Exxon to begin certifying some shale gas emissions amid investor pressure

Exxon said it had signed an agreement with independent measuring firm MiQ to certify 200 million cubic feet of natural gas per day produced at its Poker Lake facilities in New Mexico
Reuters
September 08, 2021, 

HOUSTON: Exxon Mobil Corp on Tuesday said it will begin measuring carbon emissions from production of natural gas at a New Mexico facility, joining a number of shale gas producers seeking to provide the data to buyers.

The largest U.S. oil company, under pressure from investors and environmentalists to address climate concerns, follows shale producers including EQT Corp in offering independently verified emissions data to buyers seeking to reduce their own carbon footprints.

"Certifying our natural gas will help our customers achieve their goals," Bart Cahir, a senior vice president at Exxon Mobil, said in a statement.

Exxon said it had signed an agreement with independent measuring firm MiQ to certify 200 million cubic feet of natural gas per day produced at its Poker Lake facilities in New Mexico.

The assessment by MiQ - a partnership between RMI, formerly the Rocky Mountain Institute, and London-based consultancy Systemiq - will be available to clients in the fourth quarter, Exxon said.

The initiative could be extended later to other shale production areas including Appalachia and Haynesville, it said.

MiQ has signed similar deals with U.S. shale producers Chesapeake Energy Corp. and Northeast Natural Energy (NNE).

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) companies including NextDecade https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/nextdecade-certify-natgas-emissions-texas-rio-grande-lng-2021-04-19 Corp and Cheniere https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/cheniere-work-with-natural-gas-producers-measure-carbon-emissions-2021-06-10 Energy Inc also said they plan to offer greenhouse gas emissions data to clients.

Earlier this year a tiny activist hedge fund took three seats on Exxon's board. Its climate strategy was central to the campaign.

Exxon this year began disclosing https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/exxon-under-investor-pressure-discloses-emissions-burning-its-fuels-2021-01-06 the emissions that result when customers use its products such as gasoline and jet fuel.

A Climate Solution Lies Deep Under the Ocean—But Accessing It Could Have Huge Environmental Costs

LONG READ


Photograph by Spencer Lowell

BY ARYN BAKER
SEPTEMBER 7, 2021 


Scattered three miles deep along the floor of the central Pacific are trillions of black, misshapen nuggets that may just be the solution to an impending energy crisis. Similar in size and appearance to partially burned charcoal briquettes, the nuggets are called polymetallic nodules, and are an amalgamation of nickel, cobalt, manganese and other rare earth metals, formed through a complex biochemical process in which shark teeth and fish bones are encased by minerals accreted out of ocean waters over millions of years.

Marine biologists say they are part of one of the least-understood environments on earth, holding, if not the secret to life on this planet, at least something equally fundamental to the health of its oceans. Gerard Barron, the Australian CEO of seabed-mining company the Metals Company, calls them something else: “a battery in a rock,” and “the easiest way to solve climate change.” The nodules, which are strewn across the 4.5 million-sq-km (1.7 million-sq-mi.) swath of international ocean between Hawaii and Mexico known as the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ), contain significant amounts of the metals needed to make the batteries that power our laptops, phones and electric cars. Barron estimates that there is enough cobalt and nickel in those nuggets to power 4.8 billion electric vehicles—more than twice the number of vehicles on the road today, worldwide. Mining them, he says, would be as simple as vacuuming golf balls off a putting green.


At the bottom of the Pacific Ocean lies a solution to the imminent battery shortage...at a great potential cost to biodiversity and life on earth.
Spencer Lowell for TIME

But conservationists say doing so could unleash a cascade effect worse than the current trajectory of climate change. Oceans are a vital carbon sink, absorbing up to a quarter of global carbon emissions a year. The process of extracting the nodules is unlikely to disrupt that ability on its own, but the very nature of the world’s oceans—largely contiguous, with a system of currents that circumnavigate the globe—means that what happens in one area could have unforeseen impacts on the other side of the planet. “If this goes wrong, it could trigger a series of unintended consequences that messes with ocean stability, ultimately affecting life everywhere on earth,” says Pippa Howard, director of the biodiversity-conservation organization Fauna and Flora International. The nodules are a core part of a biome roughly the size of the Amazon rain forest, she notes. “They’ve got living ecosystems on them. Taking those nodules and then using them to make batteries is like making cement out of coral reefs.”

The debate over the ethics of mining the earth’s last untouched frontier is growing in both intensity and consequence. It pits biologist against geologist, conservationist against environmentalist, and manufacturer against supplier in a world grappling with a paradox—one that will define our path to a future free of fossil fuels: sustainable energy that will run cleaner but also require metals and resources whose extraction will both contribute to global warming and impact biodiversity. So as nations commit to lower greenhouse-gas emissions, the conflict is no longer between fossil-fuel firms and clean-energy proponents, but rather over what ecosystems we are willing to sacrifice in the process.

History is littered with stories of well-intended environmental interventions that have gone catastrophically wrong; for example, South American cane toads introduced into Australia in the 1930s first failed to control beetles attacking sugarcane, then spread unchecked across the continent, poisoning wildlife and pets.

Nevertheless, a radical embrace of electric vehicles will be necessary to limit global warming to less than 1.5°C above preindustrial levels, the goal of the Paris Agreement. But according to a May 2021 report by the International Energy Agency (IEA)—the Paris-based intergovernmental organization that helps shape global energy policies—the world isn’t mining enough of the minerals needed to make the batteries that will power that clean-energy future. Demand for the metals in electric vehicles alone could grow by more than 30 times from 2020 to 2040, say the report’s authors. “If supply chains can’t meet skyrocketing demand, mineral shortages could mean clean-energy shortages,” the report argues. Fears of such shortages have countries and companies racing to secure the supplies needed for the coming energy transition.

By most assessments, existing mines on land could supply the needed minerals. But after decades of exploitation, the quality of the ore is going down while the energy required to quarry and refine it is going up. Meanwhile, the efforts to extract cobalt, which is mined almost exclusively in the Democratic Republic of Congo, are dogged by persistent accounts of human-rights and environmental abuses. According to deep-ocean-mining proponents, the seabed nodules could provide most of the minerals the world needs, with minimal impact. “The biggest risk to the ocean right now is global warming,” says Kris Van Nijen, managing director of the Belgium-based deep-sea-mining company Global Sea Mineral Resources (GSR). “And the solution can be found on the seafloor, where there is a single deposit that provides the minerals we need for clean-energy infrastructure.” GSR has already trialed a 12-m-long, 25-ton nodule-sucking robot that zigzags across the ocean floor on caterpillar tracks, kind of like a giant underwater Roomba. They dubbed their prototype “Patania,” after the world’s fastest caterpillar.

