Archive by Author

Flagging Free Speech: A coach runs afoul of the NFL with a different view of Jan. 6

Washington Commanders defensive coordinator Jack Del Rio trains his players to be ready for “audibles,” a play changed right before a snap at the scrimmage line. Last week, there was one audible he clearly did not see coming. 

Del Rio found himself the center of controversy after he called out the media for focusing on the Jan. 6 riot but ignoring the damage caused in protests in cities like Portland and Seattle. The team quickly forced Del Rio to retract his words, and the head coach issued a statement refuting his claim. 

Del Rio is now in football purgatory after drawing a flag for exercising free speech. 

Before last week, Del Rio was laboring under the naive assumption that he could express his own views in public. After all, his players can kneel in protest during games, and football helmets and end zones now bear statements on social justice.

Del Rio’s statement indicated he believes there is a double standard regarding violent protests by the right or the left: “A simple question. Why are we not looking into (the protests), if we’re going to talk about (the Capitol attack)? Why are we not looking into those things? People’s livelihoods are being destroyed, businesses are being burned down, no problem. And then we have a dust-up at the Capitol, nothing burned down, and we’re going to make that a major deal. I just think it’s kind of two standards.” 

Del Rio had barely uttered those words when, as if to prove his point about an official truth regarding Jan. 6, a flash mob formed on social media to seek his destruction.

The NAACP called for Del Rio’s firing for calling “an insurrection — an attempted coup …  a ‘dust-up.’” Virginia Senate Majority Leader Richard L. Saslaw (D-Fairfax) cited the comment as one reason why the state shelved a proposal for a new stadium for the team. 

Commanders head coach Ron Rivera quickly imposed a $100,000 fine on Del Rio, who profusely apologized and deleted his own Twitter account. 

It is not clear if Rivera actually has the authority to hand out massive fines to a subordinate. A typical contract simply says that coaches are expected to act in a way “both publicly and privately, which promotes the best interests of the Club, the NFL and professional football, in general.” Rivera effectively declared that Del Rio expressing a dissenting view of Jan. 6 was not in the team’s best interests. 

However, Rivera knows Del Rio is not going to complain or litigate if he wants to continue in the NFL. He will dutifully mutter the official insurrection line like some punch-drunk lineman trying to remember a Fire Zone blitz. 

What is most concerning is that the Commanders objected not to Del Rio commenting on a public controversy, or doing so at a press conference, but to offering the wrong opinion. In his statement, Rivera focused solely on Del Rio not supporting the narrative that Jan. 6 was an attempted coup by conservatives. 

Rivera acknowledged that Del Rio “does have the right to voice his opinion as a citizen of the United States.” However, he said that “I want to make it clear that our organization will not tolerate any equivalency between those who demanded justice in the wake of George Floyd’s murder and the actions of those on January 6 who sought to topple our government.” 

If Del Rio had called the riot an insurrection, he might have been celebrated, not fined. That seems obvious from Rivera’s own declaration that “what happened on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, was an act of domestic terrorism.” 

Rivera is not alone in that characterization. FBI Director Christopher Wray declared the riot to be domestic terrorism, a legal position I criticized last week in testimony before a Senate Judiciary hearing.  

There are ample reasons to object to Rivera’s characterization, including how such a designation could undermine free speech and associational rights. Of the more than 800 people arrested after Jan. 6, most have been charged with the relatively minor offenses of trespass or unlawful entry. Fewer than ten have been charged with seditious conspiracy — an offense that includes not just the effort to overthrow a government but the use of force to hinder or delay any legal proceeding or even to “possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority.” Indeed, some in the media have chided the Justice Department for “pulling back” on such characterizations in court. 

