Tag Archives : Build House

White House seeks to build momentum from Kansas abortion vote

The White House is seeking to build momentum from a Kansas ballot measure on abortion where a surprisingly large majority voted to protect abortion rights. 

The vote has energized supporters of abortion rights, who see the decisive outcome in a red state as a sign the majority of voters oppose the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision. 

President Biden issued his second executive order on abortion the day after the vote, while Vice President Harris met with reproductive rights advocates. The two also touted the Kansas news at fundraisers directly following the vote, which they are eying as a potential game changer in terms of how voters are feeling ahead of November.

“It’s smart for Democrats and the White House to lean in on the threat and urgency of abortion bans across the country, do everything they can to stop bans and expand access to abortion, and start communicating that directly to voters,” said Xochitl Hinojosa, former communications director at the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Nearly 60 percent of voters in Kansas on Tuesday rejected a state constitutional amendment that would have given the state legislature more power to regulate access to abortion. That marked the first time Americans were asked to weigh in on abortion rights after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Biden’s executive order signed on Wednesday directs the Department of Health and Human Services to consider working with states to use Medicaid waivers to pay expenses for women who cross state lines to receive abortions.

“Something happened and it’s worth exploring and it’s got a lot of potential. It definitely put the wind in people sails on the Democratic side,” said Ivan Zapien, a lobbyist and former DNC official. “I’m assuming that every Democratic candidate is waking up every morning at this point, reminding people that this November, a woman’s right to choose is on the ballot and that they’re on the right side of that.”

Harris, during a meeting with state legislators and local leaders on reproductive rights in Boston on Thursday, applauded the organizers in Kansas for their work to sink the ballot measure. After her meeting, she went to a DNC finance event in Martha’s Vineyard, Mass., to fundraise.

“Because they organized, and they spoke volumes, they said we trust the women to make decisions about their lives, and they said this is not a partisan issue,” Harris said. “The vote that occurred in Kansas also made clear what we all know: The majority of Americans agree with this principle.”

Her trip is one of several recent visits to states to meet with local leaders and reproductive rights advocates. Harris also convened Latina legislators at the White House on Friday to discuss protecting reproductive rights in their states. She opened the meeting by saying that “the people of Kansas made clear to support and trust women to make decisions about their own body.”

The White House has been looking ahead to November, calling on voters to elect pro-choice candidates who would codify Roe. They are now arguing that Kansas showed the messaging worked.

“Kansans turned out to challenge views that would move the country backward — with fewer rights and politicians invading our most personal decisions — and they won. In the wake of Dobbs, the president predicted people would turn out in record numbers to reclaim rights stolen from them. And they did,” Alexandra LaManna, White House assistant press secretary, told The Hill.

Sawyer Hackett, a senior communications strategist for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, stressed that it would be a mistake for Democrats not to emphasize ahead of November that the vote in Kansas may have marked a political shift.

“I think the politics of this issue has shifted dramatically in such a way that it’s just not only an issue that motivates Democrats … but it’s also an issue that motivates independents,” he said. “I would be a huge mistake for the Democratic party, for President Biden, not to be hitting this issue every single day on the campaign trail.”

Hinojosa argued that Democrats have to message on other successes, but abortion should be at the forefront.

“This won’t stop Democrats from messaging on a strong economy and all their accomplishments, but they can and must do both,” said Hinojosa, now a managing director at Bully Pulpit Interactive.

Biden had some big political wins this week on top of the vote in Kansas.

The president announced a drone strike that killed al Qaeda’s leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, Congress passed a measure to fund research for veterans impacted by toxic substances, and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) struck a deal with Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) to back a sweeping climate and tax bill.

A strong July jobs report capped off the week, defying predictions of a slowdown. It showed that the U.S. added 528,000 jobs and the unemployment rate fell to 3.5 percent.

Biden’s recent wins come as he has faced tough approval ratings amid high inflation and fears that the U.S. economy is heading for a recession. The White House’s initial response to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade was also criticized for being flat-footed, and progressives have argued the messaging was too slow or ineffective.

Biden announced his first executive actions to protect access to abortion medication two weeks after the Supreme Court ruling.

“A lot of Democrats were frustrated by the White House response to both the leaked opinion and then the announcement of the opinion. Both in message and in strategy, it felt like they were caught flat-footed. Now it seems like they’ve picked up the pace,” said Hackett.

He said he’d like to see Biden and Democrats travel to red states where Republicans are targeting abortion rights.

“I’d like to see them keep this on voters’ minds going into the November,” he added. “It seems like they’re taking the hint, so that’s good news.”

