Tag Archives : Build House

The Turkish Question on NATO: A larger strategic opportunity in the Black Sea

Swedish and Finnish NATO membership would be a strategic gain for the Atlantic Alliance and the United States, both to counter Russian aggression and to ensure a united front on Eurasian policy. However, there is dissent within NATO about whether Sweden and Finland should be accepted, with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan opposing both states’ participation in the alliance.  

President Biden must act swiftly, recognize Erdogan’s incentives, and court Turkey properly to strengthen NATO’s long-term position. His response should involve inducements and concessions — Erdogan receiving desired Western military technology, and in return giving NATO warships access to the Black Sea. 

Sweden and Finland’s NATO bids break with both states’ long-standing foreign policies. Each has retained connections with the Atlantic Alliance through the Partnership for Peace and peacekeeping deployments; each deployed forces under International Security Assistance Force auspices in Afghanistan. Sweden has a relatively independent defense-industrial base; Finland, by contrast, has increasingly committed to using NATO technology and is now an F-35 purchaser. Nevertheless, both are formally neutral between NATO and Russia, a policy that served them reasonably well throughout the Cold War, primarily because high-end ground combat would be concentrated in Germany, not northern Europe or Scandinavia. 

The Russian invasion of Ukraine overturned this situation and demonstrated the Atlantic Alliance’s value. Moreover, the geography of the Russia-NATO military rivalry has changed: The Baltic States’ membership in NATO makes a Russia-NATO conflict likely to involve Finland and Sweden, or at least to occur within their territorial waters. 

Both states would benefit the Atlantic Alliance. Both retain effective militaries focused upon great-power war; neither would need overwhelming American logistical support. Unlike nearly all of NATO’s current members apart from the U.S., Sweden and Finland can pull their own combat weight. 

Hungarian President Viktor Orban’s positive disposition towards the Kremlin made Hungary a more likely candidate to oppose any NATO expansion. Orban has been restrained, however, focusing instead on opposing EU sanctions on Russian energy exports. Instead, it is Turkey that opposes Swedish and Finnish NATO membership. 

A single country’s opposition can derail a NATO bid. Greece, for example, kept Macedonia out of NATO until 2019 because it deemed the country’s name to be an affront to Greek culture: it only relented when Macedonia added “North” to its name. Cyprus remains out of NATO primarily because of Turkey’s opposition, based on Turkish-Greek rivalry.

However, Turkish opposition to Swedish and Finnish NATO membership is neither strategic nor ideological. It is, instead, a diplomatic signal to the Biden administration. 

Erdogan’s public reasoning is that Sweden in particular and, by extension, Finland offer shelter to Gulenists and Kurds, the two great enemies of the Turkish state. Additionally, Sweden and Finland imposed an arms embargo on Turkey after its offensive in northeastern Syria in 2019. 

Both charges have extremely limited substance. Census data is not current, but Finland likely has no more than 30,000 Turks and Kurds, making Erdogan’s Gulenist charge unfounded. Sweden has 150,000-plus Turks and around 85,000 Kurds; however, there is scant evidence of Swedish Turks or Kurds engaging in activities against the Turkish government. Swedish attempts to create a European Union-wide arms embargo against Turkey failed; Turkey’s military-industrial complex has not been hindered by Swedish and Finnish sanctions. 

Turkey is employing a “stick” alongside its “carrot” to NATO. After briefly sitting on the sidelines of the Russo-Ukrainian war, Turkey closed the Dardanelles to all warships. Its legal procedure includes an exemption for Russian Black Sea Fleet warships transiting to their homeport after deployment — but Russia cannot transfer additional warships to the Black Sea, thereby capping Russian naval combat power. Additionally, Turkey has served as a valuable interlocutor between Ukraine and Russia — it is virtually the only power Kyiv and Moscow have trusted to host talks — and the Turkish military-industrial complex produced many of the combat drones that Ukraine has used to extreme effect against Russian forces. Overall, Turkey has sided with Ukraine and NATO in resisting Russian aggression. 

Erdogan, however, surely hopes to extract broader concessions before coming in from the cold. Turkey has been at odds with its NATO allies previously, with its Syria intervention receiving the most attention. Equally relevant, however, was Turkish intervention in Libya; by the summer of 2020, a Franco-Russian-Saudi coalition opposed Turkey and the Tripoli government it backed, creating serious spillover risks. Although Libya’s second civil war legally ended in October 2020, Libya remains unstable — and renewed conflict may resurrect a Franco-Russian partnership against further Turkish intervention.  