The coverage of Del Rio reaffirmed that there is an official truth on Jan. 6. The Associated Press effectively declared Del Rio to be a Jan. 6 denier by describing his statement as “downplaying the deadly insurrection.” It did not entertain the possibility that the violence was not an effort to overthrow the nation but, instead, a riot. Despite the unrelenting media narrative, many citizens share that view and do not consider the violence as an insurrection; one poll showed that 76 percent believe this was a protest that went too far.

This controversy arises at an interesting time. The same week that Del Rio was being threatened with termination for expressing his political views, the Biden administration was in court unsuccessfully fighting for the right of workers to be able to express political views at work. Despite support by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a court ruled against Home Depot workers who claimed a right to wear Black Lives Matter symbols at work. A similar case was brought against Whole Foods workers. 

As I have previously written, workers do not have a legal right to protest or display political symbols in the workplace. Yet, the NLRB maintains that workers have the right “to speak up about these important issues.” So, how about a defensive coach who wants to express his views about Jan. 6?

In the end, the team is a private company that is not subject to First Amendment limitations. Nevertheless, the NFL should not be in the business of fining employees because they take the wrong side of a public controversy. 

Del Rio now faces the ultimate “bull rush” where the media, politicians, and companies line up to overwhelm anyone with a dissenting view on Jan. 6. There is a narrow range of permitted characterizations, running from an “insurrection” to “domestic terrorism” to a “coup.” If you want to play football, apparently, you will stick with those three approved options. In the NFL, free speech seems to be the right to express only views that a team will tolerate.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

Source: TEST FEED1

Three-quarters in new survey say US headed in the wrong direction

Roughly three-fourths of Americans are saying in a new poll released on Wednesday that things in the United States are going in the wrong direction, a sentiment that is supported by majorities in both parties.

A new Politico-Morning Consult poll found that 74 percent of respondents believe that things in the U.S. have gotten off on the wrong track compared to 26 percent who say things are headed in the right direction in the country.

Broken down by party, 52 percent of Democrats, 80 percent of independents and 94 percent of Republicans polled voiced a bleak outlook. 

Nearly identical percentages of respondents between the age brackets of 18-34 years old (75 percent), 35-44 years old (75 percent) and 45-64 years old (76 percent) said the things in the country were headed in the wrong direction. The poll found that 72 percent of those aged 65 years and older felt similarly.

Broken down by gender, the results fare similarly – 72 percent of men and 76 percent of women say the U.S. is headed the wrong way.

While a majority of respondents gave the president’s job approval rating a thumb’s down – 56 percent – respondents were almost split over which candidate they would vote for if the election for Congress in their district was held today. Forty-four percent said the Democratic candidate while 42 percent said the Republican candidate.

The poll demonstrates that Americans are largely upset over the state of the country, and the majority are dissatisfied with the president’s job currently. But it seems less clear how those sentiments will impact their votes when it comes to the midterms.

Working against the president and Democrats’ favor is high inflation, supply chain issues and the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, among other issues.

The Politico-Morning Consult poll was conducted between June 10 and June 12 with 2,005 registered voters surveyed. The margin of error is plus or minus 2 percentage points. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden approval rating drops for third straight week in Reuters-Ipsos

President Biden’s approval rating has dropped for its third straight week, according to a new Reuters-Ipsos poll.

The poll, which was completed on Tuesday, showed Biden’s approval rating at 39 percent, with 56 percent of Americans disapproving of his job performance. A three-week decline for Biden’s approval rating marks a tough month for the president with the cost of gas and goods surging for Americans.

Biden’s approval rating hit 39 percent last week in a Morning Consult poll, which was an all-time low at the time in that survey.

Among Democrats, 74 percent approved of Biden’s performance this week, down from 85 percent in August, according to the Reuters-Ipsos poll, which is dismal news for Democrats ahead of the midterm elections this fall. Among Republicans, 11 percent approve of Biden’s performance, which has been consistent since August.

The president is heading into the midterms contending with soaring inflation, as well as Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, multiple recent mass shootings and a pending Supreme Court decision likely overturning Roe v. Wade.