Zapien argued that in the aftermath of the Kansas vote, Democrats will be full steam ahead on keeping abortion access top of minds for voters.

“Right after the decision, I think everybody was in a wait and see sort of mode,” he said. “But I think after Kansas, everybody woke up and said, like, ‘we have evidence. Let’s go for it.’”

Source: TEST FEED1

‘An attack on one is an attack on all’: Time for a red-state NATO-like alliance on boycotts

“An attack on one is an attack on all.” That reference to Article 5 of the NATO treaty is a virtual mantra in Washington these days as “the bedrock of peace and security in Europe for over half a century.” But the benefits of such deterrence should not be lost on another group under increasing threat for their political alliances: America’s red states.

From California to Illinois, legislators are moving to boycott any state contracts with businesses in states with anti-LGBTQ legislation or restrictive abortion laws. At the same time, many Democratic leaders are pressuring companies to boycott red states too.

This past week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) called upon Hollywood production companies to stop filming in states such as Georgia or Oklahoma with strict anti-abortion laws. In Georgia, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams has warned that companies will cut off ties with such states, including her own, if they do not change their laws. (Abrams previously was criticized by conservatives for fueling the boycott of her own state which led to the withdrawal of the All-Star Game from Atlanta over election reform laws.)

Such campaigns have succeeded, particularly with private companies. Indeed, in both restricting speech and boycotting states, the left has found greater success with private companies than with voters in pushing their agenda. The New York Times warned pro-life states that they risk their “competitive edge” in the market if they do not change their laws to conform with blue-state views.

The boycott threats have been growing since 2016, when North Carolina was targeted for passing a bill limiting bathroom access by biological gender.

The point of these campaigns is to pressure state officials to ignore the will of a majority of their citizens and pass laws to appeal to corporations and other states in a competitive market. Such boycotts by private citizens or groups are an important form of political speech; various state laws barring state contracts with those who support boycotts of Israel, for example, have been struck down as unconstitutional, although an appellate court recently upheld an Arkansas law.

However, states or companies engaging in such boycotts is a different matter. Many consumers do not want companies like Disney to engage in political debates over issues like transgender rights. One poll showed 67 percent opposed corporate opposition to an “anti-grooming” law, a view that appears to be impacting Disney. Consumers can vote with their pocketbooks in the “go woke, go broke” movement.

For Democratic leaders like California Attorney General Rob Bonta, official boycotts on travel are simply a case of states acting like consumers and “aligning our dollars with our values.” However, it is more than that. It is speaking as a state to isolate and punish states with opposing views on abortion, transgender rights, gun rights and other policies. In a system based on federalism principles, we embraced the model of allowing each state to reach its own conclusions on divisive questions. The result can be consensus around moderate positions that escape both parties, which often are driven by the extremes on issues like abortion.

Take this week’s vote in Kansas, which surprised many by overwhelmingly supporting the preservation of abortion rights. Although many Democrats demand unrestricted abortion rights and many Republicans demand total bans, a Harvard-Harris poll shows 72 percent of Americans would allow abortion only until the 15th week of pregnancy or a more restrictive limit. When states try to coerce other states to yield to their demands on such issues, they hinder state experimentation and expression.

The result is increasingly bizarre. California college sports teams are barred from spending money to travel to any state on the liberal “naughty list” — a problem when you are USC and UCLA and just moved from the Pac 12 to the Big Ten. They now face raising private funds to be able to play in blacklisted states.

There is a way to end this madness. It is an Article 5-like alliance.

While this would ideally be an agreement by all states, red states should pass legislation barring state business or travel with any state that engages in boycotts. The key would be that the agreement must stand on principle, allow no exceptions, and trigger immediate reciprocity: A travel ban on, say, Nebraska would result in a reciprocal ban not just from Nebraska but from every state in the alliance.

In this way, when a state like California targets a state like Utah, it will shoot itself with roughly half of the country. Eventually the administrative and competitive costs of such measures would become prohibitive.

California’s enormous economy has given leaders like Gov. Newsom a sense of impunity in targeting other states. There are now 17 states on California’s banned list under a 2016 law that automatically adds states which discriminate against or remove protections for people on the basis of sex, gender identity or sexual orientation. Imagine if those 17 states had automatic reciprocity laws — add any one of us to a boycott list, and you will be boycotted back by all.

Newsom is running ads in Florida and Texas, telling their residents that “freedom is under attack in your state” — based on a majority of voters there reaching opposing conclusions on controversial issues — and urging Floridians and Texans to move to California. They appear to have two options in Newsom’s mind: Move to California or adopt its positions, so democracy will be safe from itself.