Commercial mining is not yet permitted in international waters. The International Seabed Authority (ISA), the U.N. body tasked with managing seafloor resources, is still deliberating how, and under what conditions, mining should be allowed to proceed. A few private companies, including GSR and Barron’s Metals Company, have scooped up a couple of dozen metric tons of the nodules on exploratory missions, and are now pressuring the ISA to approve commercial operations. Barron is already telling potential investors that he expects to be harvesting nodules by 2024. GSR says that by the time they are up and running, they will be able to collect up to 3 million tons a year with just two of their mining robots.

The deployment of Patania II, GSR’s 25-metric-ton nodule-collecting robot.
Courtesy GSR

Not everyone is on board. Scientists, conservationists, the European Parliament and some national governments are calling for a moratorium on deep-sea mining until its ecological consequences can be better understood. The ocean environment is already under threat from climate change, overfishing, industrial pollution and plastic debris, they argue; added stresses from heavy machinery and habitat destruction could tip it over the edge. Three miles below the ocean’s surface, the deep seafloor boasts some of the most biologically diverse ecosystems on the planet; the perpetual darkness, intense cold and strong pressures foster unique life-forms rarely seen elsewhere, such as a newly discovered ghostly white octopus dubbed “Casper” and an armored snail that researchers believe doesn’t need to eat to survive.

The region may look lifeless, but it is home to thousands of species of tiny invertebrates fundamental to the ocean food web, says deep-ocean marine biologist Diva Amon, whose work is focused on the CCZ. The nodules themselves host microbial life forms that scientists are just starting to investigate—they play an important but poorly understood role in the nodules’ formation that may be vital for a wider comprehension of how ocean processes work. Removing them would be akin to yanking a couple of wires out of the back of your computer just because you don’t know what they’re for. “A lot of the life in the CCZ is very small, but that doesn’t mean it’s unimportant,” says Amon. “Think about our world without insects. It would collapse.”

The little data available suggests that deep-sea mining could have long-term and potentially devastating impacts on marine life. For example, in 1989, scientists simulated deep-sea mining in an area similar to the CCZ, and in those simulations, marine life never recovered, according to a recent study published in the journal Scientific Reports. Plough tracks remain etched on the seafloor 30 years later, while populations of sponges, soft corals and sea anemones have yet to return. If the results of the experiment were extrapolated to the CCZ, the authors concluded, “the impacts of polymetallic-nodule mining there may be greater than expected and could potentially lead to an irreversible loss of some ecosystem functions, especially in directly disturbed areas.”

That said, it’s a hard call, says Amon. “We want to transition to a green economy. But should that mean destroying a potentially huge part of the ocean? I don’t know.”

In June, more than 400 marine scientists and policy experts from 44 countries signed a petition stating that the ISA should not make any decisions about deep-sea mining until scientists have a better understanding of what is at stake and all possible risks are understood. The ISA requires permit holders to undertake three years of environmental-impact assessments before it will grant a commercial license, but given the slow-moving nature of the deep sea, scientists say it would be impossible to understand the impacts in such a short time. Nor is it clear on what grounds, exactly, the ISA will evaluate the results of such studies.


A few days later, the debate grew even more heated as the tiny Pacific island nation of Nauru, the ISA member sponsoring Barron’s company in a mining application, announced it wanted to start mining efforts, triggering the ISA’s “two-year rule,” a clause that allows member states to notify the organization of their intention to start deep-sea mining, even if the regulations governing mining have not yet been formalized.

A team aboard The Metals Company exploration vessel conducting a survey for species in the CCZ using a remotely operated vehicle.
Courtesy The Metals Company

It also triggered international uproar. “Deep-sea-mining companies are peddling a fantasy of untold profits and minimal risks,” says Louisa Casson of Greenpeace’s Protect the Oceans campaign. “Governments who claim to want to protect the oceans simply cannot allow these reckless companies to rush headlong into a race to the bottom, where little-known ecosystems will be ploughed up for profit and the risks and liabilities will be pushed onto small island nations.” Barron, who has invested millions of dollars in preliminary environmental-impact assessments, describes the abyssal plain where the nodules are located as a “lifeless desert” where the impact of mining is likely to be minimal, if felt at all. “I think we are overthinking this. There is a reason why they are full of battery metals. It’s so we can make batteries,” he says.

If you were to discover a cobalt seam in your backyard, the revenue would, in most cases, belong to you or your government. But much of the world’s known deep-sea metal deposits lies under international waters, which means it belongs to the world.

First discovered in the Arctic Ocean in 1868, polymetallic nodules can be found in almost all oceans, but are concentrated in the CCZ. They were widely regarded as geologic curiosities until the 1960s and ’70s, when several multinational mining consortiums started exploring the potential of the CCZ, with mixed results. Despite an estimated yield of 21 billion tons of nodules, commercial interest in mining the CCZ waned, largely because of high extraction costs and the relative abundance of existing sources of the same metals—particularly nickel—on land. Recognizing that the nodules, along with other potentially lucrative seabed mineral deposits in international waters, should be treated as a “common heritage of mankind,” the U.N. established the ISA in 1994, under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The 168-member-country bureaucracy was tasked with organizing, regulating and controlling all mineral-related activities in the international seabed area “for the benefit of mankind as a whole,” with proceeds shared among those who developed the resources and the rest of the international community.


The treaty gives the ISA two almost mutually exclusive mandates, says Aline Jaeckel, a specialist on international seabed-mining law at Potsdam University’s Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) in Germany: one to administer the mineral resources for the good of mankind, and the other to protect the marine environment from any harm from mining. “They are almost impossible to comply with because any mining will have environmental consequences. There is no way around that. So the question then becomes, How much harm is acceptable?”

Those conflicting mandates may explain why the ISA has yet to issue a single commercial mining permit—and why, in its nearly three decades of existence, it hasn’t even agreed on mining regulations, let alone how revenue from the globally owned resource should be distributed. So far, the ISA has awarded 18 exploration contracts in the CCZ to contractors representing China, Russia and the U.K., along with several other European, Asian and island nation-states. The U.S., which has not yet ratified UNCLOS, tacitly abides by it but has not sought any mining contracts. Once the mining regulations are formally established, exploration-contract holders can apply for commercial-mining permits.

According to the ISA’s mandate, mining revenue from those concessions should be equitably shared among members. Yet industry watchers expect that the organization will establish a royalty fee somewhere from 2% to 6% when it next meets in Kingston, Jamaica. A meeting scheduled to take place in July was postponed indefinitely because of the pandemic. In 2019, a group of 47 ISA members from Africa calculated that the proposed payment regime could lead to a return to member nations of less than $100,000 a year per country, hardly enough to “foster healthy development of the world economy,” as stipulated by the UNCLOS directive to the ISA.

