SAINT JOE NEEDS TO 'EVOLVE'

Biden’s blunt opposition to marijuana legalization

As his own party moves ahead on the issue, the president remains opposed to legalization.

By German Lopez@germanrlopezgerman.lopez@vox.com 

 Apr 16, 2021

This month, something unusual happened: Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer took a stand against President Joe Biden.

The New York Democrat, typically a strong Biden ally, has transformed into one of the Senate’s biggest advocates for marijuana legalization, which Biden continues to oppose. But Schumer said he’ll move forward with his legalization bill anyway.

“I want to make my arguments to him, as many other advocates will,” Schumer said. “But at some point we’re going to move forward, period.”

Schumer is likely worried, at least in part, about a primary challenge from the left in the future — something Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has openly discussed.

But there’s a bigger issue here for Biden. Increasingly, the president is out of step with not just his party but the country and perhaps even most Republicans on marijuana legalization.

Marijuana legalization is extremely popular. Gallup and the Pew Research Center, two of the country’s leading polling organizations, have consistently found at least two-thirds of Americans back legalization.

Support is so high that, at this point, a majority of Republicans — who are generally more skeptical of drug policy reforms — may support it. Pew found 55 percent of Republicans back legalization. Gallup found a slim majority of Republicans supported it in 2017, 2018, and 2019. That reversed in 2020, but the difference between support and opposition among Republicans was still within the sampling margin of error. And, at any rate, a solid minority of 48 percent were behind it.

Support among Democrats, meanwhile, is in the high 70s and 80s across polls.

Maybe Biden doesn’t entirely trust the polls — after 2016 and 2020, many of us don’t. But there’s real-world evidence legalization is very popular, too.

For one, 17 states have now legalized marijuana, most recently New Mexico. Among the 15 states where marijuana legalization has been put in front of voters since 2012 (when Colorado and Washington state first legalized), it’s won in 13.

Even more impressive is marijuana’s recent record in Republican states. Since 2012, marijuana legalization has come up for a vote in four states that former President Donald Trump won by double digits in 2020. It’s won in three of those states (Alaska, Montana, and South Dakota), and lost in one (North Dakota). Weed is 3-1 in deep-red states.

So what could explain Biden’s opposition? Based on his public remarks, he seems genuinely conservative on the issue — arguing only for decriminalization (in which the threat of jail or prison time is removed for possession, but sales remain illegal), and calling for “more scientific investigations” into the issue, particularly whether pot is a “gateway drug.”

Biden, after all, not just supported but spearheaded many of the country’s current drug war policies. During the 1980s and ’90s, he backed and helped write bill after bill that toughened federal criminal penalties against all sorts of drugs. Biden has since admitted to going too far in at least some respects, but this is where he built his early political career.

Of course, the failure of these policies to stop major drug problems — the country is currently mired in its deadliest drug overdose crisis ever in the opioid epidemic — and these policies’ punitive nature are reasons the public has shifted toward backing marijuana legalization. And the real-life evidence of legalization suggests it works fine, even leading governors in legalization states to regularly flip to supporting it.

But Biden is not convinced, even as his party moves ahead without him. With a veto pen in hand, it could make the president the biggest barrier to legalization.

DYING ART

Colorful coffins lighten mood at New Zealand funerals

By NICK PERRY

1 of 14
This photo provided by Ross Hall, shows a cream doughnut shaped coffin for the funeral of Phil McLean outside a church in Tauranga, New Zealand on Feb 17, 2021. Auckland company Dying Art makes unique custom caskets which reflect the people who will eventually lay inside them, whether it's a love for fire engines, a cream doughnut or Lego. (Ross Hall via AP)

WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) — When the pallbearers brought Phil McLean’s coffin into the chapel, there were gasps before a wave of laughter rippled through the hundreds of mourners.

The coffin was a giant cream donut.

“It overshadowed the sadness and the hard times in the last few weeks,” said his widow, Debra. “The final memory in everyone’s mind was of that donut, and Phil’s sense of humor.”

