There's a profound moral problem that the pro-life movement ignores

John Stoehr, The Editorial Board
April 16, 2021

Amy Coney Barrett (AFP)

Once upon a time, I was a straight news reporter freelancing for a new national religion publication. My assignment was to attend religious services in my area to see what faith leaders were saying on the Sunday before the 2012 presidential election.

I decided to go to a Roman Catholic Church here in New Haven that offers mass in English, Polish and Latin (obviously, not at the same time). The Latin Mass, if you've never experienced it, is truly moving what with the incense and cathedral setting and so on. I was enjoying myself all the way up to the homily. It was in English. I got my notepad. "Abortion is the greatest humanitarian crisis of our lifetimes," the priest said. The message was clear: don't vote for the (Black) candidate supporting infanticide.

I don't think abortion is murder, but I can see why others do. I can see why people see it as a "humanitarian crisis." I can even see why some think of the pro-life movement as a civil-rights movement. For these believers, life begins at conception, meaning a person becomes a person at what they believe is a sacred moment. Even if you don't think it's murder, you might credit the view with having a profound moral weight.

Yes, yes. I know. Anti-abortion politics is really about putting women back in their place in the natural order of things.1 It's about maintaining the local authority of white man, for the most part, and their dominance over women, especially the women in their lives. This, to me, is transparently true. Even so, abortion is what it is. It's not like the pro-life movement is based on nothing serious. There is a moral foundation, no?

What if it's not what you think it is? The energy driving 40 years of partisan politics, to strike down Roe, has been described as a moral crusade. The moral dimension has been strong enough to wedge apart liberals and social-gospel Catholics, wrote Christopher Jon Sprigman. "But for so many I knew, the struggle over abortion overwhelmed their other political commitments. For many, it was the Supreme Court's constitutionalization of abortion that turned disagreement into a great moral schism."

Again, what if it's not that? What if the question is not centered on the morality of ending a pregnancy but on something quite different? Most liberals don't even bother asking the question. They just deny the premise of the argument. They deny a fetus is a person. But what if a fetus is a person, as pro-lifers say? Then what? Well, then we have a titanic ethical dilemma no serious person in the pro-life movement talks about. And by refusing to talk about it, they give up the game. This isn't really about babies.

Think about it. The pro-life movement wants the government to outlaw access to abortion, the result being women carrying out pregnancies. Put this together with the belief that a fetus is a person. What are pro-lifers asking for? That the government force one person to permit another person to use her body. Though it's true this person requires another person's body for its survival, that doesn't change the fact that forcing one person to permit another person to use her body for its survival is a moral question as profound as the question of whether ending a pregnancy is good or bad.

Even if you think ending a pregnancy is bad, on account of your belief that a fetus is a person, you should be downright disturbed by the idea of the government forcing one person to allow another person to use her body for its survival. These are different moral problems, sure, but they are equally problematic. If the pro-life movement is not ignoring one in favor of the other, it's deciding one is OK while the other is not. And the consequential burden of either decision falls entirely on who? Pregnant women.

If abortion really were a "great moral schism," its opponents would be struggling to untangle the vexing moral knot of a government forcing one person to use another person's body. But I don't see serious abortion opponents doing that. What I do see is what everyone else sees—debate over whether the US Supreme Court will strike down Roe, or enfeeble it, out of the profound moral conviction that abortion is wrong.

But abortion is not a "moral debate." It's a one-sided moral debate. It's a debate over which one side won't look at the moral implications of winning the debate. Or it's a debate over which one side understands the moral implications and accepts them, because accepting them is in keeping with its view of the natural order of things. What's sacred isn't so much the life inside the mother as her presumed social role.

ALBERTA

Treaty 8 Grand Chief Arthur Noskey Calls For Suspension Of New Forestry Legislation

(ANNews) – The Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta are calling on the Alberta Government to suspend new forestry legislation until concerns about impacts on “inherent and treaty rights are addressed.”

Alberta enacted Bill 40 in December 2020, which amends the provincial forests act.

The Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta said that “the new legislation includes provisions which reduce ministerial oversight, streamlines the licensing process, and increases the amount of timber that can be harvested annually.”

Treaty 8 includes 40 First Nations and is the largest treaty territory in Canada by area at 840,000 square kilometres — larger than France. It spreads into British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories and has about 40,000 members in Alberta.

Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta Grand Chief Arthur Noskey said, “Bill 40 will have a direct impact on our territories and on our Inherent and Treaty rights.

“The Province should have consulted with us from the outset on a government-to-government basis to make sure that our rights were protected. Instead, it went ahead and passed the bill into law without talking to us.”

Treaty 8 First Nations in Alberta holds Inherent and Treaty rights in relation to lands and waters in Treaty No.8 territory, recognized and affirmed under Canadian law.

“We entered into Treaty No. 8 based on the Crown’s promise that we would be able to continue to hunt and fish as we had before the treaty,” said Grand Chief Noskey. “The Province is responsible for fulfilling those promises and upholding the honour of the Crown. It is not honourable to blindside us by enacting new laws without open and sincere consultation with our nations.”

“We will make every effort to protect our territories and our rights,” said Grand Chief Noskey. “That includes holding the Province accountable for ignoring the direction of the Supreme Court and disrespecting our Treaty.

“We expect the Province to suspend the new Forest Act immediately, and to meet with the Treaty 8 Chief’s to address how the province intends to uphold their obligations under Treaty. Until that happens, no further steps should be taken under this legislation.”

“The forest is being overharvested. There’s a chain reaction to everything that’s done,” said Grand Chief Noskey.

