision in a different light.

“The CDC director did not override or disregard ACIP. She agreed with the committee and added the fourth recommendation. This was her decision and she was not influenced by outsiders,” a CDC spokesperson told STAT shortly after Walensky’s statement was issued.

And while there is more recent precedent for FDA regulators defying their scientific advisers, as happened this year with the controversial approval of an Alzheimer’s drug, the administration’s actions also represent a contradiction of Biden’s longtime campaign pledge: that he would defer to “the experts.”

In a 2020 interview with STAT, Vivek Murthy, one of Biden’s top pandemic advisers and now the surgeon general, identified two key groups whose guidance should help steer vaccine approval decisions.

“The scientists that we need to hear from are the staff scientists at FDA who have been doing this for decades,” he said. He later added: “The other group we need to hear from is the external advisory committee, VRBPAC. That is a group of scientists that understands how to evaluate vaccines.”

Instead, though, the administration’s recent moves have pitted it against recommendations from VRBPAC and the ACIP, a tension that hasn’t gone unnoticed by former government officials.

“I think that staffers are scratching their heads … at both agencies,” Norman Baylor, president and CEO of Biologics Consulting and a former head of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines, told STAT.

About the Authors

Lev Facher

Washington Correspondent

Lev Facher covers the politics of health and life sciences.

lev.facher@statnews.com

@levfacher

Helen Branswell

Senior Writer, Infectious Disease

Helen covers issues broadly related to infectious diseases, including outbreaks, preparedness, research, and vaccine development.

@HelenBranswell

Tags

Meng Wanzhou: US prosecutors reach deal in case of Huawei executive at center of diplomatic row

The agreement with Wanzhou clears a topic of dispute between US and China and could bring release of two Canadians

Meng Wanzhou has reached an agreement with US prosecutors.

Photograph: Jennifer Gauthier/Reuters

Julian Borger in Washington and Vincent Ni
Fri 24 Sep 2021

A senior Chinese executive from Huawei, held in Canada since 2018 on US charges of bank and wire fraud, will be allowed to leave after a deal with prosecutors, removing a major irritant from US-China relations.

Meng Wanzhou, Huawei’s chief financial officer and daughter of the giant corporation’s founder, appeared virtually on Friday at a hearing in New York federal court from Vancouver where she was arrested in December 2018 on a US warrant. She has been under house arrest in the city since then, monitored by a private security company she pays for as part of her bail agreement.

Meng Wanzhou: ‘princess of Huawei’ who became the face of a high-stakes dispute

The Department of Justice sent a letter to the judge asking for a hearing “to address with this court a resolution of the charges against the defendant in this matter”.

The resolution of the Meng case raises hopes that China will free two Canadians, Michael Kovrig, a former diplomat, and Michael Spavor, a businessman, who were arrested days after Meng and charged, without evidence, of spying.

The arrests have significantly worsened Chinese-Canadian relations and have been one of many sources of friction in the US-China relationship. That has been made more fraught in the past few days by the formation of a new security agreement, Aukus, between Australia, the UK and the US, and a White House summit on Friday of the Quad group: the US, India, Japan and Australia.
Advertisement

The Biden administration has been insistent it is looking for areas where the US and China can work together.

Meng was indicted on bank and wire fraud charges for allegedly misleading HSBC bank on Huawei’s activities in Iran. Meng denied the charges and has been fighting extradition but as part of the plea deal unveiled on Friday, she admitted to some wrongdoing, and in return federal prosecutors agreed to defer and eventually drop the charges.

According to news reports by Reuters in 2012 and 2013, which were referred to in the US case against her, Meng and Huawei were linked to a scheme to sell computer equipment to Iran, in violation of sanctions.

“First, from the China side, China has put much pressure on the US side regarding Meng’s case. Since the beginning, China sees the Meng saga as a response to the US scheme to suppress China’s leading tech industry and regards Washington’s extradition request politically-motivated,” said Ma Ji, a senior lecturer at Peking University’s School of Transnational Law.

