Saturday, June 04, 2022

Doctors who worked before Roe v. Wade speak out: ‘Many women died'.

Korin Miller
Tue, May 31, 2O22

Women march and carry signs in support of abortion rights and the Equal Rights Amendment.
 (Photo: Getty Images)

People across the country were shocked when a draft opinion from the Supreme Court written by conservative Justice Samuel Alito leaked in early May, suggesting that the court plans to overturn Roe v. Wade — the historic court case that has made abortion legal in the U.S. for the past 50 years.

In the wake of the leak, many people have spoken out, sharing their concerns about what overturning Roe v. Wade would do to women and women's health care. Among those worried about the consequences of reversing the nationwide legality of abortion? Doctors who practiced when abortion was illegal.

One is Dr. Warren Hern, founder of the Boulder Abortion Clinic. Hern, who graduated from medical school in 1965, tells Yahoo Life that he saw the "tremendous problems" women had before they could legally access abortion care. "Many women died," he says.

Hern shares that he and his fellow residents spent many nights taking care of women who were "desperately sick" from having illegal abortions. "Many were about to die," he says. Hern says he also saw women who planned to give up their babies for adoption suffer extreme and serious complications while giving birth. "One woman started severely hemorrhaging while she was in labor and the baby ended up brain-damaged as a result," he says. "She was going to give it up for adoption."

He also cared for unwanted children who were victims of abuse. "On my pediatric rotation, I wound up taking care of a lot of young children who were abused and battered by parents who didn't want them," he says.

Hern says he had planned to have a career in public health but, after all that he witnessed in the U.S. and while providing medical care abroad, he decided to go into abortion care. "I became the founding medical director of the first medical abortion clinic in Colorado in 1973," he says. "During that time, I decided that performing abortions was the most important thing I could do in medicine. I wanted to help women."

Dr. Susan B. Shurin, the former deputy director of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) at the National Institutes of Health, tells Yahoo Life that she saw the consequences of "lack of access of reproductive choice" as a medical student. "In my time in training in Baltimore and Boston, I saw children, teens and adult women with unwanted — sometimes abused and neglected — children, major medical complications and death," she says, adding that some suffered "infertility from a botched procedure."

A 2008 New York Times editorial written by the late gynecologist Dr. Waldo L. Fielding described some of the horrors he witnessed before Roe v. Wade. "The familiar symbol of illegal abortion is the infamous coat hanger — which may be the symbol, but is in no way a myth," he wrote. "In my years in New York, several women arrived with a hanger still in place. Whoever put it in — perhaps the patient herself — found it trapped in the cervix and could not remove it."

Fielding continued, "The worst case I saw, and one I hope no one else will ever have to face, was that of a nurse who was admitted with what looked like a partly delivered umbilical cord. Yet as soon as we examined her, we realized that what we thought was the cord was in fact part of her intestine, which had been hooked and torn by whatever implement had been used in the abortion. It took six hours of surgery to remove the infected uterus and ovaries and repair the part of the bowel that was still functional."

Multiple medical boards, including the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, spoke out in a New England Journal of Medicine editorial in 2019 over fears that Roe v. Wade would eventually be overturned. "Some of us are old enough to have witnessed firsthand the consequences of illegal abortions performed by unskilled providers under nonsterile conditions; the rest of us have learned those lessons from history," the editorial reads. "Sadly, however, we will not need history as our teacher if Roe is overturned in the Supreme Court because we will again witness deaths and permanent injuries of women desperate to terminate pregnancies."

The editorial also stated that "none of us want to return to a time when desperate women, often of limited means, sought unsafe pregnancy terminations and suffered irreversible harm and sometimes death. The decision to terminate a pregnancy is a deeply personal and difficult one that deserves to remain the prerogative of each woman and her care provider and not to be usurped by the government."

Shurin has concerns that things will go back to the way they were if Roe is overturned. "We know what not to do," she says. "Banning abortion was and will again be like banning alcohol during Prohibition. It will be driven underground, unsafe and unavailable for the poor but not the rich."

She continues: "We know what to do — abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Good sex education and easy access to contraception prevent abortion." Shurin cites Colorado as an example of this: In 2019, state officials announced that they had cut the teen pregnancy and abortion rate in half with a new family planning program.

Hern fears that overturning Roe v. Wade will make things "worse" for women than they were in the past "because now there is this witch hunt for people seeking abortions."

He urges people to view abortion care as part of health care. "It is very important for people to understand that access to a safe abortion is a fundamental part of women's health care," Hern says. "There are no justifications whatsoever for any restrictions on abortion services. It's medical care, and it should be accessible to all."
USA
Most people support abortion staying legal, but that may not matter in making law

Tarah Williams, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Allegheny College

Tue, May 31, 2022

The Supreme Court is set to soon rule on the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health case, nearly one month after a leaked draft majority opinion showed the court might uphold a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Ruling to uphold this ban could undo women’s constitutional right to abortion, guaranteed by Roe v. Wade in 1973, and throw the decision back to states.

Most Americans do not support overturning Roe v. Wade, and have held this opinion for some time.

About 61% of Americans think that abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances, while 37% think it should be illegal in all or most circumstances, according to a March 2022 Pew Research poll.


But national public opinion does not often influence the Supreme Court’s decisions.

As a professor of political science who studies gender and public opinion, I believe that while general national opinion polling on abortion is important, too much emphasis on it can be misleading. When it comes to how public opinion may shape the debate, it’s essential to pay attention to opinions in the various states, and among particular interest groups.



Public opinion on abortion

Polling since 1995 has consistently shown that most Americans think abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

But beyond these general trends, people’s specific backgrounds and characteristics tend to guide their opinions on this controversial topic.