The Alberta United Conservatives passed the act and it is expected to come into effect May 1.

Alberta Agriculture and Forestry spokesman Justin Laurence said that the government did not speak with First Nations, instead, the government spoke with Indigenous-owned companies.

“The department took part in meaningful, ongoing conversations with the forestry companies and industrial partners, which included six companies owned by Indigenous communities,” he wrote in an email.

However, Grand Chief Noskey believes that consultation must happen on a government-to-government basis and that the government can’t relegate First Nations consultations to companies doing the work.

“It seems like we have to force the government to the table,” he added.

“We are for the economy, but we want to do it in a way that respects the land,” Noskey said. “It seems with this UCP government nobody cares about the environment.”

“It’s a free-for-all.”

Jacob Cardinal is an LJI reporter for Alberta Native News.

Jacob Cardinal, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Alberta Native News

THE DISCRETE CHARM OF THE BOURGEOISIE 
Undercover video sparks outrage over secret dinner parties for Paris elite

By Saskya Vandoorne and Rob Picheta,

 CNN 2021-04-06

An undercover report showing members of the Paris elite enjoying secret dinner parties in luxury restaurants and flouting Covid-19 restrictions has sparked fury in France, and prompted the city's prosecutor to launch an investigation.

This picture shows the interior of Palais Vivienne apartment, owned by French collector Pierre-Jean Chalencon, on April 5, 2021. - The lawyer of Pierre-Jean Chalencon, owner of the "Palais Vivienne", implicated by a report from French channel M6 for clandestine dinners in Paris, told AFP on April 4th that his client was only "joking" when he declared ministers participated in such meals. Paris prosecutor Remy Heitz opened a criminal investigation on alleged dinners banned during the pandemic. - RESTRICTED TO EDITORIAL USE (Photo by Thomas COEX / AFP) / RESTRICTED TO EDITORIAL USE (Photo by THOMAS COEX/AFP via Getty Images)

The probe comes after a TV report by channel M6 that aired Friday, showing hidden camera footage of two upmarket restaurants filled with mask-free guests.

In the video, an undercover journalist enters a private dining club with closed shutters and is greeted by a waiter wearing white gloves. She is asked on whose behalf she has been invited and is told: "Once you're through the door, there's no more Covid."



The maitre d' is heard explaining that the menu starts at 160 euros ($190) per person. For 490 euros ($580) diners can sip champagne while feasting on foie gras with truffle and langoustine in a ginger sauce.

"We are looking into possible charges of endangerment and undeclared labor," a spokesman for the Paris prosecutor told CNN Monday. "We will verify whether the gatherings were organized in violation of sanitary rules and determine who were the potential organizers and participants."

Restaurants in France have been closed since late last year, as the country battles a third wave of coronavirus infections. A further "limited lockdown" took effect last week, as President Emmanuel Macron warned that the country risks "losing control" over the pandemic.



The video goes on to show another dinner party being held in lavish surroundings with large tapestries and gilded paintings. The guests are seen giving each other "la bise," kissing each other cheek to cheek.

The organizer appears to claim: "This week I dined at two or three restaurants, so-called clandestine restaurants, with a certain number of ministers."

Due to its recognizable decor, the restaurant was later identified as Palais Vivienne owned by Pierre-Jean Chalençon.

Chalençon's lawyer released a statement Sunday acknowledging the distorted voice on the video belonged to his client but that he was joking when he said government ministers had attended dinners.

The scandal has drawn the ire of many online, with the hashtag #OnVeutLesNoms (We Want The Names) trending on Twitter on Monday.

Government spokesman Gabriel Attal told LCI news channel Sunday that authorities have been investigating reports of illegal parties for months and that 200 suspects have been identified so far. "They will face a heavy punishment," Attal added.

Column: A reluctant star heads home with the green jacket

By JIM LITKE

April 11, 2021


1 of 10

Hideki Matsuyama, of Japan, celebrates during champion's green jacket ceremony after winning the Masters golf tournament on Sunday, April 11, 2021, in Augusta, Ga. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip)

AUGUSTA, Ga. (AP) — His were the only pair of hands on the club. Millions of his countrymen will want a piece of Hideki Matsuyama now. Considering how much he values his privacy, it could be quite the interesting tug of war.

Precious few people even knew Matsuyama was married until he and his wife, Mei, welcomed a baby girl in early 2017. His response to the media uproar back home was short and completely in character. “No one,” Matsuyama said, “really asked me.”

That won’t happen again. At the start of Masters week, he was far from the most popular golfer in Japan. Matsuyama knows that’s over, too. If only for the moment, he sounded ready.

“Hopefully, I’ll be a pioneer in this and many other Japanese will follow,” he said. “I’m glad to be able to open the floodgates. hopefully, and many more will follow me.”

The bar will be a lot higher now.

Matsuyama’s one-shot victory and 1-over-73 final round were actually a lot better than they’ll look in the history books. He was more protective than proactive at the end, bogeying three of the last four holes to avoid even bigger numbers. But from the restart of Saturday’s third round — after an hour-plus rain delay — until those closing holes Sunday, Matsuyama was nearly flawless.

He’d spent most of Saturday’s break hiding in his rental car, scrolling through his phone and stewing over his last shot, a wayward drive at No. 11. He gave himself a pep talk, reasoning things couldn’t get worse. And he was right — up to a point.

Matsuyama locked the car door and then promptly mowed down Augusta National’s final eight holes in 6 under, crafting a remarkable 65 and turning a two-shot deficit into a four-shot lead. Then came the hard part, a trip to the interview room.