“And China had given Meng’s case particular weight. For instance, Beijing’s response to the Meng’s arrest in Canada – by taking two Canadian citizens in return – signals that one would play with the fire if they follow the US to undermine China’s core interests,” Ma said, adding that the US justice department may not have been sure of its evidence against Meng to be sufficiently confident in its case.

Huawei CFO strikes agreement with U.S. over fraud charges, allowing her to leave Canada

Karen Freifeld and Kenneth Li
Fri, September 24, 2021,

1/4

Huawei CFO strikes agreement with U.S. over fraud charges, allowing her to leave Canada
Huawei Technologies Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou arrives to attend court in Vancouver

2/4

Huawei CFO strikes agreement with U.S. over fraud charges, allowing her to leave Canada
Huawei Technologies Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou arrives to attend court in Vancouver

3/4

Huawei CFO strikes agreement with U.S. over fraud charges, allowing her to leave Canada
General view of the Brooklyn Federal Courthouse in New York City

4/4

Huawei CFO strikes agreement with U.S. over fraud charges, allowing her to leave Canada
Assistant United States Attorneys arrive for a hearing for Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou CFO at the Brooklyn Federal District Courthouse in Brooklyn, New York

By Karen Freifeld and Kenneth Li

(Reuters) - Huawei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou has reached an agreement with U.S. prosecutors to end the bank fraud case against her, officials said on Friday, a move that should allow her to leave Canada and relieve a point of tension between China and the United States.

Meng was arrested at Vancouver International Airport in December 2018 on a U.S. warrant, and was indicted on bank and wire fraud charges for allegedly misleading HSBC in 2013 about the telecommunications equipment giant’s business dealings in Iran. The bank questioned her following stories by Reuters in 2012 and 2013 about those dealings.

Her arrest sparked a political storm between the two countries, and drew Canada into the fray when China arrested a Canadian businessman and a former diplomat shortly after Meng was taken into custody.

In an exclusive on Friday, Reuters reported that the United States had reached a deferred prosecution agreement with Meng. Nicole Boeckmann, the acting U.S. Attorney in Brooklyn, said that in entering into the agreement, "Meng has taken responsibility for her principal role in perpetrating a scheme to defraud a global financial institution.”

The agreement pertains only to Meng, and the U.S. Justice Department said it is preparing for trial against Huawei and looks forward to proving its case in court.

A spokeswoman for Huawei declined to comment.

At a hearing in Brooklyn federal court on Friday, which Meng attended virtually from Canada, Assistant U.S. Attorney David Kessler said the government will move to dismiss the charges against her if she complies with all of her obligations under the agreement, which ends in December 2022. He added that Meng will be released on a personal recognizance bond, and that the United States plans to withdraw its request to Canada for her extradition.

Meng - the daughter of Huawei founder, Ren Zhengfei - pleaded not guilty to the charges in the hearing. William Taylor III, an attorney representing Meng, said he was "very pleased" with the agreement, adding "we fully expect the indictment will be dismissed with prejudice after fourteen months. Now, she will be free to return home to be with her family."

Beyond solving a dispute between the United States and China, the agreement could also pave the way for the release of the two Canadians, businessman Michael Spavor and former diplomat Michael Kovrig, who have been held in China. In August, a Chinese court sentenced Spavor to 11 years in prison for espionage.

Meng, who has also used the English first names "Cathy" and "Sabrina," is confined to Vancouver and monitored 24/7 by private security that she pays for as part of her bail agreement.

"HUAWEI CONFIDENTIAL"

Articles published by Reuters in 2012 and 2013 about Huawei, Hong Kong-registered company Skycom and Meng figured prominently in the U.S. criminal case against her. Reuters reported that Skycom had offered to sell at least 1.3 million euros worth of embargoed Hewlett-Packard computer equipment to Iran's largest mobile-phone operator in 2010. At least 13 pages of the proposal were marked "Huawei confidential" and carried Huawei's logo.

Reuters also reported numerous financial and personnel links between Huawei and Skycom, including that Meng had served on Skycom’s board of directors between February 2008 and April 2009. The stories prompted HSBC to question Meng about Reuters findings.