Biden has stressed that he is focused on lowering inflation. To deal with gas prices, Biden has ordered the release of millions of barrels of oil from the U.S. strategic reserve.

The latest Reuters-Ipsos poll was conducted on June 13 and 14 and among a total of 1,005 respondents. The margin of error in the poll was 4 percentage points.

Source: TEST FEED1

EPA lowers safety level for ‘forever chemicals,’ weighs regulating them in groups

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing four new safety levels for types of “forever chemicals” and is considering regulating these compounds in groups instead of individually. 

“Forever chemicals,” a nickname for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), are a class of toxic chemicals that have been linked to illnesses including testicular and kidney cancers and thyroid disease. 

A Biden administration official told reporters on Tuesday night that the agency was lowering its health advisory — meant to inform the public about how much is considered safe to drink —  for the two most notorious types of PFAS, known as PFOA and PFOS to “near zero” in new interim advisories.

It is also setting new final drinking water advisories for two other types of PFAS, called GenX and PFBS. Previously, it did not have advisories for these substances.

But, these health notices aren’t regulations and don’t set enforceable limits on the substances. There is not currently a federal drinking water limit for PFAS, but the EPA is expected to propose the first-ever regulations this year. 

The agency has previously announced that it planned to set drinking water limits for PFOA and PFOS, but an official told reporters on Tuesday that the administration was also considering regulating them in bigger groups. 

As the EPA weighs its anticipated regulation, it is also looking at its options for setting limits on more types of PFAS in groups, the person said, noting that GenX and PFBS could be part of these groups. 

Health advocates have called for regulating more than just the two types of PFAS instead saying they should be regulated as a class of chemicals. This is because, in the past, industry has swapped out one type of PFAS for another. The chemicals also often occur together in mixtures instead of one single type appearing by itself. 

The advisories issued on Wednesday are expected to inform the agency’s future regulation. 

“People on the front-lines of PFAS contamination have suffered for far too long. That’s why EPA

is taking aggressive action as part of a whole-of-government approach to prevent these

chemicals from entering the environment and to help protect concerned families from this

pervasive challenge,”  EPA Administrator Michael Regan said in a statement on the new advisory levels. 

The moves come as part of a broader strategy by the administration aimed at addressing PFAS, as it previously released a “strategic roadmap” for tackling the toxic chemicals. 

PFAS have leached into waterways over the years after they were discharged by industry and the military.

They have also been found in a variety of household products including non-stick pans, rain coats and other water-resistant clothing, cosmetics and more. 

They are sometimes called “forever chemicals” because they linger and build up over the  years in human bodies and the environment instead of breaking down. 

Previously, the EPA had set its health advisory for PFOA and PFOS at 70 parts per trillion, but the new limits are much lower, at 0.004 parts per trillion for PFOA and 0.02 parts per trillion for PFOS. 

Meanwhile, the new advisory levels  for GenX and PFBS are10 parts per trillion and 2,000 parts per trillion respectively. 

These values describe the levels at which it is safe for a person to drink these substances in the water over the course of their lifetime. 

They come after the EPA last year found PFOA and PFOS to be much more toxic than previously believed in draft assessments. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Crowley, DesJarlais find common ground: Their sons' Naval Academy graduation

A GOP congressman and a former member of House Democratic leadership are bonding as dads of Naval Academy grads. 

Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.) and former Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) both looked on last month as their sons graduated from the Annapolis, Md., military school. 

Crowley’s 22-year-old son, Cullen, the eldest of his three children, first dreamed of entering the Naval Academy since going to a Navy football game when he was 12. But Cullen’s start at the school came on one of the toughest days of his father’s political career. 

“The night that he actually had to go into the Naval Academy for the first time was the same night I lost my primary,” Crowley recalled of the moment in 2018, when he suffered a shocking loss to then-political newcomer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 

While his son was upset at the news, Crowley told ITK, “As he was walking into the academy and they were shutting the doors behind him, before he did go in, he gave me a wink.” 