“I’m not sure how to answer this in a good way,” he began, speaking through his trusted interpreter, Bob Turner. “But being in front of the media is still difficult.”

Turner makes that part of Matsuyama’s job a little easier. They became fast friends nearly a decade ago, when Matsuyama was still in college and testing the waters on this side of the Pacific. Turner, who walked the course Sunday tracking Matsuyama’s progress, knows his friend’s guarded nature and takes pains to respect his wishes.

“I try to interpret his words here,” Turner said, pointing to his heart, “instead of here,” he added, now pointing to his head.

And of course, it could have been worse. Several reporters noted the usually two-dozen-strong Japanese media contingent, like its larger U.S. counterpart, was drastically reduced because of COVID-19 restrictions. But any number above zero was more than Matsuyama would have preferred.

“I’m glad the media are here covering it, but it’s not my favorite thing to do,” he continued, “to stand and answer questions And so with fewer media, it has been a lot less stressful for me, and I’ve enjoyed this week.”

Until Sunday, pride of place back home belonged to 74-year-old Hall of Famer Jumbo Ozaki, a gregarious soul who won more than 100 tournaments yet rarely played outside of Japan. Another pair of old-timers, Isao Aoki and Tommy Nakajima, are still revered and in demand there, too, in no small part because they played most of their golf close to home.

Even Ryo Ishikawa, a 29-year-old who like Matsuyama left home to test himself against the best, held a big edge over his contemporary. Ishikawa won a Japan Golf Tour event as a 15-year-old amateur and has been a rock star on that side of the world ever since.

That, and more, awaits Matsuyama the moment he lands back home. Asked how he expected that to go, he broke into a grin. Matsuyama rarely speaks English in public, but a widening smile made clear he understood the question before Turner sent it his way in Japanese.

“I can’t imagine what it’s going to be like,” Matsuyama replied, “but what a thrill and honor it will be for me to take the Green jacket back to Japan.”

TOOK TILL THE 21ST CENTURY

Chloé Zhao becomes 1st woman of color to win top DGA honor
By LINDSEY BAHR

April 11, 2021

FILE - Chloe Zhao poses for a portrait to promote her film "Nomadland" during the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah on Jan. 22, 2018. (Photo by Taylor Jewell/Invision/AP, File)


Chloé Zhao’s “Nomadland” continued its tour of dominance through awards season Saturday night, when Zhao took top honors at the 73rd annual Directors Guild Association Awards.

She is the second woman to earn the honor and the first woman of color to do so. Kathryn Bigelow was the first for “The Hurt Locker.” And it all but solidifies her frontrunner status leading up to the Oscars on April 25.

The untelevised event was held virtually with nominees accepting over zoom calls from around the world, in lieu of the typical hotel ballroom ceremony in Beverly Hills.

Only seven times in history has the DGA winner ever not gone on to take the best director prize at the Academy Awards. Last year was a rare exception when the Guild honored “1917” director Sam Mendes and then the Oscar went to “Parasite” director Bong Joon Ho.
ADVERTISEMENT



Zhao was up against Emerald Fennell for “Promising Young Woman,” Aaron Sorkin for “The Trial of the Chicago 7,” Lee Isaac Chung for “Minari” and David Fincher for “Mank.” The only difference in the Oscars lineup is that Sorkin is not among the nominees — instead, Thomas Vinterberg is for “Another Round.”

Zhao’s lyrical film about transient workers in the American West starring Frances McDormand started its awards journey winning the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival, the People’s Choice award at the Toronto International Film Festival, the Golden Globe for best drama and best director and the top honor from the Producer’s Guild.

The first-time directing prize went to Darius Marder for “Sound of Metal,” his innovative exploration of what happens when a drummer has severe, traumatic hearing loss. And documentary directing was given to Gregory Kershaw and Michael Dweck for “The Truffle Hunters,” which follows a group of older men who seek out the expensive and rare white Alba truffle in the forests of Piedmont, Italy.

The Directors Guild also celebrates achievements in television directing.

Lesli Linka Glatter won the dramatic prize for her “Homeland” episode “Prisoners of War,” Susanna Fogel took the comedy honor for the “In Case of Emergency” episode of “The Flight Attendant” and Scott Frank was recognized for directing the limited series “The Queen’s Gambit.”

MEN INTERFERING IN WOMEN'S HEALTH

Some GOP-led states target abortions done through medication

By DAVID CRARY and IRIS SAMUELS

April 11, 2021


1 of 3

FILE - This Sept. 22, 2010 file photo shows bottles of the abortion-inducing drug RU-486 in Des Moines, Iowa. In 2021, about 40% of all abortions in the U.S. are now done through medication — rather than surgery — and that option has become all the more pivotal during the COVID-19 pandemic. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

About 40% of all abortions in the U.S. are now done through medication — rather than surgery — and that option has become all the more pivotal during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Abortion rights advocates say the pandemic has demonstrated the value of medical care provided virtually, including the privacy and convenience of abortions taking place in a woman’s home, instead of a clinic. Abortion opponents, worried the method will become increasingly prevalent, are pushing legislation in several Republican-led states to restrict it and in some cases, ban providers from prescribing abortion medication via telemedicine.

Ohio enacted a ban this year, proposing felony charges for doctors who violate it. The law was set to take effect next week, but a judge has temporarily blocked it in response to a Planned Parenthood lawsuit.