Huawei was placed on a U.S. trade blacklist in 2019 that restricts sales to the company for activities contrary to U.S. national security and foreign policy interests. The restrictions have hobbled the company, which suffered its biggest ever revenue drop in the first half of 2021, after the U.S. supply restrictions drove it to sell a chunk of its once-dominant handset business and before new growth areas have matured.

The criminal case against Meng and Huawei is cited in the blacklisting. Huawei is charged with operating as a criminal enterprise, stealing trade secrets and defrauding financial institutions. It has pleaded not guilty.

Judicial hearings in her extradition case in Vancouver wrapped up in August, with the date for a ruling to be set on Oct. 21.

A Canadian government official said Ottawa would be making no comments until the U.S. court proceedings were over. Kovrig’s wife declined to comment. Representatives for Spavor could not be reached immediately for comment.

CHINA VS USA

Huawei has become a dirty word in Washington, with a knee-jerk reaction by China hawks in Congress to any news that could be construed as the United States as being soft despite Huawei's struggles under the trade restrictions.

Then-President Donald Trump politicized the case when he told Reuters soon after her 2018 arrest that he would intervene if it would serve national security or help secure a trade deal. Meng's lawyers have said she was a pawn in the political battle between the two super powers.

Senior U.S. officials have said that Meng's case was being handled solely by the Justice Department and the case had no bearing on the U.S. approach to ties with China.

During U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman’s July trip to China, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Xie Feng insisted that the United States drop its extradition case against Meng.

U.S. officials have acknowledged that Beijing had linked Meng's case to the case of the two detained Canadians, but insisted that Washington would not be draw into viewing them as bargaining chips.

(Reporting by Karen Freifeld, Kenneth Li, Jonathan Stempel, David Shpardson and Michael Martina; editing by Chris Sanders and Edward Tobin)

WASHINGTON — The House on Friday voted to legalize abortion nationwide until fetal viability, and even though the legislation is almost certain to fail in the Senate, it marks a historic victory for abortion rights supporters following a decades-long fight.

The 218-211 vote on the Women's Health Protection Act is the first the House has ever held to set a federal legal standard on abortion, and the first time in nearly 30 years that the House has approved what advocates consider a major proactive abortion rights bill.

Texas' recent ban on abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy has galvanized Democrats to be more forceful in their support for abortion rights and confident in the political upside of the issue.

It is a tide that has been slowly turning over the last decade, amid the election of more Democratic women to Congress, the decline of centrist Democrats who oppose abortion and the proliferation of GOP-led abortion restrictions at the state level.

"We've long been supporters of Roe vs. Wade," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "We haven't been able to codify it because we never had a Democratic, pro-choice majority [in the House] with a Democratic president, and now we do."

The Texas law — which bans the procedure only two weeks after a person could typically know of a pregnancy — allows any civilian to sue anyone who helps someone access an abortion. It has served as a wake-up call to even Congress' most ardent supporters of abortion rights, spurring the House vote to get the right to abortion enshrined into federal law.

"We cannot rely on [Supreme Court Justices] Amy Coney Barrett or Brett Kavanaugh to confirm our rights for us," said Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif., who authored the bill. "Congress must protect the rights of women and pregnant people in every ZIP Code, putting an end to an attack on abortion once and for all."

Since the Supreme Court allowed the law to go into effect, several Democrats, including moderates, rushed to join the bill, Chu said.

Rep. Jim Langevin, D-R.I., who is personally opposed to abortion and over his career has had a mixed voting record on the issue, said the court's decision to allow Texas' law to go into effect prompted him to "evolve" on abortion rights.

"No issue has confounded me more than abortion throughout my years of public service," he wrote in the Providence Journal. "Faced with the reality that Roe might no longer be the law of the land in a few months, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot support a reality where extremist state legislators can dictate women's medical decisions."

Even when Democrats have controlled the House in recent decades, there were still dozens of rank-and-file Democrats who opposed abortion, discouraging Democratic leaders from holding votes on the issue. The 2018 election marked a noticeable increase in the number of Democrats from politically contentious swing districts who leaned into abortion in their campaigns.