“Four years later, he’s now a second lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps after graduating,” Crowley said. 

DesJarlais said that his 24-year-old son Ryan had also envisioned a future in the military for himself since he was a youngster. 

“He’s always been very much an outdoorsman. From a young age, he loved to fish and hunt. He seemed to take an interest in the military in high school, and four years of ROTC, and became an Eagle Scout. He was just excited about the opportunity to serve.” 

Rep. Chuck Fleishmann (R-Tenn.), who nominated Ryan DesJarlais for the academy, told ITK in a statement that his colleague’s son is “an exemplary young man” who embodies “the best of American patriotism.” 

Although they were on opposite ends of the political spectrum, DesJarlais and Crowley remember experiencing their sons’ first days at the school side by side. 

“We sat next to each other. I really had very little contact with him prior to that, and we were there when both of our boys were inducted that day into the into the academy,” Crowley recalled. 

“We shook hands and had a little bit of, ‘What’s the world going to look like? Where are we heading?’” Crowley remembered with a laugh. 

Crowley said he had no interaction with his Republican peer when the two were serving in Congress, but having their sons take a similar path developed a “little connection.” 

DesJarlais called Crowley a “good guy,” saying the induction and graduation ceremonies offered the unlikely pair a chance to catch up. 

“I enjoyed the time I got to spend with him,” DesJarlais said. 

“The political divide is probably as bad as I’ve seen it in my 12 years,” DesJarlais said, “but as a member of House Armed Services Committee, we do tend to come together when it comes to military issues and certainly as our sons prepare to potentially prepare to fight future wars for our country would be a bonding factor.” 

As Cullen Crowley and Ryan DesJarlais graduated in a May ceremony, both their dads got a shout-out from President Biden, who delivered remarks and recognized the two as “proud parents of commissioning midshipmen.” 

While female lawmakers are often asked about balancing motherhood and their jobs in Congress, both DesJarlais and Crowley said it can be a struggle for dads as well. 

“The most difficult part of the job for me is always leaving Tennessee and going to Washington and being apart from family,” DesJarlais said. He credited his wife, Amy, for taking on “a lot of the parental duties” in his absence.  

“Obviously you do miss out on things that you would like to be participating in,” added DesJarlais, who also has a daughter, Maggie, who’s entering 10th grade, and a stepson, Tyler. 

Crowley said he decided early into his political career to move his family, including his wife and other two children, Kenzie and Liam, down to the nation’s capital so he’d be able to spend more time with them. 

“It did become a bit of a political liability at some point, but I don’t think I would’ve changed a thing because my kids have all grown up to be fine young men, and my daughter is a beautiful young woman,” Crowley said. 

DesJarlais, 58, said his Father’s Day plans this Sunday will likely include a cookout, while Crowley expressed happiness that his whole family will be around for the dad-centric holiday. 

Their sons will soon continue down similar roads: both are heading to Quantico, Va., in the coming months for Marine Corps officer training. 

Crowley said the Naval Academy graduation alongside DesJarlais was a unifying experience in multiple ways. “It’s reflective of the country: We all come from different walks of life, and races, ethnicities, genders, and you see them out there in that sea of white when they’re graduating and throwing their hats up in the air.” 

“I think it is a reaffirmation of the greatness of our country,” Crowley, 60, said, “that despite political differences that we come together in the service of our country. And whether it’s in Congress, or in the military, or in other lines of work, it takes all of us to keep this country on the right track and move forward.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Will Biden reset the bipartisan partnership between Washington and Jerusalem?

The White House announced yesterday that President Biden will travel to Israel, the West Bank and Saudi Arabia from July 13-16 to “reinforce the United States’ ironclad commitment to Israel’s security and prosperity…”

That’s important, and connects to a largely unnoticed reset of the bipartisan partnership between Washington and Jerusalem. Biden has led the effort in the U.S. In Israel, the driving force has been Foreign Minister Yair Lapid, supported by his coalition of government partners.