Evan Low, a California lawmaker who authored that state’s ban, put it simply: “The current culture war is not a game.” Indeed — which is why we should look to “the most successful military alliance in history” to end reckless incursions by neighboring states.

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

Source: TEST FEED1

Taiwanese official says China's behavior around her country is 'unprecedented'

A top Taiwanese official slammed China’s “unprecedented” behavior as dozens of planes this week entered the self-governing island’s air defense identification zone (ADIZ) following House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) trip to Taiwan.

“China’s behavior is unprecedented,” Taiwanese Representative to the U.S. Bi-khim Hsiao told CBS’s Margaret Brennan on “Face the Nation,” when she was asked if China’s actions were more than a drill. “And from the scope and, you know, the actions, it appears that they have been preparing for this for some time, way before Speaker Pelosi decided to visit Taiwan.”

The remarks are part of a longer interview set to air on Sunday, during which Brennan questioned the official about China’s recent military activity, sparking fears of a larger conflict in the region.

Forty-nine planes entered the Taiwan strait median line following Pelosi’s trip.

Pelosi’s visit to the island nation made her the highest-ranking U.S. official to set foot on the island in the last 25 years. The speaker made the trip as part of a larger congressional delegation tour to the East, despite concerns from the Biden administration and warnings from Beijing.

But Pelosi’s trip has been backed even by top Senate Republicans including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) who said that she “has every right to go” on the Senate floor this week.

Beijing has considered Taiwan part of its mainland while the self-governing island sees itself independent of China. 

The U.S. has previously operated under strategic ambiguity when it comes to Taiwan, meaning that it has defense ties and informal relations with Taiwan while considering Beijing as China’s government under the “One China” policy, according to The Associated Press.

However, tensions have ratcheted up recently, with both the speaker’s presence in the nation and President Biden’s pledge in May to help defend Taiwan should China attack — an apparent step away from strategic ambiguity.

The U.S. has also been critical of China stance on Russia’s war in Ukraine, and over human rights abuses for the Muslim minority in the country.

“You know, we have been living under the threat from China for decades and we cannot let their ongoing threats define our desire to make friends internationally.  If you have a kid being bullied at school, you don’t say ‘you don’t go to school,’” Hsiao told Brennan when asked if Taiwan was concerned over the U.S. official’s trip there.

“You try to find a way to deal with the bully. And that’s exactly what Taiwan is doing: working on making our society stronger and more resilient, fortifying our defenses.”

China sanctioned Pelosi on Friday following the Taiwan visit, calling it an “egregious provocation.”

Source: TEST FEED1

America could use a little jazz diplomacy

Sitting at the Newport Jazz Festival on a recent hot summer weekend, I was reminded of the power of music to bring us together in a spirit of peaceful coexistence —something that has eluded us for months if not years.

The estimated audience at the peak of this year’s sold-out event at Fort Adams State Park in Rhode Island was 11,000. Other than possible heatstroke, I saw nothing in the way of negative emotion in the large crowd. People sat on portable chairs, under tents or on blankets, swaying to the sounds of music by the likes of Norah Jones and Terence Blanchard.

Returning to polarized, partisan and politically paralyzed Washington, D.C., it occurred to me: America could use a bit more jazz these days.  

Against the backdrop of a new cold war with Russia and the war in Ukraine, one is tempted to imagine how we managed our image in the 1950s, when we were obsessed with the Soviet Union as an ideological foe. How did we make ourselves known and understood in a deeply divided world?

One tool we successfully employed when the world seemed overheated was music — specifically jazz.

A bit of history: Seeking to expand American cultural power in a new era, the U.S. government launched, in February 1942, nearly three months after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, a radio station initially known by the plural “Voices of America,” which became the singular “Voice of America” (VOA). It’s still operating today.

By the 1950s, at the height of anti-communism, America needed to up its messaging game. In 1955 the VOA conceived of a way to reach Europeans and, by extension, Russians, with American chords and sounds rather than just rhetoric to convey a sense of American innovation.

As Nicholas Cull writes, in “The Cold War and the United States Information Agency,” the VOA’s plans for 1955 included a “disk jockey program ostensibly aimed at Scandinavia but reaching the U.S.S.R, originally proposed by the U.S. Embassy in Moscow.” Cull recalls how listeners in Europe on the evening of Jan. 6, 1955, heard the exhilarating strains of Duke Ellington’s “Take the A-Train” signature tune, followed by the resonant, tobacco-deepened voice of host and jazz expert Willis Conover.”

Willis Conover and jazz enthusiasts like Rep. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. (D-N.Y.)  recognized that American jazz could be exported around the world with even greater resonance than political propaganda and would show a side of America that embodied freedom even as the image of a racially divided country took hold. Jazz could handle the discordant notes.