The final amounts could be even less, especially if the ISA establishes more stringent environmental protections, which would require consistent monitoring, an expensive undertaking when it has to happen thousands of miles from port and three miles deep. “The more money put into monitoring, the less gets distributed to the developing states,” says Pradeep Singh, a research associate at IASS in Germany who focuses on seabed-mining issues, and who frequently attends ISA meetings as a consultant for member nations. Apart from a small number of private contractors and supporting states who could potentially receive a windfall, he says, few others would benefit.


Any member nation can sponsor a contract application, but developing nations are given preferential access to concessions with proven deposits, a practice meant to level the playing field. Most sponsoring countries work with their own government-run mining contractors. Nauru partnered with the Metals Company, giving the Canada-based startup preferential access to a 75,000-sq-km area rich in nodules. The details of the Metals Company’s agreement with the government of Nauru are not public, but according to the company’s regulatory filing with the SEC in advance of its pending public listing, the startup estimates that it will earn $95 billion over 23 years of production, of which it will pay 7.6% in royalties to Nauru and the ISA. The rest, presumably, goes to the investors that Barron is now courting.

Singh suspects that Nauru’s recent triggering of the two-year countdown to mining activity was directly linked to the Metals Company’s desire to create investor hype ahead of the listing. Either way, Barron has managed to crown what is at its core an expensive, untested and risky underwater-mining operation with a green halo, promising a surefire—and lucrative, at least for investors—shortcut for saving the planet.

A self-styled maverick with the requisite long hair, beard and leather jacket, Barron professes to be shocked that conservation groups have not wholeheartedly embraced his plan to mine the ocean for the battery metals that will help replace fossil fuels. The alternative, he says, is to keep plundering terrestrial mines with all their devastating environmental and social consequences: biodiversity loss, habitat destruction, contaminated waterways, displaced Indigenous groups and labor exploitation. “If we started mining over again, knowing what we know now, surely we would carry out extractive industries in parts of the planet where there was least life,” he tells TIME via video call. “We wouldn’t go to the rain forest. We would go to the deserts. That’s what we have here in the CCZ: the most desert-like place on the planet. It just happens to be covered by 4,000 m of water.”

A Metals Company core-sample collector shown at a harbor in San Diego on June 8, after returning from a deep-sea-mining mission.
Spencer Lowell for TIME

Core samples from a deep-sea-mining mission.
Spencer Lowell for TIME

Even if seabed mining were able to provide metals in sufficient quantities to feed growing demand for electric vehicles, it’s unlikely that terrestrial mining would come to an end. If anything, demand for the metals would increase, as manufacturers engineer based on the availability of more plentiful supplies. Nor would ocean mining necessarily be immune from the oversight problems that plague land extraction. Fishing on the high seas, for example, is highly regulated on paper, but enforcement is weak because of the difficulty and high costs of policing nearly 100 million square nautical miles of open ocean, leading to rampant abuse.


Nor is it certain that cobalt mining will even be all that important in car-battery technology going forward. To start, there are efforts among many battery manufacturers, Tesla among them, to recycle cobalt (among other elements) from spent batteries. More long-term, manufacturers have already started the shift to alternatives. Lithium-iron-phosphate options—which are jokingly referred to as rust-and-fertilizer batteries in the industry for the everyday ubiquity of their core ingredients—may have a lower energy density than cobalt versions, but engineers are willing to work around those limitations in order to reduce their dependence on imports, says Gavin Harper, a battery metals Ph.D. and research fellow at Birmingham University’s Energy Institute. “They won’t give you the extreme performance [of cobalt battery formulations], but they will give you a more than adequate performance that will meet a lot of people’s needs, without the baggage that comes with [cobalt] chemistries.” Many Chinese EV manufacturers have already made the switch, and Tesla announced in September 2020 that the batteries in its Model S will soon be cobalt-free. Even the IEA in its report noted that EV-battery manufacturers are shifting away from cobalt-rich chemistries in favor of those using cheaper, more readily available materials. “My concern is that we start mining the ocean for cobalt because it is profitable now, but once we move to next-gen batteries and more efficient recycling, we will have done irreversible damage for just a few years of profit,” says Harper.

The polymetallic nodules do contain other valuable minerals, such as nickel and trace amounts of rare earth, that could make mining them worthwhile, says Frances Wall, the principal investigator for the U.K.’s Research and Innovation Interdisciplinary Circular Economy Centre for Technology Metals. But if the nodules aren’t needed for power storage, “it just takes away that magic headline that you are mining the ocean for batteries. And without that, companies might find it harder to raise investment.” Without its green halo, the Metals Company becomes just another mining company hawking unproven riches at considerable risk.

Nor is mining in the deep sea exclusively about minerals. It’s also about access and market share. China, which holds three exploration permits in the CCZ (Russia and the U.K. each have two; every other nation that has any has one), invested early in developing deep-sea-mining machinery and is considered to be a world leader in submersible technology. After a tour of a Chinese submersible-mining-tech factory in 2017, Singh, the deep-sea-mining law expert from IASS, was convinced that the country would be the first to dive in. Instead, it seems to be holding back, he says, because leaders there appear unconvinced that nodule mining is commercially viable. As the world’s top manufacturer of solar panels, turbine parts, EV batteries and all manner of electronics, China is also unsurprisingly the world’s top importer of cobalt, buying some 95,000 metric tons annually, mainly from Congo. As long as supplies remain stable, China will have less interest in aggressively exploring seabed mining. Unless, of course, opening up a new seabed source threatens its dominance in the cobalt-refining business. “If someone is going to be at the front of the line with a cobalt supply that could compete, or threaten their position, then China is going to come quickly, and maybe even cut the line,” says Singh.


Meanwhile, China has focused investment on mining in the technologically challenging—and highly controversial—hydrothermal vent deposits of the deep sea, where it holds two additional exploration permits with the ISA. “China wants to do the stuff that nobody else has got access to yet,” says Jessica Aldred, editor of the Oceans special project at China Dialogue Trust, an independent nonprofit organization promoting environmental awareness in China.