In Montana, Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte is expected to sign a ban on telemedicine abortions. The measure’s sponsor, Rep. Sharon Greef, has called medication abortions “the Wild West of the abortion industry” and says the drugs should be taken under close supervision of medical professionals, “not as part of a do-it-yourself abortion far from a clinic or hospital.”

Opponents of the bans say telemedicine abortions are safe, and outlawing them would have a disproportionate effect on rural residents who face long drives to the nearest abortion clinic.

“When we look at what state legislatures are doing, it becomes clear there’s no medical basis for these restrictions,” said Elisabeth Smith, chief counsel for state policy and advocacy with the Center for Reproductive Rights. “They’re only meant to make it more difficult to access this incredibly safe medication and sow doubt into the relationship between patients and providers.”

Other legislation has sought to outlaw delivery of abortion pills by mail, shorten the 10-week window in which the method is allowed, and require doctors to tell women undergoing drug-induced abortions that the process can be reversed midway through — a claim that critics say is not backed by science.

It’s part of a broader wave of anti-abortion measures numerous states are considering this year, including some that would ban nearly all abortions. The bills’ supporters hope the U.S. Supreme Court, now with a 6-3 conservative majority, might be open to overturning or weakening the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that established the nationwide right to end pregnancies.

Legislation targeting medication abortion was inspired in part by developments during the pandemic, when the Food and Drug Administration — under federal court order — eased restrictions on abortion pills so they could be sent by mail. A requirement for women to pick them up in person is back, but abortion opponents worry the Biden administration will end those restrictions permanently. Abortion-rights groups are urging that step.




With the rules lifted in December, Planned Parenthood in the St. Louis region would mail pills for telemedicine abortions overseen by its health center in Fairview Heights, Illinois.

A single mother from Cairo, Illinois, more than a two-hour drive from the clinic, chose that option. She learned she was pregnant just a few months after giving birth to her second child.

“It wouldn’t have been a good situation to bring another child into the world,” said the 32-year-old woman, who spoke on the condition her name not be used to protect her family’s privacy.

“The fact that I could do it in the comfort of my own home was a good feeling,” she added.

She was relieved to avoid a lengthy trip and grateful for the clinic employee who talked her through the procedure.

“I didn’t feel alone,” she said. “I felt safe.”

Medication abortion has been available in the United States since 2000, when the FDA approved the use of mifepristone. Taken with misoprostol, it constitutes the so-called abortion pill.

The method’s popularity has grown steadily. The Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights, estimates that it accounts for about 40% of all abortions in the U.S. and 60% of those taking place up to 10 weeks’ gestation.

“Beyond its exceptionally safe and effective track record, what makes medication abortion so significant is how convenient and private it can be,” said Megan Donovan, Guttmacher’s senior policy manager. “That’s exactly why it is still subject to onerous restrictions.”

Planned Parenthood of Southwest Ohio, which includes Cincinnati, says medication abortions account for a quarter of the abortions it provides. Of its 1,558 medication abortions in the past year, only 9% were done via telemedicine, but the organization’s president, Kersha Deibel, said that option is important for many economically disadvantaged women and those in rural areas.

Mike Gonidakis, president of Ohio Right to Life, countered that “no woman deserves to be subjected to the gruesome process of a chemical abortion potentially hours away from the physician who prescribed her the drugs. ”

In Montana, where Planned Parenthood operates five of the state’s seven abortion clinics, 75% of abortions are done through medication — a huge change from 10 years ago.

Martha Stahl, president of Planned Parenthood of Montana, says the pandemic — which increased reliance on telemedicine — has contributed to the rise in the proportion of medication abortions.

In the vast state, home to rural communities and seven Native American reservations, many women live more than a five-hour drive from the nearest abortion clinic. For them, access to telemedicine can be significant.

Greef, who sponsored the ban on telemedicine abortions, said the measure would ensure providers can watch for signs of domestic abuse or sex trafficking as they care for patients in person.

Yet advocates of the telemedicine method say patients are grateful for the convenience and privacy.

“Some are in a bad relationship or victim of domestic violence,” said Christina Theriault, a nurse practitioner for Maine Family Planning who can perform abortions under state law. “With telemedicine, they can do it without their partner knowing. There’s a lot of relief from them.”

The group has health centers in far northern Maine where women can get abortion pills and take them at home under the supervision of health providers communicating by phone or videoconferencing. It spares women a drive of three to four hours to the nearest abortion clinic in Bangor, Theriault said.

Maine Family Planning is among a small group of providers participating in an FDA-approved research program allowing women to receive the abortion pill by mail after video consultations. Under the program, the Maine group also can mail pills to women in New York and Massachusetts.

___

Samuels is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

TRUMP SECRETLY ORDERED STAND DOWN
‘Clear the Capitol,’ Pence pleaded, timeline of riot shows

By LISA MASCARO, BEN FOX and LOLITA C. BALDOR

April 10, 2021

1 of 7
FILE - In this Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, file photo, violent rioters storm the Capitol, in Washington. New details from the deadly riot of Jan. 6 are contained in a previously undisclosed document prepared by the Pentagon for internal use that was obtained by the Associated Press and vetted by current and former government officials. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) — From a secure room in the Capitol on Jan. 6, as rioters pummeled police and vandalized the building, Vice President Mike Pence tried to assert control. In an urgent phone call to the acting defense secretary, he issued a startling demand.

“Clear the Capitol,” Pence said.

Elsewhere in the building, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were making a similarly dire appeal to military leaders, asking the Army to deploy the National Guard.

“We need help,” Schumer, D-N.Y., said in desperation, more than an hour after the Senate chamber had been breached.