It may surprise some to know that research consistently shows that gender does not broadly influence people’s opinions on abortion. Women are shown to be slightly more supportive of keeping abortion legal, but the gap between how women and men feel about this is small.

But other characteristics matter a lot. Currently, the biggest dividing line on abortion beliefs is partisanship.

An overwhelming 80% of Democrats support legal abortion in all or most cases, while only 38% of Republicans do, according to a 2022 Pew Research poll. The opinion gap between Democrats and Republicans on this issue has widened over the past few decades.

In the 1970s and 1980s, Republicans and Democrats supported the right to get an abortion at fairly similar rates. Research finds that the partisan gap on abortion “went from 1 point in the 1972 to 1986 time period to almost 29 points in the 2014 to 2017 period.”

Religion also continues to play an important role in abortion support. White evangelical Christians are particularly in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade, but most other people who identify as religious are ambivalent, or remain supportive of the precedent.

Young people and those with more years of education are more likely to say that abortion should be legal, while Latino people are more likely to oppose abortion.

Most consequentially, abortion support varies dramatically across states, ranging from 34% in Louisiana to 72% in Vermont, according to the Public Religion Research Institute’s 2018 survey of the 50 states.

So, when West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat, blocked a bill in February 2022 that would have protected the federal right to abortion, he was consistent with his constituents’ opinions. In West Virginia, only 40% support legal abortion in all or most cases.

The history of abortion attitudes

Even after the Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade in 1973, abortion was not as partisan of an issue as it is today. It was not until the late 1970s and early 1980s that politicians tried to use abortion views as a way to gain votes.

But as religious conservative political movements grew in the U.S., abortion became more politicized over the next few decades.


In the 1970s, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress were internally divided on abortion. The Republican National Committee, for example, was co-chaired by Mary Dent Crisp, who supported abortion rights. By the 1980s, conservative activists pushed Crisp out of her position.


George H.W. Bush also ran as a moderate on abortion in the 1980 Republican presidential primary. But when Bush lost the primary bid and became Ronald Reagan’s running mate that year, his position shifted. Bush opposed abortion by the time he ran for president in 1988.

This shift speaks to the rising importance of the Christian right in Republican electoral politics around this time.


President Joe Biden made a similar change in his support for abortion over time. Biden opposed using federal funds for abortion early in his congressional career, but has taken a more liberal position in recent years and now sees abortion as an essential element of health care.



Whose opinions matter?

Even though the overall nationwide public support for abortion has remained relatively high since the 1990s, this masks how subsets of people, like those on the Christian right who feel strongly about abortion, can reshape politics.

State-level public opinion matters, too. Abortion attitudes vary greatly across states – and state-level policy has polarized over time, creating bigger policy differences in conservative and liberal states.

This matters because states have an outsize influence in abortion politics. Because so much of the federal debate revolves around Roe, the Senate has been an important gatekeeper for Supreme Court justices, who will determine whether they should overturn Roe.

This difference poses a fundamental challenge for people who want a single nationwide policy on abortion – whether they support the ability for someone to get an abortion in all or most cases, or do not.

Varied opinions on abortion also offer a reminder about what kind of public opinion matters most in democratic politics. It is not the version of public opinion that emerges from nationally representative surveys of the American people. Instead, the most influential kind of opinion is the organized political activity that can pressure government and shape electoral choices and legislative options.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Tarah Williams, Allegheny College.


Read more:

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, there’s no guarantee that people can get abortions in liberal states, either

Protestants and the pill: How US Christians helped make birth control mainstream

Tarah Williams receives funding from the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) as a Public Fellow.
What’s the lasting effect of having an abortion, or being turned away? Here's what research tells us.

Devi Shastri, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Fri, June 3, 2022,

Women and men of all ages march in the streets after the rally for abortion rights May 4 at Red Arrow Park in downtown Milwaukee. They marched to Planned Parenthood.

In 2007, Diana Greene Foster, a demographer at the University of California, San Francisco, set out to answer a pivotal question: Does abortion hurt women?

Inspiration came to the professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Gonzales v. Carhart case that year.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored the opinion to uphold a federal partial-birth abortion ban, speculated on how having an abortion can impact women's mental health.

The court found "no reliable data to measure the phenomenon," Kennedy said. But it seemed impossible to not reach the conclusion that "some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained."

"Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow," he said.

Indeed, there was no reliable data — so Foster set out to find some.

She reached out to abortion clinics across the country, talking to women who were able to get an abortion and those who were turned away because they were past their state's legal limit to receive one.

The study is held up by experts today as a first-of-its-kind effort to understand the lasting effects of ending an unwanted pregnancy versus carrying it out to term. And, as the Supreme Court seems poised to overturn its landmark Roe v. Wade, the study gives a valuable measure of how curtailed access to abortion procedures could impact millions of women in Wisconsin and beyond.

Over five years, Foster and her research team conducted 8,000 interviews with nearly 1,000 women. They followed the women over the years, measuring the impact having or not having an abortion had on their mental, physical, financial and familial well-being.

In the years since, they have used the data to dive deeper into those issues and more, authoring more than 50 scientific articles in peer-reviewed research journals.

The work has shed light on a subject long mired in stigma and lacking representation in the scientific literature, moving beyond political and religious arguments to measure the various factors that influence a woman's choice to have a child.

How did being denied a wanted abortion change women's ability to care for all of their children? How did it influence their quality of life and mental health? Whether or not they stayed with an abusive partner? Their family's socioeconomic status?

The research remains highly regarded by reproductive health experts.

"The Turnaway Study is brilliant," said Jenny Higgins, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "It's an incredibly strong source of evidence and the study design is so fantastic."

Here's what to know about the study and what researchers found.

Who was part of the Turnaway Study?