"It's not a coincidence that we've seen more Democrats being comfortable discussing abortion rights as we've seen more women be elected," said Kristen Hernandez, a spokeswoman for EMILY's List, a group that supports Democratic women who back abortion rights.

Rep. Lizzie Fletcher, D-Texas, who represents the Houston-area seat once held by former President George H.W. Bush, started her 2018 campaign with an ad featuring the Planned Parenthood facility where she, as a high school volunteer, tried to block antiabortion protesters.

"I'm very comfortable talking about it because I feel like our voice has not been heard," Fletcher said in an interview. "Abortion has become a wedge issue that's used to win elections instead of to govern responsibility and to acknowledge the real and fundamental rights of every person in this country to define our own destiny."

Abortion rights supporters expect the drumbeat to get only louder ahead of the 2022 midterm election, especially if the Supreme Court issues a high-profile abortion decision next summer.

"Younger generations have just taken for granted that birth control and abortion were part of the continuation of women's healthcare," said Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo. "This is so stark and egregious that my daughter's generation has woken up and realized that the freedoms they have enjoyed are now going to be taken away from them by a bunch of politicians."

Although abortion rights supporters have been raising alarm bells about the growing threat to access for years, particularly as former President Donald Trump's appointees were confirmed to the Supreme Court, the Texas decision startled them — a sentiment that could carry over to the ballot box next year.

"This is something that women see happening to them right now and are willing to get engaged to make sure that they're protected," said Rep. Mikie Sherrill, D-N.J., another potentially vulnerable Democrat who sees no political downside to the vote.

A small number of Republicans, including Virginia gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin, have distanced themselves from the private citizens' role of Texas' law, as well as the lack of an exception for cases of rape and incest, raising questions of whether the law will be a political liability for some Republican candidates in the midterm.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, an advocacy group that opposes abortion, argues that Texas' law will be forgotten as soon as the Supreme Court rules on a separate abortion case out of Mississippi over a 15-week abortion ban. In December, the court will hear arguments in the case, Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization, and a ruling would be expected by June.

"No one will remember this bill after the Dobbs decision comes down when there will be more direct and traditional approaches in the law that reflect the will of the people," Dannenfelser said. "Even in a few months leading up to the Dobbs decision and after oral arguments, we'll be seeing what states actually want to do" if the court grants states the opportunity to set their own abortion laws.

As recently as 2009, despite a sizable Democratic majority in the House, the chamber did not have a majority of abortion rights supporters. There were 19 Democrats so adamant in their opposition to abortion that they signed a public letter saying any government health plan they supported would need to exclude abortion. Only one remains in Congress.

Since then, abortion has become starkly partisan, The political parties and outside political groups have grown more militant in excluding members who don't take the party's position on abortion.

The last House Republicans who supported abortion rights even occasionally, Reps. Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey and Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania, left Congress in 2018. There are two Republicans in the Senate who have supported abortion rights, Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine.

Democrats have similarly closed ranks. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, is thought to be the last Democrat in the House who opposes abortion.

Former Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., lost a hotly contested primary in 2020 and even lost the support of some of his fellow Democrats over his abortion position. Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., who represented a very Republican district, lost his election in 2020 as well. In the Senate, Democratic Sens. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia identify as opposing abortion.

The Women's Health Protection Act would prohibit states from enacting prohibitions on abortion until fetal viability, which is typically 24 weeks. Abortion would be legal after that point if the patient's life or health were at stake. The bill's supporters say it would "codify" the Supreme Court's Roe decision legalizing abortion.

The bill would also preempt hundreds of state abortion restrictions that advocates say have unduly hindered access, such as requirements that physicians hold credentials at a local hospital or conduct abortions in surgical facilities.

Opponents of the bill say it would threaten existing protections for healthcare workers who oppose abortion and do not want to take part in performing them, as well as limits on government funding of abortion.

"The Women's Health Protection Act is designed to remove all legal protections for unborn children on both the federal and state levels," said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life.

In the Senate, leadership has not yet determined whether the bill will come up for a vote. Democrats narrowly control the 50-50 chamber because of the tiebreaking vote of the vice president, but there are only 48 public supporters.

