CEOs and Twitter trolls take on Roe v. Wade

Andy Serwer

·Editor in Chief

Sat, May 7, 2022,

The Supreme Court is apparently poised to repeal the federal abortion protection of Roe v. Wade, and CEOs around the country are being called out. Some are decrying the move. Others are saying nothing. Few, if any, are publicly cheering.

There is no easy playbook here. While companies have zero obligation—legal or otherwise—to take a stand on any social or political issue, they have in recent years waded into those waters (consider after George Floyd's killing, North Carolina's bathroom ban, and Georgia's voting laws). And of course companies don’t have opinions, CEOs do, which they may or may not share, and—as Brian Moynihan, CEO of Bank of America stressed this week on CBS re: Roe—may or may not be the prevailing view of their constituents.

“It's the settled law of the land. We believe people should have that access," Moynihan said, cautioning that his opinion does not reflect that of all the company's 200,000 U.S. employees. "I could have a personal point of view, but that's not what we do," he said.

Then, there's the issue itself — its fate still hanging in the balance. Abortion has long been a third rail of American politics. Some CEOs are stating their positions more forcefully than Moynihan, either because they feel strongly about the issue or because doing so is good for their business—or both. Those who are loathe to speak out about abortion may believe they risk alienating 40% or so of not just their employees, but customers and shareholders—never mind local citizens and politicians. (BTW, parsing pro-choice and pro-life opinion polls is a fraught science all its own.)

The paradox is the more these difficult issues come to the fore, the more chief executives are being asked to weigh in. And they’ve watched with alarm as Disney CEO Bob Chapek fumbled the handling of his company’s response to Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Act, or what critics have dubbed the "Don't Say Gay" bill.

At the Milken Conference this week, I asked Mary Barra, CEO of GM—and Disney board member—about this.

Serwer: Social issues are difficult right now. How do you think about that?

WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 03: Pro-choice activists protest in response to the leaked Supreme Court draft decision to overturn Roe v. Wade (Getty Images)

Barra: “Well, at General Motors, we really focus on what are our values, and because we know our employees joined the company, because they want to join a company that has, you know, values that they share. And so when we make statements, it's usually around our values of what we believe. And, you know, General Motors stands for inclusion, we want everyone to participate in our all electric future. And we value all of our customers and all of our employees. So that's our focus. And when we make statements, it's associated with our values and what we believe.”

Not a lot of meat on them bones, but to be fair, depending on where you sit and what you believe, it’s tricky stuff.

Last Saturday in Omaha I listened as Warren Buffett offered sage context at his annual meeting:

“…The last time that the country was [this] tribal was when I was a kid and Roosevelt was in. Either you hated Roosevelt, or you loved him… People are always going to be partisan. They're going to have religious beliefs. They [always] had a certain amount of tribal[ism] always…but I don't think it's a good development for society…”

As for abortion rights specifically, the controversy is both a moral debate between a women’s right to choose and when life begins, and a political one over which entity should adjudicate that question, federal or state government. With the potential demise of Roe v. Wade, state abortion laws, which are already quite varied, will become even more so, further accentuating the distinction between blue states and red states. Will it follow that we will have blue companies and red companies? Well, we kind of already do.

As Yahoo Finance’s Alexis Keenan reports: “Amazon (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Bumble (BMBL), Citigroup (C), Levi Strauss (LEVI), Match Group (MTCH), and Yelp (YELP) reimburse travel expenses incurred to obtain abortion care that's legally unavailable within their home state.

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) joins demonstrators during a pro-choice protest outside the U.S. Supreme Court to support abortion rights (Getty Images)

Meanwhile, Salesforce (CRM) is offering to pick up moving expenses for its employees who live in a state with an abortion ban exceeding that of Roe, and move to another without such restrictions.”

On the other hand companies like Walmart, American Airlines, and the aforementioned Disney have made no statements. As for CEOs who are in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade, I’m sure they’re some out there, but I couldn’t find any. However, The New York Times reports this on a related note:

“In September, John Gibson, the chief executive of Tripwire Interactive, a gaming company based in Georgia, wrote on Twitter that he was "proud" of the Supreme Court for “affirming the Texas law banning abortion for babies with a heartbeat.” His comments angered colleagues, and within a few days he was replaced.”

CEOs who are pro-life may be keeping mum because they’re scared of losing their jobs. But if abortion is such a divisive issue, why are pro-choice CEOs speaking out? If conservative CEOs think it's because they’ll be attacked by the woke, Twitter troll mob, well, the un-woke Twitter troll mob is none too friendly, either.

It’s not a coincidence that the demise of constructive government (aka gridlock) has occurred at the same time we're seeing companies having to step into the political and social arena, i.e. practice stakeholder capitalism. Someone or something has to fill the breach and take the lead. I’m glad CEOs are stepping up in many cases, but it really isn’t their purview. We need lawmakers to come together and do their jobs,

George Mitchell, a Democrat and former Senate Majority Leader, once told me he had dinner with his GOP counterpart, the late Bob Dole, every week without fail in the early 1990s. And then there’s this from an obituary this week in the New York Times of Norman Mineta, former congressman and cabinet member who as a Japanese American was interned in a U.S. prison camp as a boy: “Mr. Mineta quickly made it clear that, for him, transportation was not partisan. ‘There are no Democratic or Republican highways,’ he told reporters.”

Sadly, the tribal trolls disagree.

Do Dems have the ability — and the will — to counter Roe’s repeal?

Mike Bebernes
·Senior Editor
Sun, May 8, 2022, 
“The 360” shows you diverse perspectives on the day’s top stories and debates.


What’s happening

The Supreme Court appears poised to strike down Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that has guaranteed constitutional protections for abortion since 1973, according to a leaked draft of a majority opinion that was published by Politico on Monday.

Though the ruling could change before the final decision is issued by the court, the preliminary draft indicates there are at least five justices willing to overturn the long-standing precedent that has permitted states to impose limited restrictions on abortion access but has blocked them from banning abortion outright.