At the Pentagon, officials were discussing media reports that the mayhem was not confined to Washington and that other state capitals were facing similar violence in what had the makings of a national insurrection.

“We must establish order,” said Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a call with Pentagon leaders.

But order would not be restored for hours.

These new details about the deadly riot are contained in a previously undisclosed document prepared by the Pentagon for internal use that was obtained by The Associated Press and vetted by current and former government officials.

The timeline adds another layer of understanding about the state of fear and panic while the insurrection played out, and lays bare the inaction by then-President Donald Trump and how that void contributed to a slowed response by the military and law enforcement. It shows that the intelligence missteps, tactical errors and bureaucratic delays were eclipsed by the government’s failure to comprehend the scale and intensity of a violent uprising by its own citizens.

With Trump not engaged, it fell to Pentagon officials, a handful of senior White House aides, the leaders of Congress and the vice president holed up in a secure bunker to manage the chaos.

While the timeline helps to crystalize the frantic character of the crisis, the document, along with hours of sworn testimony, provides only an incomplete picture about how the insurrection could have advanced with such swift and lethal force, interrupting the congressional certification of Joe Biden as president and delaying the peaceful transfer of power, the hallmark of American democracy.
ADVERTISEMENT



Lawmakers, protected to this day by National Guard troops, will hear from the inspector general of the Capitol Police this coming week.

“Any minute that we lost, I need to know why,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., chair of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, which is investigating the siege, said last month.

The timeline fills in some of those gaps.

At 4:08 p.m. on Jan. 6, as the rioters roamed the Capitol and after they had menacingly called out for Pelosi, D-Calif., and yelled for Pence to be hanged, the vice president was in a secure location, phoning Christopher Miller, the acting defense secretary, and demanding answers.

There had been a highly public rift between Trump and Pence, with Trump furious that his vice president refused to halt the Electoral College certification. Interfering with that process was an act that Pence considered unconstitutional. The Constitution makes clear that the vice president’s role in this joint session of Congress is largely ceremonial.

Pence’s call to Miller lasted only a minute. Pence said the Capitol was not secure and he asked military leaders for a deadline for securing the building, according to the document.

By this point it had already been two hours since the mob overwhelmed Capitol Police unprepared for an insurrection. Rioters broke into the building, seized the Senate and paraded to the House. In their path, they left destruction and debris. Dozens of officers were wounded, some gravely.

Just three days earlier, government leaders had talked about the use of the National Guard. On the afternoon of Jan. 3, as lawmakers were sworn in for the new session of Congress, Miller and Milley gathered with Cabinet members to discuss Jan. 6. They also met with Trump.

In that meeting at the White House, Trump approved the activation of the D.C. National Guard and also told the acting defense secretary to take whatever action needed as events unfolded, according to the information obtained by the AP.

The next day, Jan. 4, the defense officials spoke by phone with Cabinet members, including the acting attorney general, and finalized details of the Guard deployment.

The Guard’s role was limited to traffic intersections and checkpoints around the city, based in part on strict restrictions mandated by district officials. Miller also authorized Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy to deploy, if needed, the D.C. Guard’s emergency reaction force stationed at Joint Base Andrews.

The Trump administration and the Pentagon were wary of a heavy military presence, in part because of criticism officials faced for the seemingly heavy-handed National Guard and law enforcement efforts to counter civil unrest in the aftermath of the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

In particular, the D.C. Guard’s use of helicopters to hover over crowds in downtown Washington during those demonstrations drew widespread criticism. That unauthorized move prompted the Pentagon to more closely control the D.C. Guard.

“There was a lot of things that happened in the spring that the department was criticized for,” Robert Salesses, who is serving as the assistant defense secretary for homeland defense and global security, said at a congressional hearing last month.

On the eve of Trump’s rally Jan. 6 near the White House, the first 255 National Guard troops arrived in the district, and Mayor Muriel Bowser confirmed in a letter to the administration that no other military support was needed.

By the morning of Jan. 6, crowds started gathering at the Ellipse before Trump’s speech. According to the Pentagon’s plans, the acting defense secretary would only be notified if the crowd swelled beyond 20,000.

Before long it was clear that the crowd was far more in control of events than the troops and law enforcement there to maintain order.

Trump, just before noon, was giving his speech and he told supporters to march to the Capitol. The crowd at the rally was at least 10,000. By 1:15 p.m., the procession was well on its way there.

As protesters reached the Capitol grounds, some immediately became violent, busting through weak police barriers in front of the building and beating up officers who stood in their way.

At 1:49 p.m., as the violence escalated, then- Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund called Maj. Gen. William Walker, commanding general of the D.C. National Guard, to request assistance.

Sund’s voice was “cracking with emotion,” Walker later told a Senate committee. Walker immediately called Army leaders to inform them of the request.

Twenty minutes later, around 2:10 p.m., the first rioters were beginning to break through the doors and windows of the Senate. They then started a march through the marbled halls in search of the lawmakers who were counting the electoral votes. Alarms inside the building announced a lockdown.

Sund frantically called Walker again and asked for at least 200 guard members “and to send more if they are available.”

But even with the advance Cabinet-level preparation, no help was immediately on the way.

Over the next 20 minutes, as senators ran to safety and the rioters broke into the chamber and rifled through their desks, Army Secretary McCarthy spoke with the mayor and Pentagon leaders about Sund’s request.

On the Pentagon’s third floor E Ring, senior Army leaders were huddled around the phone for what they described as a “panicked” call from the D.C. Guard. As the gravity of the situation became clear, McCarthy bolted from the meeting, sprinting down the hall to Miller’s office and breaking into a meeting.