Two Democrats, Casey and Manchin, have not signed on to the bill. Collins said she opposes the bill because it goes too far but added she is discussing drafting an alternative to codify the Roe decision. Murkowski has not taken a public position.

AUKUS: After the sugar rush

The initial high of announcing AUKUS has faded for British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who has returned from the United States to face a less congenial domestic agenda

Nick Witney

24 September 2021

Prime Minister Boris Johnson joins US President Joe Biden and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison to announce the launch of the new AUKUS Partnership
Image byNumber 10

The British remain deeply divided about their country’s proper place in the post-Brexit world. Yet there are certain underlying attitudes towards foreigners that they have all imbibed with their mothers’ milk. One is their fondness for Australia (so many family ties; Ashes cricket; all those seductive soap operas). Another is the desire for the Americans, no matter what they think of them, to treat the United Kingdom with respect – and recognise that it still counts. And, of course, there is the pleasure the British always take in getting one over on the French (That Sweet Enemy, as an excellent history of the bilateral relationship is entitled).

No surprise, then, that last week’s announcement of the new AUKUS defence partnership, ticking all the above boxes, should have been generally well-received in the UK. Prime Minister Boris Johnson was happy to hold out to Parliament the prospect of “hundreds of highly skilled jobs”. The right-wing press was relieved to celebrate the apparent injection of some real substance to the so-far nebulous concept of Global Britain. For the prime minister, it was also a welcome chance to move on from post-mortems of the inglorious end to Britain’s Afghan misadventure. As Johnson headed to the White House, British officials were happy to imply that America’s reopening to European travellers, and President Joe Biden’s (underwhelming) pledge of new money to help poorer nations fight the climate crisis, were evidence of the restored efficacy of what they are now at pains not to call the “special relationship”.

Alas, the sugar rush did not last long. The main story coming out of the White House meeting was Biden’s reminder that the Brexiteers could forget their dream of an early trade deal with the United States, at least whilst Johnson persists in his reckless efforts to nullify the Northern Ireland Protocol – a foundation stone of his own Brexit deal. And AUKUS itself is raising awkward questions. As ex-prime minister Theresa May asked in Parliament, what would be the implications of the deal for British involvement if China attacked Taiwan? The nineteenth century British Empire, with its unrivalled naval might and domination of world trade, may have felt free to intervene in conflicts wherever it wished. But does it really make sense for a medium-sized power with a faltering economy to attempt to reprise that role today, on the far side of the globe?

Moreover, as brutal as China’s recent repression of Hong Kong and bullying of Australia has been, can the British really afford to antagonise the Chinese in their own backyard when, not so long ago, their markets and investment were cited as reasons for uncoupling from Europe with high confidence? And can the UK really expect an infuriated France to exert itself to block the cross-Channel illegal migration flows that have occasioned so much hyperventilation by the government in London this summer? Or the European Union, humiliated by AUKUS torpedoing the launch of its Indo-Pacific Strategy, to hold back from trade sanctions if Johnson persists in playing fast and loose with the Northern Ireland Protocol?

What are the British expected to bring to the party – or, to put it another way, what slice of the pie may the Americans allow them?

Then, of course, there is the question of what the British will actually get out of the new partnership. Clearly, the UK is not going to be building the submarines, after the unholy mess it has made of its latest Astute-class hunter-killer boats. There have been vague references to wider cooperation in areas such as artificial intelligence, but the only specific programmes mentioned – such as those to supply the Australians with Tomahawks, Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles, and Long-Range Anti-Ship Missiles – concern American weapons systems. Is the UK, then, as the French have disobligingly suggested, just a fifth wheel on the carriage? What are the British expected to bring to the party – or, to put it another way, what slice of the pie may the Americans allow them?

The answer may lie in the Americans’ profound aversion to sharing their nuclear propulsion technology with any ally, no matter how close. They have done so only once, in 1958, to get the British started – and only after an almighty internal row to overcome the opposition of the almost-sovereign Office of Naval Reactors, under the legendary Admiral Hyman Rickover. After that, the shutters came down again; the British have been expected to manage on their own ever since. After 60 years, it is a fair bet that the once-common technology has evolved in significantly different ways. So, perhaps the Americans would feel more comfortable allowing the British to supply the nuclear propulsion plants, and to keep their own, almost certainly more advanced, technology under wraps? Or perhaps this is all still to be decided: a future submarine task force is to be allowed up to 18 months to determine the best way to acquire the boats.