The donut was the latest creation by Phil’s cousin Ross Hall, who runs a business in Auckland, New Zealand, called Dying Art, which custom builds colorful coffins.

Other creations by Hall include a sailboat, a firetruck, a chocolate bar and Lego blocks. There have been glittering coffins covered in fake jewels, a casket inspired by the movie “The Matrix,” and plenty of coffins depicting people’s favorite beaches and holiday spots.

“There are people who are happy with a brown mahogany box and that’s great,” said Hall. “But if they want to shout it out, I’m here to do it for them.”

The idea first came to Hall about 15 years ago when he was writing a will and contemplating his own death.

“How do I want to go out?” he thought to himself, deciding it wouldn’t be like everyone else. “So I put in my will that I want a red box with flames on it.”

Six months later, Hall, whose other business is a signage and graphics company, decided to get serious. He approached a few funeral directors who looked at him with interest and skepticism. But over time, the idea took hold.

Hall begins with special-made blank coffins and uses fiberboard and plywood to add details. A latex digital printer is used for the designs. Some orders are particularly complex, like the sailboat, which included a keel and rudder, cabin, sails, even metal railings and pulleys.

\

Depending on the design, the coffins retail for between about 3,000 and 7,500 New Zealand dollars ($2,100 and $5,400).

Hall said the tone of funerals has changed markedly over recent years.

“People now think it’s a celebration of life rather than a mourning of death,” he said. And they’ve been willing to throw out stuffy conventions in favor of getting something unique.

But, a donut?

Debra McLean said she and her late husband, who was 68 when he died in February, used to tour the country in their motorhome and Phil loved comparing cream donuts in every small town, considering himself something of a connoisseur.

He considered a good donut one that was crunchy on the outside, airy in the middle, and definitely made with fresh cream.

After Phil was diagnosed with bowel cancer, he had time to think about his funeral and, along with his wife and cousin, came up with the idea for the donut coffin. Debra said they even had 150 donuts delivered to the funeral in Tauranga from Phil’s favorite bakery in Whitianga, more than 160 kilometers (100 miles) away.

Hall said his coffins are biodegradable and are usually buried or cremated along with the deceased. The only one he’s ever gotten back is his cousin’s, he said, because he used polystyrene and shaping foam, which is not environmentally friendly.

Phil was switched to a plain coffin for his cremation and Hall said he’ll keep the donut coffin forever. For now, it remains in the back of his white 1991 Cadillac hearse.

As for his own funeral? Hall said he’s changed his mind about those red flames. He’s emailed his kids saying he wants to be buried in a clear coffin wearing nothing but a leopard-pattern G-string.

“The kids say they’re not going,” he says with a smile.

MANWOMAN WOULD APPROVE

The pandemic’s impact on our world is only just beginning

The US intelligence community says the coronavirus will impact you for years to come, even if you didn’t get sick.

By Alex Ward@AlexWardVox

alex.ward@vox.com 

VOX

 Apr 14, 2021

A woman is arrested by Met Police during a “Worldwide Rally For Freedom” protest over the coronavirus on March 20, 2021, in London, England. Hollie Adams/Getty Images


Even though life is beginning to return to some semblance of normal in parts of the world thanks to the success of vaccination efforts, a new report finds that the Covid-19 pandemic will continue to severely impact the world.

US intelligence agencies released their unclassified Annual Threat Assessment report on Tuesday, offering views on global challenges ranging from tensions with China to nuclear diplomacy with Iran to the dangers of domestic violent extremism.

But the most troubling part of the 27-page document, which top intelligence officials are presenting to Congress on Wednesday in open and closed sessions, is the section about how the coronavirus pandemic will define our world for years to come.

In the near term, the economies of hard-hit and lower-income countries will suffer, and access to adequate health care for the most vulnerable will decline. In the long run, great powers like China, Russia, and the US will jockey for global influence, potentially driving them apart instead of closer together at a time when the world most needs cooperation.

Simply put, it’s a grim picture.

How the coronavirus will shape our world in the short term

The most immediate impact will be economic calamity.