Amon, the deep-sea marine biologist, has been going to the CCZ since 2013. Each time she returns from a research expedition, it is with a deeper understanding of the complex interactions between the creatures that live at inhospitable depths and the environment that supports them. Her research has shown that those relationships affect neighboring ecosystems as well, impacting biodiversity, feeding patterns and carbon sequestration in ways that scientists have yet to grasp. It has also shown her how much more there is to learn. Barron speaks of “plucking” nodules off the seafloor, but the mining robots work more like vacuums, sucking the nodules up along with a layer of sediment approximately 4 in. deep. Amon describes it as not just clear-cutting a forest but digging up the top 10 ft. of soil as well. She also worries that plumes of disturbed sediment could drift with ocean currents, smothering habitats miles away with unknown consequences.

A polymetallic nodule, an amalgamation of nickel, cobalt, manganese and other rare earth metals, formed through a complex biochemical process.
Spencer Lowell for TIME

Barron, who has already spent $3 million and committed a further $72 million to deep-sea research, says that preliminary findings show no such impacts. Amon argues that there hasn’t been enough time to know for sure. “No one is saying never,” she says about mining in the deep sea. “Just not yet. By rushing in, we risk losing parts of the planet and species before we know them, and not just before we know them but before we understand them and before we value them.”

Companies are starting to heed scientists’ call for a moratorium on exploration activities. In March, BMW and Volvo joined other businesses in a joint statement to say that they would not buy any metals produced from deep-sea mining before the environmental risks are “comprehensively understood.” Even the World Bank warned of the risk of “irreversible damage to the environment and harm to the public” from seabed mining, and urged caution. The mining companies argue that the ISA’s existing research requirements are sufficient. “No commercial licences will be granted by the ISA without a full environmental-impact assessment. If the science shows the deep seabed has no advantages over the alternatives, there will be no seabed-minerals industry,” says Van Nijen, of GSR. He points out that putting a stop to exploration could even be counterproductive. Both GSR and the Metals Company have already invested tens of millions in deep-seabed research. “A moratorium would put a halt to all that,” says Van Nijen. “[Stopping] exploration takes whatever certainty there is for the industry away, which means investment will disappear, which means that research isn’t funded, which means in 10 years’ time, we are in a similar boat as we are today, without a significant advance in knowledge.”


Barron may dismiss the bottom of the CCZ as a barren wasteland, but his scientists think differently. When the Maersk Launcher pulled into San Diego’s port on June 8, after a six-week research expedition to the CCZ sponsored by the Metals Company, the top deck was bustling with 21 marine scientists from eight universities packing up seafloor samples to take back to their labs for further analysis. Lead scientist Claire Dalgleish, a marine biologist working with the Seattle-based marine-consulting service Gravity Marine, peered into a box containing a 20-sq.-in. section of nodule-studded sediment that had been stamped out of the seabed with the underwater equivalent of a giant cookie cutter. Pointing with her finger, she identified several species of sea life all but invisible to the naked eye: bryozoans, algae, xenophyophores, miniscule sponges and a delicate fanlike creature called a chiton. “Initially you might look at this and think there’s nothing there,” Dalgleish says, “but there’s actually a fair amount of life. It’s just a really small scale.”

The Metals Company’s exploratory vessel, the Maersk Launcher, conducting environmental studies in the CCZ.
Courtesy The Metals Company

None of the scientists on board are ready to say what kind of impact, if any, mining will have. An assessment like that will take years of research, says principal investigator Andrew Sweetman, a marine scientist at Edinburgh’s Heriot-Watt University. This is his eighth trip to the CCZ in the past decade, and on each expedition he has discovered something new: “It’s kind of like being the only person on a planet for the first time. It comes with an enormous amount of responsibility to work out exactly what’s going on. But that’s why we’re out here.” Sweetman doesn’t want to get sucked into the controversies over deep-sea mining, but he does agree that without mining interest, research like his wouldn’t be happening much at all. “With all the investment that the mining companies are putting into the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, it’s probably going to be one of the most well-studied areas on the planet by the time we’re finished,” he says.

Whether or not that research will open the deep sea to mining, he doesn’t know. What he does know is that in the drive to save the planet from human-induced global warming, there will have to be trade-offs. “I’m not for mining, and I’m not against it. We all have to look in the mirror and realize that in order to get electric cars or a new cell phone or a new computer, tons and tons of rock will have to be extracted from either the ocean or the land,” he says. “All I’m trying to do is get the best environmental data so that if mining does go ahead, we know with a good level of confidence what’s potentially going to be damaged, and what the effects are going to be. And then it’s up to society to make the decision to go ahead.”

—With reporting by Charlie Campbell/Beijing and Corinne Purtill/San Diego

This appears in the September 13, 2021 issue of TIME.

Union seeks Hollywood ending for film industry’s tale of exploitation

Behind the glitz many of those working in movies and TV face low wages and conditions that strike at the industry’s diversity

‘Everyone in Hollywood is trading on the currency that these are your dreams … and it leads to the quality of working conditions going down.’ 

Photograph: ipopba/Getty Images/iStockphoto


Michael Sainato
Tue 7 Sep 2021 

Working in Hollywood may sound glamorous but the vast majority of workers in entry-level, assistant and support staff positions are vulnerable to pervasive poor working conditions that ensure poor levels of pay and pose safety risks. Problems include low wages, gender pay disparities, long hours, increased workloads in regards to Covid-19 safety protocols without additional compensation, and bullying from managers who gatekeep the opportunities for advancement and success in the entertainment industry.

Marisa Shipley, vice-president of IATSE (International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees) Local 871 and an art department coordinator in the industry, explained workers in the industry in these positions, from script coordinators to writers and production assistants, are typically paid little more than the minimum wage of $15 an hour in Los Angeles, California.

The union is negotiating with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers to raise the wage floor for members in the industry.


At least 170,000 lose jobs as film industry grinds to a halt due to coronavirus

Recent trends in the industry have worsened the impact of low wages on workers, as shorter seasons for TV shows have limited opportunities for advancement and made it more difficult for workers to piece together jobs throughout the year to make a living.

“It’s leaving people in these positions for much longer than people used to work in them and keeping them at very suppressed low wages,” said Shipley. ‘It’s absurd that an industry of billion-dollar corporations continuing to make profits during a global pandemic based off of our work and our work contributions are not paying people wages to live on in Los Angeles.”

A study commissioned by IATSE Local 871 found members in roles such as art department coordinators, art production coordinators, script supervisors, and writer’s assistants, positions predominantly held by women, are typically paid just $16 to $17 an hour. Shipley cited as an example art department coordinators, who receive starting rates at $16 an hour while the position with the next lowest rate in these departments receive $44 an hour. In addition to low wages, significant gender pay gaps across positions throughout the entertainment industry have been reported, from famous actors to support staff.

“The industry has done nothing to address it. They continue to ignore it,” added Shipley.