When Lapid became foreign minister, a year ago this week, I wondered whether he could revitalize Israel’s bipartisan standing in America. That dynamic, long considered essential to Israel, unraveled at various points under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The low point was Netanyahu’s decision to accept an invitation to address Congress in 2015 without notifying the Obama White House, an unparalleled snub to a sitting president.

Suddenly, the profound and fundamental bonds between both political parties and Israel were hijacked and reduced to silliness. I remember lists being circulated on social media of members of Congress who were planning to attend the speech and those who would not. Voting to fund Israel’s vital defense needs took a back seat to whether you took a seat on the House floor when Netanyahu spoke.

Many Republicans saw it as an opportunity to drive a wedge in American Jewish support for Democrats. (The strategy was uninformed. Poll after poll confirms that a sizable majority of American Jews aren’t single-issue voters. They support Democratic candidates for their views on women’s choice, education, economic priorities and, to a lesser extent, Israel.)

It all came to a head in May 2021, when the Netanyahu government imploded and Lapid was entrusted to form a new government. For five days and four nights, he negotiated with each of eight political movements. (There’s an old joke that with two Israelis, you get four opinions. Imagine the fun of navigating eight Israeli political parties.) 

Later, Lapid recalled the sense that “Israel was on a path of self-destruction,” that political pressures had put it in “a tailspin it can’t get out of.” He asked each party whether they had the capacity to “work with people who think differently from you[.]” Then he formed a coalition government which, to this point, has been more stable than many predicted. (We’re talking about a coalition government in Israel, so check back soon.)

Lapid immediately focused on both bipartisan and bilateral relationships. In his remarks upon taking office as foreign minister, he stated bluntly: “The management of the relationship with the Democratic Party in the United States was careless and dangerous. I’ve warned against it more than once, but the outgoing government took a terrible gamble, reckless and dangerous, to focus exclusively on the Republican Party and abandon Israel’s bipartisan standing. The Republicans are important to us, their friendship is important to us, but not only the friendship of the Republican Party.”

He met with Vice President Kamala Harris, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and multiple congressional delegations. He forged relationships with key congressional progressives. He worked on a bipartisan basis with Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Republicans to build a bipartisan majority in favor of funding the Iron Dome missile defense system.

Only the cheapest partisans would view this as a negative, and if they do, they’re certainly no friends of Israel. Israel is stronger, safer and more secure when both parties support it with equal vigor. Those who use it as a partisan prop to score short-term points commit a grave and dangerous disservice to its long-term stability. It is a liberal democracy in a dangerous region, not a political football to be kicked around on the playing fields of partisanship.

Beyond resetting the importance of bipartisan support for Israel, Lapid has set an important tone in his domestic politics. In a speech last February in Israel, attended by U.S. Ambassador to Israel Tom Nides, he remarked: “On all the main issues that concern the state, in all the main differences facing the government, the real division isn’t between the right and left, but between a Zionist, democratic and liberal center, and dangerous violent extremes.” He went on: “The question that preoccupied me when we established this government was why do politicians not behave like the country? Why is it that on all main issues, Israelis agree more than ever, but the political divide is more serious than ever?”

It’s a good question. In Jerusalem, and in Washington as well.

Steve Israel represented New York in the U.S. House of Representatives over eight terms and was chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee from 2011 to 2015. He is now director of the Cornell Jeb E. Brooks School of Public Policy Institute of Politics and Global Affairs. Follow him on Twitter @RepSteveIsrael. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Bannon rips Barr over Jan. 6 testimony

Conservative podcast host and former adviser to President Trump, Steve Bannon, this week blasted former Attorney General Bill Barr for testifying against Trump during the Jan. 6 hearings, calling the former Trump official an “establishment scumbag” and a “liar.”