Technologically, Erdogan’s desire for foreign policy independence cut off Turkey from high-end Western military equipment. Its purchase of Russian S-400 air-defense missiles led to its exclusion from the U.S.’s F-35 fighter jet program and may jeopardize its ability to obtain additional F-16s. 

So, Erdogan hopes to extract all possible gains from a strategic pivot back to the U.S. and NATO while ensuring he retains a free hand to act in Syria or Libya.

The U.S. should respond with its own blended diplomacy. Its objective should be tying Turkey firmly to the Atlantic Alliance and leveraging Turkey’s geographic position to expand NATO’s options in the Russo-Ukrainian War. 

As an inducement, the U.S. should advocate for the reduction or elimination of military technology sanctions on Turkey, reincorporate Turkey into the F-35 program, and approve new F-16 sales. Thus, Turkey obtains what it seeks: Western military technology in return for its membership in the Occidental bloc. 

However, the U.S. must not simply bribe Turkey. It must receive, in return, Turkish acceptance of NATO naval forces in the Black Sea. This would be an escalatory decision on Turkey’s part and may undermine its diplomatic role between Ukraine and Russia — but NATO would receive an overwhelming strategic benefit. 

The Ukraine war likely will continue until year’s end, barring a Russian or Ukrainian operational collapse or a coup in Russia. Although the first possibility — a Russian military collapse — is more likely than the second or third, none are probable. Once the current Donbas campaign ends — which it will within the next eight weeks, either in limited Russian victory or a broader Ukrainian victory — Russia will settle in for a longer war.   

Russia’s gains in southern Ukraine are its most strategically critical victories. Not only does Putin now have a land bridge to Crimea, enabling more effective resupply of that peninsula, but he holds all of Ukraine’s major ports except Odesa. From that position, and with Russian warships policing the Levantine Basin and Black Sea, Putin can squeeze Ukraine economically, preventing maritime exports, and force the West to sustain Ukraine or risk its bankruptcy and collapse. 

The obvious policy response for NATO, as retired U.S. naval officer Adm. James Stavridis proposed in a recent Bloomberg News column, is an “escort” system akin to Operation Earnest Will, the U.S. response to the Iraqi-Iranian tanker war of 1986-87. During it, the U.S. “reflagged” Kuwaiti tankers and escorted them with U.S. warships while de-mining the Persian Gulf and confronting Iranian naval forces. 

Russia’s blockade of Ukraine already has triggered economic instability elsewhere. Soaring fuel prices have sparked protests in Sri Lanka; North Africa and the Middle East rely upon Ukrainian grain and, even before the war, were likely to face food shortages. The G-7 has warned that continuing food disruption will spark crises throughout the greater Middle East. 

As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict simmers, Iran considers a nuclear breakout, and the Gulf Arabs spurn the U.S., the last issue America and the West wish to confront is a global food shortage. We should recall the structural conditions before the Arab Spring: Food shortages, high unemployment and corruption combined to ignite a conflagration. A similar situation may be impending, especially as inflation surges in the West, and the U.S. and China appear to be on the brink of a recession. 

NATO should consider an Operation Earnest Will-style response if the war drags on. A relatively restricted force commitment, primarily of surface combatants supported by forward-deployed tactical aviation in the Black Sea and high-altitude combat drone surveillance, would suffice for a reflagging operation. A Russian strike against an American warship is possible but unlikely. After all, NATO has provided tangible military assistance to Ukraine since Russia’s invasion, including critical intelligence support that Ukraine has used to plan its offensives, to target Russian generals (including Chief of General Staff Valery Gerasimov) and to sink Russia’s Black Sea Fleet flagship; an escort mission would be of a similar nature to this intelligence support, which Russia has tacitly accepted despite its nuclear sabre-rattling. 

Turkish approval, however, is critical for this mission. The Biden administration should tie its inducement package for Turkey’s support of Swedish-Finnish NATO membership to this reality, prompting Turkey to accept a significant NATO naval deployment in the Black Sea. 

The Ukraine war has shown that NATO can rise to the occasion when challenged. Sweden and Finland’s membership would strengthen the alliance in the face of a threat that cannot be ignored. The U.S. should assure a positive outcome to these Scandinavian states’ bids for membership. 