As minutes ticked by, rioters breached additional entrances in the Capitol and made their way to the House. They broke glass in doors that led to the chamber and tried to gain entry as a group of lawmakers was still trapped inside.

At 2:25 p.m., McCarthy told his staff to prepare to move the emergency reaction force to the Capitol. The force could be ready to move in 20 minutes.

At 2:44 p.m., Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt was fatally shot by a Capitol Police officer as she tried to climb through a window that led to the House floor.

Shortly after 3 p.m., McCarthy provided “verbal approval” of the activation of 1,100 National Guard troops to support the D.C. police and the development of a plan for the troops’ deployment duties, locations and unit sizes.

Minutes later the Guard’s emergency reaction force left Joint Base Andrews for the D.C. Armory. There, they would prepare to head to the Capitol once Miller, the acting defense secretary, gave final approval.

Meanwhile, the Joint Staff set up a video teleconference call that stayed open until about 10 p.m. that night, allowing staff to communicate any updates quickly to military leaders.

At 3:19 p.m., Pelosi and Schumer were calling the Pentagon for help and were told the National Guard had been approved.

But military and law enforcement leaders struggled over the next 90 minutes to execute the plan as the Army and Guard called all troops in from their checkpoints, issued them new gear, laid out a new plan for their mission and briefed them on their duties.

The Guard troops had been prepared only for traffic duties. Army leaders argued that sending them into a volatile combat situation required additional instruction to keep both them and the public safe.

By 3:37 p.m., the Pentagon sent its own security forces to guard the homes of defense leaders. No troops had yet reached the Capitol.

By 3:44 p.m., the congressional leaders escalated their pleas.

“Tell POTUS to tweet everyone should leave,” Schumer implored the officials, using the acronym for the president of the United States. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., asked about calling up active duty military.

At 3:48 p.m., frustrated that the D.C. Guard hadn’t fully developed a plan to link up with police, the Army secretary dashed from the Pentagon to D.C. police headquarters to help coordinate with law enforcement.

Trump broke his silence at 4:17 p.m., tweeting to his followers to “go home and go in peace.”

By about 4:30 p.m., the military plan was finalized and Walker had approval to send the Guard to the Capitol. The reports of state capitals breached in other places turned out to be bogus.

At about 4:40 p.m. Pelosi and Schumer were again on the phone with Milley and the Pentagon leadership, asking Miller to secure the perimeter.

But the acrimony was becoming obvious.

The congressional leadership on the call “accuses the National Security apparatus of knowing that protestors planned to conduct an assault on the Capitol,” the timeline said.

The call lasts 30 minutes. Pelosi’s spokesman acknowledges there was a brief discussion of the obvious intelligence failures that led to the insurrection.

It would be another hour before the first contingent of 155 Guard members were at the Capitol. Dressed in riot gear, they began arriving at 5:20 p.m.

They started moving out the rioters, but there were few, if any, arrests. by police.

At 8 p.m. the Capitol was declared secure.

___

Associated Press writers Michael Balsamo in New York, Nomaan Merchant in Houston, and Mary Clare Jalonick, Jill Colvin, Eric Tucker, Zeke Miller and Colleen Long contributed to this report.

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M FUNDING TERRORISTS
NRA trial opens window on secretive leader’s life and work

By JAKE BLEIBERG

April 9, 2021

1 of 3
nt. (AP Photo/Michael Conroy, File)


DALLAS (AP) — Wayne LaPierre flies exclusively on private jets, he sailed around the Bahamas for “security” and he never sends emails or texts in the course of his work running the nation’s most politically influential gun-rights group.

LaPierre’s testimony this week during the National Rifle Association’s high-stakes bankruptcy trial offered a rare window into the work and habits of the notoriously secretive titan of the American firearms movement.

Seldom seen in public outside choreographed speeches and TV appearances, the 71-year-old was blunt and occasionally combative under lawyers’ questioning. He took the virtual witness stand in a federal case over whether the NRA should be allowed to incorporate in Texas instead of New York, where the state is suing in a separate effort to disband the group over alleged financial abuses.

LaPierre’s testimony revealed him to be an embattled executive defending his leadership and punching back against what he characterized as a political attack by New York Attorney General Letitia James. But he also tried to acknowledge enough mistakes and course corrections to avoid having the NRA’s reins handed to a court-appointed overseer — a move he said would be a death blow to the 150-year-old group that claims 5 million members.

The NRA declared bankruptcy in January, five months after James’ office sued seeking its dissolution over allegations that executives illegally diverted tens of millions of dollars for lavish personal trips, no-show contracts and other questionable expenditures.

The NRA contends that its Chapter 11 filing is a legitimate maneuver to facilitate a move to a more gun-friendly state, Texas, and was made necessary by a Democratic politician who has “weaponized” her state’s government. Lawyers for James’ office, meanwhile, say it’s an attempt by NRA leadership to escape accountability for using the group’s coffers as their piggybank.

LaPierre appeared on camera before a court in Dallas on Wednesday and Thursday and was grilled by lawyers for New York and Ackerman McQueen, an Oklahoma City-based advertising agency that says the NRA owes it more than $1 million.

The questioning has focused on LaPierre’s management of the NRA and the legitimacy of his filing for bankruptcy without first informing most of the group’s top executives and its board.

On Wednesday, a lawyer for New York asked why the state’s investigation had turned up no emails or text messages from LaPierre.

“I’m old fashioned,” he replied. “I haven’t sent any emails or texts.”