For now, then, the initial high of being able to announce this surprise new partnership has faded for Johnson, who has returned from the US to face a less congenial domestic agenda – growing supply-chain difficulties, and a mounting cost-of-living crisis as energy prices skyrocket, the tax burden increases to its highest level for 70 years to keep the health service from collapse, and millions of the poorest families prepare to lose a critical £20-per-week welfare supplement. Winter is coming, and the palm-fringed shores of the Indo-Pacific will seem a very long way away.

The European Council on Foreign Relations does not take collective positions. ECFR publications only represent the views of its individual authors.

AUTHOR

Nick Witney
Senior Policy Fellow

US President Joe Biden with Australia's Prime Minister Scott Morrison (left) and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Photo Credit: White House video screenshot

AUKUS: Winners And Losers – Analysis

September 23, 2021

By Lim Teck Ghee*

Western hypocrisy over nuclear proliferation and the key role of its armament industry in determining foreign policy is again exposed

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his colleagues are today basking in the flag waving congratulations from patriotic and red-blooded Australians for his success in pulling off the AUKUS agreement to intensify military cooperation between Australia and its two western allies against what the trio have identified as their common enemy – China.

So how big and momentous a deal is it exactly?

According to former Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott:

“This is a historic and important decision made by the Australian government. Historic because it overturns decades of strategic caution and announces to the world that we take national security seriously. Important because it acknowledges the scale of the strategic challenge from China and declares that Australia will play our part in meeting it.”

Hugh White, an academic from Canberra’s Australian National University, similarly noted that “the new agreement will make Australia the only non-nuclear armed country in the world to operate nuclear-powered submarines”.

“That is a very big deal indeed…In the escalating rivalry between America and China, we’re siding with the United States and we’re betting they’re going to win this one.”

More critical Australians have denounced it as a big mistake with former Prime Minister, Paul Keating arguing that Australia’s sycophancy to the US was only damaging its own interests.

Weeks earlier Keating had chastised the government for leading Australia into a “Cold War” with China.

“Australia is a continent sharing a border with no other state. It has no territorial disputes with China. Indeed, China is 12 flying hours away from the Australian coast. Yet the government, both through its foreign policy incompetence and fawning compulsion to please America, effectively has us in a cold war with China.”

Clearly this advice is being ignored by Morrison who is committed to winning a coming kaki election where according to one Australian wag, he can show off to the electorate the new hair on his chest grown with US and British assistance.

Winners

Is Joe Biden the big winner? With the US tail between its legs from the Taliban inflicted ignominious Kabul retreat and numerous domestic challenges to overcome, he now can show off one achievement with the assistance of “that fella from down under”.

But is it such a big victory for the US? Available data confirms that the US has an overwhelming military superiority over China in the Indo Pacific and South China Sea regions. Although the number of US military bases in these two regions has not been publicly disclosed, what is known is that there is a very large number of US military bases ringing China. Around the world the US maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries with several hundred thousands of land, sea and air troops and other military personnel ready to take out any enemy.

The latest addition of Australian nuclear submarines and another military base does show that Biden is more macho than Trump in foreign policy. But it will not count at all in the US’s troubled national politics or enhance America’s national security. Rather the exercise smacks of nuclear overkill. The US has presently 400 intercontinental missiles. The warheads on the ICBMs only represent one quarter of deployed US strategic warheads. More than half of deployed US strategic warheads are mounted on submarine-launched missiles. The remainder are nuclear bombs and warheads on cruise missiles bunkers that can reach Beijing, Pyongyang and Moscow and nuke them into oblivion – several times over.

China, on the other hand, has one military base – not in Latin America or the Indo Pacific region but in Djibouti, Africa! Not only is China’s military power in land, sea and air much less than the US but its military budget is considerably smaller (see table).