Seth Cropsey is founder and president of Yorktown Institute. He served as a naval officer and as deputy Undersecretary of the Navy and is the author of “Mayday: The Decline of American Naval Supremacy” (2013) and “Seablindness: How Political Neglect Is Choking American Seapower and What to Do About It” (2017).

Source: TEST FEED1

Arkansas governor says abortion exceptions for rape, incest, life of mother ‘could be revisited’ in state ban

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) on Sunday said exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother “could be revisited” in the state’s abortion ban, which would take effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

Hutchinson signed a bill in February 2019 that called for banning abortion in the state if the Supreme Court overturns the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which protects access to the medical procedure on the federal level. The measure in Arkansas, however, does not allow exceptions for cases of rape and incest, or if the life of the mother is in danger.

Hutchinson has said he wanted those exceptions to be included in the law, and on Sunday he noted that they could be revisited.

“While it’s still life in the womb, life of the unborn, it was, the conception was under criminal circumstances, either incest or rape, and so those are two exceptions I recognize, I believe are very appropriate, and what will happen as time goes on if Roe versus Wade is reversed, these are gonna become very real circumstances I think the debate and discussion will be, will continue and that very well could be revisited,” he told co-anchor Dana Bash on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Hutchinson on Sunday confirmed that Arkansas’s abortion ban would take effect if Roe v. Wade is reversed.

Abortion ban trigger laws throughout the country have come under increased scrutiny in recent weeks after a leaked draft opinion showed the Supreme Court poised to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The Supreme Court said that while the document, reported by Politico, was authentic, it did not reflect the final decision from the bench.

Democrats and abortion rights advocates are now scrambling to safeguard access to abortion in preparation for Roe v. Wade’s potential reversal.

Source: TEST FEED1

Ronna McDaniel: 'I don't know what Dark MAGA is'

Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel on Sunday said she doesn’t “know what Dark MAGA is” in response to a question about a statement by Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) about what he says is the rise of a new far right-wing political faction.

McDaniel told “Fox News Sunday” that Cawthorn’s “Dark MAGA” comments reminded her of a popular science fiction film franchise.

“I don’t know what Dark MAGA is,” she said. “It sounds like a Star Wars thing, like the dark side of the force.”

Cawthorn, who represents North Carolina’s 11th congressional district, lost the GOP primary race last week to state Sen. Chuck Edwards after a series of scandalous headlines and controversy, including photos of him wearing women’s lingerie, comments he made alleging “orgies” among the Washington elite and a remark calling Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a “thug.”

After his loss, Cawthorn tweeted ambiguously about the rise of an apparent political faction within the Make America Great Again banner, calling it “Dark MAGA.”

“It’s time for the rise of the new right, it’s time for Dark MAGA to truly take command,” Cawthorn said in an Instagram post. “We have an enemy to defeat, but we will never be able to defeat them until we defeat the cowardly and weak members of our own party. Their days are numbered. We are coming.”

McDaniel said the North Carolina primary it was a “well-fought” race between Cawthorn and Edwards.

“Madison had some issues that came out, he was a rising star in our party,” she said, “but Madison did the right thing in conceding.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Mullen says US should consider the possibility of Russia using a nuclear weapon

Former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen said on Sunday that U.S. officials should consider the possibility of Russia using a nuclear weapon amid its ongoing invasion of Ukraine. 

“It’s very difficult to know what [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is thinking at any particular time. He’s obviously spoken to this. I think we need to make sure that we consider it as a possibility,” the retired U.S. Navy admiral said on ABC’s “This Week,” adding that he hopes deterrence works.

“They’re the most devastating weapons ever created on Earth.”

“We should remind that as the country that’s actually used them in the 1940s, how devastating they are and do everything we possibly can to make sure that they don’t get used. But they are a part of Putin’s arsenal,” Mullen told Raddatz. “He’s pretty well cornered and boxed in so we would certainly to have to consider … it’s a possible action he can take.”

Mullen added that he was encouraged to see Finland and Sweden apply to join NATO after having neutral stances for decades.

“What strikes me about Finland and Sweden is how deeply neutral they had been for decades and decades and how concerned they obviously are with this threat that has now been generated by Putin. And so I’m encouraged by that. I’m encouraged by the unity of NATO,” Mullen told Raddatz. 