The allegations of financial abuses and mismanagement have roiled the NRA and threatened LaPierre’s grip on power. Political infighting spilled out in public during the NRA’s 2019 annual meeting, where its then-president Oliver North was denied a second term. Tensions also eventually led to the departure of a man who’d been seen as LaPierre’s likely successor, Chris Cox, who headed the group’s lobbying arm.

To be sure, it’s not unusual for chief executives of organizations the size of the NRA to travel by private plane or live lifestyles beyond the means of most people. But LaPierre’s alleged misspending of NRA membership dues came even as the group was urging supporters to donate so that it would have enough cash to battle gun control efforts.

Board members and former NRA leaders who support LaPierre didn’t respond to requests for comment or referred questions to the NRA. Others who are skeptical of LaPierre’s leadership said the trial has only reaffirmed their concerns.

“I’m looking for the next Wayne,” said Phillip Journey, a board member and Kansas judge who is set to testify during the trial next week. “This can’t go on forever.”

LaPierre said Thursday that he kept the bankruptcy secret from the full board because he was worried that someone on it would leak the plan. “We were very concerned,” he testified.

He also said he was within his authority to file for bankruptcy with only the assent of the board’s three-member special litigation committee, he attacked James and New York’s financial regulator as “corrupt,” and he repeatedly strayed beyond the bounds of yes or no questioning to defend his record.

LaPierre’s efforts to explain his actions led to opposing lawyers moving to strike from the record much of what he said after nearly every question. He occasionally raised his voice and his expansive answers drew repeated warnings from his own attorneys and the judge.

“Can you answer the questions that are asked and do you understand that I’ve said that to you more than a dozen times in the last two days?” Judge Harlin Hale asked LaPierre on Thursday.

“I understand your honor,” he replied. “I apologize if I’ve gone too long.”

LaPierre also, however, showed moments of regret and referred repeatedly to the NRA’s “self-correction.”

For instance, he defended summer sailing in the Bahamas on a large yacht he borrowed from a Hollywood producer who has done business with the NRA. LaPierre said the family trips were a “security retreat,” noting that some came as he was facing threats months after mass shootings.

But he acknowledged that not mentioning the voyages on conflict-of-interest forms — which New York’s lawsuit contends violated NRA policy — was an oversight.

“I believe now that it should have been disclosed,” he testified. “It’s one of the mistakes I’ve made.” ___

Associated Press writer Lisa Marie Pane in Boise, Idaho, contributed to this story.

BACKGROUNDER 
Police chiefs throw support behind Biden’s civil rights pick
By MICHAEL BALSAMO

April 9, 2021

WASHINGTON (AP) — Dozens of police chiefs who ran some of America’s largest police forces are lending their support to Kristen Clarke, who has been nominated to run the Justice Department’s civil rights division.

In a letter to congressional leaders Friday, the law enforcement leaders from more than three dozen cities say Clarke has “demonstrated an uncanny ability to work closely with federal and state and local law enforcement officials” through years as a prosecutor and civil rights advocate.

The signers include Bill Bratton, who was commissioner of the New York Police Department and Los Angeles police chief; Charles Ramsey, who ran the police forces in Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.; former Boston police commissioner Ed Davis and dozens of others.
ADVERTISEMENT



Some of the largest law enforcement groups in the U.S. have also thrown their support behind Clarke. They include the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives and others.

Clarke, who was president of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, an advocacy group, is expected to play a pivotal role as the Justice Department focuses more on civil rights issues, criminal justice and policing policies in the wake of nationwide protests over the death of Black Americans at the hands of law enforcement. Attorney General Merrick Garland has also emphasized his commitment to combating racial discrimination in policing, saying at his confirmation hearing that America doesn’t “yet have equal justice.”

The endorsements from both the chiefs and some of America’s biggest law enforcement organizations signal broad support for Clarke’s nomination within the law enforcement community as a fierce and fair advocate committed to combating civil rights offenses.

“The past several years have shed light on just how important it is for law enforcement officers to develop trust within communities,” reads the letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Democratic and Republican leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The police chiefs said Clarke had built a national reputation “as someone who is trustworthy and who fiercely defends and protects the most vulnerable crime victims in our communities.”

“As a result, she is someone who will bring an enormous amount of credibility among community leaders to the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department,” read the letter. “This credibility will be of paramount importance as she does some of the important work of building relationships with law enforcement leaders and seeking accountability where needed.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled Clarke’s confirmation hearing for Wednesday.

AP Interview: Stacey Abrams on voting rights, her next move

By BILL BARROW and HILARY POWELL

April 9, 2021

FILE - In this Monday, Dec. 14, 2020, file photo, Democrat Stacey Abrams walks on Senate floor before of members of Georgia's Electoral College cast their votes at the state Capitol in Atlanta. In a new interview with The Associated Press, voting rights advocate Abrams discussed a new state law that tightens some Georgia voting rules after Democrats carried the state in the 2020 elections. (AP Photo/John Bazemore, Pool, File)

ATLANTA (AP) — Georgia is at the forefront of the partisan fight over voting rights and election law.

The Associated Press sat down this week with Stacey Abrams, the Democratic candidate for governor in 2018 and a leading voice on ballot access, to talk about a sweeping new state law that tightens some Georgia voting rules after Democrats carried the state in the 2020 elections.

The interview has been condensed for brevity:

AP: Please explain what you mean when you say this new law will make it harder for Georgians to vote, particularly Black and other minority Georgians.