By 2016, when the study concluded, the team of 11 researchers had conducted 8,000 interviews on a group of nearly 1,000 women over a span of five years. They recruited from 30 clinics across the country, in addition to having a comparison group of women who sought an abortion in the first trimester of their pregnancy.

Most people — 92.7% — seek abortions in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy, according to 2019 data from the US. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But there are women who seek them later for various reasons, and Roe v. Wade states that while women can legally seek an abortion in their second trimester, states can impose limitations that are reasonably related to maternal health. After the point of "fetal viability," which is generally around 23 or 24 weeks, a state can regulate abortions or prohibit them entirely, so long as the laws contain exceptions for cases when abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the mother.

Why do women seek abortions?


In the interviews, women listed many reasons for seeking an abortion. The most common were: not being able to afford a child, the pregnancy coming at the wrong time in their lives, and/or the man involved not being a suitable parent.

Most women who seek abortions have already had one or more children.

What delays the timing of requests?

The women in the study had been turned away due to legal limitations. Study participants said they were seeking an abortion past their state's limit because they didn't realize they were pregnant and/or because of logistical issues that slowed down their ability to access one.

The researchers found young women and women who have never had a child before were at a higher risk of not recognizing pregnancy in the first trimester.

More: More than 1 in 5 women have irregular menstrual cycles. What does that mean for abortion access?

Women in their 20s made up the majority of those who got abortions in 2019, at 56.9% according to CDC data.

Do abortions hurt mental health?

The Turnaway Study looked at how getting or being denied an abortion impacted women's mental health and well-being over the years.

Researchers looked at rates of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress and suicidal thoughts and also surveyed participants on their self-esteem, life satisfaction, stress and social support.

They found the women who had an abortion had no evidence of negative impact on their mental health or well-being, despite anti-abortion claims that this could be the case.

Those who were denied an abortion had elevated levels of anxiety and stress and lower levels of self-esteem soon after they were denied an abortion. Over time, though, their outcomes improved.

By six months to one year after seeking the abortion, those who got the abortion and those who were turned away had similar levels of mental health and well-being.

The researchers also found that while women felt a mix of positive and negative emotions after getting an abortion, the most common emotion reported was relief. Nearly all participants — 95% — said that the abortion was the right decision for them five years after receiving it.

Can denials threaten financial stability?

The women in the study who were turned away and went on to give birth were more likely to experience an increase in household poverty lasting at least four years after being denied.

The researchers looked at the participants' credit scores, levels of debt and public records on the number of bankruptcies and evictions they had. All were negatively impacted.

Those who were turned away also were more likely to report not having enough money for basic living expenses such as food, housing and transportation. They were three times more likely to be underemployed.

Children born to the women who were turned away were more likely to live below the federal poverty line than the children of those participants who got the abortion they were seeking and subsequently had a child.

What can denials mean for women?


The researchers found instances of physical violence from the man involved in the pregnancy decreased for women who were able to obtain an abortion, but not for those who were unable to obtain one.

Five years out, women who were denied an abortion were more likely to be raising their children alone, without the support of family members or male partners.
What is the impact on children?

The researchers looked at the development of each of the women's children. The older children of those who were turned away — those born before the unwanted pregnancy — showed worse development than those of mothers who could get an abortion.

This shows the multigenerational impact of a woman being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, Foster noted in an editorial published this month in the prestigious journal Science.

They also found that carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term was associated with poorer bonding between the mother and newborn compared with the bond between those mothers who had a baby after getting the abortion they were seeking.
What are the comparative health risks?

Major complications from abortion requiring hospitalization are rare, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which also maintains abortions are "an essential component of women's health care."

On the other hand, pregnancy complications can pose major risks to women's health.

More: If Roe is overturned, Wisconsin law would allow abortion only 'to save the life of the mother.' Doctors say it's not always so clear-cut.

These risks bore out in the Turnaway Study as well.

Women who were turned away reported more life-threatening complications like eclampsia and postpartum hemorrhage. They also reported more chronic headaches or migraines, joint pain and gestational hypertension. Two of the study's participants died after delivery due to pregnancy-related causes.

Women are 14 times more likely to die from giving birth than they are from an abortion, Foster noted.

Are there criticisms about this study?

Critics have argued the findings are overblown because of what they see as a low participation rate among those who were asked to join it and also because of potential selection bias — the idea that women who chose to participate in the study represent a particular type of perspective.

These are challenges that most studies of this type face, said Kate Dielentheis, a Froedtert Hospital obstetrician and gynecologist who is also associate program director for the OB/GYN residency at the Medical College of Wisconsin.

Abortion is a sensitive topic, making interviewing people about it a particularly tough task. Considering that, she said, the participation rate of 30% is not absurdly low.

Unlike other types of medical studies, where researchers can, for example, randomly select who gets a new medication and who gets a placebo pill, researchers cannot randomly select who does or does not get an abortion.

Overall, Dielentheis said the number of studies the team has since published in reputable research journals is one indication of the study's reliability. So are the academic pedigrees of the researchers who made up the team and the overall prestige of UC-San Francisco's OB/GYN training program, she said.


This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: What to know about the landmark Turnaway Study on abortion access
USA
57 percent in new poll say a woman should be able to get abortion for any reason



Olafimihan Oshin
Thu, June 2, 2022, 

More than half of Americans believe a woman should be able to get an abortion for any reason, according to a new Wall Street Journal poll.

The Journal noted that the 41 percent of respondents who oppose women being legally able to get an abortion was the lowest on record.

The new poll, published Thursday, found that 57 percent of respondents said that women should be allowed to obtain a legal abortion if she wants to.

The poll comes amid the fierce backlash to Politico publishing a draft opinion last month that signaled the majority of Supreme Court justices favor overturning the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

Sixty-eight percent of those surveyed said that they do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned, effectively ending the federal right to abortion, while 30 percent of respondents said they do support the move.