Noah Van Sykes, a production assistant in the industry since 2018, helped create the Democratic Socialists of America-Los Angeles Hollywood Labor group, aimed at organizing workers in the industry around issues of low pay, equity and poor working conditions.

The group regularly holds events around Los Angeles, from social events to participating in protests in solidarity with other local unions, such as boycotting the Chateau Marmont hotel in Hollywood earlier this year as hotel workers represented by Unite Here Local 11 reported rampant mistreatment and discrimination on the job.

Van Sykes described the culture within Hollywood that inhibits labor organizing, such as the wide range of job duties assigned to workers in entry-level and assistant positions, and the culture of fear and retaliation that reinforces poor labor practices, including workers being forced to do unpaid labor.

“There is an industry-wide problem of making people work overtime they’re not paid for,” said Van Sykes. “You kind of knuckle under and accept this condition that you’re going to do unpaid work, you can get called to work on weekends, you can be asked to do things late into the evening and outside of work hours.”

During the pandemic, Van Sykes noted many workers in assistant and entry-level positions lost their jobs, and while Hollywood operations have resumed, they are often being conducted with fewer workers, placing larger workloads and pressure on those still working.

“Employers are trying to concentrate more labor on fewer people. So overall, assistants are getting the full brunt of the pandemic,” added Van Sykes. “It’s going to get worse for Hollywood workers unless assistants start recognizing the problems and we start working to fix it.”

A survey of 1,014 assistants in the entertainment industry released in February 2021 by the #PayUpHollywood campaign found over 79% of respondents make $50,000 or less per year, with annual income in Los Angeles under $53,600 classifying an individual as rent burdened. More than 37% of respondents reported relying on income from family or friends.

“I’ve always had to have a lot of side hustles,” said Helen Silverstein, a writer’s assistant and member of the DSA-LA Hollywood Labor group. She described the issue of having to navigate gaining experience through internships, often having to turn many down that are unpaid.

“Everyone in Hollywood is trading on the currency that these are your dreams, that everyone wants to be in this industry, and this shows the bosses that if someone isn’t willing to work for minimum wage, they can find someone else who’s willing to work for minimum wage, and it leads to the quality of working conditions going down.”

A survey conducted in 2019 also found several workers have experienced abuse from employers, such as having objects thrown at them, and being forced to perform personal errands for their managers during and outside of work hours.

“Because of the glitz and glam image that people have of Hollywood, a lot of things are swept under the rug in service of preserving that image,” said Neda Davarpanah, a writer’s assistant and leadership board member of DSA-LA Hollywood Labor. “There’s a coercive nature of work in this industry, that we’re all kind of living under this fear that if we cross the wrong person we will never work again, so we don’t demand better.”

IATSE members from the entertainment industry demonstrate in Philadelphia last year. Photograph: Matt Smith/Rex/Shutterstock

These working conditions and low wages, argued Alison Golub, a writer’s assistant and Local 871 member, are severely impairing workers’ ability to start families and afford expensive rent in the Los Angeles area, and limit the ability for many workers to sustain themselves in the industry. This contributes to the lack of diversity in Hollywood, Golub noted, because many workers cannot afford to work in the industry without relying on generational wealth to subsidize their cost of living.

“Great art is made when people aren’t worried about how they’re going to get their next meal on the table,” said Golub. “If you want to keep making great art, then you have to pay people what they’re owed.”

Alex Wolinetz, a screenwriter and co-founder of the Hollywood Labor group with DSA-LA, argued the Hollywood industry, along with the economy as a whole, is becoming increasingly divided along lines of wealth.

“We’re living in an economic situation where we are making less and less money for more and more work. And I think one of the worst things about working in the film industry is that it’s classically defined that you do a lot of unpaid work to prove yourself, improve your credit, everything,” said Wolinetz. “It doesn’t have to be this way.”

20 meat and dairy firms emit more greenhouse gas than Germany, Britain or France

Livestock companies with large emissions receive billions of dollars in funding, campaigners say

From 2015 to 2020, global meat and dairy firms received more than 

US$478bn in backing, according to the Meat Atlas. Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo

Animals farmed is supported by


Sophie Kevany
Tue 7 Sep 2021 


Twenty livestock companies are responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than either Germany, Britain or France – and are receiving billions of dollars in financial backing to do so, according to a new report by environmental campaigners.

Raising livestock contributes significantly to carbon emissions, with animal agriculture accounting for 14.5% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Scientific reports have found that rich countries need huge reductions in meat and dairy consumption to tackle the climate emergency.


Meat wars: why Biden wants to break up the powerful US beef industry

Between 2015 and 2020, global meat and dairy companies received more than US$478bn in backing from 2,500 investment firms, banks, and pension funds, most of them based in North America or Europe, according to the Meat Atlas, which was compiled by Friends of the Earth and the European political foundation, Heinrich Böll Stiftung.

With that level of financial support, the report estimates that meat production could increase by a further 40m tonnes by 2029, to hit 366m tonnes of meat a year.

Although the vast majority of growth was likely to take place in the global south, the biggest producers will continue to be China, Brazil, the USA and the members of the European Union. By 2029 these countries may still produce 60% of worldwide meat output.

Across the world, the report says, three-quarters of all agricultural land is used to raise animals or the crops to feed them. “In Brazil alone, 175m hectares is dedicated to raising cattle,” an area of land that is about equal to the “entire agricultural area of the European Union”.

SHOULD MAKE IT NAFTA NOT USA

Across the world, three-quarters of all agricultural land is used to raise animals or the crops to feed them, the report says. Photograph: Meat Atlas 2021/OECD, FAO

The report also points to ongoing consolidation in the meat and dairy sector, with the biggest companies buying smaller ones and reducing competition. The effect risks squeezing out more sustainable food production models.

“To keep up with this [level of animal protein production] industrial animal farming is on the rise and keeps pushing sustainable models out of the market,” the report says.

The recent interest shown by animal protein companies in meat alternatives and substitutes was not yet a solution, campaigners said.

“This is all for profit and is not really addressing the fundamental issues we see in the current animal protein-centred food system that is having a devastating impact on climate, biodiversity and is actually harming people around the globe,” said Stanka Becheva, a food and agriculture campaigner working with Friends of the Earth.

The bottom line, said Becheva, is that “we need to begin reducing the number of food animals on the planet and incentivise different consumption models.”

More meat industry regulation is needed too, she said, “to make sure companies are paying for the harms they have created throughout the supply chain and to minimise further damage”.

On the investment side, Becheva said private banks and investors, as well as development banks such as the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development needed to stop financing large-scale, intensive animal protein production projects.