ABRAMS: In the 2018 election and the 2020 election, there has been an increased use of early voting, in-person absentee voting, use of drop boxes. And these are all of the things that have been tightened. The change from (using) signature verification to using an ID to submit your absentee ballot is a direct result to lawsuits that we filed to allow more people to use absentee balloting.

These are (new) laws that respond to an increase in voting by people of color by constricting, removing or otherwise harming their ability to access these perquisites. It doesn’t say brown and Black people can’t vote. It simply says we’re going to remove things that we saw you use to your benefit; we’re going to make it harder for you to access these opportunities.

AP: Gov. Brian Kemp has been assertive in defending the law. He focuses on provisions like codifying weekend early voting, setting aside money to make state IDs free. Judged individually, are some of these good moves?

ABRAMS: This now gives them permission to shorten your early voting time. Instead of it being 7 (a.m.) to 7 (p.m.), it now can be 9-to-5, and the county has to decide to give you more power. Prior to this, it was assumed everyone can vote from 7 to 7. (Editor’s note: Old Georgia law said early voting would be conducted during “normal business hours,” though most counties had longer hours. The new law specifies a weekday window of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. but allows counties to expand to a 12-hour window.)

I object to a characterization that suggests they have given something that did not exist. What they’ve done is actually placed restrictions.

When it comes to free ID, the notion of it being free is actually a misnomer. You may not have to pay a fee, (but) you’ve got to pay for the birth certificate, you’ve got to pay for all the documentation that leads up to being able to get that ID. And there is a cost, especially to rural communities, that often do not have transportation or access to the DMVs, which are not on every street corner. So there’s a very real cost to voters to secure this ID.

FILE - In this Nov. 2, 2020, file photo Stacey Abrams speaks to Biden supporters as they wait for former President Barack Obama to arrive and speak at a rally as he campaigns for Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden at Turner Field in Atlanta. In a new interview with The Associated Press, voting rights advocate Abrams discussed a new state law that tightens some Georgia voting rules after Democrats carried the state in the 2020 elections. (AP Photo/Brynn Anderson, File)

AP: Do you support consumer boycotts and corporate responses like Major League Baseball moving the All-Star Game from metro Atlanta?

ABRAMS: I grew up in the Deep South. Boycotts are the reason that I have the ability to make this argument as a free citizen. I understand the impulse of boycotting, but I also understand that boycotts operate differently depending on your targets and depending on your timeline. I do not believe that a boycott at this moment is beneficial to the victims of these bills. I do believe it is absolutely necessary for corporations to show their goodwill. They have to publicly denounce these bills, they have to support and invest in voting rights expansion, and they need to support the federal voting rights standards.

AP: Can you talk about how voting is rooted in your United Methodist faith, growing up with a strong, religious background and both your parents being clergy?

ABRAMS: I grew up in a family that not only believed in our faith as a religious identity, but believed our faith as a responsibility and lived experience. For me, defending the right to vote is not just about defending it for people of color. My push is that we should have expansion of the right to vote for every community that faces barriers, including the disabled, those who are returning citizens (released from prison), the poor, young people. Unfortunately, the targets tend to be those very same communities. And thus, most of the work that I do is about lifting up their voices and protecting their right to vote.

AP: Bottom line, could Democrats have won in Georgia in 2020 under these new rules? Could you win a governor’s race if you run again?

ABRAMS: I think it is possible for Democrats to win ... but I will say this: It is wrong for any state to preclude access, especially under the guise and under the baldfaced lie that this is an expansion. ... We should not be thinking about these laws in the context of who can win an election, except to the extent that Republicans are gaming the system because they’re afraid of losing an election.

AP: Democrats’ pending voting bills in Washington wouldn’t supersede everything in state laws, but how much could they mitigate the negative effects you see in state actions?

ABRAMS: It would standardize the laws so that our democracy does not depend on our geography. Congress (can) say we will have a standardized election system that guarantees automatic voter registration, in-person early voting and no-excuses mail balloting. Those three pieces alone absolutely create ... a level opportunity for voters regardless of race and regardless of geography to participate in our elections.

AP: Can you see Democrats passing any voting changes without changing the Senate filibuster rule? And how does it strike you to hear President Biden say the filibuster is a vestige of the Jim Crow era but that he doesn’t necessarily support completely scrapping the rule?

ABRAMS: While I am disappointed by the recent op-ed by Sen. Joe Manchin that says that he’s not willing to entertain any changes to the filibuster, I do believe his good intention that we should be able to achieve bipartisan support. ... I do believe that there’s legitimate argument to be made that carving out an exception to protect the fundamental rights of democracy, and participation in democracy, is worthy of an exemption to the filibuster. I can understand the hesitation of completely scrapping it, including the hesitation expressed by the president, because the worry is that if you remove it completely, you no longer have any controls over what can happen. Although it was used by avowed Southern racists to block civil rights, the original intention was not grounded necessarily in abject racism.

AP: But do you see any scenario where voting rights legislation gets 10 Republican votes required to pass under current filibuster rules?

ABRAMS: I think that it is unlikely. (But) I am a woman of faith. And so my approach is to pray for what I need but work for what I think needs to be done.

AP: There is an assumption that you will run for governor again next year. Is there any time frame when you will make your decision public?

ABRAMS: I am not thinking about that right now. My focus is on making certain we can have elections (with) full participation in 2022. I’m also working through my organization Fair Count on ensuring that every person who’s eligible for the (COVID-19) vaccination can get it, especially in the underserved southwest, rural area of Georgia. We’re also doing work on COVID recovery through the Southern Economic Advancement Project to ensure that recovery includes fixing the public health infrastructure that is so broken across the South.

___

Powell reported from Washington.