The draft opinion would leave abortion laws largely up to states, where political battles are also brewing in anticipation of the decision. More than 20 GOP-led states have so-called “trigger laws” that would ban or severely restrict abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

Many Democratic-led states have moved to further protect the right to abortion, and ensure that the procedure is available to residents of states where the procedure is banned.

The Mississippi law under consideration by the Supreme Court would ban pregnancy after 15 weeks, well before the current standard of fetal viability, which is approximately 24 weeks into pregnancy.

Asked about banning abortion after at least 15 weeks, 34 percent of respondents to the WSJ poll supported the move, while 43 percent of respondents opposed it and 21 percent were undecided.

Asked if they support a proposed ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy — such as in Texas’s abortion law — 30 percent were in favor, while 49 percent opposed it.

Forty-four percent of respondents said that the Supreme Court should set the nation’s abortion laws, while 20 percent of those surveyed said state legislatures and governors should be responsible and 17 percent wanted Congress should handle the matter.

Eighty-six percent of those surveyed said they support abortions if a woman is suffering from serious health issues, while 84 percent supported access to the procedure if the woman’s pregnancy was a result of rape and incest, and 76 percent supported abortions if there is a strong chance of a serious birth defect.

The Wall Street Journal poll was conducted along with the nonpartisan research organization NORC at the University of Chicago from May 9 to 17, with a total of 1,071 respondents. The margin of error for the poll is four percentage points.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.
U.S. Supreme Court leak stirs abortion passions in Africa





Tue, May 31, 2022
By Andrew Cawthorne

(Reuters) - When a desperate and bleeding 17-year-old girl walked into his rural health centre, Kenyan medic Ismail Mohammed Salim thought he was doing the right thing by helping her conclude an unwanted and dangerous pregnancy.

Days later, both were in jail.

"I gave an evacuation service to save a patient's life as the government trained me to do. Then I'm prosecuted," said Salim, who was accused of performing an illegal abortion and detained in Kilifi town, where he had to sleep 20-to-a-cell.

"I was in despair."

After a week in custody and a two-year legal process, the clinical officer and girl were vindicated in March by the High Court, which reaffirmed Kenya's constitutional provision for abortion services in emergency or life-threatening situations.

Such cases have given cheer in recent years to abortion rights activists around Africa, where cultural and religious traditions clash with the reality of widespread underage and unwanted pregnancies, sometimes by rape or incest.

Now, however, those activists are looking nervously to the United States, where a leaked Supreme Court ruling would, if confirmed, overturn the landmark Roe v Wade decision that legalized abortion there.

"It is a major threat to abortion rights globally," said Evelyne Opondo, senior regional director for Africa of the Center for Reproductive Rights, covering Kenya, Uganda, Malawi, Nigeria, Tanzania, Rwanda and Zambia.



"A lot of us have looked up to the U.S. for a lot of things really, and perhaps believed too much in their system."

U.S. President Joe Biden eliminated his predecessor Donald Trump's so-called "global gag" rule banning funds for aid groups that discuss abortion, and has promised counter-measures should the U.S. Supreme Court confirm the draft ruling reported by news outlet Politico.

Experts say an overturning of Roe v Wade would have an inevitable major knock-on effect in Africa, emboldening anti-abortionists and boosting their funding, much of which comes from American pockets.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), there are around 73 million abortions globally per year, 45% in unsafe conditions. Poor nations bear the brunt, with 220 women dying for every 100,000 unsafe abortions.

In Africa, 75% of terminations are unsafe, the WHO says. They occur in homes or backstreet clinics, sometimes by inserting knitting needles or bicycle spokes, or drinking bleach.

'WORSE THAN DOGS'

Around the world's poorest continent, a strong anti-abortion lobby has helped stall some liberalising reproduction bills, including in the East African bloc's parliament.

Those campaigners say it is a practice akin to murder being imposed on Africa by Westerners when attention would be better spent on basics such as schools and clean water.

Kathy Kageni-Oganga, a pastor at Kenya's Sozo Church of God, said she was praying that Roe v Wade is overturned but would still be surprised if it happened.

"It would be such a miracle," she said.

Most U.S. experts believe that the U.S. court, with a 6-3 conservative majority including three justices appointed by Trump, will act to end or cut back abortion rights.

"They kill these babies worse than dogs. Nobody has the right to decide who lives and who dies, only God," added Kageni-Oganga. "Abortion is actually very foreign and it's actually taboo. But people in Africa have been made to believe that it's posh, it's cool."

The former human resources director, who made headlines in 2019 when anti-abortion billboards she had placed in the Kenyan capital were ordered to be taken down, said self-control was the answer to unwanted pregnancies. "People are behaving as though you'd be cooking in the kitchen and you suddenly find yourself pregnant," she said.

Her church had cared for 20 teenagers with crisis pregnancies in recent years, all of whom kept their babies despite being offered adoption, Kageni-Oganga added.

Given such religious precepts, social stigma and a mishmash of laws that in most African nations only allow abortions in extreme situations, backstreet operations remain rife.

Abortion rights campaigners fear that will worsen if Roe v Wade were struck down.

"My case was a very big win for me and for the whole medical fraternity and for the girls who need help," said Salim, the Kenyan medic. "If there is a setback in America, then it will be a very big negative for us."

(Reporting by Andrew Cawthorne; Editing by Katharine Houreld and Alex Richardson)
Mexican President's 'Mayan Train' multi-billion dollar project dealt new legal blow


FILE PHOTO - Mexico's President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador attends news conference at a military base, in Apodaca


Mon, May 30, 202

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - A Mexican Court ruling that indefinitely suspended construction of President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador's flagship "Mayan Train" rail project over environmental concerns was welcomed by activists on Monday.