Responding to the report, Paolo Patruno, deputy secretary general of the European Association for the Meat Processing Industry (CLITRAVI), said: “We don’t believe that any food sector is more or less sustainable than another. But there are more or less sustainable ways to produce plant or animal foods and we are committed to making animal protein production more sustainable.

“We also know that average GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions in the EU from livestock is half that of the global average. The global average is about 14% and the EU average is 7%,” he added.

In England and Wales, the National Farmers’ Union has set a target of reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture by 2040.

No centralized group driving protests at Liberal campaign events, experts say

Sep 6, 2021

CBC News

Evan Balgord, executive director of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, joins Power & Politics to discuss how protesters that have disrupted Liberal campaign events have mobilized. 

MEXICO

‘It’s a historic day,’ declares chief justice as Supreme Court decriminalizes abortion

 

Chief Justice Zaldívar: 'A new route of freedom, clarity, dignity and respect for all women.'

Decision means no woman can be prosecuted for having an abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy

Published on Tuesday, September 7, 2021

The Supreme Court (SCJN) has effectively decriminalized abortion across Mexico with a unanimous decision on Tuesday.

In response to a challenge to abortion restrictions in Coahuila, the court ruled that the criminalization of abortion is unconstitutional, setting a precedent for the legalization of early term abortion in all 32 states.

Outside cases of rape and those in which an expectant mother’s life is endangered, abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy is currently only legal in four states: Mexico City, Oaxaca, Hidalgo and Veracruz.

Chief Justice Arturo Zaldívar declared Tuesday a historic day for all Mexican women, especially the most vulnerable.

From now on, no woman can be prosecuted for having an abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy without violating the ruling of the SCJN and the Mexican constitution, he said.

“From now on, a new route of freedom, clarity, dignity and respect for all … women begins,” Zaldívar said.

“… Today is another step forward in the historic struggle for their equality, dignity and for the full exercise of their rights,” he said.

Justice Luis María Aguilar Morales, the proponent of the decriminalization of abortion in Coahuila, said that “never again” can a woman or a person with the capacity to give birth be criminally punished for having an abortion.

“Today the threat of prison and the stigma that weighs on people who freely decide to interrupt their pregnancy is banished,” he said.

Outside the court, pro-life activists condemned the court’s ruling, while feminist groups celebrated the decision online.

“Historic ruling!” reproductive rights group GIRE declared on Twitter.

Mexico, still a largely conservative nation with the second highest number of Catholics in the world after Brazil, is now the most populous country in Latin America to decriminalize abortion.

The court’s decision came after women’s groups in recent years ramped up pressure on authorities to legalize it across the country at numerous protests.

President López Obrador, a staunch advocate for participatory democracy, previously proposed holding a referendum on the subject but on Tuesday morning backed the SCJN’s capacity to rule on the issue.

“The best thing in this case is that if it’s already in the Supreme Court it should be resolved there,” he said, adding that he wouldn’t take a side because doing so would not be “the most prudent thing” to do.

With reports from Milenio and El País

Challenges to abortion restrictions could lead to legalization across Mexico

The result of a Supreme Court vote could set a precedent
 

Opponents gather Monday outside the Supreme Court in Mexico City.

Published on Tuesday, September 7, 2021

The Supreme Court (SCJN) appears to be on the verge of setting a precedent that will pave the way for the legalization of abortion across Mexico.

The court’s justices began debating challenges to abortion restrictions in Coahuila and Sinaloa on Monday, and eight of the 11 indicated they are in favor of revoking criminal penalties for the termination of a pregnancy in the former state. The other three justices didn’t participate in Monday’s session.

Voting on the challenges is to commence on Tuesday. If a qualified majority of eight justices vote in favor of invalidating the section of the Coahuila criminal code that punishes abortion at any stage of a pregnancy by one to three years imprisonment, the court would set a precedent that would oblige judges across Mexico to hand down similar rulings.

Outside cases of rape and those in which an expectant mother’s life is endangered, abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy is currently only legal in four states: Mexico City, Oaxaca, Hidalgo and Veracruz. But a court ruling that decriminalizes abortion in Coahuila would in time open up access to early abortion for millions of women in the country’s other 28 states.

Justice Luis María Aguilar, the proponent of the decriminalization of abortion in Coahuila, said the aim is to give women the right to make decisions about their own bodies and lives without facing prosecution. The state has an obligation to provide an “environment of protection” in which that can occur, “not one of punishment,” the justice said.

Aguilar also said that his proposal acknowledges the changes that have taken place in Mexican society as well as fundamental principles such as democracy and the separation of church and state.

Chief Justice Arturo Zaldívar said that all the SCJN justices are “in favor of life” but “some of us are in favor of women’s lives being lives in which their dignity is respected, in which they can fully exercise their rights, in which they are free from violence and can determine their own destiny.”

With regard to Sinaloa, Justice Alfredo Gutiérrez proposed a court ruling that declares the absolute prohibition of abortion in that state as unconstitutional. His proposal argues that a modification to the state’s charter that states that life begins at conception violates the Mexican constitution.

Gutiérrez also argues that states do not have the right to deny women access to sexual and reproductive health services, including abortion. In addition, his initiative seeks to invalidate a law that allows health personnel to refuse to carry out an abortion due to their own personal beliefs on the practice.

A qualified majority vote in favor of Gutiérrez’s proposal would also set a precedent for the legalization of abortion across Mexico.

As justices discussed the matters on Monday, conservative groups protested outside the Supreme Court building in Mexico City.

Holding signs with pro-life messages as well as religious imagery, the demonstrators exhorted the SCJN to not rule in favor of declaring abortion restrictions unconstitutional.

“We’re urging the Supreme Court justices to reject these [challenges to states’ efforts to limit abortions], … we trust that these justices are going to defend life,” said Leticia Gonzalez-Luna, president of the pro-life group Voz Pública.

In contrast, pro-choice activists were optimistic that the court would set a precedent that paves the way for legal abortion across Mexico.


“The SCJN will make the decriminalization of abortion a reality in all federal entities,” tweeted Estefanía Veloz, a feminist and lawyer.

With reports from Milenio, El País and EFE

Veracruz Congress votes to decriminalize abortion

It is the fourth state to do so, joining Mexico City, Oaxaca and Hidalgo

 

Supporters of decriminalization celebrate the vote in Veracruz.

Published on Wednesday, July 21, 2021

Mexico‘s southeastern state of Veracruz will become the fourth state in the predominantly Roman Catholic country to clear away criminal penalties for elective abortion after lawmakers on Tuesday voted to decriminalize the procedure.

The initiative to allow abortions by choice passed in a 25-13 vote with one abstention, Veracruz’s Congress said in a statement.