“Almost every European I’ve spoken to considers the threat in Europe now existential to them and I think that speaks to the move on the part of both Sweden and Finland and I’m encouraged by that,” Mullen said.

Source: TEST FEED1

House subcommittee asks: Is the truth out there about UAPs?

While UFOs and the possibility of them being alien spacecraft have been a thing for decades, renewed interest in the phenomenon arose with the recent revelation that military pilots have been spotting objects in the sky, now dubbed Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon (UAP). Last year, the Office of National Intelligence issued a report on UAPs that left more questions than answers. In a quest to find answers, the House Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence, and Counterproliferation (C3) Subcommittee of the House Intelligence Committee held hearings on what may or may not be evidence of alien visitations.

The open hearing, available to the public, featured Scott Bray, director of naval intelligence activity, and Ronald S. Moultrie, undersecretary of defense for intelligence and security. Publicly, at least, neither man disclosed any definite conclusions about what these UAPs might be. We know no more than we did when last year’s report was issued.

A small number of the UAPs that have been observed defy conventional explanation. They sometimes seemed to contravene the laws of physics as applied to physical objects in the air, hovering, suddenly accelerating and demonstrating no discernable method of propulsion, as understood by current science.

The open hearing seemed to be all about process. The lawmakers on the subcommittee sought to assure themselves that the reports of military pilots and other observers were being taken seriously without stigma. They also were keen to understand that the UAP phenomenon was being investigated with regard to science and without preconceptions. The desire for the investigation to be conducted with due transparency was also expressed. Whatever these objects are, they have some serious national security implications.

If the objects are of foreign but terrestrial origin, say from China, then clearly the United States and its allies are in trouble, unless the American military possesses similar technology. The classified portion of the hearings may or may not provide some illumination on that question, although hiding that knowledge from the public would tend to run against the expressed need for transparency.

The question of whether some of the unexplained UAPs are extraterrestrial in origin was barely touched upon in the hearing. The implications would be almost beyond evaluation.

The revelation that an alien civilization exists that can cross the interstellar gulfs to visit an obscure, isolated planet like Earth would be one of the most wonderful, hopeful events in human history.

Recently, according to Livescience, a paper was published in the journal Royal Society Open Science that seeks to explain why Earth has not come into contact with aliens. The paper suggests that every civilization is doomed to one of two fates.

The first fate is civilization collapse, either by a global thermonuclear war or some kind of environmental catastrophe brought on by unrestrained growth.

The second fate is something called “homeostasis,” in which a civilization undertakes to restrict unrestrained growth, seeking instead to prioritize sustainability and social wellbeing. The system might resemble some of the proposals offered by American politicians under the brand name Green New Deal.

Either path would seem to preclude widespread space travel of the sort that would make such civilizations easily detectable, not to mention capable of making a first contact.

However, if at least some of the UAPs are aliens, the theory described above is rendered hokum. In that case, at least one alien civilization would’ve escaped the choice between collapse and homeostasis and chose a third way, likely by expanding out into space to use its abundant natural and energy resources to maintain economic and technological growth.

If Earth is being visited by aliens, why have they not made first contact yet? Possibly they are bound by some version of the “Star Trek” Prime Directive in that they would not interfere with Earth’s natural development. However, since they have offered clues to their existence, they could be sending a message.

The message, if some UAPs are aliens, is likely: We’re here. We’re watching you. Someday, when you’re ready, we’d like to talk.

When would we be ready? Thanks to NASA’s Artemis Program, plus separate efforts by the Chinese, human civilization is preparing to expand beyond the home planet, to the moon, then Mars, then beyond. At some point, when human civilization has ensured its long-term survival by spreading out into space. ET will call us.

That’s the theory, anyway. It’s a much more pleasant theory than the choice of dooms offered in the Royal Society Open Science Journal. It’s an argument — and hope- — for the exploration and economic development of space.

Mark R. Whittington is the author of space exploration studies “Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?” as well as “The Moon, Mars and Beyond,” and “Why is America Going Back to the Moon?” He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Baby formula bill faces rocky terrain in Senate

Emergency funding legislation aimed at addressing the infant formula shortage is facing rocky terrain in the Senate, as Republican leaders are reluctant to say if they’ll support the Democratic-backed legislation that swiftly passed the House earlier this week.

Senate Democrats are pushing for speedy action on the bill, calling it a critical first step by Congress in addressing the nationwide shortage.

But Republicans argue throwing more money at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not the solution.

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), a member of GOP leadership, told The Hill on Thursday that it “may or may not serve to solve some long-term problems at FDA.” 

He also expressed doubt about the impact it will have in the “upcoming weeks for people who need baby formula.”

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), the top GOP member on the Senate Appropriations Committee, also said on Thursday that he’s doubtful the bill has the necessary backing from Republicans to secure its passage in the upper chamber.

As the formula shortage continues to dominate public interest, lawmakers and the Biden administration have been feeling the pressure to respond.

“I hear them [Republicans] all trying to blame Joe Biden for baby formula shortage, acting as if they’re compassionate,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.). “Well, we’ll give them a chance to show if they care about moms and kids.”

But the conditions that contributed to it have been building for months, if not years, and lawmakers are finding there is no easy fix. 

The current shortage was triggered in part by supply chain stresses, but worsened when a single formula manufacturing plant in Michigan shut down in February. 

Just four companies control more than 90 percent of the formula market, including Abbott Nutrition, which operated the Michigan plant. Democrats have decried the market consolidation, but are focused mainly on the immediate issue of getting formula back onto store shelves.

Abbott shut the facility down in February after it was linked to four infants who were hospitalized with a rare bacterial infection. The company also issued a voluntary recall of all formula brands made at the facility, after an FDA inspection found unsanitary conditions at the plant. 

FDA has reached a preliminary agreement with Abbott to restart production at the plant, pending safety upgrades and certifications, though it could take up to eight additional weeks before any of that product is back on shelves. 

Abbott said the FDA has not been able to definitively link its formula to the illnesses. The company said it has been making corrective improvements to address the FDA’s concerns.  

The $28 million emergency funding infusion will give FDA “urgently needed resources to address the shortage,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the bill’s sponsor and chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee. 

The legislation would beef up inspections of formula made at foreign plants and guard against any future shortages by ensuring the agency is prepared for supply chain disruptions. 

FDA commissioner Robert Califf told a House panel that he requested the additional funding. If the money is appropriated, he said the agency will use the bulk of it to hire more inspectors.  

Still, it’s unclear how quickly more inspectors would translate into additional supply.

Peter Pitts, who served as an associate commissioner at the FDA during the George W. Bush administration, said FDA needs more money to put towards “more robust inspections” for its food center.

But he said he doesn’t think the solution to the problem is “a one-time $28 million infusion.”

“This is going to have be an annual regular budget item within the FDA food center request … you have to hire people, and you don’t hire people for one year,” he said.

DeLauro acknowledged that FDA’s food safety division has long-standing deficiencies that need fixing, and money alone won’t solve the problem.

“We will work to strengthen the workforce focused on formula issues and increase FDA’s inspection staff. But … funding is not the only answer. This issue goes beyond funding and that has to deal with a structural program,” DeLauro said during a recent hearing.

A rare bipartisan bill passed both the House and Senate this week that permanently loosens restrictions on the government’s nutrition program for women, infants and children (WIC) to protect recipients during future crises. 

But advocates and experts said it’s a small fix when much bigger reforms are needed.

“I think a piece of this puzzle that needs to be focused on is the kind of the culture and the structure of the current FDA foods program, and how that contributed to the situation that we’re in now,” said Brian Ronholm, director of food policy for Consumer Reports. 

Ronholm, a former official in the Obama administration’s Department of Agriculture, said it’s unfortunate that formula shortages have become politicized. 

“From a consumer standpoint, if you’re struggling to find supply and having to travel all over the place, you want to know that Congress and the agencies are doing whatever they can,” he said. 

Some Senate Republicans are advocating for legislation introduced by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), which would waive a variety of FDA regulations and import tariffs in order to get formula onto shelves quickly.

But when asked about a potential Republican response, Blunt said he was encouraged by recent White House actions, like loosening import restrictions. 

“We’re encouraging what the president, probably six months late, has finally decided to do, which is figure out how to fill the shortfall that the FDA should have known about since last fall,” he said.

Source: TEST FEED1

RNC chairwoman says Alabama Senate race likely headed to a runoff

Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said the race for the party’s nominee in the Alabama Senate contest is likely headed to a runoff.

McDaniel told “Fox News Sunday” the race between Rep. Mo Brooks, former political aide Katie Boyd Britt and former combat pilot Mike Durant will be too close to call on Election Day for any one candidate to declare victory.

“I don’t think we’re going to have a final say on this Alabama race,” McDaniel said, adding that the candidates have to clinch 50 percent of the vote to win. “I don’t think any of the three candidates are going to get over 50 percent so we’re going to go to a runoff, and then we’ll figure out who the nominee is.”

Alabama’s Senate primary, where voters will choose who replaces retiring Republican Sen. Richard Shelby, will be held on Tuesday . Polling last week also indicated the race was likely headed to a runoff.

According to the poll, Britt held the lead with 32 percent of likely voters supporting her, compared to 26 percent of voters backing Durant and 25 percent backing Brooks.

Former President Trump pulled his endorsement for Brooks in March after the congressman said Republicans should move past contesting the 2020 election. Brooks, who had been the favorite, saw his polling numbers slide as a result.

McDaniels said that despite the RNC staying “neutral” when it comes to elections, Trump “is always going to get involved in primaries.”

“I’m not surprised that he get involved,” she said. “That’s just the nature of politics.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden adviser on US falling into a recession: ‘There are always risks’

National Economic Council Director Brian Deese on Sunday recognized the risk of the U.S. falling into a recession amid rising prices and elevated inflation, but would not say if the country is headed in that direction.

Asked by co-anchor Dana Bash on CNN’s “State of the Union” if the U.S. is falling into a recession, Deese said “there are always risks,” but argued that the country is in a transition period and could see growth.

“Our economy is in a transition from what has been the strongest recovery in modern American history to what can be a period of more stable and resilient growth that works better for families,” Deese said.

The top White House economic adviser recognized that the economy is grappling with “serious global challenges,” but argued that the U.S. is better positioned than other countries to recover.

“There’s no doubt we face serious global challenges right now, inflation first and foremost among them, and it’s hitting families hard. But there’s also no doubt that the United States is in a better position than any other major country around the world to address inflation without giving up all the economic gains that we’ve had and that’s because of the strength of our recovery,” he added.

Pressed on if he is confident that the U.S. can avoid a recession, Deese again pointed to the transition the U.S. economy is undergoing and recognized the risk of entering a recession.

“There are always risks, but we feel very good about where the United States is, particularly when you look on a global landscape,” he said.

The conversation regarding the U.S. potentially dipping into an economic recession comes after the S&P 500 continued its now seven-week decline on Friday, marking a 20-percent fall since January. That change is in line with the definition of a bear market.

The Federal Reserve increased interest rates earlier this month in an effort to control inflation, which has been on the rise largely due to supply chain snafus and skyrocketing demand following pandemic shutdowns.

Source: TEST FEED1

Justice Alito’s alternate abortion ‘facts’

Abortion is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. According to Justice Samuel Alito, to qualify for equal protection and due process under the 14^th Amendment, an unenumerated right has to be “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” and “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions.” In his draft decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overthrowing Roe v. Wade, Alito’s “inescapable conclusion” is that, “on the contrary, an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of common law until 1973.”

Abortion, feminist Katha Pollitt has written, is “one of those subjects about which people have not only their own opinions but their own facts.”

Justice Alito is one of those people.

Common law did not acknowledge that a fetus existed separately from a pregnant woman until “quickening,” a stirring in the womb (15 or 16 weeks into the pregnancy), which she was in the best position to ascertain. Neither did common law criminalize abetting, performing, or receiving abortions. When the U.S. Constitution was ratified, every state respected the right to abort prior to quickening. Until 1869, when the Roman Catholic Church decreed that life begins at conception, many clergy maintained that the unborn were not “ensouled” until quickening.

Enacted in Connecticut in 1821, the first abortion law forbade only the use of poisons. Before 1839, only eight states regulated abortions. In the ensuing decades, the number of abortions surged, especially among relatively affluent married women. Abortifacients, with names like “Samaritans’ Gift For Females,” were sold on the open market. One entrepreneur spent $60,000 a year advertising services in four cities to rid ladies of “suppressions, stoppages, and private diseases.” Another recommended, with a wink and a nod, that “pregnant females should not use” her products “as they invariably produce a miscarriage.”

In the middle of the 19^th century, amidst passage of anti-abortion statutes in several states, a female physician declared that in view of society’s apparent lack of charity “toward the erring, it is felt that the unfortunate should have some sanctuary to which to flee … hiding forever their present unhappiness. The true physician cannot be too broad and gentle.” A Boston doctor asked if anyone “knew of a conviction” under the new laws.

In 1868, when the 14^th Amendment was ratified, 21 of the nation’s 37 states still recognized the right to abort before quickening.

Legislation, moreover, did not stop the practice.

In 1870, about one-fifth of all pregnancies ended in abortion. In 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade was decided, the Centers for Disease Control estimated that 130,000 women had had abortions; 39 of them died that year, compared to only five in 1974, when abortion was legal.

This contested history — and the pro-choice statutes enacted by state legislatures in the 1960s and early ‘70s — do not constitute “an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment [that] persisted from the earliest days of common law until 1973.”

Nor does Alito make a compelling case that a constitutional right can only be recognized if it is deeply rooted in the nation’s history and traditions. As the amicus curiae brief submitted by the Biden administration in Dobbs points out, contraception, gay sex, gay and inter-racial marriage are not mentioned in the Constitution and “most were widely prohibited when the 14^th Amendment was adopted.”

A long-standing “living Constitution” approach, flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances and values, provides a viable — and in my judgment preferable — alternative to Alito’s “originalist” jurisprudence based on “facts” and generalizations about the past that may have been selected, consciously or sub-consciously, to support a preferred outcome.  

The 8^th Amendment, for example, prohibits infliction of “cruel and unusual punishment.” In 1910, the Supreme Court acknowledged that “what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment has not been exactly decided.” In 1958, Chief Justice Earl Warren asserted that the Court “must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Applying this method, the Supreme Court has decreed that the death penalty for rape; deprivation by prison officials of “reasonably adequate food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, and necessary medical attention”; and handcuffing a prisoner to a horizontal bar, exposed to the sun for several hours, constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

In response, perhaps, to Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor, and the firestorm he knew would erupt across the nation, Alito makes the claim in his draft opinion that the issues of concern to his critics do not involve “the critical moral question raised by abortion.” And he promises that the decision in Dobbs “concerns no other right.”

Why should anyone believe him?

Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. He is the co-author (with Stuart Blumin) of “Rude Republic: Americans and Their Politics in the Nineteenth Century.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden highlights Hyundai investment pledge, saying EVs are good for climate, jobs and business

President Biden on Sunday said electric vehicles (EVs) are good for climate, jobs and businesses, highlighting Hyundai’s announcement that the automotive manufacturer will spend more than $5 billion to build an EV plant near Savannah, Georgia.

During remarks in Seoul, South Korea alongside Hyundai Motor Group Chairman Chung Eui-sun, Biden noted the U.S.’s climate goal for electric vehicles and emphasized his administration’s commitment to achieving the objective.

“Last year, standing together with the CEOs of major American manufacturers, along with the CEO and the head of the United Auto Workers, I signed an executive order setting a goal of having 50 percent of all new vehicles sold by the year 2030 be electric.  And it’s an ambitious target, I know, but I believe we can meet it,” Biden said.

“But we’re all committed to making it happen — auto companies, American UAW, and the — and the federal government as well — because all understand the same basic thing: Electric vehicles are good for our climate goals, but they’re also good for jobs, and they’re good for business,” he added.

Biden’s comments come days after Hyundai Motor Group announced that it will spend $5.5 billion on a new electric vehicle plant near Savannah, which will lead to the hiring of at least 8,100 people.

The plant will be Hyundai’s first facility focused on assembling electric vehicles. It will also create vehicle batteries.

Construction is scheduled to begin in 2023, and in 2025 it is expected to start manufacturing up to 300,000 vehicles annually.

Biden, during remarks alongside Chung on Sunday, said “thanks to Hyundai, we are being part of this transformative automobile sector and accelerating us on the road where we’re going to be

“And that’s what we’re shooting for,” he added.

The president also underscored the strength of American workers and union efforts.

“Hyundai and any company investing in the United States would benefit greatly from entering into partnerships with some of the most highly skilled, dedicated, and engaged workers in the world, anywhere you can find. And that is American union members,” Biden said.

“And again, every venture to manufacture electric vehicles and electric vehicle batteries would be made stronger by a collective bargaining relationship with our unions,” he added.

Source: TEST FEED1