If Roe is repealed, individual states will have the power to set their own laws regulating access to abortion. Almost immediately, abortion would become illegal in as many as 26 states — including a number that have “trigger” laws that would automatically ban all abortion the moment protections provided by Roe are lifted. Other states would still be free to maintain or expand abortion access as they see fit.

The impending reversal of Roe represents a major victory for the anti-abortion movement, which has aggressively — at times violently — pushed for a nationwide end to the procedure. Most Americans, however, support at least some federal protections for abortion in all 50 states.
Why there’s debate

Beyond hoping for the slim possibility that the Supreme Court's ruling changes before the final text is released, Democrats do have some options for pushing back on the impending end of abortion access in Republican-run states. But each of those tactics has its own limitations, including questions about whether the party has the political will to pursue them.

The most comprehensive step Democrats could take, at least in theory, would be to pass a law codifying abortion protections nationwide. A bill that would do exactly that, the Women’s Health Protection Act, was passed this year in the House. But even though Democrats hold a narrow majority in the Senate, most experts say it’s extremely unlikely that they can conjure enough votes to override a filibuster given the current makeup of Congress. There is some indication that there could be bipartisan agreement on a compromise bill that provides more limited protections for abortion, but it's unclear how viable that option may be.

Wrangling over abortion rights will also play out at the state level. Several Democratic governors have said they intend to turn their states into a “sanctuary” for people from across the country to receive abortions. Some blue states are already serving that purpose at a certain scale and could increase their capacity to do so if Roe is repealed. But experts say there are significant logistical and legal obstacles that could make it difficult for those states to fulfill that promise. It’s also likely, they argue, that Republican lawmakers will move quickly to put in place new restrictions that could make it all but impossible for someone to travel across state lines to have an abortion.

Another major question is how the repeal of Roe might affect results of the upcoming midterms. Democrats are hopeful that voters will rally to their side, potentially giving them enough seats in the Senate to enact nationwide abortion protections in the near future. There’s significant debate, however, over whether the issue is impactful enough to counter trends that appear to suggest the GOP will be the party that gains seats in November.

What’s next

Roe is still the law of the land at the moment and will remain in place until the Supreme Court’s final ruling is released, which is expected to happen within the next two months.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has said he plans to bring a bill that would create nationwide abortion protections up for a vote next week. That vote is widely expected to fail.
Perspectives

There’s little hope for a legislative response from the current Congress

“Biden has emphasized codifying Roe as a proxy for his larger abortion messaging and has said he would sign the Women’s Health Protection Act if it were to make it to his desk. But, with anti-abortion conservatives anticipating judicial victory, it is unclear what, if anything Biden’s administration — or Democrats in Congress — can deliver legislatively.” — Amanda Becker, The 19th

The end of Roe could inspire a political movement to defend reproductive rights

“There is a good chance, however, that the far-right is overplaying its hand. American democracy is in crisis, but it is very much alive, and the prospect of losing personal rights will awaken a sense of urgency and could boost political involvement.” — Frida Ghitis, CNN

Democrats overestimate how much the issue of abortion rights will mobilize voters

“Abortion is not the powerful political issue the Left thinks it is. … Guess what? The pro-life politicians keep winning elections, especially at the state level and even when abortion becomes a major national issue.” — Editorial, Washington Examiner

Nationwide abortion protections probably wouldn’t survive even if they were passed

“It is likely that the same five justices who appear poised to overrule Roe v. Wade would find reason to strike down the Women’s Health Protection Act as exceeding Congress’s power.” — Amanda Hollis-Brusky, Washington Post

Blue states are bolstering their capacity to serve as abortion sanctuaries

“We’re at the very beginning of this. It’s just occurring to blue states that people are going to travel from out of state and maybe something should be done. No one is really getting into it in any greater kinds of depths.” — Mary Ziegler, abortion law expert, to CT Mirror

Blue states may face legal hurdles that stop them from becoming a safe haven for abortion access

“There are going to be a few states who will try to fund abortion travel and try to protect abortion providers from out-of-state lawsuits. … But if in a state like Missouri, a zealous prosecutor goes after an Illinois provider who has been providing abortions on their citizens, the courts are going to have to figure out: Can a state do that if the provider is completely following Illinois law?” — Greer Donley, health care law expert, to New York

State-level Democrats have a lot of work to do if they truly want to be safe havens for abortion

“States that want to be havens for people who need abortions should critically consider their existing policies in light of their real-life impacts.” — Amanda Jean Stevenson and Kate Coleman-Minahan, Conversation

The country will be better off once abortion laws are decided by voters, not the courts

“If the reports of Roe’s imminent demise are true, actual American voters will get to decide on abortion law for the first time in almost 50 years. It’s understandable that such a prospect would be terrifying to pro-choicers who have grown accustomed to their views on the issue being insulated from democratic accountability.” — Nate Hochman, National Review

Once Roe is gone, conservatives may feel pressure to temper their positions on abortion

“I'd be willing to bet GOP officeholders will face pressure to liberalize many of these laws once voters realize just how extreme they are and that the courts will no longer be policing their enforcement.” — Damon Linker, The Week

The end of Roe will create an entirely new legal framework that pro-choice advocates can exploit

“If legal confusions produce openings after Roe — spaces to set up new access sites and build greater networks, while finding new loopholes and ways to be ungovernable against repressive government action — we must take such advantage where we can.” — Natasha Lennard, The Intercept

Systems to promote abortion access are already in place at the local level

“Increasing abortion access through abortion funds and education on self-managed abortion, including establishing legal defense funds for abortion, isn’t just something to do while waiting for a better election outcome (maybe) to win back our rights; it’s what advocates have already been doing to survive even when Democrats win. They have secured this right even when legislators failed to.” — Melissa Gira Grant, The New Republic

Is there a topic you’d like to see covered in “The 360”? Send your suggestions to the360@yahoonews.com.