The 1,470-km (910-mile) railway project, which has been trumpeted by Lopez Obrador as a cornerstone of his plans to develop the country's poorer southern states, aims to link tourist hot spots and spur development on the Yucatan Peninsula.

The court ruling states that Mexico's National Tourism Promotion Fund's (Fonatur) plans for the railway do "not comply with the proceedings of the environmental impact evaluation," according to a statement from Defending the Right to a Safe Environment (DMAS), an environmentalist group who argue the project is causing deforestation and wildlife disruption.

The legal dispute is centered on the 121-km (75-mile) "section 5" of the project, connecting the resort cities of Cancun and Tulum in Quintana Roo state, where construction was initially suspended in April over a lack of environmental permits.

Fonatur said in a statement on Monday that it was confident it could "overcome" the indefinite suspension, noting the Environment Ministry was currently reviewing its environmental application for the multi-billion dollar railway.

The court's ban on further construction stands "only until the project's Environmental Impact Statement...is fully resolved," said Fonatur.

Nonetheless, the ruling is a setback for Lopez Obrador, who has pledged to complete the railway by the end of 2023 and says the railway has created 105,000 jobs.

The government recently also clashed with environmentalists over a failed electricity reform bill, which would have increased investment in fossil fuels. [L1N2UK1I0]

(Reporting by Adriana Barrera and Isabel Woodford; Editing by Anthony Esposito and Diane Craft)
Zelenskyy shuts down Newsmax interviewer who tried to get him to say there would be no war if Trump were president

Sinéad Baker
Wed, June 1, 2022

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.Emin Sansar/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

A Newsmax host asked Zelenskyy if Russia's invasion may have been prevented with Trump as president.

Zelenskyy said it was not important which party was in power in the US.

He told the host, Rob Schmitt, "I am sorry if I'll be saying something that you don't like."

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy shut down a Newsmax interviewer who prompted him to say that there would be no war in Ukraine if former President Donald Trump were still the US president.

Zelenskyy was interviewed by Rob Schmitt, a Newsmax anchor, in Kyiv, Ukraine's capital, on Tuesday about Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Schmitt asked Zelenskyy: "Do you think that different American leadership, do you think that different Western leadership, may have prevented this aggression?

"There are many Americans that believe that if somebody like Donald Trump was still in the White House that this invasion would not have happened. What is your position?"



Zelenskyy responded by saying that he was grateful for the help given by US President Joe Biden, and that the most important thing for Ukraine is support from the American public, regardless of which party is in power.

Zelenskyy said: "Well, I believe what's the most important is the assistance from the people of the United States. They are paying the taxes, and the money being allocated to support Ukraine comes from the taxes, and it's all of that humanitarian, financial, military support to Ukraine. So I am grateful to the current president of the United States as well as to those in the political parties that support us."

"I am sorry if I'll be saying something that you don't like, but for us as the country in war, it doesn't matter whether it's Democrats or Republicans. It's the people of the United States that support us," he said.

Zelenskyy later added: "I don't know what would happen if the president, if Donald Trump would be the president of the United States for this situation, so I cannot predict what would happen."

Zelenskyy said that it was important that US institutions such as Congress work the same regardless of who is in power, to keep "the values of the United States."

Newsmax is a right-wing outlet known for its support of Trump.

Trump has previously said that him being in power would have prevented Russia from invading.

He said in a statement on February 24, the day Russia invaded, "If I were in Office, this deadly Ukraine situation would never have happened!"

Trump and Zelenskyy have a significant political backstory, and the question of US support led to Trump's first impeachment.

Congress impeached Trump over a 2019 phone call with Zelenskyy when he urged the Ukrainian president to investigate Biden, his political rival, and his son Hunter Biden seemingly in exchange for military aid.
Charles Booker wears noose in ad blasting Rand Paul for delaying 2020 antilynching bill

Morgan Watkins, Louisville Courier Journal
Wed, June 1, 2022

Former Democratic state Rep. Charles Booker, left, is looking to take the place of Republican Rand Paul in the U.S. Senate.

Editor's note: This story references graphic imagery that could be offensive or disturbing to some readers.

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Charles Booker stands with a noose around his neck in a new campaign ad criticizing his opponent, Republican incumbent Rand Paul, for holding up legislation in 2020 that would have made lynching a federal hate crime in America.

The certain-to-be-controversial ad, which Booker's campaign released Wednesday morning, includes a content warning for "strong imagery."

It does not mention that Paul went on to co-sponsor a new (and bipartisan) version of that legislation. The Senate unanimously voted this March to pass the updated Emmett Till Antilynching Act, which is now law.


"The pain of our past persists to this day," Booker says in a voiceover as his ad begins, showing a historic lynching photo and a noose hanging from the limb of a tree. "In Kentucky, like many states throughout the South, lynching was a tool of terror. It was used to kill hopes for freedom.

"It was used to kill my ancestors," Booker says as he appears onscreen, standing next to a tree with a noose looped around his neck.

"Now, in a historic victory for our commonwealth, I have become the first Black Kentuckian to receive the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate."


In a controversial new political ad, Charles Booker calls out incumbent U.S. Sen. Rand Paul for his stands on lynching legislation and civil rights.

"My opponent?" he says as an image of Paul appears. "The very person who compared expanded health care to slavery. The person who said he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act. The person who singlehandedly blocked an antilynching act from being federal law."

"The choice couldn't be clearer," Booker continues over the resounding creak of a rope, shown in close-up, before he appears onscreen with his hands gripping the noose. "Do we move forward together? Or do we let politicians like Rand Paul forever hold us back and drive us apart?

"In November, we will choose healing," he says as he lifts the noose from around his neck. "We will choose Kentucky."

Jake Cox, a spokesman for Paul's campaign, addressed Booker's ad and the senator's handling of recent antilynching bills in a statement Wednesday afternoon, saying:

"Dr. Paul worked diligently to strengthen the language of this legislation and is a cosponsor of the bill that now ensures that federal law will define lynching as the absolutely heinous crime that it is. Any attempt to state otherwise is a desperate misrepresentation of the facts."

Booker's campaign manager, Bianca Keaton, told The Courier Journal Wednesday the decision to run the controversial imagery in this video was a "difficult choice."

"It took months to get to the point of actually being like: 'Is this how we're going to handle this?'" said Keaton, who added that she gasped when they drove to the location where they filmed the ad, and she saw the noose hanging there — something she'd never before seen.

"And the thing that I would share with you generally about the subject of lynching in this country is: It's ugly. You know, people don't want to see it."

Keaton said there are "so many other ways in which terror is invoked on Black communities." She pointed to last month's mass shooting in Buffalo, where a white man who has been linked to white supremacist hatred and apparently espoused a racist conspiracy theory is charged with killing 10 people and injuring three more individuals, nearly all of them Black.

"Republicans will talk about race using dog whistles," she said.

"We're going to do it on a bullhorn."

What Rand Paul said about the Civil Rights Act

In his new ad, Booker referenced a handful of controversial comments Paul previously has made.

Booker's statement that Paul said he would've opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is an apparent reference to a controversy dating back to a 2010 interview Paul did with The Courier Journal's editorial board, during which the future senator was asked if he would have voted for that landmark law outlawing segregation in public places and business establishments and prohibiting employment discrimination.

In that interview, Paul praised the Civil Rights Act's prohibition against discrimination in public domains but indicated he disliked the idea of telling private business owners what they can and can't do with their establishments, citing concerns about freedom.

"I abhor racism. I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant, but at the same time I do believe in private ownership," said Paul, who went on to be elected to the Senate for the first time later that year. "But I think there should be absolutely no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that's most of what the Civil Rights Act was about, to my mind."

Paul's comment on the Civil Rights Act was highly controversial, and he later went on to repeatedly stress that he supports this historic law.

"And the thing that I would share with you generally about the subject of lynching in this country is: It's ugly. You know, people don't want to see it."

Keaton said there are "so many other ways in which terror is invoked on Black communities." She pointed to last month's mass shooting in Buffalo, where a white man who has been linked to white supremacist hatred and apparently espoused a racist conspiracy theory is charged with killing 10 people and injuring three more individuals, nearly all of them Black.

"Republicans will talk about race using dog whistles," she said.

"We're going to do it on a bullhorn."

What Rand Paul said about comparing 'expanded health care to slavery'

In the new campaign ad, Booker also blasts Paul for comparing "expanded health care to slavery."

That's an apparent reference to something Paul, an ophthalmologist, said during a 2011 Senate hearing opposing the expansion of health care under former President Barack Obama.

"With regard to the idea whether or not you have a right to health care, you have to realize what that implies. I am a physician. You have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery," he said at the time.

"You are going to enslave not only me but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants, the nurses."

Keaton indicated this is just one example of how Paul's behavior as a senator shows "the unseriousness" with which he approaches policy, and particularly policy specific to race.

50 complaints, no action: Why Kentucky medical board won't police Rand Paul's COVID claims
What happened with Rand Paul and recent antilynching legislation

The main bill Booker's ad focuses on, as well as the updated version of it that Paul supported earlier this year, is named in honor of Emmett Till, a Black 14-year-old who was lynched in Mississippi in 1955 and whose horrific death catalyzed the civil rights movement.

The primary aim of this legislation was to list lynching — a form of violence white people have used throughout American history to brutalize, murder and terrorize Black people in Kentucky and across the country — as a federal hate crime after Congress had failed for more than a century to pass antilynching bills.

Paul placed a hold on the original Emmett Till Antilynching Act in 2020 and later sought unanimous consent from the Senate for an amended version of the bill that he indicated would ensure it didn't apply to crimes that resulted in relatively minor injuries like bruises and cuts.

Rand Paul: The Emmett Till Antilynching act was worth taking the time to get it right

He received intense criticism for pumping the brakes on that bill two years ago, including from the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

At the time, Paul said lynching is "a tool of terror that claimed the lives of nearly 5,000 Americans between 1881 and 1968" and defended his stance on the bill, saying: "I seek to amend this legislation, not because I take it or I take lynching lightly, but because I take it seriously — and this legislation does not."

Paul's amendment was blocked, and the original bill didn't advance in the Senate either.

Paul introduced his own proposal, the Marie Thompson Antilynching Act, last year. That legislation, named after a Kentucky woman lynched by a mob in 1904, did not advance in Congress either.

This year, he co-sponsored a new version of the Emmett Till Antilynching Act that Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Tim Scott, R-S.C., introduced.

He told The Courier Journal he negotiated with Cory Booker on a compromise that addressed his concerns, and he supported the legislation that has since become law.
Reaction to Charles Booker's new ad

Keaton said Wednesday morning the response to the ad so far was "overwhelmingly positive," although they understand some folks will find it uncomfortable to watch.

University of Louisville political science professor Dewey Clayton said he thought the ad was "outlandish," although he noted sometimes politicians like to have that shock element to draw in viewers.

"An ad like that will clearly gain attention, but I think it paints Sen. Paul in a slightly unfair sort of position," Clayton said.

Some people may see this ad as outlandish, but he expects many will see Booker is "really just trying to make a point."

As for where Booker's campaign goes from here, Keaton said: "This ad is a piece of a much broader story that we will have to tell."

Morgan Watkins is The Courier Journal's chief political reporter. Contact her at mwatkins@courierjournal.com. Follow her on Twitter: @morganwatkins26.

This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: Rand Paul challenger Charles Booker wears noose in Senate campaign ad
One family's photo album includes images of a vacation, a wedding anniversary and the lynching of a Black man in Texas


Jeffrey L. Littlejohn, Professor of History, Sam Houston State University
Mon, May 30, 2022

In this photo from Aug. 20, 1922, Gene Kemp and Mary 'Teddie' Kemp, at left,
 are seen with two friends. Jeffrey L. Littlejohn

As a historian and director of the Lynching in Texas project, which has documented more than 600 racial terror lynchings, I receive regular emails from journalists, scholars and activists who want to discuss the history of racial violence.

My conversations with reporters and historians did not prepare me for one of the emails I received last winter. The writer, a Chicago memorabilia dealer, offered to mail me a photo album that included a picture from a Texas lynching.

I responded that I would appreciate the opportunity to review the album and to help identify the victim.

About a week later, I opened the envelope and found five photos, a small cartoon and a key labeled “Teddie’s pictures.”

Each of the photographs was numbered.

The first was a 6-by-5-inch image of what appeared to be burning wood. It proved difficult to decipher. But the description clarified matters.


In this May 27, 1922 photograph, the charred remains of Jesse Thomas are barely visible. Jeff Littlejohn

It read: “Burning of negro in front of old City Hall, Waco, Texas.”

Revealing history lessons

I immediately set out to identify the victim and to discover the story behind “Teddie’s pictures.”

As I did so, I realized that what I was doing would be controversial, if not illegal, had I been a K-12 teacher in Texas.

In fact, I was engaging in the very kind of historical analysis that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Republican legislators in Texas want to ban from public schools.

In 2021, for example, Texas Republicans enacted Senate Bill 3 to prohibit K-12 educators from teaching that “slavery and racism are anything other than deviations from … the authentic founding principles of the United States, which include liberty and equality.”

In other words, this official state interpretation holds that slavery, racism and racism’s deadly manifestation, lynching, did not serve as systemic forces that shaped Texas history but were instead aberrations without any fundamental meaning for Texans – or even beyond the state.


Scene of the burnings of Johnny Cornish, Mose Jones and Snap Curry in Kirvin, Texas, on May 6, 1922. Jeff Littlejohn

Teddie’s photo album, which also included pictures of Teddie and her husband doing normal, everyday things like riding donkeys and going to wedding anniversary dinners, presented a direct challenge to this interpretation.
Racist mob terror

Indeed, my research soon revealed that the pictures belonged to Mary “Teddie” Kemp, a white woman from Pennsylvania who moved with her husband, Gene Kemp, to Waco, Texas, in 1922.

This date proved crucial, because it meant that the victim in Teddie’s photo album could not be Jesse Washington, the 17-year-old mentally handicapped young man who was lynched in the infamous “Waco Horror” of 1916.

In that lynching, historian Patricia Bernstein writes, Washington was “beaten, stabbed, mutilated, hanged and burned to death on the Waco town square, before an audience of 10-15,000 screaming, cheering spectators.”

In fact, the dates on the other photos in Teddie’s album made it likely that this picture showed the burning of Jesse Thomas, a 23-year-old Black man.

Thomas was wrongly accused of murdering W. Harrell Bolton and assaulting his female companion, Margaret Hays, near Waco on May 25, 1922.

When Hays identified Thomas as her likely assailant, a relative named Sam Harris shot and killed Thomas.

A white mob then dragged his body to City Hall and burned it before a crowd of several thousand people.

White supremacy in Texas


The identification of Jesse Thomas as the victim in Teddie’s photo album only led to more questions.

Why would an educated white woman from Pennsylvania include a picture of a Black lynching victim in a personal photo album?


In this Sept. 26, 1921, photograph, Mary ‘Teddie’ Kemp and her husband, Gene, are riding on donkeys at Seven Falls and South Cheyenne Cañon, Colo. Jeffrey Littlejohn

Why would she take her photos out of chronological sequence and place the lynching picture as the first photo in the album?

The answers to these questions reveal a great deal about Texas just 100 years ago.

In my view, the album exposes the priority that Anglo Texans – even new arrivals to the state – placed on white supremacy and Black subjugation.

Teddie likely pasted the picture of Jesse Thomas’ burning body at the beginning of her album because it featured an electrifying, adrenaline-charged event that viscerally illustrated the nature of her new Texas home.


An image of Mary Kemp’s handwritten descriptions of her photographs. Jeff Littlejohn

Indeed, as historian William Carrigan has shown, white supremacy and racial violence served as core elements of the state’s identity.

Together, they established the written and unwritten rules governing the social order – who could vote, who could marry whom, who could attend events – and the ultimate punishment for transgressing the rules.

Lynchings, like the one depicted in Teddie’s photo album, present a direct challenge to the whitewashed view of Texas history that Abbott and his Republican colleagues prefer.
Unspeakable violence

Lynchings occurred regularly in Texas – with 16 in 1922 alone – and served as the most extreme and violent embodiment of white supremacy in the state during the Jim Crow period.

When Black and Hispanic Texans dared to challenge white authority or to claim for themselves the rights of U.S. citizens, they faced violence on a scale rarely seen in other parts of the country.


In this image of a May 6, 1922, newspaper, a photo caption reads ‘Where three Negroes were burned at stake’ in Kirvin, Texas. W.E.B. Du Bois Papers

In May 1922, for example, white Texans carried out in one month at least 10 lynchings, more lynchings than in any other state but Georgia for the entire year.

Eight of the Texas victims killed in 1922 were burned at the stake in a form of torture that most people today associate with the so-called Dark Ages.

But these horrific acts happened in modern Texas, just a few generations ago. And white people caught the events on film and put the photos in their own family albums.

One hundred years ago, the lynching of Black men and women in Texas was not an aberration. It proved the rule. You could say white supremacist rule.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Jeffrey L. Littlejohn, Sam Houston State University.

Read more:
One Man Can Break Open the World’s Most Powerful Pedo Ring

Barbie Latza Nadeau
Tue, May 31, 2022,

Photo Illustration by Luis G. Rendon/The Daily Beast/Getty

ROME—If there is one open secret in the eternal city, it is that the allegations of clerical sex abuse in Italy have always been swept away, into the shadows of the Vatican.

The last three popes have had mixed reviews on their handling of the global scandal. When the worst of the abuse was coming to light, Pope John Paul II was too infirm and impotent to do anything about it. His successor Pope Benedict XVI was demonstrably blind to the problems coming in from the global church, and was implicated in the coverup in Germany. Pope Francis has done more than both of his predecessors in terms of reconciling the pain. But none of these leaders of the world’s 1.3 billion Catholics have done enough or what the victims want, which is that clerical child sex abusers are treated like secular ones: that they go straight to jail.

The idea that rampant abuse that has been exposed in the United States, Germany, Ireland, and elsewhere is also happening under the popes’ noses in Italy for decades has been something previous pontiffs have successfully kept a lid on. But an increasing drum beat from Italian sex abuse victims has sent a shockwave that has finally reached the Holy See. And the new head of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, Cardinal Matteo Maria Zuppi, has just promised to break Italy’s so-far hidden sex abuse history wide open by implying that the seat of the Roman Catholic Church is directly involved in covering up the crimes in its host country. He says he will investigate what has until now been no-go territory, guarded by church insiders who were in some ways as powerful, influential, and dangerous as the mafia.


If Zuppi makes good on his laundry list of promises—including having academics aid in researching complaints that might have been buried in the Vatican archives, looking at ignored police reports, and listening to the until-now-stifled accusations of Italian victims—the Vatican will patrol its own backyard effectively for the first time since its special city state status was signed off by Benito Mussolini.. Any investigation of any regional Catholic church ends up on the pope’s desk in Vatican City. And Zuppi has promised not to hold back. “No coverup, no resistance from the bishops. We will take the beating we have to take and also our responsibility,” Zuppi said as he accepted the papal appointment. “We owe it to the victims; their pain is the priority. And we owe it to the Holy Mother Church.”

Zuppi said that on Nov. 18, the Vatican will publish its analysis of all the complaints of clerical sex abuse in Italy—something that has never been attempted given the Catholic Church’s mafia-style influence across the country. Every city in Italy has a patron saint, bank holidays are primarily holy days, and priests play God in almost every single community. Survivors say reports of abuse have always been snuffed out and “taken care of” by shuttling the predator elsewhere or, as is often the case, straight to Vatican City for a little penance.

Has the Catholic Church Been Covering Up Its Biggest Pedophile Priest Problem?

Francesco Zanardi, a vocal survivor from the northern Italian town of Savona, started publishing accounts of abuse in a newsletter sent out widely from his support group Rete L’Abuso, or Abuse Network. His social media has gone viral with his hashtag #ItalyChurchToo which, in its one year of existence, has pulled back the curtain on grotesque accounts at the hands of influential church members in this hyper-religious country. He says he hopes that Zuppi’s investigation will truly do what it promises, and that the usual “interference“ by the Italian Catholic hierarchy over the Italian judicial system won’t make it impossible. He told The Daily Beast that the very fact that crucifixes hang by law in all Italian courtrooms is more about “omerta” than faith. He says they are there as “a threat and reminder that the Church is more powerful than even God.”

Zuppi’s predecessor, Cardinal Gualtiero Bassetti was pressured by many in secular society to heed the calls of Zanardi’s growing influence to launch an internal investigation of the magnitude of Pennsylvania’s in 2018 that found more than 300 predator priests and 1,000 victims in that state alone.

When Zuppi made the announcement at his swearing-in over the weekend, the 223 Italian bishops were told that they would play a very big role in self-policing, which has not been a particular strength among any of the Catholic hierarchy. Italy currently does not have “listening centers” or safe lines to call to report abuse in 30 percent of the country, which is 90 percent Catholic.

The first phase of the report will focus on the years between 2000 and 2021, a period when predator priests were finally put in check in other countries by increased involvement from the secular judicial system. But in Italy those years could prove horrific since no one was investigating reports. It remains to be seen how bad the abuse allegations are from the decades before.

Zuppi did say that the “Italian path” would differ from countries that recently blew the lid on their sex abuse scandals, including Germany, France, and Spain. In Italy, he said the plan would not be merely “lip service” or a “false acknowledgement” of the problem. “The investigation will be a serious, real thing that leaves no room for controversy,” he said, nodding to France’s report that is still being debated among the French Catholic hierarchy. “We don’t want to argue, we don’t want to sidetrack. The report does not serve as a sedative, but to do things seriously.”

The reason Zuppi said he would focus on the previous 21 years first is because it is more relevant. “With regard to the past 20 years, it has to do with us, it involves us directly. It feels much more serious to us, it hurts much more,” he said. “1945 was 80 years ago. I believe that judging something from 80 years ago by today’s criteria, something that was judged by other criteria at the time, creates difficulties of evaluation.”

Zanardi, who says he knows of 1,600 cases from before 2000, says instead that the time limit was discriminatory and it could make the problem seem smaller than it is. Zuppi has asked Zanardi for a meeting. “We would be very happy to meet with you,” he told Zanardi, who attended his first press conference and asked the incoming cardinal about reparations. “If you have a case, tell us. I don’t know if you’ve already done so, I’m speaking only for myself... Then there’s the State, you go to the police. Surely it will be very useful to make a report.”

For years, these accusations have been buried to protect the Vatican and its popes from embarrassment. The task to untangle such a deep web of sinister secrecy is daunting.

Read more at The Daily Beast.