In 1956, Powell arranged for his close friend Dizzy Gillespie to make the State Department’s first goodwill jazz tour with an 18-piece band traveling all around southern Europe, the Middle East and south Asia. It drew widespread acclaim, applause and a headline in the New York Times that year, “United States Has Secret Sonic Weapon —Jazz.”

Jazz Diplomacy, as it came to be known, took off over succeeding decades. At a recent photographic exhibition at Meridian International Center, there are images of Dizzy Gillespie in 1956 charming a snake with his trumpet in Karachi, Pakistan; Louis Armstrong in ’61, surrounded by laughing children outside a hospital in Cairo; Benny Goodman in ’62, blowing his clarinet in Red Square; Duke Ellington in ’63, smoking a hookah at Ctesiphon in Iraq. Throughout the 1970s, talented artists such as Dave Brubeck and Miles Davis toured the world playing on America’s behalf.

In 1988 Conover said in “Jazz Forum,” “Jazz is the musical parallel to our American political system and social system. We agree in advance on the laws and customs we abide by, and having reached agreement, we are free to do whatever we wish within those constraints. It’s the same with jazz.”

Today there are still musical exchanges and jazz programs funded by the United States government, but they lack the luster and passion of earlier days. Congress continues to fund many of our nation’s educational and cultural exchanges, but the sums pale in comparison to what America spends on defense and foreign assistance.

At a time of social media, rampant disinformation and intense struggles between democracy and authoritarianism, we should revisit the role of public diplomacy and cultural affairs as a tool in our foreign policy toolkit. Truth be told, we could all use a bit more music in the world.

Tara D. Sonenshine is the Edward R. Murrow Professor of Practice in Public Diplomacy at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Source: TEST FEED1

Prosecutors argue parents of Oxford High School shooting suspect exposed him to 'toxic' conflict

Prosecutors alleged Thursday that the parents of the Oxford High School shooting suspect, Ethan Crumbley, exposed him to a toxic and chaotic home environment before he allegedly opened fire at the school.

The lawyers argued in court documents filed Thursday that Jennifer Crumbley and James Crumbley did very little to assist Ethan while he “was deteriorating before their eyes” and exposed him to “toxic conflict,” according to CNN.

Prosecutors are asking that evidence of this environment as well as allegations of an extramarital affair be considered in their trial, according to the outlet. However, the Cumbleys’ lawyers have argued that the evidence is “extraneous.”

“What the evidence will actually show is that these defendants exposed their son to years of chaotic, toxic conflict, which is a well-known risk factor for entering the pathway to violence,” the court documents say, the network noted.

“The investigation paints a clear picture of parents who were not just in constant conflict, or who just exposed their son to conflict, but who actively inserted him into their conflict…”

The Crumbleys were charged with involuntary manslaughter in connection with the Michigan shooting. They were charged after prosecutors alleged that they had bought a firearm for their son and ignored warning signs that he was going to become violent.

Their son allegedly shot and killed four students and injured others during a school shooting in November. 

An excerpt from the alleged shooter’s journal referenced in the filing showed that Ethan spoke about how his parents “hate each other” and how he had “zero help for my mental problems and it’s causing me to shoot up the f**king school,” CNN noted.

The court filing depicts a turbulent household where Ethan was often left to himself while his parents allegedly drank or fought, noting the Crumbleys were “routinely intoxicated.”

“Their son was deteriorating before their eyes; he went through stretches of sleeping only a few hours per night — staying up very late at night while defendants drank, argued and slept only a few feet away in a bedroom that shared a wall with the shooter’s room,” the filing alleges, according to CNN.

The court documents also allege that Ethan was often asked to get involved in the personal problems of his parents, including being asked to look into whether one partner was being faithful to to the other.

The Hill has reached out to one of the parents’ attorneys for comment. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Russia’s co-opting of US political groups is serious business

According to a federal indictment unsealed in Florida last week, Russian intelligence manipulated and co-opted multiple U.S. political groups as part of a “malign influence campaign” to “sow discord, spread pro-Russia propaganda, and interfere in elections in the United States.” As a former intelligence officer, I recognize the tactic, and it portends a potential increase in hostilities on which Moscow undoubtedly has doubled down because of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol and U.S. support for Ukraine. In contrast to bots and far-away hackers, this is on-the-ground covert action at work.