During a Monday episode of his podcast show “Bannons War Room,” the host accused Barr of spinning the truth in his testimony and working to “directly destroy the Trump movement.”

“We take this very seriously because thirteen or fourteen generations of this country have sacrificed to hand us the Republican we have, and we’re not going to be blown off by someone like Bill Barr,” Bannon said. “Bill Barr, we’re coming for you, bro.”

The House select committee’s explosive hearings on what led to the riots at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, saw a number of Trump’s inner circle — including campaign staff and his daughter, Ivanka Trump — testify they did not see fraud in the 2020 election.

Barr testified in video depositions on Monday that he was worried Trump had become “detached from reality” with his obsession with voter fraud in the 2020 election.

“My opinion then and my opinion now is that the election was not stolen by fraud. And I haven’t seen any since the election that changes my mind on that,” Barr said. 

Bannon, who previously served under Trump as the White House chief strategist, called out Barr for announcing after the 2020 election that his Department of Justice (DOJ) did not find any widespread voter fraud. The podcast host said he has still not seen the DOJ report on the topic.

The podcast host also threatened Barr with litigation after they “deconstruct” his counter-claims against widespread voter fraud.

“Bill Barr, you’ll go down in infamy,” Bannon said. “We’re going to deconstruct this, we’re going to rub your nose in it and then we’re going to come after you legally. We’re not just going to sit here anymore.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Virginia Democrat introduces bill to impose 1,000-percent tax on assault-style weapons

Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) introduced legislation on Tuesday that would impose a 1,000-percent excise tax on assault-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines in the wake of several high-profile mass shootings in the last month.

Under the bill, a 1,000 percent tax would be applied to the sale of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices, defined in the legislative text as “a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, including any such device joined or coupled with another in any manner, that has an overall capacity of, or that can be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.”

The legislation would not apply to firearms bought by a local, state or federal government, meaning that law enforcement agencies or the military would not be affected.

A statement from the Virginia Democrat’s office on Tuesday indicated that the legislation is meant to be passed through budget reconciliation, which would bypass the need to get 10 Senate Republicans to sign onto the measure.

While the legislation is not an outright ban of those firearms, it would disincentivize people from purchasing them. 

“I have voted in the past for commonsense gun safety reforms only to see them run aground on Senate Republicans’ filibuster; my bill presents a pathway to bypass that obstruction and enact lifesaving measures,” Beyer said in a statement. 

“If the Senate is able to agree on the legislative package currently under discussion, which would be a very positive development, my bill would give the Senate an option for further action to address the epidemic of gun violence,” he continued. 

Beyer’s legislation, which his office told The Hill earlier this month was in the works, comes after a spate of mass shootings in Buffalo, N.Y., Uvalde, Texas and Tulsa, Okla.

Close to two dozen senators announced on Sunday they had “a commonsense proposal” following negotiations between a small group of Democrats and Republicans. Among some of the biggest features of their proposal include closing the so-called “boyfriend loophole” and bolstering criminal background check requirements for people buying firearms under the age of 21.

The boyfriend loophole refers to the fact that certain convicted domestic abusers – those convicted in cases against people who either lived with the victim, had a child with them or married them – are blocked from purchasing a firearm under federal law, The Washington Post noted. But it omits dating partners.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on Tuesday he would likely back the legislation, a much-needed boost for the legislation’s survival. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Abortions in the US increased in 2020, reversing an over 30-year decline

For the first time in more than 30 years, the number of abortions performed in the U.S. is rising – as new data shows there was an 8 percent increase in 2020. The news comes as the country awaits a pivotal Supreme Court decision that could reverse the constitutional right to have an abortion.  

The Guttmacher Institute, an abortion advocacy group, published new data Wednesday that showed there were 930,160 abortions in the US in 2020—a 1 percent increase from 2019 and an 8 percent increase from 2017.  