“The economic fallout from the pandemic is likely to create or worsen instability in at least a few — and perhaps many — countries, as people grow more desperate in the face of interlocking pressures that include sustained economic downturns, job losses, and disrupted supply chains,” the report reads. “Some hard-hit developing countries are experiencing financial and humanitarian crises, increasing the risk of surges in migration, collapsed governments, or internal conflict.”

Reflect on that for a moment: That’s the US intelligence community, one of the greatest collections of spies and analysts in the world, saying the financial hardships brought on by the coronavirus could foment or deepen “instability” in “perhaps many” countries. “The economic and political implications of the pandemic will ripple through the world for years,” they write.

Former top intelligence officials I spoke with agree with this assessment. “It is a hard truth,” James Clapper, who served as the director of national intelligence from 2010 to 2017, told me. “This development — coupled with the impacts of climate change — make for a not very rosy future unless mankind gets its act together, and soon.”

The economic part certainly rings true: The world economy shrank between 3 and 4 percent last year, as we were bombarded with images of closed-up restaurants, stores, and factories. Per the International Labour Organization, about 114 million people worldwide lost their jobs last year.

The damage in the US was so large that it led Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden to propose, and Congress to approve, trillions of dollars of economic relief just to keep the American economy afloat. Millions around the world won’t get such a lifeline from their governments, though, and they may eventually demand more from officials than the governments can provide. When that happens, usually a crisis follows.

“Many poorer countries are reaching the limit of what they can do with regard to using debt-fueled stimulus and social policies to cushion that continued fallout from the pandemic,” said Thomas Bollyky, a senior fellow for global health, economics, and development at the Council on Foreign Relations. “Something has to give.”

We’re already seeing the effects of this economic pain. The pandemic “has driven food insecurity worldwide to its highest point in more than a decade,” the report says. “The number of people experiencing high levels of acute food insecurity doubled from 135 million in 2019 to about 270 million last year, and is projected to rise to 330 million by year-end.”

Another immediate concern is that those who require medical attention may not get adequate care because so many resources are devoted to the pandemic.

“COVID-19-related disruptions to essential health services — such as vaccinations, aid delivery, and maternal and child health programs — will increase the likelihood of additional health emergencies, especially among vulnerable populations in low-income countries,” the intelligence community assesses.

One specific example in the report is how millions in Sub-Saharan Africa have experienced disruptions to HIV/AIDS treatments, along with a downturn in polio and measles vaccination campaigns “in dozens of countries.” Such lags in medical support will likely persist well into the future: The coronavirus doesn’t have to infect everyone to threaten their health.

How the coronavirus will shape our world in years to come

The US intelligence community also assesses there will be longer-term impacts that spell trouble for our world.

“States are struggling to cooperate — and in some cases are undermining cooperation — to respond to the pandemic and its economic fallout, particularly as some governments turn inward and question the merits of globalization and interdependence,” wrote the US intelligence community. “Some governments, such as China and Russia, are using offers of medical supplies and vaccines to try to boost their geopolitical standing.”

This is an important, maddening point. Instead of nations working together to solve a global problem, countries vying for influence went their own way.

They’ve engaged in two phenomena: “vaccine nationalism” and “vaccine diplomacy.” The “nationalism” part is when a nation’s leaders prioritize their own people for vaccination, even to the point of hoarding vaccines, to the detriment of the rest of the world. The “diplomacy” part is when countries share their vaccine supplies with other countries less out of pure goodwill and more to gain political and diplomatic favor with the recipient state.

The US, for example, was guilty of vaccine nationalism under the Trump administration, refusing to contribute to global vaccination efforts by keeping vials for exclusive use by Americans. That has changed somewhat under President Joe Biden, as he’s committed billions of dollars to support a worldwide, cooperative vaccination drive and pledged 4 million vials to Canada and Mexico. (Some argue the US could be doing more, however.)

And as cases quickly spike in India, New Delhi decided to curtail its vaccine exports to ensure it has enough at home.