This tactic is nothing new for Russia’s security services: They have been using it since the czarist era and it is often referred to as “social engineering” or Zubatovschina, in reference to Sergie Zubatov, a czarist spy chief who, for a time, successfully employed this technique as part of the czar’s efforts to undermine groups that sought revolution. Zubatov’s agents clandestinely infiltrated revolutionary groups, manipulated their discourse, and used funding to direct their activities. Now, according to this federal indictment, Russia is doing that on U.S. soil with U.S. political groups. The consequences, if left unchecked, could be significant.

Russia has turned to these techniques in times of trouble. By the time Zubatov unleashed his covert action campaign, the czarist empire had been reeling from a number of significant security incidents: In 1878, the governor general of St. Petersburg was shot and the head of the secret police was assassinated. In 1880, a bomb was detonated against a wall in the Winter Palace where the czar regularly dined. And in 1881, Alexander II, the so-called Czar Liberator, was assassinated. After the czar’s assassination, his successor, Czar Alexander III, employed a number of aggressive techniques before turning to Zubatovschina in the early 20th century.

Russian leadership almost certainly views the present moment as a time of trouble. Its plans for victory in Ukraine have been foiled by an unexpected and fearsome resistance, and it has become an international pariah struggling under a growing sanctions regime. And imagine the conclusions that Vladimir Putin must have drawn from the intelligence report he undoubtedly received with his morning coffee on Jan. 7, 2021: The U.S. is more susceptible to manipulation and exploitation than thought.  

Zubatovschina did not save czarist Russia from revolution — and there is no reason it should diminish U.S. support for Ukraine. But it requires the U.S. national security apparatus to carefully consider the scope of hostilities now existing between Moscow and Washington, and bears an unfortunate resemblance to early Cold War hostilities.

George Kennan, the American diplomat who advocated for the policy of containment to limit Soviet expansion, warned that a more hostile Soviet Union required the United States to adapt. As Kennan explained in 1948, “The Kremlin’s conduct of political warfare has become the most refined and effective of any in history. We have been handicapped however by a popular attachment to the concept of a basic difference between peace and war … having been engaged by the full might of the Kremlin’s political warfare, we cannot afford to leave unmobilized our resources for covert political warfare.”

Lt. Gen. James Doolittle, who received the Medal of Honor for leading the daring Doolittle raid against Japan in World War II, agreed with Kennan and concluded that the United States must engage in more aggressive covert action techniques to survive. Doolittle recognized that many Americans would be repulsed by his suggestion, but he considered it essential and concluded that “[h]itherto acceptable norms of human conflict do not apply. If the United States is to survive, long-standing American concepts of ‘fair-play’ must be reconsidered. We must develop effective espionage and counterespionage services and must learn to subvert, sabotage and destroy our enemies by more clever, more sophisticated and more effective methods than those used against us. It may become necessary that the American people be made acquainted with, understand and support this fundamentally repugnant philosophy.” 

Cold War memories need not guide our every response, or induce us to act rashly, but they are instructive, and we would be naïve not to recognize the seriousness of Russian intelligence manipulating U.S. political groups with an on-the-ground covert action campaign inside the United States. Unfortunately, we all may need to reacquaint ourselves with Kennan’s and Doolittle’s fundamentally repugnant philosophy.  

Michael Richter is a former intelligence officer with the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and now is a lawyer in private practice. The views expressed here are his own. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Drug industry on verge of rare defeat

The powerful pharmaceutical industry is on the verge of a rare defeat in Congress, as Democrats say they have the votes to pass legislation targeting high drug costs.

After securing the support of Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) late Thursday, Senate Democrats appear poised to pass sweeping legislation that, among a host of climate and tax measures, would allow Medicare to negotiate the costs of some prescription drugs for the first time ever. 

Democrats have sought for decades to allow Medicare to directly negotiate with drug companies as a way to bring down costs, starting with President Clinton’s ambitious health reform plan in 1993.

While relatively modest, the negotiation provision still represents a major victory for drug pricing advocates, and could give Democrats a boost heading into the midterm elections. 

The idea is broadly supported by voters, but the industry has long fought off any efforts to impose what they see as price controls, even amid growing bipartisan anger over high drug costs. 

The legislation would allow negotiations for up to 10 of the highest cost drugs beginning in 2026, with more allowed in later years. It is expected to save the federal government more than $100 billion.

Another provision would cap out-of-pocket costs for Medicare’s prescription drug benefit at $2,000, saving seniors thousands of dollars. The legislation also aims to prevent companies from massive pricing hikes by imposing rebates on manufacturers that increase prices faster than inflation.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, half of all drugs covered by Medicare had price increases above the rate of inflation from 2019 to 2020.

If the legislation passes, “this is a sea change. It’s going to change the trajectory of drug prices and drug price policy in the country,” said David Mitchell, president and founder of the advocacy group Patients for Affordable Drugs. 