That equates to about one in five pregnancies ending in abortion in 2020.  

At the same time between 2017 and 2020, the U.S. experienced a 6 percent decline in births — with 3.6 million births and about 930,00 abortions — which hints at a larger pattern of fewer people getting pregnant and, among those who did, a larger proportion choosing to have an abortion. 

Before this, the abortion rate in the U.S. was declining along a steady decades-long trend. For instance, the abortion rate fell by 20 percent between 2011 and 2017. The Guttmacher Institute attributed the decline in abortions to several possible explanations, including changes around abortion attitudes and stigma, contraceptive use, sexual activity, infertility and self-managed abortion.  

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news. 

The institute also found the rate of abortions varied around the country, with the Southeastern U.S taking the lead with just under 300,000 abortions being done in a slew of states. Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas logged some of the highest number of abortions in that region of the country. 

Other notable increases were in New York, where abortion incidence grew by 5 percent between 2017 and 2020 but declined 6 percent between 2019 and 2020. That could be attributed to at least 10 percent of clinics in the state reporting that they had paused or stopped providing abortion care in 2020 due to COVID-19. 

Illinois experienced a 25 percent increase in abortions between 2017 and 2020. The institute attributed this to not only more Illinois residents seeking an abortion but clinics also receiving out-of-state patients, including from Missouri– which experienced a 96 percent decrease in abortions during the same time period. 

The institute found that in 2017, some 97 percent of Missouri counties had no clinics that provided abortions and 78 percent of Missouri women lived in such counties. 

Notably, in January 2018 Illinois allowed the use of state Medicaid funds to pay for abortion care. The state also saw 15 additional abortion clinics open between 2017 and 2020. 

Rachel Jones, principal research scientist at Guttmacher, told Changing America that for the first time since 2005 she’s seeing an increase in abortion figures and, “it’s just recognizing an increase in abortion can be a positive thing, if It means more people are getting the access to care that they need.” 

Treating abortion as standard health care for women is something medical experts have consistently pushed for, as women denied an abortion are more likely to experience serious complications from the end of pregnancy, like eclampsia and death.  

The National Bureau of Economic Research also found that women denied an abortion experienced an increase in household poverty lasting at least four years relative to those who did receive one. They also ended up with lower unemployment and leaned more heavily on public assistance programs. 

The future of abortion access is currently under the national spotlight as the nation awaits a pivotal Supreme Court decision that’s likely to overturn the 1973 ruling on Roe v. Wade, which affirmed abortion access as a constitutional right. A leaked Supreme Court draft opinion in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case indicated justices are poised to overturn abortion rights. 

Preparations are underway for the decision, with 26 states likely to ban abortion following the court’s official ruling and another 13 with trigger laws already in place, designed to take effect automatically or by quick state action if Roe no longer applies.  

Activists, educators and health experts across the country have warned how a world without Roe will be catastrophic for women’s health.  

Lauren Ralph, an epidemiologist at the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at the University of California San Francisco, told Changing America that if some variation of the court’s leaked opinion becomes the court’s official decision, “I do anticipate a rise in maternal deaths as a result, and I think that is something that we, as a public health community, have to prepare for.” 

On the flip side, some parts of the country are reaffirming their commitment to abortion access, with New York passing a series of laws this week that includes protecting the confidentiality of providers and patients from out-of-state inquiries. 

The city of Austin, Texas—a state where abortion is currently legal only up to about six weeks of pregnancy—proposed a resolution that would decriminalize abortion if Roe were struck down. 

Though those efforts may sound positive, for those low-income families that want an abortion but can’t get one in their home state, traveling out of state may not be possible, as Jones explained.  

“These are people who have struggled to get abortions in the state where they live, coming up with the hundreds of dollars that it takes to pay for the procedure,” Jones said. “If you add travel and childcare and all the other factors on top of that, it’s just going to make it inaccessible.”  

Source: TEST FEED1