The state will join Mexico City, Oaxaca and Hidalgo, which decriminalized abortion just late last month, as places where women can now choose to have abortions within 12 weeks of pregnancy.


“We thought this day was so far off that we’re in shock, in the best way possible,” said a tweet from Brujas del Mar, a Veracruz feminist group, while noting that most of Mexico‘s states have yet to follow suit.

“Let’s go after the 28 (states) that are left.”

Veracruz is one of just three states that does not mandate jail time for women who have unauthorized abortions, according to data from advocacy group GIRE, in a region where traditional anti-abortion attitudes have only recently started to shift.

Even as Argentina legalized the procedure in December, several of more than 20 Latin American nations still ban abortion outright, including El Salvador, which has sentenced some women to up to 40 years in prison.

Veracruz became a focal point in Mexico‘s abortion debate last year when the Supreme Court ruled against a proposal to decriminalize abortion in the state, a move condemned by women’s rights activists.

Hidalgo decriminalizes abortion, the third state to do so

The vote comes a year and a half after the state Congress voted against decriminalization

 

Women celebrate Wednesday's vote in Hidalgo.

Published on Thursday, July 1, 2021

Hidalgo has become the third state in Mexico to legalize abortion after a majority of lawmakers voted on Wednesday in favor of allowing women to terminate a pregnancy during the first 12 weeks.

Sixteen Morena party lawmakers voted in favor of legalization while 11 deputies from parties including the National Action Party (PAN) and Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) opposed the legislation but refused to participate in the vote.

One Morena lawmaker formally abstained, while two other members of the 30-seat unicameral Congress were absent.


Mexico City, which legalized abortion in 2007, and Oaxaca, which followed suit in 2019, are the only other states where women can legally end a pregnancy in cases not involving rape, a risk to their lives or fetal anomalies.

Passed amid rowdy opposition from PAN and PRI lawmakers, Hidalgo’s legislation stipulates that authorities must guarantee access to free abortion services for women in their first 12 weeks of pregnancy. The same access must be extended to women incarcerated in prisons in the state, whose capital, Pachuca, is just 90 kilometers northeast of Mexico City.

Women who end a pregnancy after 12 weeks can be fined and imprisoned for up to a year, according to the approved bill.

Pro-choice activists celebrated the results of yesterday’s vote, which came 1 1/2 years after the same Congress rejected a bill to legalize abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

“One state more in favor of freedom and justice for women. The Marea Verde rises and we’re all very happy,” reproductive rights group GIRE said on Twitter.


The Marea Verde, or Green Tide, is a pro-choice movement that is active in many Latin American countries.

PAN and PRI lawmakers claimed that Morena, which controls the Hidalgo Congress, shut down debate and thus prevented them from presenting their arguments against legalization. They also asserted that the legislative process was plagued by other irregularities.

Morena is violating the law, we’re going to [take the matter to] court,” said PAN Deputy Asael Hernández Cerón.

Abortion is a highly contentious issue in Mexico, where the Catholic Church remains influential and many parts of the country retain traditional customs and beliefs. However, in recent years feminist groups have become more vocal and persistent in their fight for women across Mexico to have the right to access safe and legal abortions.

Abortion activists were hopeful that the Supreme Court (SCJN) would deliver a landmark ruling in 2020 that would pave the way for the decriminalization of abortion across Mexico. However, the court voted against upholding an injunction granted in Veracruz that ordered that state’s Congress to remove articles from the criminal code that stipulate that abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy is illegal.

If the SCJN had upheld the injunction, the decision would have set a precedent that could have led to further court orders instructing state legislatures to legalize first-trimester abortion.

Texas governor defends abortion law with no rape exceptions

SAYS THEY WILL 'ELIMINATE'  ALL THE RAPISTS

Paul J. Weber And Jamie Stengle
The Associated PressStaff
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 

Texas Gov Greg Abbott shows off his signature after signing Senate Bill 1, also known as the election integrity bill, into law with State Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, front center left, and Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, front right looking on with others in Tyler, Texas, Tuesday, Sept. 7, 2021. 

(AP Photo/LM Otero)

DALLAS -- Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday defended a new state law banning most abortions that also does not provide exceptions for cases of rape or incest, saying it does not force victims to give birth even though it prohibits abortions before some women know they're pregnant.

Abbott, a Republican, added that Texas would strive to "eliminate all rapists from the streets" while taking questions during his first press conference since the law took effect last week.

The comments drew new criticism from opponents of the Texas law that is the biggest curb on abortion in the U.S. since they were legalized a half-century ago, prohibiting abortions once medical professionals can detect cardiac activity, which is usually around six weeks. Though abortion providers in Texas say the law is unconstitutional, they say they are abiding by it.


Related Stories
U.S. Justice Department will 'protect' abortion seekers in Texas

Activists focus on tip site in protesting Texas abortion law

"His comments are confusing to me because they certainly do not seem to reflect the realities of this law," said Amy Jones, the chief executive officer of the Dallas Area Rape Crisis Center.

Recent surveys by the U.S. Department of Justice found that most rapes go unreported to police, including a 2019 survey that found about 1 in 3 victims reporting they were raped or sexually assaulted.

Abbott signed the measure into law in May. Although other GOP-led states have passed similar measures, they have been blocked by courts. Texas' version differs significantly because it solely leaves enforcement to private citizens who can sue abortion providers who violate the law.

Abbott was asked about the new abortion restrictions while signing into law an overhaul of Texas' election rules.

"Texas will work tirelessly to make sure that we eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas by aggressively going out and arresting them and prosecuting them," Abbott said.

Jones said Abbott's statements were both confusing and disheartening. She said she'd "like to hear more" from Abbott on his statement on eliminating rape.

"Certainly it is in our mission statement to work to end sexual violence, that is why we exist, but we are also very aware that that is an aspirational goal that yes, we do believe that this is a preventable crime, but it if it were that easy, rape would no longer exist," Jones said.

The Justice Department has said it will not tolerate violence against anyone who is trying to obtain an abortion in Texas as federal officials explore options to challenge the law.

'How do you eliminate rape?': Gov. Abbott faces backlash after comments on new abortion law

"Rape is a crime, and Texas will work tirelessly to make sure that we eliminate all rapists in the streets of Texas...," the governor said in part of his statement.

THE RAPIST STILL RAPED HIS VICTIM

SHE IS STILL PREGNANT

A twist in the new unprecedented Texas abortion law: "There's no one to sue" • 

FRANCE 24 English

#Texas #abortion #law

  

Gov. Whitmer Calls on Legislature to Repeal 1930s Law Criminalizing Abortion

September 7, 2021 

 9and10news Site Staff

On Tuesday, Governor Gretchen Whitmer called on the Michigan legislature to pass legislation repealing Michigan’s 1930s law criminalizing abortion. 