The legislation could pass the Senate as early as this weekend, assuming that the upper chamber’s parliamentarian says that the drug pricing provisions can be included under budget reconciliation rules, which allow Democrats to bypass the 60-vote legislative filibuster.

The prescription drug plan contains the most popular provisions in the reconciliation package, according to a recent Morning Consult-Politico poll. Roughly three out of four respondents expressed support for the drug pricing measures. 

But the pharmaceutical industry is on pace to break lobbying records in its effort to oppose the legislation. According to Open Secrets, the industry has spent $187 million in the first half of 2022 alone. 

The industry’s largest lobbying group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), sent a letter to every member of Congress on Thursday to urge them to vote against the legislation.

The letter largely reiterated the longstanding argument made by the industry group that the legislation would lead to government price controls and fewer cures available to Americans.  

“This bill will not provide relief for families struggling with inflation or help the average American patient afford their medicines. It will be remembered as a historic mistake that devastated patients desperate for new cures,” Stephen Ubl, president and chief executive officer of PhRMA, wrote in the letter, which was also signed by the group’s 31 board members. 

During a recent briefing, Ubl said the group is assessing its options, and indicated that even if the legislation passes, the industry won’t back down.

“We’re not going to take any option off the table. We’ll examine all legislative, regulatory, legal efforts to ensure patients continue to have access to medicines and our companies have the ability to develop them,” Ubl said. 

In recent years, Congress has tried to rein in drug prices without Medicare negotiation. In 2019, Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced a bipartisan drug pricing bill. 

Similar to the reconciliation provisions, it would have included a cap on seniors’ out-of-pocket drug costs in Medicare, and would have limited Medicare drug price increases to the rate of inflation. But the bill was never brought up for a vote.

Congress has also looked into stopping what lawmakers decry as anti-competitive industry practices, like raising prices in lockstep with competitors or manipulating patent laws to extend market exclusivity. 

But even modest legislation has been opposed by drug companies. 

Rachel Sachs, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, said she didn’t think there would be such a strong desire for regulation if drug companies hadn’t fought against every effort. 

Sachs said “industry’s own failure to rein in its worst impulses” is to blame. 

“We are now in a situation that’s not sustainable for patients or payers and it’s because of their own actions,” Sachs said.

Mitchell said if the legislation passes, it would pierce the pharmaceutical lobby’s veneer of invincibility.

“I do think that this struggle has been about power, and the drug companies have fought to keep their power to dictate prices,” Mitchell said. “The bite out of pharma from this legislation isn’t that big. It’s meaningful, but it’s not that big. But the idea that we are actually, actually curbing the power of that industry to dictate this to the American people is a very big deal.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Experts worry monkeypox disinformation will harm LGBTQ+ community

Three months since the first case of monkeypox was reported in the U.S., disinformation and harmful stereotypes targeting gay and bisexual men – who are most likely to become infected – continue to run rampant, causing some to worry that the spread of the disease will further stigmatize and isolate an already-marginalized group.

Upwards of 7,000 cases of monkeypox have been reported in the U.S. since May, afflicting mostly men who have sex with men.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), while monkeypox does spread through close or skin-to-skin contact, it is not a sexually transmitted disease. Even so, public figures – including elected officials and policymakers – have promulgated the idea that it is.

Last month, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) suggested that children who contract the disease have been assaulted by gay or bisexual men, asking her 1 million Twitter followers: “If Monkeypox is a sexually transmitted disease, why are kids getting it?”

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

“We know exactly what causes this Monkeypox,” Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) said Thursday during an appearance on BlazeTV’s “The News & Why it Matters.”

But people who speak openly about where monkeypox is coming from, Boebert said, run the risk of being called “bigots.”

The CDC and World Health Organization (WHO) have acknowledged that the disease is disproportionately affecting men who have sex with men, and last month called for gay and bisexual men to limit their number of sexual partners to reduce the spread.

But framing the disease as one that is spread exclusively by those in the LGBTQ+ community through sexual contact is likely to have serious consequences, said Jay Brown, senior vice president of programs, research and training at the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ+ rights group.

“It’s continuing to perpetuate stigma against the community,” he said. “It’s harming LGBTQ kids who see it, and that is unfortunate. Nobody benefits from that.”

Brown said he worries especially about the suggestion that children who contract monkeypox have had inappropriate contact with gay or bisexual men. The disease, according to the CDC, can also be spread through holding and cuddling, or through shared items like towels, bedding, cups or utensils.

“We have families,” Brown said. “We’re going to give our families hugs and we’re going to tuck our kids into bed at night. The use of scare tactics and misinformation against the community is really, really harmful.”

That kind of framing can also negatively impact non-LGBTQ+ people, he said, who may consider themselves at lower risk of contracting monkeypox. In truth, “anyone can get it,” Brown said, citing reporting from the CDC.

For many gay and bisexual men, the spread of monkeypox disinformation harkens back to the early years of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, when government messaging was inaccurate and inconsistent.

Venton Jones, a member of a CDC and Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) advisory committee on HIV, Viral Hepatitis, and STD prevention, told Changing America that “demonizing” gay men isn’t going to solve anything.

“We really have to get back to conversations that are rooted in science and facts and the real needs of our community,” Jones said. “It’s unfortunate when these issues are politicized in a way that brings harm to our communities.”

Jones said the use of harmful and stigmatizing rhetoric around monkeypox is likely to dissuade people from seeking treatment because they feel ashamed or are afraid of being judged by their peers. He stressed the need for health officials to prioritize education initiatives to combat the spread of disinformation.

“When we talk about monkeypox, we really have to acknowledge not only the need for education, but also acknowledge the harm that comes from perpetuating a fear-based narrative that is not rooted in how we make our communities healthy.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Warnock pushes for Medicaid expansion amid tough reelection battle

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) is making a last-ditch effort to add a provision expanding Medicaid in GOP-led holdout states to Democrats’ sweeping package headed for a vote in the coming days.  

Warnock is making the push as he faces a tough reelection race this November and seeks to highlight an issue that could give him a leg up in the race against Republican Herschel Walker, a former NFL player.

The Georgia senator says he plans to offer an amendment to Democrats’ massive health, climate and tax package, headed for a vote as soon as this weekend, to expand Medicaid in the 12 states that have still declined to do so, including Georgia.  

The effort faces long odds given that Democrats have already reached a deal on the package and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), a key vote, has raised concerns on the subject in the past.  

But even if the amendment does not pass, the fight for it could provide Democrats a political boost and highlight a contrast with Republicans.  

“It’s a winning issue,” said Charles Bullock, a political science professor at the University of Georgia, noting that polls show a majority of Georgians are in support of the policy.  

A University of Georgia poll last year found 64.5 percent of Georgians said the state should expand Medicaid, compared to 19.7 percent who opposed it and 15.8 percent who said they did not know.  

Bullock said the “challenge” for Democrats is to get voters to focus on popular issues like Medicaid expansion and not on economic headwinds or the price of gasoline.  

Walker’s position on Medicaid expansion is not clear, though most Republican lawmakers oppose the policy, which was created by the Affordable Care Act, a long-running source of GOP scorn. His campaign did not respond to a request for comment.  

There are roughly 2.2 million people falling through the cracks and unable to access health coverage through Medicaid, the government health insurance program for the poor, in the 12 GOP-led states that have declined to expand Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act. That number includes 269,000 people in Georgia alone, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

Warnock’s amendment would make those people eligible for health coverage by allowing them to access financial assistance to buy insurance on the Affordable Care Act marketplaces for three years, at a cost of roughly $50 billion. 

Warnock, who has called for expanding Medicaid for years, said Thursday that people in the so-called “coverage gap” are “the working poor and they deserve care.” 

“I will continue to fight for us to fill the coverage gap,” he said. “And if I have to introduce it as an amendment on the floor, I’m prepared to do that.” 

A Warnock spokesperson said he “may” call for a vote on his amendment, though that is not set in stone. A vote would force Republicans to go on record against the policy, but could also highlight Democratic divisions if Manchin were to vote no.  

A spokesperson for Manchin did not respond to a request for comment, but he is widely seen as the obstacle among Democrats to including the policy. He has expressed concerns in the past about not wanting to give more federal help to the holdout states than was received by states that already expanded.

“I don’t quite know how the amendment process is going play out,” said Jim Manley, a former aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “There’s still some decisions to be made. But as a Democratic strategist, I sure hope that Republicans try to knock this one out, because it’s going to make a great campaign ad for [Warnock] and for others.” 

Warnock has a slight lead over Walker in the polls, according to a FiveThirtyEight average. Walker has also faced a series of controversies, including reporting on his three additional children that he had previously not discussed publicly.

But in a Republican-leaning state like Georgia and with President Biden facing lagging approval ratings and challenges from inflation, highlighting issues like health care could help give Democrats a boost. Running against Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act helped power Democrats to midterm victories in 2018.  

Warnock is also touting other elements of Democrats’ package, including measures included in the bill to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices and to cap the cost of insulin at $35 per month.  

The drug pricing provisions passing would be major victories for Democrats, who have been pushing for years to allow Medicare to negotiate prices.  

But the absence of extending Medicaid expansion to all 50 states would still leave a hole in the Affordable Care Act. 

“In the immediate term, we’re really pushing hard to see this win on the Senate floor,” said Frederick Isasi, executive director of the health care consumer advocacy group Families USA. “If it doesn’t, then it’s going to immediately become one of the key issues within the midterm elections.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Former military officers urge Supreme Court to uphold affirmative action in colleges

A group of retired military heavyweights have urged the Supreme Court to uphold affirmative action in higher education when the justices review a legal challenge to race-conscious admissions policies at the University of North Carolina (UNC) and Harvard.

The former officers argued in court papers that allowing colleges and service academies to consider race as a factor in admissions decisions helps the U.S. military achieve its goal of cultivating a diverse officer corps, which they said accrues benefits both within the ranks and in overseas operations.

Prohibiting race-conscious admissions, on the other hand, would threaten to undermine national security, the group argued in an amicus brief signed by 35 former top military leaders, including the highest-ranking military officers under Presidents Trump, Obama, George W. Bush and Clinton.

“History has shown that placing a diverse Armed Forces under the command of homogenous leadership is a recipe for internal resentment, discord, and violence,” they wrote. “By contrast, units that are diverse across all levels are more cohesive, collaborative, and effective.”

When the Supreme Court hears arguments in the case in October, the focus will likely remain fixed on the interplay between diversity goals, higher education and limits that the Constitution places on the use of racial classifications to benefit minorities.

But as suggested by the former officers’ brief, as well as scholarship connecting diversity and improved military performance, the potential implications of the case could reach well beyond academia — perhaps as far as the battlefield.

“Historically, diverse and inclusive armies outperform their more exclusionary rivals in battlefield,” Jason Lyall, a professor of government at Dartmouth College and author of the book “Divided Armies: Inequality and Battlefield Performance in Modern War,” told The Hill.

“They typically record better casualty rates as well as lower desertion and defection even when outnumbered,” he added. “Because of their problem-solving skills, they are capable of more complex battlefield maneuvers, and so are more lethal and resilient, than less inclusive enemies.”

The legal dispute at issue arose after a conservative-backed group, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), sued UNC and Harvard over their use of affirmative action in admissions decisions. The group accused the schools of failing to pursue diversity goals through available race-neutral alternatives, as required under Supreme Court precedent.

SFFA suffered defeat in the lower courts, where judges rejected their arguments based on the landmark 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger and related cases. In Grutter, the court ruled 5-4 that colleges may use race as one factor in admissions decisions as a way to diversify student populations.

In court papers, SFFA urged the justices to overturn Grutter. That decision, they argued, defies the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law, and has led college admissions officers to engage in “crude stereotyping” based on race.

SFFA, in its suit against Harvard, alleged that the school’s admissions policy discriminates against Asian Americans. The group argued that Harvard’s subjective “personal ratings” scores, which tended to reflect cultural stereotypes, had made it harder for Asian Americans to be admitted, compared to applicants of other races.

“Applicants who check the box for African American at Harvard and UNC, for example, receive a preference because of their race whether they grew up in poverty and went to failing schools, have parents who were multimillionaire executives, spent their formative years in Europe, are the direct descendants of slaves, or are second-generation immigrants from Africa,” they wrote, urging the justices to upend nearly two decades of affirmative action precedent.

But the former military officers behind this week’s amicus brief cautioned the justices against such a move. Overruling Grutter and related Supreme Court precedent, they said, would make achieving the military’s diversity goals more difficult and impair military cohesion and effectiveness.

An attorney for SFFA did not respond when asked to comment on the potential national security implications of invalidating race-conscious admissions policies in higher education.

The retired officers in their brief argued that diversity in military leadership flows directly from diversity in higher education, with the bulk of military officers hailing from service academies like the Army’s U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., or Reserve Officer Training Corps programs housed at civilian universities.

“Diversity in the halls of academia directly affects performance in the theaters of war,” they wrote.

They added that the demands of recent U.S. humanitarian missions — which included deployments to Haiti, Somalia and Latin America — underscore the need for diversity in the officer corps. That aim is no less critical in elite special forces units like the Navy SEALs, which currently face a severe shortage of minority officers, they wrote.

“Life and death missions conducted by these units require diverse skills, including foreign language competency and knowledge of other cultures, along with the ability to collaborate and culturally empathize with vastly different individuals,” they wrote.

Among the signatories to the brief were former Joint Chiefs Chairmen Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, Air Force Gen. Richard Myers and Army Gen. Henry Shelton.

Source: TEST FEED1