Many countries are using vaccine diplomacy for their own interests. As The Verge noted last month, China and Russia have both developed their own vaccines and are using them to bolster alliances around the world. This could be a problem for global protection against the coronavirus, particularly in Beijing’s case. A top Chinese official admitted that its domestically produced vaccines aren’t quite as effective in preventing Covid-19.

There are also ramifications for US foreign policy. For example, the US has long had close ties with Latin America, but Beijing and Moscow are flooding the region with vaccine so governments there align closer to them, instead of Washington.

The toxic cocktail of “vaccine nationalism” and “vaccine diplomacy” will only further erode trust among nations and likely increase tensions, experts and the US intelligence community say. That, to put it mildly, is a big problem.

“This dire assessment on the Covid-19 pandemic should be yet another signal to political leaders that going it alone in his pandemic is going a course that is at their nations’ peril,” Bollyky told me.

The Food (MEAT) We Eat Is Contributing to the Rise of Superbugs, Report Suggests

Aristos Georgiou 

AFP

4/16/2021


Researchers have detected the building blocks of superbugs—bacteria resistant to the antibiotics used to fight them—in the environment near large factory farms in the United States.

© BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images) 

A pig farm in Illinois on January 25, 2020.

An investigation conducted by global animal welfare non-profit World Animal Protection (WAP) identified what are known as "antibiotic resistance genes" (ARGs) in waterways and soils near these farms that could pose a significant threat to public health, according to a report shared exclusively with Newsweek.


In October 2020, investigators took 45 water samples and 45 soil samples from eight sites in eastern North Carolina both downstream and upstream of industrial pig farms. These samples were then analyzed to identify whether 23 target ARGs were present.

The area from where the samples were taken features a heavy concentration of large pig farms, which discharge waste into waterways and spread pig waste on local crop fields.

Factory farms—where large numbers of animals are confined to cages or barren concrete pens—routinely use antibiotics to mask poor welfare conditions and prevent stressed animals from getting sick. But this overuse of antibiotics can lead to the emergence of superbugs, which are considered one of the most significant global health threats.

The WAP researchers found that all the water and soil samples they tested returned a positive result for at least one ARG. In addition, 92 percent of samples displayed positive results for three or more different ARGs.

The presence of ARGs in the samples does not definitively confirm that antibiotic resistant bacteria were present, but it does indicate the genetic potential for resistance.

"ARGs are genetic elements that allow a bacteria not to be as easily killed by a particular type of antibiotic that it previously had been sensitive to," Michael Hansen, senior scientist on the WAP report told Newsweek.

"ARGs can occur naturally or can be created via mutations. In addition, these ARG often occur on mobile genetic elements, called a plasmid, which allow them to be readily swapped between bacteria."

Essentially, antibiotic resistant bacteria originating on farms can spread their resistance genes to harmful bacteria already present in the surrounding environment, with the genes persisting beyond the viability of the bacteria themselves.

"When antibiotics are used, they tend to kill the bacteria that are sensitive to them, so that the surviving bacteria are less sensitive to the antibiotic because the population as a whole has become more resistant to that antibiotic. This means that a higher level of antibiotic is needed to kill those bacteria."

Bacteria originating on farms that are still susceptible to antibiotics can then pick up resistance to important drugs if ARGs are widely present in the environment.

Video: Armed with giant testing swabs, a group researchers are testing camels in the Kapiti natural reserve, in southern Kenya, in a bid to better understand Middle East Respiratory Syndrome. MERS is a far deadlier cousin of Covid-19 which has long circulated in camels, that scientists fear could cause the next global pandemic if it mutates into a form which is more contagious to humans. (AFP)

Hansen said the use of antibiotics on farms often leads to various bacteria releasing plasmids with antibiotic resistance genes on them.

As these plasmids move between bacteria, they can pick up more ARGs, so that certain plasmids may contain numerous ARGs conferring resistance to three or more classes of antibiotics. Some plasmids have five or more ARGs on them. Superbugs are defined as bacteria that are resistant to three or more classes of antibiotics.

According to the report, the presence of ARGs in the environment around these farms suggests that they may be playing a significant role in the spread of antibiotic resistance to the environment, while placing nearby communities at risk.