Photo illustration: Yahoo News; photos: Erin Clark/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

NPR reporter says ‘leading theory’ on SCOTUS leak is conservative clerk



Brad Dress

THE HILL
Sun, May 8, 2022

A clerk for a conservative justice is the “leading theory” amid intense speculation about who released a draft opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito showing the court is set to overturn Roe v. Wade, according to legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg of NPR.

Totenberg said on ABC’s “This Week” that the prevailing theory is that a conservative clerk released the decision in an attempt to lock in the five justices who voted to support overturning Roe as Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly attempts to pull his colleagues toward a more moderate position.

“That has never, ever occurred before,” Totenberg said of the leak. “That could only, in all likelihood, have come from a justice — that I think is less likely — or perhaps one of the clerks.”

“The only one that makes sense is it came from somebody who was afraid that this majority might not hold,” she added.

Politico leaked Alito’s draft opinion on Monday, spurring protests across the nation as liberals raised fears of abortion rights being overturned for the first time since 1973.

Roberts condemned the leak and ordered an investigation into who was behind the move, which he called “a singular and egregious breach” of trust.

Republicans have decried the leak as an injustice and suggested it is a political attack from an outraged liberal. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called it a “stunning breach” and “an attack on the independence of the Supreme Court.”

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) on Sunday theorized on Fox News that the leak was “almost certainly one of the 12 law clerks that are clerking for the three liberal justices”

“I’m confident we don’t have a master criminal working at the court. I think there are going to be electronic records,” Cruz said on “Sunday Morning Futures.”

Experts told The Hill they are divided on whether it was a liberal or conservative law clerk, each of whom could have had their own motives. But nearly everyone has agreed a sitting Supreme Court justice would not leak the draft opinion.

Court leak is catnip for those who love a juicy DC whodunit


Television news crews stand at the Supreme Court, Tuesday, May 3, 2022, in Washington, following news report by Politico that a draft opinion suggests the justices could be poised to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion nationwide. While it is unclear if the draft represents the court's final word on the matter, the leaked report represents an extremely rare breach of the court's secretive deliberation process, and on a case of surpassing importance. 

(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)More


NANCY BENAC
Sun, May 8, 2022

WASHINGTON (AP) — Washington loves a whodunit. And the latest one comes with the stunning plot twist of a leak from the famously buttoned-up Supreme Court.

The publication this past week of a draft opinion that said Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion in the United States, was wrong from the start and should be overruled, has set off sleuthing from every corner of the capital.

Who could possibly be behind such a glaring breach of trust? Why did that person choose to leak the draft? Why did that person choose a reporter from Politico? Who will investigate the matter? Will there be consequences? What will the court's ultimate opinion say?

Washington, by nature, abhors a vacuum. So the two months before the court actually issues a final ruling will be filled with guesses, surmise, false starts — and maybe even the truth about who is behind the leak.

It’s an intrigue in the tradition of Watergate’s “Deep Throat” — one of Washington's best-kept secrets for more than three decades; of Iran-Contra, with classified documents spirited out in a secretary's undergarments; of “Primary Colors,” a roman à clef about a certain Southern governor.

The Trump era provided almost an entire genre. Among them: an unidentified whistleblower's complaint about Donald Trump's phone call with the president of Ukraine and the writings of “Anonymous,” a senior administration official who only stayed anonymous for about two years after he wrote an opinion piece and subsequent book slamming the president.

The Supreme Court leak is "up there with the most important disclosures of this century and the last century — maybe ever,” said Danielle Brian, executive director of the private Project on Government Oversight. “It ranks, certainly, with the Pentagon Papers and Wikileaks and Deep Throat.”

While leaks spout daily in gossipy Washington, the explosive revelation of a draft opinion that would overturn the 1973 decision creating a nationwide right to abortion has captivated the city.

The hunt for the high court leaker is afoot. Chief Justice John Roberts has ordered an investigation into what he called an “egregious breach of trust.” Amateur detectives have been eagerly trading theories on social media.

Is it even possible to keep this kind of secret in Washington anymore?

“Of course not,” said Eric Dezenhall, a crisis communications expert who has watched decades of leaks play out in the capital.

“Very few people who leak truly just keep it to themselves,” Dezenhall said. “There's always a conversation that says, ‘You have to swear not to tell anybody this’ — and that's the beginning of the end.”

He added that there's often a psychic — and financial — incentive to make oneself known as a figure in history.

“The endgame is a book deal, a movie deal, being on TV," he said.

Even when leakers are circumspect about their doings, there's the dicey matter of digital footprints, which make it far easier for leak hunters to track down modern sources of information than it was in the past.

“The way some sources have been able to maintain their anonymity has been really impacted by the age of surveillance and technology tracking, so it's possible that we will find out who it is,” said Brian, who laments a “reflexive instinct” within government to go after leakers and clamp down on information.

Big secrets in Washington have a way of eventually coming out, one way or another.

The identity of Deep Throat, the source who guided Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in the Watergate investigation, wasn't known until 2005, when a 91-year-old former FBI official, W. Mark Felt, revealed that he was the one who used to meet the reporters in an underground parking garage at 2 a.m. to share tips about how to unravel wrongdoing by President Richard Nixon and his allies. A Post editor had dubbed him “Deep Throat” after the 1972 porn movie of the same name.

MARK FELT (L)

The secret identities of many other truth tellers, leakers and whistleblowers of different stripes have been shorter-lived.

“Anonymous” — whose 2018 New York Times opinion piece and later book bashing Trump left the president fuming and on the hunt for the leaker — chose to reveal himself six days before the 2020 election, when Trump was seeking reelection.

When he stepped out of the shadows, Miles Taylor, a former Homeland Security chief of staff, called Trump “a man without character” and urged other former administration officials to “find their conscience" and speak up, too.

In 2019, it was a CIA officer's whistleblower complaint about Trump's phone call with Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy that led to the president's impeachment. The whistleblower's identity was kept confidential under federal laws that protect whistleblowers from retaliation. But conservatives widely circulated speculation about the officer's identity.

In January 1996, a fictionalized account of Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign by an anonymous author set off a hunt for the writer who seemed to know so much about the inner workings of the political operation.

Six months later, journalist Joe Klein confessed to being the author after the Post fingered him through handwriting analysis of an annotated manuscript it had obtained. Klein said he had kept his name off the book, his first novel, because he was not sure it would be any good. He ended up with a movie deal.

Military analyst Daniel Ellsberg, who in 1971 leaked a secret study that laid bare America's misguided involvement in the Vietnam War, publicly identified himself as the source of the Pentagon Papers a few weeks after the Times and Post published articles that touched off a massive legal battle over the free press. Ellsberg was charged with theft, conspiracy and violations of the Espionage Act, but his case ended in a mistrial when evidence surfaced about government-ordered wiretappings and break-ins.

The drama swirling around the Supreme Court leaker is amplified by conjecture about motivation. Was it someone trying to head off a final opinion overturning Roe? Or someone trying to do the opposite — shore up justices who had initially voted to overturn Roe but might be getting cold feet?

Depending on the politics of the readers, the leaker has been alternately labeled a cultural hero or villain. Some speculators, on reflection, have switched theories mid-debate. The White House wants people to focus less on the leaker and more on the potential implications of the draft opinion itself.

The idea that the leak was designed to ensure the final opinion would track with the first draft "might be too Machiavellian by half,” Dezenhall postulates. “It was probably exactly who you think it is — somebody who wanted to screw this thing up.”

New poll reveals warning signs for GOP on abortion ahead of midterms

Andrew Romano
·West Coast Correspondent
Fri, May 6, 2022, 


Many right-wing politicians and pundits have spent the week rejoicing over Monday's momentous report that five conservative Supreme Court justices appear poised to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that established a constitutional right to abortion almost half a century ago.

Yet a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll, one of the first to be conducted entirely after the leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s controversial draft opinion, suggests that Republicans risk overplaying their hand on abortion ahead of the 2022 midterms — and that Democrats could benefit if the hot-button issue is on the ballot.

The survey of 1,577 U.S. adults, which was conducted from May 3 to May 6, found that registered voters initially preferred a generic Democrat (44%) over a generic Republican (39%) by 5 percentage points when asked how they would vote in their district if the congressional election were being held today.

But when voters were asked to choose instead between a “pro-choice Democrat” and a “pro-life Republican,” GOP support fell to 31% while Democratic support held steady — more than doubling the gap between the two candidates, to 13 percentage points.

By the same token, 69% of Americans say they would “oppose Congress passing a law that bans abortion nationwide.” The Washington Post reported this week that conservative groups have already met with their congressional allies about a possible “nationwide ban on the procedure if Republicans retake power in Washington,” and several GOP senators have started sketching out policy details.

“I think you could expect that pro-life activists would push for federal protections” if the Supreme Court overturns Roe, GOP Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota told NBC News. “I wouldn't take that off the table.”

A mere 22% of Americans say they would favor such a law — while more than twice as many (48%) would support a law "that keeps abortion as legal and accessible nationwide as it had been under Roe.”

These warning signs for Republicans reflect a deeper, and remarkably consistent, pattern. On question after question, only about a third of Americans say they agree with the transformative decision the court is now careening toward — that is, a decision to end all federal protections for abortion, allowing state legislatures to restrict or ban the procedure as they please.

Abortion rights activists rally in front of the Supreme Court building on Thursday. 

(Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Just 31% of U.S. adults, for instance, say Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Just 34% say abortion should be illegal in “all” or “most” cases. Only 33% say they want their own states to make all or most abortions illegal. And just 30% say abortion is “something that individual states should be [able to] outlaw.”

In contrast, nearly twice as many Americans see abortion as “a constitutional right that women in all states should have some access to” (56%) and say the procedure should be legal in all or most cases (55%).

The question now is whether this lopsided dynamic — a small minority in favor of the court’s likely decision and a clear majority opposed to it — will be enough to energize otherwise unenthusiastic Democrats and alter the course of an election that had been trending in the GOP’s direction.

The new Yahoo News/YouGov poll holds some possible hints. A full 28% of pro-choice Americans, for instance, now say they will vote only for a candidate who “shares [their] view on abortion.” Among Americans who identify as "pro-life" — who are traditionally seen as the more motivated group — that number is significantly lower (21%).

The new survey also measured a sizable jump in dissatisfaction among Democrats, with the number who say "things in this country are off on the wrong track" rising 8 points (to 43%) since last month, likely because of the leaked draft opinion. Neither Republicans nor independents shifted nearly as much. Whether such unease translates into turnout, however, remains to be seen.


Meanwhile, 20% of Democrats — including 22% of Democratic women and 27% of liberal Democrats — now select abortion as “the most important issue” for this year’s election, ahead of inflation (19%), health care (16%) and climate change (14%). In November 2021, just 4% of Democrats, 6% of Democratic women and 5% of liberal Democrats selected abortion as their most important issue.

Republicans (6%) and independents (6%) are far less inclined to cite abortion as the most important issue.

Already, Democratic candidates in key races from Georgia to Pennsylvania to Texas are seizing on the likely end of Roe to argue that voting Republican — or sitting out the election — will pave the way for those states (and possibly Congress as a whole) to outlaw abortion going forward. Many Republican candidates, meanwhile, are jockeying to prove they’re more anti-abortion than their GOP rivals as they aim to appeal to an increasingly right-wing primary electorate.

However, it’s still unclear how these new arguments might reshape the midterms.

For one thing, President Biden's job-approval rating — 40% approve vs. 52% disapprove in the new survey — remains low, and inflation (33%) is still a far more important issue for the general electorate than abortion (10%).

Ultimately, most Americans have mixed feelings about abortion itself, making it hard to predict how the upheaval around Roe will play out politically. According to the new poll, more than half of U.S. adults (54%) say they know someone who has had an abortion, while 27% say they do not, 13% say they’re not sure and 6% prefer not to say. Personal awareness of the abortion issue is higher among women (60%) than among men (48%) and also higher among those who describe themselves as pro-choice (64%) than among those who say they are "pro-life" (54%).

Abortion-rights and anti-abortion advocates confront each other in front of the Supreme Court on Wednesday. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

That familiarity helps inform and harden views on abortion in a way that differs from most other public policy issues. The country is more closely split on the morality of abortion, for instance, than on its legality, with 46% saying abortion is morally acceptable in all or most cases and 40% saying it is morally unacceptable in all or most cases.

Similarly, far more Americans believe abortions should be "generally legal" during the first three months of pregnancy (61%) than during months three to six (32%) or the last three months (19%). And motivation matters, too, with roughly three-quarters of Americans saying abortions should be generally legal "when the woman's life is endangered" (76%) or "when the pregnancy is caused by rape or incest” (71%) — while less than half say the same "when the woman does not want to go through with the pregnancy for any reason" (44%).

A separate policy question captures some of these nuances. When offered three choices, just 24% of Americans prefer to “overturn Roe v. Wade altogether” rather than “let Roe v. Wade stand as it is” (42%). But another 13% want to “limit” Roe by letting states outlaw abortion “two months earlier” in a pregnancy “than the current law permits.” If the Supreme Court were to let the Mississippi law at the center of the current case stand — the “middle way” that Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly prefers — that is precisely what would happen.

______________

The Yahoo News survey was conducted by YouGov using a nationally representative sample of 1,577 U.S. adults interviewed online from May 3 to 6, 2022. This sample was weighted according to gender, age, race and education based on the American Community Survey, conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, as well as 2020 presidential vote (or nonvote) and voter registration status. Respondents were selected from YouGov’s opt-in panel to be representative of all U.S. adults. The margin of error is approximately 2.7%.

USA

In abortion fight, conservatives 

push to end all exceptions

REBECCA BOONE and JOHN HANNA

Fri, May 6, 2022,

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Angela Housley was halfway through her pregnancy when she learned the fetus was developing without parts of its brain and skull and would likely die within hours or days of birth, if it survived that long.

The news came during her 20-week ultrasound.

“The technician got a really horrible look on her face,” Housley said. “And we got the really sad news that our baby was anencephalic.”

It was 1992 and abortion was legal in Idaho, though she had to dodge anti-abortion protesters outside the Boise hospital after the procedure. If the same scenario were to happen later this year, she would likely be forced to carry to term.

That’s because Idaho, which bans abortion after six weeks, is one of at least 22 states with laws banning abortion before the 15th week, many of them lacking exceptions for fetal viability, rape or incest, or even the health of the woman. Several of those bans would take effect if the U.S. Supreme Court issues a ruling overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, as a leaked draft of the opinion suggests.

Such exceptions were once regularly included in even the most conservative anti-abortion proposals. But as the battle over abortion access heats up, experts on both sides of the issue say the exceptions were a temporary stepping stone intended to make anti-abortion laws more palatable.

Many of the current abortion bans are designed as “trigger laws," automatically going into effect if the high court overturns the nationwide right to abortion. That ruling is expected to be released by late June or early July.

Alabama and Oklahoma have enacted bans with no exceptions. Alabama's 2019 law is blocked in federal court but could be reinstated based on the Supreme Court's ruling. The Republican sponsors envisioned the legislation as a vehicle to challenge Roe in court, and said they could add rape and incest exceptions later if Roe is overturned.

“They’re basically using people — in this particular situation, women — as collateral damage," said Democratic Rep. Chris England, the chairman of the Alabama Democratic Party. “In the debate, we tried to talk reasonably to them and say, ‘What happens if you win? This is the law, You’re not going to have the opportunity to change it before people get hurt.'”

Several other states, including Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas, also have bans or trigger laws in place that lack exceptions for rape or incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute and Associated Press reporting.

Idaho and Utah have exceptions for rape or incest, but require the pregnant woman to first file a police report and then prove to the abortion provider the report was made. Only about a third of sexual assaults are reported to police, according to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network.

Texas and Idaho allow exceptions for “medical emergencies" but leave that interpretation up to physicians, making some critics fear doctors will wait to intervene until a woman is near death.

Public support for total abortion bans appears to be low, based on a Pew Research Center survey released Friday and conducted in March. The survey showed that just 8% of U.S. adults think abortion should be illegal in all cases with no exceptions, and that 61% of adults say abortion should be legal in most or all circumstances. Surveys consistently show that many Americans have nuanced attitudes around the legality of abortion depending on the stage of pregnancy, circumstances of conception and health of the mother or fetus.

Arkansas has two near-total abortion bans — a trigger law from 2019 and one passed last year that is blocked in federal court. Neither have exceptions for rape or incest, though they do allow abortions to save the woman's life. The state also never repealed its pre-1973 total abortion ban with no restrictions.

Republicans in the state were split on the issue last year, with Gov. Asa Hutchinson and Sen. Missy Irvin expressing reservations about the lack of protections for sexual assault survivors.

“Do you know how many young girls are on suicide watch because they were raped, because they were a victim of incest?” asked Irvin, who ultimately voted for last year’s bill.

The sponsor of last year’s ban, Republican Sen. Jason Rapert, defended the lack of exemptions, saying it still allowed the use of emergency contraception.

Elizabeth Nash, a state policy analyst for the abortion-rights supporting Guttmacher Institute, said that of 86 pending proposals for abortion restrictions this year, only a few — including one each in Idaho, New Jersey and West Virginia — include rape and incest exceptions.

The exceptions were always “incredibly limited,” she said. "You might think these exceptions are helpful. But in fact they’re so restricted, they’re very hard to use.”

Troy Newman, president of the national anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, said exceptions to abortion restrictions for rape and incest and to protect a pregnant woman’s life in the past have been “thrown in there to appease some centrists.”

Newman said his group, based in Wichita, Kansas, opposes rape and incest exceptions. Their rationale: “Don’t punish the baby for the crime of the father.”

The Ohio Legislature is weighing a trigger law that lacks sexual assault exceptions. During a hearing last month, the bill’s GOP sponsor, Rep. Jean Schmidt, caused controversy when she called pregnancy resulting from rape “an opportunity” for the rape victim to “make a determination about what she's going to do to help that life be a productive human being.”

She was responding to a question from Democratic Rep. Rich Brown, who asked if a 13-year-old impregnated during a rape would be forced to carry to term.

Rape “emotionally scars the individual,” Schmidt conceded, "but if a baby is created, it is a human life.”

Democratic Rep. Tavia Galonski countered that pregnancy is often traumatic and dangerous on its own, adding: “To then force a survivor of rape to carry a pregnancy to term and go through childbirth is utterly vile and only adds to the trauma they have already suffered.”

In South Carolina, supporters of a 2021 abortion ban added exceptions for rape and incest because it was the only way to get the law passed. During debate, Republican Sen. Richard Cash argued against the exceptions.

“Punish the rapist ... but it doesn’t belong on the baby,” he said.

Democratic Sen. Mia McLeod responded that it was obvious Cash had never been raped.

“Well, I have. You’re looking at a sexual assault survivor,” she said, adding that requiring rape victims to carry babies to term could lead them to desperate measures, including dangerous illegal abortions or suicide.

"I’m just asking that the men in this body give the women and girls of this state” a choice, McLeod said.

New Hampshire has banned abortion after 24 weeks of gestation except for when the woman's health is threatened, though the state will soon add an exception for fatal fetal anomalies. The Republican-led legislature has rejected attempts to add rape and incest exceptions.

Republican Rep. Beth Folsom, who said in January that she is a rape survivor, argued the exceptions aren't necessary because rape victims carefully track their menstrual cycles and wouldn’t wait 24 weeks to seek an abortion. An incest exception wasn’t needed, she added, because “that aggressor is going to make sure that young girl or woman has an abortion before anyone finds out.”

Mallory Schwarz, executive director of Pro-Choice Missouri, expressed concern that provisions in laws like the one in Texas that allow abortions past six weeks in medical emergencies, will require doctors to wait until a patient appears to be dying to perform an abortion.

“Any of those kind of pieces that are left up to interpretation are generally going to have a broad chilling effect on providers who don’t want to jeopardize their career and livelihood and practice and ability to care for other patients,” Schwarz said.

Many bans outlaw abortion after six weeks, when vaginal ultrasounds can first detect electrical activity in embryonic cells that may later become the heart. Proponents call them “heartbeat laws,” arguing that cardiac activity is a reliable indicator of life.

In Idaho, Housley has repeatedly testified against the state's abortion bans in the Legislature, but said the lawmakers were uninterested in hearing about her experience.

“My baby had a heartbeat, but that’s not the only thing a baby needs,” said Housley. Anti-abortion politicians "are not at all interested in the reality of this issue. They’ve hijacked this discussion, and that’s why we are where we are.”

___

Hanna reported from Topeka, Kansas. Associated Press writer Hannah Fingerhut and AP statehouse reporters from around the U.S. contributed.

Elon Musk's Tesla is paying for employees to get abortions out of state as the Supreme Court looks likely to overturn Roe v. Wade

Bryan Metzger

Fri, May 6, 2022, 

Tesla CEO Elon Musk and protesters outside the Supreme Court this week.Angela Weiss / AFP and Amanda Andrade-Rhoades / The Washington Post via Getty Images

• Tesla began covering costs for its employees to receive out-of-state abortions in 2021.

• The policy came as states like Texas, where Tesla is now based, passed tighter abortion restrictions.

• It puts Elon Musk at odds with his conservative fans as the Supreme Court looks likely to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Tesla, the electric vehicle company owned by billionaire and soon-to-be Twitter owner Elon Musk, is paying for employees to get out-of-state abortions.

According to the company's 2021 Impact Report, Tesla began providing an "expanded Safety Net program and health insurance offering" last year, which includes "travel and lodging support for those who may need to seek healthcare services that are unavailable in their home state."

That came after the company relocated to Texas, where abortion was outlawed after the six-week mark in August 2021.

That policy places Tesla among a growing list of companies that are helping employees access abortion care in the wake of new restrictions passed at the state level, as well as fresh concerns that Roe v. Wade could be overturned next month following the unprecedented leak of a draft opinion doing just that.

And it puts Musk — who's otherwise become a hero among conservatives following his purchase of Twitter last month — at odds with some of his cheerleaders.

Chief among them is Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who introduced a bill this week to prevent companies from making tax deductions for employees' abortion-related travel costs or for gender-affirming care for minors.

"Too often our corporations find loopholes to subsidize the murder of unborn babies or horrific 'medical' treatments on kids," said Rubio in a statement touting the bill. "My bill would make sure this does not happen."

Though Tesla's impact report makes no mention of minors, the company does tout the fact that it has provided "transgender benefits aligned with the clinical protocol set forth by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health" since 2018.

Rubio's bill is part of a long-standing crusade by the one-time 2016 presidential candidate against what he sees as collusion between big business and "Marxism."

"[Corporate leaders] are the product of decades of anti-American indoctrination at our elite universities and they feel no obligation to America or its national interest," said Rubio during a speech last fall. "I'm not here to tell you big business is the enemy. But I'm here to tell you big business is not our ally in the fight against socialism."

But Rubio has also showed cautious optimism for Musk's recent purchase of Twitter, which he said had caused a "meltdown" among the "far left" because they fear "losing the power to threaten, silence and destroy anyone who doesn't agree with them."

Rubio's office did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.

Some of the Florida senator's Republican colleagues were even more enthusiastic about Musk's Twitter purchase.

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas called it the "most important development for free speech in decades," while Sen. Mike Braun of Indiana lauded the purchase as a "clear win for free speech and America."

But while Musk's self-avowed commitment to free speech and seeming disdain for the progressive left has given hope to some conservatives, the tech billionaires' ideology may prove too libertarian for a party increasingly interested in using the power of the state to promote conservative values.

"In general, I believe government should rarely impose its will upon the people," wrote Musk in a tweet in September 2021. "That said, I would prefer to stay out of politics."

Feds accuse Starbucks of unfair labor practices in Buffalo


 Michelle Eisen, a barista at the Buffalo, N.Y., Elmwood Starbucks location, helps out the local Starbucks Workers United, employees of a local Starbucks, as they gather at a local union hall to cast votes to unionize or not, on Feb. 16, 2022, in Mesa, Ariz. Federal labor officials filed a sweeping complaint Friday, May 6, 2022 accusing Starbucks of unfair labor practices at its stores in Buffalo, New York, including retaliation against pro-union employees.

(AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin, File)

Fri, May 6, 2022,

BUFFALO, N.Y. (AP) — Federal labor officials filed a sweeping complaint Friday accusing Starbucks of unfair labor practices at its stores in Buffalo, New York, including retaliation against pro-union employees.

The National Labor Relations Board’s Buffalo regional director outlined a host of labor law violations in a filing seeking reinstatement and backpay for the employees.

There’s been a wave of unionization drives at Starbucks stores nationwide, with the first union votes coming in December at three stores in Buffalo.

The coffee chain called the allegations “false” and vowed to fight them at an upcoming hearing.

“Starbucks does not agree that the claims have merit, and the complaint’s issuance does not constitute a finding by the NLRB,” spokesman Reggie Borges wrote in an email. “It is the beginning of a litigation process that permits both sides to be heard and to present evidence.”

Starbucks Workers United, the group behind the unionization effort, said the complaint “confirms the extent and depravity of Starbucks’ conduct in Western New York for the better part of a year.”

“Starbucks is finally being held accountable for the union-busting rampage they went on,” Danny Rojas, a fired shift supervisor, said in a statement. “Starbucks needs to understand that it is morally corrupt to retaliate against union leaders, and I am looking forward to the NLRB forcing Starbucks to make this moment right.”

Last month, federal labor officials asked a judge to force Starbucks to reinstate three union activists at its Phoenix location, alleging the coffee giant engaged in unfair labor practices.

As of this week, workers at more than 250 U.S. stores have filed petitions with the labor board to hold union elections, labor organizers say. At least 50 of those stores have voted to unionize with Workers United, a branch of the Service Employees International Union.

Starbucks reported Tuesday that its sales climbed to record levels in its fiscal second quarter but noted it faced higher employment costs, which set to grow even higher in the coming months as the company introduces new pay raises and other benefits.

However, workers who have voted to unionize or stores that have petitioned to hold a union election won’t be eligible for those additional wage hikes and benefits.

Starbucks Workers United has said it filed charges with the labor board against Starbucks on Tuesday. The group alleges the company is violating labor law by threatening to exclude unionized stores from receiving the new benefits.

Toilet explodes after freak lightning strike at Oklahoma apartment, firefighters say

Screengrab of Facebook post by Brooke Griffin.

Mitchell Willetts

Sun, May 8, 2022, 9

Toilets can stand up to a lot of things and keep on flushing, but Mother Nature’s wrath is more powerful than even the worst dietary decisions.

A bolt of lightning struck a commode inside an apartment in Oklahoma, causing it to explode into dozens of charred pieces, leaving a blackened wreck around a shattered bowl, photos shared to news outlets by Okmulgee firefighters show.

“The past 12 hours have been a wild ride,” firefighters said in a Facebook post.

Okmulgee firefighters responded to a call from the Oxford Apartments on the night of Wednesday, May 4, a KOTV reporter said in a post.

A “bizarre lightning strike” appeared to have gone through a vent overhead and then struck the toilet, firefighters told KOTV.

While firefighters say an act of God obliterated this commode, commenters have suggested other possibilities, including Taco Bell and Chipotle.

Or perhaps the john was smited?

“Thor decided that was not a throne worthy of a king!” a commenter wrote.

Others are upset by the news, worried that the place they felt safest in their home isn’t as safe as they thought.

“Adds ‘no sitting on toilets during lightning storms in case of electrocution’ to list of unnecessary anxieties,” a comment read.

“Okay, I apologize to my Grandmother (posthumously) for laughing at her when she told me not to use the bathroom during a storm,” read another.

Nobody was living in the apartment, but it was scheduled to be rented out the next day, the KOTV post said.

A farewell to foie gras? There’s a shortage of the fatty favorite in France
Charles Passy - Yesterday 6:53 AM
© Thomas Samson/AFP via Getty Images


THE MARGIN

Sacre bleu! There’s a foie gras shortage in France.

The fatty, unctuous treat, otherwise known as duck or goose liver, is in short supply throughout the country, according to CNN and other news outlets. The culprit: the bird-flu epidemic that has spread throughout Europe. One report says that France has culled 16 million birds, including ducks, in an effort to curb the disease. And that means far less foie gras to go around.

“This week we got none,” said French chef Pascal Lombard in an interview with CNN. Lombard is the owner of Le 1862, a Michelin-starred restaurant in southwestern France.

Of course, many animal-rights activists might welcome this news. Foie gras has long been a controversial foodstuff, since its production requires the force feeding of ducks or geese (that’s what gets their livers extra fatty). As a result, foie gras has been banned in many places throughout the world. For example, New York City has a ban that’s set to go into effect later this year.

Still, foie gras has its many fans. Marco Moreira, chef and proprietor of Tocqueville, a restaurant in New York, once told the Wall Street Journal that his customers can’t get enough of the stuff.

“Some people will have multiple courses of foie gras,” he said, calling the citywide ban “preposterous.”