Boris Johnson appears to be the bigger winner. This latest flying of the British flag in a region where it has been reduced from colonial giant to post-colonial third tier status may provide gratification and a sense of self-importance for the domestic audience. But more significant to the British power elite is the mouth watering US $90 billion contract that Morrison tore up and which the British armament industry and mass media are drooling over. The fact that it is Macron and France that this Anglophone initiative has killed off makes this perhaps the most important English victory over the French since the Battle Of Agincourt. To sooth French outrage but scarcely believable and more hypocritical to anyone who has followed British politics since Brexit is the British Prime Minister’s most recent declaration that “Our love of France is ineradicable.”

Losers

Notwithstanding the British PM’s “forever” love declaration and reminders from Australian leaders of how tens of thousands of Australians have died to defend France in past wars, France – as the big loser – will be looking for revenge. Gerard Araud, a former French ambassador to the United States, noted on twitter that the deal blind-sided France. “The world is a jungle,” “France has just been reminded of this bitter truth by the way the US and the UK have stabbed her in the back in Australia. C’est la vie.” Harsher words have come from France’s top officials. “There has been duplicity, contempt and lies,” French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian declared on France 2 television, adding relations with Australia and the United States were in “crisis”.”You can’t play that way in an alliance.”

The loss of the “contract of the century” submarine deal is not just a massive economic blow. It is also a huge political setback for French President Emmanuel Macron who is running for re-election next year. Further comments by Morrison and his cabinet members on the need for Australia to replace the ‘obsolete’ French designed Shortfin Barracuda program with a technologically superior British submarine have rubbed more salt into the open wound. Meanwhile, the French outrage has been greeted with disapproving and contemptuous feedback from the British and Australia public. A satirist commentator has pointed out that the major problem of the French design is that it could only go into neutral or reverse drive! These and similar comments in social media may yet come back to haunt the AUKUS partners. Expect interesting times ahead for British-French relations.

Beware the Unintended Consequences

Lord Peter Ricketts, former British ambassador to France has warned that the recall of ambassadors from the US and Australia by the French government is just “the tip of the iceberg”. According to him, “there is a deep sense of betrayal in France because this wasn’t just an arms contract. This was France setting up a strategic partnership with Australia and the Australians have now thrown that away and negotiated behind the backs of France with two Nato allies, the US and UK, to replace it with a completely different contract. I think for the French, this looks like a complete failure of trust between allies. Therefore, causing them to doubt, what is Nato for?”

This may yet turn out to be a case study for an introductory course on “Classic Foreign Policy Bungling and Disasters”.

Away from Nato, China has warned the three countries to “abandon the obsolete cold war zero sum mentality and narrow-minded geopolitical concepts and respect regional people’s aspiration and do more that is conducive to regional peace and stability and development – otherwise they will only end up hurting their own interests”.

Also shattered for now and for good is the campaign for a nuclear-free Pacific backed by New Zealand and countries of the Indo-Pacific region. Australian disregard and disdain for its “little brother” and the Pacific island nations has never been more obvious.

And in the contested South China Sea region, Indonesia and Malaysia in immediate responses have expressed deep concern over the arms race being intensified by the new tripartite military pact; and called on nations to avoid provoking a nuclear arms race as well as meet their nuclear non-proliferation obligations.

Key takeaways for now

Western hypocrisy over nuclear proliferation and the key role of its armament merchants and supporting politicians in determining foreign policy is not only again exposed from this new military pact. North Korea, Iran, Turkey and a host of other countries wanting to join the nuclear weaponry club will have greater justification for crossing what the west has set up as an elastic red line.

As for Australian PM Morrison, he has instigated a new round of the cold war which has him pinning the target on his own country’s back as well as the backs of Asia and Pacific neighbours.

*Lim Teck Ghee, a former graduate of the Australian National University, is a political analyst in Malaysia. He has a regular column, ‘Another Take’ in The Sun, one of the nation’s print media.

US President Joe Biden with Australia's Prime Minister Scott Morrison (left) and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Photo Credit: White House video screenshot

SEE

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment