Archive by Author

Google says it will eliminate location history entries if it identifies abortion center, medical facility visits

Google announced on Friday that it would soon get rid of location history entries if the search engine identified that an individual had visited an abortion center or other medical facility, an action coming in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Jen Fitzpatrick, a senior vice president at Google, wrote in a blog post that the location history update would be effective “in the coming weeks.”

“Location History is a Google account setting that is off by default, and for those that turn it on, we provide simple controls like auto-delete so users can easily delete parts, or all, of their data at any time,” she said. 

“Some of the places people visit — including medical facilities like counseling centers, domestic violence shelters, abortion clinics, fertility centers, addiction treatment facilities, weight loss clinics, cosmetic surgery clinics, and others — can be particularly personal,” she added.

The search engine’s announcement comes a week after the Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion, overturning a 50-year precedent. The decision has led to a patchwork of states rolling back access to the medical procedure, though some state laws have been paused due to pending legal battles.

Following a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion indicating the high court would rule to overturn Roe v. Wade, a group of Democrats wrote a letter to the search engine’s chief executive in May pushing Google to stop collecting and keeping data on users’ locations amid fears that that data could be sought after by those prosecuting against abortion bans. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden and Powell are getting a bum rap on inflation

To hear many talking heads and op-ed writers tell it, America’s sky-high inflation – 8.6 percent in May – can be laid entirely on the doorsteps of President Biden and Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell. Some of these claims are absurd on the face of it: for example, that the Biden administration is responsible for soaring gasoline prices, which in reality have been propelled upward by a nearly $100 per barrel rise in the world price of crude oil.  

Other claims are merely exaggerated: that today’s surging prices owe to the profligacy of the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief plan Biden signed last year, or to the Fed’s failure to act quickly enough to tighten monetary policy. But the fact of the matter is that inflation is a global phenomenon, and all kinds of countries with all kinds of policies are now confronting the steepest rise in prices they’ve seen in 40 years. And the lion’s share of this inflationary surge has been, at least so far, beyond the control of governments or central banks. 

Even before the full effect of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine hit the global economy, most advanced economies were experiencing inflation well in excess of their (usually) 2 percent targets. In March, for example, core inflation hit 3.5 percent in Germany, 5.5 percent in Canada and 5.7 percent in the United Kingdom. (It’s useful to focus on so-called core inflation rates because, unlike headline inflation rates, these exclude the direct effects of skyrocketing food and energy prices, which are largely beyond the control of national fiscal and monetary policies.) Clearly, the factors pushing up inflation in the United States (supply chain disruptions, rebounding demand as the pandemic eases and the pass-through of rising food and energy prices into the prices of other goods and services) have been at work throughout the global economy.

Notably, the United States topped the leader board of advanced economies, with core inflation coming in at an eye-watering 6.5 percent. But most of this price increase has had little to do with recent U.S. policies. Research with my colleagues John Kearns and Michael Strain shows that countries that had comparatively high inflation before the pandemic have comparatively high inflation today as well. 

For example, Switzerland, a perennially low-inflation country that experienced almost no price increases in the years before the pandemic, registered core inflation of only 1.4 percent in March. Conversely, in Iceland, where inflation well exceeded 2 percent before 2020, it hit 6.2 percent in March. The reasons for this are not mysterious: In economies with lower inflation, wages and prices are less likely to be sensitive to expectations of future inflation, and those expectations, in turn, are less likely to respond to supply shortages and soaring energy and good prices. 

And this helps to explain why U.S. inflation has been so high. Unlike in Japan and the euro area, whose central banks spent years striving unsuccessfully to reach their inflation targets, U.S. inflation averaged a more normal pace – near the Fed’s 2 percent target – in the years before the pandemic hit. And this set up prices in the United States to respond more fully to the shocks hitting the global economy once the pandemic started to ease. Our research indicates that of the 6.5 percent increase in March core consumer prices, about 3.5 percentage points was accounted for by the inflation prevailing in the United States in the years before the pandemic. 

What about the part not explained by pre-pandemic inflation? Much of that is indeed attributable to growing pressures of demand, and, in particular, to the rise in job vacancies from their pre-pandemic level. These vacancies, an indicator of the strength of spending in the U.S. economy, have risen to record levels in recent months and, by our estimates, have contributed 2.5 percentage points to U.S. core inflation.

But not all of that spending owes to Biden’s 2021 American Rescue Plan. Much of it was fueled by the 2020 Cares Act and other pre-Biden COVID relief measures, which put extra dollars into Americans’ bank accounts and financed a surge in consumer purchases once the pandemic eased off. And this release of pent-up demand would hardly have been contained had the Fed started raising rates last November, as some critics contend, rather than this March. It takes time for monetary policy to affect the economy, and an additional .75 percentage point of interest rate hikes starting four months earlier would have done little to cool the economy in the near term.

This is not to say that the American Rescue Plan and earlier pandemic stimulus efforts were not wasteful; they were. And this is not to say that the Fed wasn’t slow to respond to rising inflation; it was. And, finally, this is not to say that our authorities are now handling the situation as well as they could; while the Fed has now caught up to where it should be, the Biden administration should be dismantling the Trump tariffs to boost productivity and lower consumer prices. But the blame game is no substitute for serious consideration of a serious problem.

Steven Kamin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he studies international macroeconomic and financial issues. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Fossil fuels are far better than blackouts

As the world watched, French President Emmanuel Macron explained the basics of supply and demand in oil markets to President Biden this week. Video of the encounter made it obvious: Energy experts need to begin loudly restating the basic truth that reliable energy is essential to human health and well-being.

Macron’s Energy 101 tutorial with Biden reinforced the reality that the world is grappling with a growing energy crisis, and the Middle East won’t be able to bail out markets. The U.S. would do well to heed this fact. It should implement protective measures for oil and gas markets, as well as for electricity markets, before it’s too late.

And make no mistake, “too late” is bearing down on us. For example, last month a Michigan utility closed an 811-megawatt nuclear plant almost a decade before its operating permit expired. Last week, the Michigan Public Service Commission took it a step further by approving a request by Consumers Energy, a major utility, to close its last remaining coal plant by 2025. That’s 15 years ahead of schedule. The closure will mean 1,560 megawatts of reliable capacity lost so the company can meet its wholly voluntary goal of net-zero CO2 emissions by 2040.

Pair these planned closures with plans pending for many other large generation plants elsewhere. You can easily see the reliability of electricity in the region dancing close to the edge. Warnings from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, which oversees the North American electric grid, clarify our tenuous situation. NERC’s 2022 Summer Reliability Assessment reported that much of the Midwest “faces a capacity shortfall … resulting in high risk of energy emergencies during peak summer conditions.”

The Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), which supervises the grid in 15 U.S. states and one Canadian province, released a similar warning. It laid the blame for increasing grid fragility on “thermal retirements and the increasing transition to renewables.”

MISO representatives gave added warnings of possible power shut-offs if utilities can’t import electricity from outside their operating areas, or if the wind doesn’t blow during periods of high demand. In comparison, PJM, the nation’s largest grid operator, credited new natural gas generation and electricity from recently rescued nuclear plants in Illinois for abundant supplies and low prices.

In the face of growing energy shortages and Russia’s use of natural gas as a political weapon, several European countries are choosing to delay the increasingly dangerous rush to impose green energy. Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Czechoslovakia and the United Kingdom all are reopening mothballed coal plants, at least temporarily.

The Czech ambassador at large for energy security, Vaclav Bartuška, put it bluntly: “If there is a gas cut out this winter, we will burn anything we can to keep our people warm and to make electricity.” The Dutch have set out an “urgent appeal” to save natural gas ahead of winter and have decided to lift all restrictions on coal-fueled generation stations.

Germany and Austria are both cutting natural gas consumption and opening coal plants to bolster their supply of gas before winter comes. German Economy Minister and Green Party member Robert Habeck said, “This is bitter, but it’s essential” to restart coal plants. Utilities, he said, need more time to make clean energy options safe and reliable.

In North America, Jim Robb, CEO of the electric industry watchdog NERC, appeared on Soledad O’Brien’s “Matter of Fact” show to warn against the “disorderly retirement of older” coal and nuclear generation facilities. It “is happening too quickly,” he said. Robb reminded viewers of the need to balance reliability, affordability and environmental impact. He critiqued the tendency to “overemphasize one of the three dimensions” and said, “Even a moment without power is a real problem for people.”

When renewables made up a few percentage points of our electricity supply, it was relatively harmless for some to pretend there were only negative outcomes from fossil and nuclear fuels. The rest of us knew that, despite any challenges associated with their use, we could always rely on them for heat and electricity. But across the planet, green energy policies have pushed us to a tipping point. We’ve shuttered too many reliable energy sources, and the inherent flaws of renewable energy are growing too large to ignore. 

It’s past time that we halt the dangerous rush to utilize only green energy such as wind and solar. We’re simply not ready.

Jason Hayes is director of environmental policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Mich. Follow him on Twitter @jasonthayes.

Source: TEST FEED1

The five Republicans who could challenge Trump in 2024

Former President Donald Trump has hinted repeatedly that he’s weighing another bid for the White House in 2024. 

And while he’s made clear that, if he does so, the nomination should be his for the taking, he could still face some competition. A number of Republicans have begun maneuvering toward presidential campaigns of their own, some more overtly than others. 

Of course, there’s a political risk that comes with challenging Trump. But that doesn’t appear to be deterring some prospective candidates. 

Here are the five Republicans who could challenge Trump for the party’s 2024 presidential nod.

Ron DeSantis

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has brushed off suggestions that he will mount a presidential campaign in 2024, saying that his No. 1 priority is winning a second term in the governor’s mansion. 

But he also hasn’t explicitly ruled out the possibility, and unlike several other prospective GOP presidential contenders, he hasn’t committed to foregoing a White House bid if Trump launches a comeback campaign. 

And with his clout among Republicans on the rise, it’s possible that, if DeSantis ultimately decides to run in 2024, he may not be deterred by the former president. 

Early polling shows him as the heavy favorite for the Republican presidential nomination if Trump doesn’t run again. There are even a few recent surveys that show him topping Trump in a hypothetical primary matchup. 

DeSantis’s growing momentum and influence within the GOP suggests that he may ultimately have a path to the nomination, with or without Trump in the race, especially given the fact that he still has plenty of room to grow his name ID among Republicans nationally. 

Mike Pence

Despite running afoul of Trump early last year when he rebuffed the former president’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, former Vice President Mike Pence has begun more aggressively positioning himself for a potential White House bid in recent months.

He’s given a series of high-profile speeches, traveled to crucial early presidential primary and caucus states and even made a trip to the Ukraine-Poland border amid Russia’s ongoing invasion. 

Pence is also among a small group of Republicans considering a White House run, regardless of what Trump decides to do in 2024. 

While he has isolated parts of Trump’s conservative voter base with his insistence that he had no right to overturn the results of the 2020 election, Pence has cast himself as a successor to the former president’s policy legacy. He’s touted his work with Trump, while also fashioning himself as a protector of democratic institutions in the face of efforts to tear them down. 

All that is to say that Pence might just be willing to take his chances in a potential 2024 matchup against his former boss.

Mike Pompeo

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo earned a reputation as one of Trump’s most loyal advisers and cabinet members during his four years in the White House. 

But he’s since taken steps away from the former president, all the while seeking to boost his post-administration political profile. 

Not long after leaving the State Department, Pompeo created a political action committee dubbed Champion American Values PAC – or CAVPAC – and has actively endorsed in midterm races across the country, at times putting himself at odds with Trump. 

In the GOP Senate primary in Pennsylvania, for instance, Pompeo backed former hedge fund CEO David McCormick over Trump’s pick for the nomination, celebrity physician Mehmet Oz. Pompeo even held a press briefing ahead of the primary in which he raised concerns about Oz’s ties to Turkey.

The former secretary of State has also hinted that his plans for 2024 aren’t contingent on what Trump does, telling Fox News in an interview that any decision about his political future will be his and his alone.

“The Pompeos have always used the simple fact of do you believe this is the moment where you think you can best serve America, this is the place you can have the most impact,” Pompeo said. “That will be how we make our decision in the end.”

Larry Hogan

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan has long been one of Trump’s most prominent Republican critics, so the idea of him challenging the former president for the 2024 GOP nomination isn’t exactly surprising. 

A Republican governor of a blue state, Hogan has carved out a reputation for himself as a more traditional conservative in the mold of someone like former President Ronald Reagan. 

He’s warned repeatedly that a 2024 Trump candidacy could cost the GOP the White House once again and has called on the party to look toward its future rather than linger on Trump’s 2020 loss.

Hogan is term-limited and isn’t seeking reelection this year. And while that frees him up to plot his next political steps, it also comes with another risk: remaining in the spotlight after he officially exits public office. 

Still, he’s not exactly playing coy with the possibility of a 2024 run. In a February appearance on CNN, Hogan said that he’s “certainly going to take a look” at a White House bid once he leaves office next January.

Ted Cruz

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has never really been shy about his political ambitions. After all, he has already run for president once, finishing second to Trump in the 2016 Republican presidential primary.

Despite a bitter nominating contest between the two men six years ago, Cruz emerged as an ardent supporter of the former president during his time in the White House. But the Texas senator has also shown a willingness to break with Trump, especially when it comes to whom he endorses. 

In the Ohio GOP Senate primary, for instance, Cruz was vocal in his support for former state Treasurer Josh Mandel, while Trump backed author and venture capitalist J.D. Vance. Vance ultimately won the nomination. 

And Cruz has also been more open than most about his willingness to launch another bid for the White House. Asked in a December interview with the conservative news outlet The Truth Gazette whether he would consider another presidential campaign, Cruz responded: “Absolutely. In a heartbeat.”

“There’s a reason historically that the runner-up is almost always the next nominee,” Cruz said, referring to his second-place primary finish in 2016. “And that’s been true going back to Nixon or Reagan or McCain or Romney that has played out repeatedly. You come in with just an enormous base of support.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Supreme Court concludes revolutionary term

The Supreme Court this term seemed to embody William F. Buckley’s adage that “A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling ‘Stop.’” 

In a country of 330 million people and 390 million guns, the conservative supermajority returned America to a historical moment of looser firearm laws. 

It delivered the country to an era where religious schools, even those which openly discriminate against LGBT students, must be eligible for state funding that is available to nonreligious schools. 

And at a time when an unwanted pregnancy can be medically terminated at home, the court has allowed states to make swallowing an abortion pill a crime.

The court’s monumental decisions this term shook the country and moved it sharply in a conservative direction, say observers from across the spectrum.

“Our country is deeply politically polarized and the court made clear that it is solidly on one side of this divide,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. “There is no way to know at this point what it will mean for the court or our society.” 

Before an historic series of rulings it was clear the Supreme Court, in its first full term with six conservative justices, was going to move to the right. It just wasn’t clear how far it would go or how fast. 

That picture came into focus quickly over the last two weeks, as the high court’s supermajority issued a landmark decision erasing the nearly 50-year-old constitutional right to abortion by overturning Roe v. Wade. 

The decision to strike down Roe was the most earth-shaking, but it was hardly alone.  

The court also enshrined a right to carry a handgun in a ruling striking down New York’s concealed carry permit law. It curbed the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency and executive agencies more broadly. It issued rulings expanding religious liberty. 

The decisions sent chills through progressives and Democrats, as they were welcomed by conservatives.  

More broadly, they raised questions about the degree to which the court is in touch with the broader populace, and whether most of the electorate thinks the Founding Era is the best source of wisdom to guide a modern pluralistic democracy.  

Public confidence in the court has reached record lows, and polling shows that at least some of the ground-shifting rulings this term were opposed by majorities.  

“The Supreme Court, for the first time to many Americans, seems significantly out of touch with Americans’ values and interests,” said Michele Goodwin, a law professor at the University of California Irvine, who criticized the court for “selectively, if not opportunistically” applying its interpretative methods. 

In a sign of just how transformative this court term was, the National Conference of Bar Examiners issued a notice to upcoming bar exam test-takers that they “would not be required to be familiar with this term’s U.S. Supreme Court decisions.” Constitutional law professors were also flummoxed.  

“Religion has totally been turned on its head. Abortion, fundamental rights, totally turned on its head. Structural issues, the whole new idea of the ‘major questions doctrine,’ which wasn’t even a thing last year, now it’s got to be a new chapter,” said Steve Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago. 

“I’m actually seriously considering is changing the focus of my class from a class on law to a class on constitutional politics,” he added. “The court has always been political, and I understand that. But these dramatic shifts in such a brief period of time, based only on the headcount on the Supreme Court — I don’t know how you explain this to students other than raw politics.” 

 This court term marked a breakthrough moment for the conservative legal movement’s well-funded and norm-shattering effort to groom a generation of conservative lawyers, elevate reliable allies to the Supreme Court and reshape American life in fundamental ways.

Yet the 6-3 conservative supermajority Supreme Court at various points sought to downplay the transformational nature of their actions, as well as an internal dissension among the justices that was clear from their own written opinions.

Writing for the majority in overturning Roe v. Wade, Justice Samuel Alito emphasized that his ruling was narrowly aimed at abortion. He insisted the decision would not threaten protections for same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges), sex between gay couples (Lawrence v. Texas) or the right to contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut).

But Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, wrote that the reasoning underlying the opinion should call those other decisions into question. Thomas has long rejected the well-established principle that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment protects not only procedural safeguards but also substantive rights.

Legal experts said the court’s approach to law this term raised legitimate questions about whether rights that are seen as having a thin historical record and which are not explicitly referenced in the Constitution — so-called unenumerated rights — remained on firm footing after the decision.

“This really is the ‘YOLO’ (you only live once) court,” said Leah Litman, a law professor at the University of Michigan. “In their first full term together, they built out a doctrine to limit the authority of administrative agencies; overruled Roe v. Wade; significantly restricted states’ ability to regulate guns; bulldozed through the separation of church and state while requiring more state support for religion in schools; severely limited the mechanisms to enforce criminal procedure rights; and more. In one term.”

“I don’t think people fathom just how much more they will do,” she added.

Source: TEST FEED1

Pentagon: Ukraines using rocket system to hit Russian command posts

Ukrainian forces are having “a good deal of success” using a U.S.-given advanced rocket system to target Russian command posts, a senior U.S. defense official said Friday. 

The Ukrainians have used the High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) advanced rocket system to target the Kremlin positions in its fight for the eastern region of the country known as the Donbas.  

“Because it is such a precise, longer-range system, Ukrainians are able to carefully select targets that will undermine the effort by Russia in a more systematic way, certainly than they would be able to do with the shorter-range artillery systems,” the official told reporters. 

Ukrainian forces are still in the early days of operating the HIMARS systems – four of which the U.S. has already sent to the former Soviet country and four additional it pledged late last month – as only a handful of Ukrainian troops can operate it after taking a brief training course.  

HIMARS, which has a range of about 40 miles, has given the Ukrainians the ability to hit faraway targets with more accuracy than they have been able to prior when using shorter-ranged artillery. 

“What you see is the Ukrainians are actually systematically selecting targets and then accurately hitting them, thus providing this, you know, precise method of degrading Russian capability,” the official said. 

“I see them being able to continue to use this throughout Donbas.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Defense & National Security — More rocket systems for Ukraine

The Pentagon on Friday unveiled an $820 million weapons package for Ukraine, including several more advanced air defense systems.   

We’ll detail what’s in the latest package, plus the new Navy probe into the fuel leak at a storage facility in Hawaii last year and what’s happening now that the COVID-19 vaccine deadline has passed for Army National Guard and Reserve troops.

This is Defense & National Security, your nightly guide to the latest developments at the Pentagon, on Capitol Hill and beyond. For The Hill, I’m Ellen Mitchell. Subscribe here.

Pentagon unveils $820M Ukraine security package

The Department of Defense on Friday unveiled an $820 million weapons package for Ukraine, which includes advanced air defense systems. 

• Acting Pentagon press secretary Todd Breasseale said in a statement that $770 million of the assistance will be provided under the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), which allows the agency to procure the weapons from defense contractors.
• The remaining $50 million in security aid will come from presidential drawdown authority, which allows the Pentagon to send Ukraine weapons from its own stockpiles. This will be the fourteenth drawdown of equipment under that authority since August 2021. 

Earlier: President Biden hinted at the security aid during a press conference on Thursday following a NATO summit in Madrid. 

During the press conference, Biden said that the U.S. would support Ukraine “as long as it takes” to make sure that it is not defeated by Russia. 

More rocket systems: The aid also follows a separate $450 million shipment of military aid to Ukraine announced last week, which included four High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) and patrol boats, among other equipment. 

With Friday’s announcement, the U.S. has committed $7.6 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since the beginning of the Biden administration, including $6.9 billion since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine began on Feb. 24. 

Under the USAI, the Pentagon will procure two National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems, also known as Norwegian Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems.

Read more here 

Navy: Leadership failure worsened Hawaii fuel leaks

Service officials’ failure to take charge in the days and months after two major fuel leaks last year at a Navy storage facility in Hawaii led to thousands of residents’ drinking water becoming contaminated, a newly released investigation found. 

The response from on-site leadership at the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility in Oahu fell “unacceptably short of the Navy standards for leadership, ownership, and the safeguarding of our communities,” Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. William Lescher wrote in an endorsement of the report.   

• The investigation centers around the May 6, 2021, and Nov. 20, 2021, fuel spills at Red Hill that contaminated a nearby well used by 93,000 people including Hawaii military families, sickening nearly 6,000.
• The leak and the environmental damage it caused prompted the Pentagon to order the facility’s closure in March with the goal of fully defueling and shuttering Red Hill in the next year.

Accepting responsibility: In a call with reporters ahead of the report’s release, U.S. Pacific Fleet Commander Adm. Samuel Paparo said the Navy “accepts responsibility for what happened,” noting that it was the combined result of “multiple human errors over a period of several months.”

WHAT HAPPENED EXACTLY?

The spills in question include an initial release of some 20,000 gallons of fuel on May 6, after facility operators improperly began a transfer that spilled into a fuel suppression system.

• At the time, the facility and its commanders didn’t realize the extent of the mishap, incorrectly believing only about 1,580 gallons had spilled. 
• The fuel suppression system retention lines then held the bulk of the 20,000 gallons, the weight of which caused the PVC pipes to sag.
• On Nov. 20, 2021, an operator hit the line with a small underground passenger train cart, causing the fuel to pour out.   

Why the delay?: Navy officials did not immediately act as they first believed the liquid was a mixture of fuel and water and there was no threat to the environment or to groundwater.

Service officials, not understanding all the paths to the well, insisted that fuel could not seep through concrete, according to the investigation.   

Paparo said that leaders on the scene in November were slow to correct initial reports that the November spill was water and made “overly optimistic assessments” that the fuel leak was contained. 

Disciplinary actions coming?: The probe does not make any recommendations on disciplinary or administrative actions for individuals involved, though Paparo noted that a “number of people” are “no longer in their assigned duties.” 

Read the full story here 

Army: Guard, Reserve forces need vaccine for drills

The Army announced Friday that members of its National Guard and Reserve components must be in compliance with its COVID-19 vaccine mandate to participate in drills.

• In a statement, the service said members who have refused to be vaccinated without an approved or pending exemption cannot participate in federally funded training and will not receive pay or retirement credit.
• The deadline for members of the Army National Guard or Reserve to be vaccinated passed on Thursday. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin mandated vaccinations for the military in August 2021 but allowed each service to implement its own deadlines.
• The deadline for active-component Army personnel to be in compliance was Dec. 15, but reservists and Army National Guard members had until June 30 to be vaccinated. 

Current figures: Eighty-nine percent of the Army National Guard has received one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, according to the Army’s statement, while 87 percent are fully inoculated. 

Similarly, 89 percent of the Army Reserve has received one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, and 88 percent are fully vaccinated. 

Repercussions: In its statement, the Army said soldiers who refuse the order without an approved or pending exemption are subject to “adverse administrative actions,” like bars to service and official reprimands.   

Moving forward, soldiers who continue to refuse vaccination without an exemption may face additional adverse action, including separation. 

Read more here 

WHAT WE’RE READING

• ‘Fairly exceptional’: Capitol riot suspect remains at large 1 year after FBI raid 
• Photos of the Week: G-7 summit, Jan. 6 hearing and Stanley Cup champs 
• The Hill: Opinion: NATO must push for full accountability from Turkey 
• Military Times: Navy veteran McCain, groundbreaking Air Force general among Medal of Freedom recipients 
• Military.com: Army swiftly backpedals on policy dropping high school diploma requirement 

That’s it for today. Check out The Hill’s Defense and National Security pages for the latest coverage. We’re off Monday for the Fourth of July holiday. See you next week! 

VIEW THE FULL EDITION HERE

Source: TEST FEED1

After Roe’s demise, military women sacrifice even more

On Friday, June 24, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, abruptly discarding 50 years of precedent. Three days later, South Carolina’s law outlawing abortion after six weeks of pregnancy went into effect. Given the substantial military presence in South Carolina, these draconian legal developments will be felt in the uniformed ranks; indeed, they will affect military communities across the country where access to abortion is similarly disappearing. The following reveals why and how.

First, let’s make this real by sharing a survivor’s story. In 2015, Sarah*, a Marine, was stationed in South Carolina, and was raped by a fellow Marine. She had gone to a bar with friends, had a single beer and, feeling dizzy and out of control, she realized she’d been drugged. Another Marine drove her back to base; she blacked out during the drive.

Sarah awoke to a Marine on top of and penetrating her; she lost consciousness again.

Soon after this assault, Sarah learned she was pregnant; she quietly obtained an abortion from a local civilian provider. She did not tell anyone, neither military supervisors nor doctors, that she had been raped.

If Sarah’s ordeal had happened today, her options would be quite different. Unless today’s Sarah chooses to disclose her status as a rape survivor, plus successfully proves to others the truth of that reality — or obtains leave from her commander and travels to the closest state with access to abortion — Sarah would be forced to endure her already forced pregnancy, and bear her rapist’s child.

How is today’s Sarah, a warrior in uniform sacrificing so much for our nation, in such a cruel predicament? The short answer: Congress and the bitter abortion fights on Capitol Hill that created legislation that have, for decades, penalized women service members, coupled with Roe’s reversal and states’ resultant rush to control women’s bodies.

Due to long-standing federal law, military medical health care providers can perform abortions only if pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or if the pregnancy risks the mother’s life. All three limited circumstances require medical providers’ certification; for example  “a physician must note in the patient’s medical record that it is their good faith belief, based on all available information, that the pregnancy was the result of an act of rape or incest.” The same restrictions apply to military medical insurance, thus impacting thousands of military families in addition to female service members. 

Any service member who seeks an abortion outside of these severely limited circumstances, or who, like Sarah, does not want to disclose their rape (or is disbelieved), must request leave and travel to a civilian clinic at their own expense. There now may not be a clinic in their state. While this legal straight jacket has long been choking service members deployed or stationed overseas in abortion-restrictive nations, due to Roe’s recent demise, now a service member stationed in Texas might as well be stationed in Djibouti or Iraq. Her access to abortion is for most purposes just as limited.

This is a serious issue, given that a majority of the military’s largest bases are now in states where, following Friday’s Supreme Court decision, abortion will either immediately or quite soon become illegal with little exception. These include Fort Hood and Fort Bliss in Texas, Fort Campbell in Tennessee and Kentucky, and Forts Benning and Bragg in Georgia, etc.

Congress and the American public must awaken to the fact that Sarah’s ordeal is not rare. According to the Department of Defense, 13,000 women (and 7,500 men) service members were sexually assaulted or raped in fiscal year 2018; 76.1 percent of victims did not report the crime. These numbers are seemingly increasing — the rate of rape and sexual assault against women service members reportedly jumped by more than 50 percent from fiscal year 2016 to 2018, and again in 2019. Furthermore, the rate of unintended pregnancies among active-duty service members is greater than that of the general population (7 percent of service members vs. 4.5 percent in the general population per the last available numbers). While it is unknown how many of those pregnancies result from rape, the data on rates of sexual assault suggest it is potentially a significant number.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision, our government must act to protect our service members. The Pentagon needs to standardize leave policies to better support service members, and Congress needs to roll back the long-standing restrictions on military-provided abortions. Service members “chose to volunteer to sacrifice themselves for their country, but they didn’t volunteer to sacrifice their reproductive rights.”

*name changed to protect confidentiality

Rachel E. VanLandingham, Lt Col, USAF (ret.), Professor of Law, Southwestern Law School and President, National Institute of Military Justice.Samantha S. Kubek, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law and Attorney-in-Charge, Robert W. Entenmann Veterans Law Clinic, Hofstra Law School

Source: TEST FEED1

Hillicon Valley — Uber report finds thousands of assault claims

Uber released its latest safety report revealing thousands of sexual assault claims, though the report emphasized that the overall rate has declined from previous years.

Meanwhile, more former Tesla employees sued the company over allegations of racial abuse.

This is Hillicon Valley, detailing all you need to know about tech and cyber news from Capitol Hill to Silicon Valley. Send tips to The Hill’s Rebecca Klar, Chris Mills Rodrigo and Ines Kagubare. Subscribe here.

Assault claims still in thousands, but dropping: report

Uber received more than 3,800 sexual assault reports from U.S. rides between 2019-2020, a decline of 38 percent from the previous two years, according to a safety report the company released Thursday.

The company said the decline could be in part related to the impacts of the pandemic, citing a drop from 2.3 billion rides in 2017-18 to 2.1 billion rides in 2019-20, but it also hailed recent safety investments and strengthened background check requirements.

“We’re constantly innovating and investing in the safety of our platform,” the company said in the report. “We’ve prioritized robust screening processes and technology, built new safety features and invested in providing riders and drivers with support in times of need.” 

• Uber said riders were the accused party in 43 percent of sexual assault reports in 2019-20, which it noted was on par with previous years.
• The report further broke down five categories of sexual assault, saying a majority of the reports involved nonconsensual touching of a sexual body part. 

Read more here. 

More Tesla employees allege racial abuse 

A group of 15 Black current and former employees of tech giant Tesla sued the company on Thursday over accusations of racial abuse.

• Plaintiffs claimed that they were harassed based on their race, with colleagues and managers using the N-word and other racially charged terms, including “slavery” and “plantation,” in daily interactions, according to Reuters.
• Tesla’s “standard operating procedures include blatant, open and unmitigated race discrimination,” the lawsuit reads, particularly at its Fremont, Calif., factory where the abuse is said to have occurred. 

“It is rare for Blacks to work here. I don’t know how long you will be able to stay here,” one plaintiff recalled hearing alongside racial slurs. 

Read more about the suit.

LAWMAKERS PUSH FOR DIVERSITY IN FINANCE SECTOR

House lawmakers are looking to hold venture capital firms accountable for fostering ‘tech bro culture’ in financial technology services, with data showing that the vast majority of companies the firms invest in are owned by white men.

Lawmakers at a House Financial Services subpanel Thursday blasted private equity firms for leaving minority and women-founded businesses behind, and discussed ways to turn the tide as capital injections into the sector continue to surge.

• Venture capital investments into financial technology companies nearly doubled last year, reaching $35 billion, according to House figures.
• But only 1.8 percent of venture capital-backed owners were Latino, and 1 percent were Black. And just 2 percent of venture funding went to companies founded solely by women.

Read more here.  

TROUBLE FOR TRUTH 

A federal grand jury in Manhattan and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have both subpoenaed former President Trump’s media company, according to an SEC filing dated Friday.

• Digital World Acquisition Corp, which is seeking to merge with Trump Media and Technology Group (TMTG), disclosed in its filing that the blank-check company had been informed that TMTG had been given a subpoena from the SEC on Monday and a separate subpoena from a federal grand jury in Southern District of New York on Thursday.
• The SEC’s subpoena is “seeking documents relating to, among other things, Digital World and other potential counterparties for a business transaction involving TMTG,” according to the SEC filing. 

The subpoena from the federal grand jury in Manhattan is “seeking a subset of the same or similar documents demanded in subpoenas to Digital World and its directors,” the filing notes. 

Read more.

BITS & PIECES

An op-ed to chew on: This crypto winter is warm compared to the next one  

Notable links from around the web: 

AI made these stunning images. Here’s why experts are worried (CNN / Rachel Metz) 

TikTok tells Republican senators how it plans to keep American data away from China (The New York Times / David McCabe) 

Google will delete user location history for abortion clinic visits (The Washington Post / Gerrit De Vynck) 

One more thing: Robot workplace woes 

American workers who work alongside robots are more likely to suffer negative mental health effects, despite being less prone to physical injury, according to a recent study.

• For the study, researchers analyzed data on workplace injuries in the U.S., finding that injuries were reduced by 1.2 cases per 100 workers in regions with one standard deviation increase in robot exposure.
• But in regions where there were significant numbers working with robots, there was an increase of 37.8 cases per 100,000 workers in drug or alcohol related deaths.   

Osea Giuntella, an expert in labor economics and economic demography and an assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh, said in a news release that although there’s evidence how robots affect workers’ employment and wages, researchers “still know very little about the effects on physical and mental health.” 

Read more here.

That’s it for today, thanks for reading. Check out The Hill’s Technology and Cybersecurity pages for the latest news and coverage. We’ll see you next week

VIEW THE FULL EDITION HERE

Source: TEST FEED1