"Bacteria carrying these genes can reach people via several pathways," Cameron Harsh, Farming Campaign Manager with World Animal Protection, U.S., told Newsweek.

For example, manure stored in lagoons or sprayed on fields can leech into groundwater and public waterways. Particulate matter released into the air can settle on the soil and vegetation nearby. Meanwhile, farmworkers, insects, rodents, wild birds, and farmed animals headed to slaughter may all carry ARGs or superbugs with them.

Harsh said the results of the report raise "concerns that multi-drug resistance is common in this environment. Multi-drug-resistant bacteria pose significant health threat as they are able to survive treatment with several antibiotics. Genes indicating resistance to critically important medicines were also found in several samples."

Genes conveying resistance to a class of antibiotic drugs known as tetracyclines were identified in nearly all the samples taken for the study.

"Tetracycline-resistance genes have been detected in some previous studies testing in the region, but the high rate of positive results is particularly significant," Harsh said. "We know that the pig industry is the largest market for tetracycline antibiotics sold to farmed animals in the U.S., and farmer surveys have indicated frequent reliance on these drugs."

Harsh said that surveillance of antibiotic resistant bacteria occurs in human health settings on certain retail meats, and on farmed animals at slaughter in the United States. But the monitoring of resistant bacteria in the environment at this time is limited.

Superbugs already kill seven hundred thousand people around the would every year, and experts predict that this figure will rise to 10 million deaths annually if nothing is done to address the issue, causing an estimated $100 trillion in global economic losses.

The WAP investigation also conducted similar testing of water and soil samples collected near factory farms in farms in Canada, Spain, and Thailand. These studies also detected the widespread presence of ARGs.

In light of the report, Harsh said factory farms can reduce the risk of contaminating the environment with antibiotic resistant elements by reducing their use of antibiotics, although this must be accomplished alongside improvements to the welfare and living conditions for the animals.

"Raising animals with more space, with enrichments in their pens like straw for pigs and perches for chickens, and with more robust genetics—instead of the high-growth genetics of conventional breeds—are all management practices that can reduce reliance on antibiotics and provide farmed animals with good lives," he said.

"The U.S. government should also set regulations requiring reduced use of antibiotics in farmed animals, not just medically important antibiotics, and phase out use for disease prevention."

Related Articles
Machine Learning Used to Discover Powerful New Antibiotic That Can Kill Some of World's Most Dangerous Bacteria
Walmart Pork Products Containing Superbugs Resistant to Critically Important Antibiotics Discovered
Weight Loss Agents: Utah Issues Warning About Weight-loss Surgery in Mexico After Patient Dies From Antibiotic-resistant Infection

Suncor fined $100K for gas release at Edmonton Refinery
CBC/Radio-Canada 

4/16/2021

© Jason Franson/The Canadian Press The release of hydrogen sulphide at Suncor's Edmonton Refinery took place in July 2018.

Suncor Energy pleaded guilty to one count of breaking Alberta's environmental protection law after a release of a poisonous gas at its refinery just east of Edmonton.

A provincial court fined the Calgary-based energy giant $100,000 for the unauthorized release of hydrogen sulphide gas on July 18, 2018.

The gas release took place when a valve in the refinery's coker unit was not fully closed during the steam drying phase, a news release from Alberta Environment and Parks said Friday.

Hydrogen sulphide is a poisonous flammable gas that smells like rotten eggs and can cause chest pain, difficulty breathing, vomiting and headaches.

Most of the fine will go to a "creative sentencing project" with the Strathcona Community Hospital Foundation for the purchase of long-lasting respiratory support medical equipment, the release said.

Suncor was scheduled to appear in Sherwood Park Provincial Court on Friday to face seven charges under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act related to the 2018 incident.

The company pleaded guilty to one count of breaching an approval requiring that no unauthorized air effluent streams be released into the atmosphere.

The refinery is located just west of Anthony Henday Drive in Sherwood Park.