The law is currently not in effect because of the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. Repealing the law would ensure a woman’s right to choose. 

In a statement, Whitmer said:

“Recently, Texas passed a new, extreme anti-choice law that puts people’s lives at risk, and threatens healthcare workers. The insidious law essentially bans abortions, even in cases of rape or incest, and allows strangers to sue medical professionals or anyone who helps women get the comprehensive healthcare they need. It is a gross violation of the constitutional right to choose, and the Court’s decision to allow it to stay in place sets the United States on a dangerous path towards overturning Roe v. Wade.

“Unfortunately, there are more cases based on equally extreme state laws awaiting action in the Supreme Court that would completely overturn Roe v. Wade. If the court’s decision in the Texas case is any indication, a majority of justices are willing to throw out the constitutional right to choose that has been in place for 48 years and repeatedly upheld for decades.

“In Michigan today, abortion is safe and legal, but we have an arcane law on the books from the 1930s banning abortion and criminalizing healthcare providers who offer comprehensive care and essential reproductive services. Thankfully, that dangerous, outdated law is superseded by Roe v. Wade, but, if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe, that Michigan law and others like it may go back into effect in dozens of states, disproportionately impacting Black and brown communities.

“I call on the legislature to send Senator Erika Geiss’ bill that repeals our nearly-century-old ban on abortion to my desk. I have always stood with those fighting for their right to choose, and I will not stop now. I will stand in the way of any bills that seek to strip away fundamental rights from women or get in the way of doctors’ ability to do their jobs

 

OPINION

Texas Just Can’t Stop Punishing Women

New York Times best-selling writer Lauren Hough looks at the passage of SB8 and the exhaustion of raising those coat hangers in protest once again.

BY Lauren Hough

Published: September 7, 2021

Illustration by Sara D'Eugenio.

I had an abortion in 1996, and I’m not going to explain why I needed one. All I will tell you is that I was in the Air Force, and though the military isn’t allowed to perform abortions, it was still easy enough. I made the appointment for a Saturday, spent the weekend eating junk food and Tylenol, and I was back at work on Monday. I’ll tell you I was damn grateful, even in 1996, that I was stationed in California, not Texas. I’m not going to tell you I wasn’t a slut. I’m not going to tell you I was careful. I’m not telling you because it doesn’t matter.

Every year, every time another draconian law restricting abortion is passed, we perform the same charade. We all know our roles. We tell traumatic stories of rape and incest and those babies we wanted but were formed in the wombs without vital organs. We tell of abusive husbands and boyfriends and fathers. We talk about poverty, and minimum wages, and impossible distances, and lack of sick leave, and forgoing food to afford a medical procedure. Our mothers and grandmothers talk about the old days of back alleys and infection and knife slips.

We march and hold signs. We carry coat hangers. We chant and sing and scream into megaphones. We threaten strikes. We stage sit-ins. We hashtag and tweet and share memes. We write essays.

We do this in a desperate attempt to evoke empathy, express anger, show our numbers, and hope this one time, they’ll hear us.

Those we elect to represent us have their scripts. They say: “No one is for abortion.” It’s a private, no, scratch that, heart-wrenching decision between a woman and her doctor. They use euphemisms like “choice.” They say abortion should be safe, and rare. Don’t forget rare. They say they’re personally against it. No, they’ve never had one, surely never paid for one. What about the life of the mother? What about rape and incest? What about privacy?

The forced-birth enthusiasts have their roles too. They call themselves pro-life. They name these laws “heartbeat” bills, though at six weeks, their heart is not yet fully developed. They say, of course they care about women; they’re just against murdering babies. They call it “murdering babies.” They want women to be more responsible. They claim, falsely, that women regret their abortions. They’re protecting women. They’re protecting innocent lives. No, they didn’t pay for that abortion. They’re sorry they did. That was another time, before they were saved.

In the end, another law is passed. Another clinic closed. Another justice added to the bench.

I’m not telling my story again. I won’t rip myself open and spill my guts hoping I’ll reach someone, hoping they’ll see a human being. They don’t. Because they’re full of sh*t.

I know they’re full of sh*t because if they were really interested in preventing abortion, they’d fund a Planned Parenthood truck on every corner, next to the taco truck. Liquor stores would sell Plan B. They’d fund sex education in schools. Sex education taught by someone other than Coach Kemp, who told us, “Y’all know condoms fail. The only way to make sure you aren’t catching AIDS is marriage.”

If you want to end abortion, you don’t make it easier to get pregnant. If the specter of dead babies haunted them, they wouldn’t push sadistic laws punishing women who miscarry. If they were so horrified by the idea of abortion—truly wanted to save those babies—they’d make sure every baby had enough to eat and a safe place to sleep; every mother and father had a year of paid leave; no family went bankrupt with medical bills from a complicated pregnancy.

They’ve been telling us for years, decades, by their actions that they do not want to end abortion. Why would they? No matter the law passed, the wealthy will still have access to it. But if you can force a woman to give birth, you’ve trapped her in a cycle of poverty. They don’t want to save babies. They want to punish women for having sex. They want to punish women who step out of line. They want to punish women.

For too long, we’ve accepted their terms, and played our roles, trying to beg and bargain—plead the case of the good victim, the good girl, the one with a future, the one who wanted to be a mother. We’ve been trying to reach people who would never reach out to us. All we’ve done is provide them cover to continue their crusade against women.

The truth of the matter is, abortion will always be a reality, no matter which laws they pass. We don’t have to depict it as a heart-wrenching decision a woman regrets down the road. Because we know that’s not true. Abortion isn’t a controversial topic that we should be scared to discuss or even name. It is and has remained popular, even in Texas. One in four women, at least, have had an abortion. It’s 14 times safer than giving birth. It doesn’t even require a doctor. It never has.

The days of coat hangers were never the rule, and all we’ve done by waving them around is perpetuate the lie that abortions are terrifying and potentially life-threatening…despite the fact abortion is as old as pregnancy itself. Its practitioners were usually women with a knowledge of herbs. Today, abortion pills such as Mifepristone are easily accessible online, and just across the border.

Yet now, in Texas, I can be sued for typing that last sentence. Because they don’t want to end abortion. They want to punish women. And they’ve now deputized every Texan to do their dirty work.

 

Lauren Hough is the essayist and best-selling author of Leaving isn’t the Hardest Thing. She was born in Berlin, Germany, and raised in several countries, and Amarillo, Texas. She’s been an Airforce Airman, a bouncer, barista, bartender, and, for a time, a cable guy.