Meanwhile, as France contends with the current shortage, Marie-Pierre Pé, who directs a committee of the country’s foie gras producers, told CNN that consumers should think in terms of rationing so that everyone is ensured at least a small taste.

“We have to share with each other,” she said.

Appeals court upholds limit on California's foie gras ban


Jorge Vargas uses a funneled pipe to force-feed a measured dose of corn mush to a Moulard duck in its pen at Sonoma Foie Gras in Farmington, Calif. A federal appeals court has upheld a ruling that limits California's 2012 foie gras ban. The court in San Francisco on Friday, May 6, 2022, declined to overturn a ruling the year before that said individual Californians can order the delicacy from out-of-state producers and have it delivered. However, the product can't be produced in California or sold here by restaurants or other businesses. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg, File) (ASSOCIATED PRESS)More


Fri, May 6, 2022, 

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Californians can buy foie gras produced out of state despite California's ban on the delicacy, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a 2020 lower court ruling that said Californians can order foie gras from out-of-state producers and have it sent by a third-party delivery service.

The ruling only applies to people who buy foie gras for individual consumption. The 2012 state law still bans foie gras production in California while restaurants and retailers are forbidden to sell it or give it away.

Foie gras is made from the enlarged livers of force-fed ducks and geese. The Humane Society and other groups supported California’s law, arguing the process constituted cruelty to animals.

Producers argued that the force-feeding process mimicked something that happens in the wild, when ducks and geese overeat to store up extra nutrition for their long annual migration.

The law was challenged by producers, including New York-based Hudson Valley Foie Gras, which said it lost nearly one-third of its total sales when the ban took effect.

They argued that the state law conflicts with interstate commerce and federal food regulations that allow force-feeding for foie gras production.

In a 3-0 ruling, the appellate panel upheld the previous ruling but rejected efforts to overturn the entire law.

Ralph Henry, a lawyer for the Humane Society, told the San Francisco Chronicle that the ruling didn't significantly weaken the law.

“Only a narrow form of transaction — a sale by sellers outside the state, shipping to end-use consumers in the state — is still allowed,” he said in an email.

Lawyers for producers said they would ask the appellate court for a new hearing before a large panel.

Chef Sean Chaney told The Chronicle in a statement that while he considers the law unconstitutional, “I’m also glad that 40 million Californians can continue to enjoy the foie gras products they buy online, and I hope to be able to cook it for them soon again.”

UK
Boris Johnson urged to revive ban on fur, foie gras and hunt trophies



Jane Dalton
Sat, May 7, 2022,

Dozens of the UK’s leading animal charities have written to Boris Johnson asking him to include in the Queen’s speech an earlier promise to ban imports of hunting trophies, fur, foie gras and shark fins.

The measures were in the Animals Abroad Bill, which the government dropped earlier this year in a dramatic U-turn to the anger of campaigners who have devoted years fighting for the changes.

The bill also included a ban on the advertising of cruel tourism activities abroad, such as elephant rides and elephant entertainment venues.

The heads of 38 organisations have joined forces to back the letter, including the RSPCA, the Born Free Foundation, Peta, World Animal Protection, World Horse Welfare, Compassion in World Farming, and Whale & Dolphin Conservation.

The sister of a woman killed at an elephant theme park in Thailand last month told The Independent of her bitter disappointment that the government was shying away from a ban, instead stating it expected tourists to do their own research.

“How do holidaymakers know if you don’t tell them?” asked Helen Costigan.

The Independent previously reported that the various measures were agreed at cabinet level, before Jacob Rees-Mogg, Brandon Lewis and Mark Spencer are thought to have vetoed them – even though the changes were promised in the government’s action plan for animal welfare published last year.

Every year, hunters from the UK travel abroad, often to southern Africa, and pay thousands of pounds to legally shoot animals, such as lions, elephants and even baboons.

They are allowed to bring back body parts such as stuffed heads, paws and horns in a grisly trade that critics say is driving wildlife populations towards extinction.

The last Conservative Party election manifesto included a pledge to ban trophy hunt imports. But according to The Times, Mr Johnson has indeed dropped plans to ban the import and sale of foie gras and fur.

Conservationists have made repeated trips to Westminster to hand in petitions and have meetings with government representatives over the issues of the imports and adverts.

The charities’ latest letter tells the prime minister: “We would welcome the opportunity to meet with your office and discuss the government’s plans and ambitions for animals in the next session and look forward to hearing from you.”

Claire Bass, executive director of Humane Society International/UK, said: “Boris Johnson made a promise to the people that after Brexit, Britain would become world leaders in animal welfare.

“He can keep that promise by ensuring that the Animals Abroad Bill with proposed bans on cruel fur, foie gras, shark fins and other horrors, is in the Queen’s speech next week.

Protests outside parliament against the dropping of the bill (HSI/UK)

“These bans would stop Britain propping up animal cruelty that is already banned from happening here, such as killing animals for fur fashion, cutting off the fins of sharks for shark fin soup, or force-feeding ducks to the point of morbid obesity to produce a pate.

“We urge the prime minister to stop hesitating on a Bill of which Britain should be proud, and for which Britain would be applauded around the world.”

More than 200,000 people have signed a petition started by television presenter Chris Packham calling for the government to uphold its pledge to ban fur and foie gras, while a separate campaign petition to end fur imports has gathered more than a million signatures.

A crackdown on foie gras was promised in the Queen’s speech this time last year.

The Kept Animals Bill, which bans live exports, keeping primates as pets and tackles puppy smuggling, was postponed in the last parliamentary session and is due to continue its passage into law via a carryover motion in the next.

The government refused to comment on what would be in next week’s Queen’s speech.

A spokesperson said: “This government is firm in its commitment to upholding its world leading standards in animal welfare.

“The Animals (Penalty Notices) Bill, Glue Traps (Offences) Bill and Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill have now received royal assent, further strengthening the UK’s position as a world leader for animal health and welfare now that we have left the EU.”