 

Canadians don't see the high performance and innovation in the oilsands, says Shell Canada boss

  

Opportunities in hydrogen and biofuels for Shell Canada

Outgoing president Michael Crothers says the company will continue to invest in renewables and low-emission sources of energy

Democratic lawmakers call for USPS to implement essential banking services


Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and other Democratic lawmakers on Thursday called on their colleagues in Congress to include pilot programs for USPS to provide essential banking services in the 2022 fiscal bill. Photo by Tasos Katopodis/UPI | License Photo

April 15 (UPI) -- A group of Democratic lawmakers on Thursday called on Congress to implement postal banking pilot programs in rural and low-income urban neighborhoods.

Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., along with Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., and Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, called for Congress to implement the programs as part of the Fiscal Year 2022 appropriations bill and to include $6 million in funding to carry out the programs.

Under the program, the U.S. Postal Service would provide check cashing, money wiring and other essential banking services to Americans who live in so-called bank deserts that force them to turn to check-cashing companies and other predatory institutions.

In a statement, Gillibrand noted that 63 million Americans are considered underbanked, with 90% of zip codes lacking a bank or credit union located in rural areas. Additionally, 46% of Latino households and 49% of African American households are also considered underbanked.

"Mainstream financial institutions and predatory lenders often take advantage of underbanked Americans with high fees and interest rates that keep them in a cycle of poverty. As families across the country try to recover from the economic crisis, establishing postal banking pilot programs would ensure these communities have financially safe and reliable banking services," said Gillibrand.

During a press conference Tuesday, Ocasio-Cortez described the impact that a lack of proper banking services has on New York's low-income communities.

"They'll show up to a check cashing place and imagine cashing your stimulus check ... and having 10% to 20% of that check taken away from you," she said. "Those are diapers, that's baby formula and that's food that is taken out of the families just to cash a check. And by the way, it's not because families don't want to be banked but it's because banks won't bank them because it's not profitable enough to bank certain communities."

Pascrell criticized efforts by former President Donald Trump and Postmaster General Louis DeJoy to cut funding to USPS, stating postal banking could give the service a boost.

"The current Post Office leadership has failed miserably and must be replaced to begin the work of rebuilding our beloved Post Office," Pascrell said. "But postal banking is essential to that rebuilding and will help this beloved institution flourish into the next century."

Justice Department sues Roger Stone over $2 million in unpaid taxes

Michael Balsamo
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department sued Donald Trump's ally Roger Stone on Friday, accusing the conservative provocateur and his wife of failing to pay nearly $2 million in income tax.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. It alleges the couple underpaid their income tax by more than $1.5 million from 2007 until 2011 and separately alleges Stone also owes more than $400,000 for not fully paying his tax bill in 2018.

The suit alleges that the couple used a commercial entity known as Drake Ventures to “shield their personal income from enforced collection” and to fund a “lavish lifestyle.”

“Despite notice and demand for payment, Roger and Nydia Stone have failed and refused to pay the entire amount of the liabilities,” the lawsuit says.

Stone, a longtime confidant of the former president's, calls the lawsuit “politically motivated.”   

Stone was charged by the Justice Department in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation and convicted at trial of lying to Congress, tampering with a witness and obstructing the House investigation into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to tip the 2016 election. Trump later commuted Stone's sentence and pardoned him.

Stone boasted during the 2016 campaign that he was in contact with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange through a trusted intermediary and hinted at inside knowledge of WikiLeaks’ plans to release more than 19,000 emails hacked from the servers of the Democratic National Committee. But Stone denied any wrongdoing and consistently criticized the case against him as politically motivated.


“The Internal Revenue Service is well aware of the fact that my three-year battle for freedom against the corrupted Mueller investigation has left me destitute,” Stone told The Associated Press. “They’re well aware that I have no assets and that their lawsuit is politically motivated. It’s particularly interesting that my tax attorneys were not told of this action, filed at close of business on a Friday. The American people will learn, in court, that I am on the verge of bankruptcy and that there are no assets for the government to take.”

Associated Press writer Jill Colvin contributed to this report.

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