How Extreme Heat Will Impact India’s Election

Since 1996, India’s general elections—which occur every five years in sequential phases by regions carefully staggered by the Election Commission of India—have been held between April and May. But as this year’s election season fast approaches, electoral officials across the country are grappling with the challenge of safeguarding against extreme heat as voters head to the polls later this month.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The preparations come after India’s Meteorological Department, or the IMD, last week forecasted that the majority of the country will experience harsh and arid conditions from April to June, with a high probability of “above normal” heat waves lasting 10 to 20 days, rather than the usual span of four to eight days. 

While heat waves are generally common during India’s warmest months, rising global temperatures due to climate change have made them more frequent and intense even compared to five years ago, when India last held an election. In the last century, India’s average annual temperature has increased at a rate of 1.12°F, according to data from the World Bank. 12 of the warmest years in India have occurred since 2006, with 2016 experiencing the highest temperatures to date.

Read More: Why India’s Next Election Will Last 44 Days

Environmental experts are debating whether events such as political rallies and public events should be allowed to take place. They argue that Indian authorities need to proactively take measures so that politicians, campaigners, and voters can avoid the risk of heat exposure while also exercising their democratic rights. 

“On the one hand, you have huge numbers of people out in public rallies, engaging in what is a fundamental political right as part of the democratic process,” says Aditya Valiathan Pillai, a Fellow at the New Delhi-based organization Sustainable Futures Collaborative. “At the same time, it’s a very hot summer and they’re going to be some places where the heat is hazardous.”

Which parts of India will see soaring temperatures?

IMD data has indicated that states voting in the first and second phase of the election, with voting days on April 19 and April 26, will be affected by temperatures as high as 104°F. That means states in north, western, and central India—including Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Odisha, and Madhya Pradesh—are likely to experience two to eight days of heat waves. In the southern state of Tamil Nadu, for example, temperatures are already soaring at 104°F.

“If you take lessons from the last couple of years, this is a pan-India phenomenon that strikes different parts of the country and affects them differently,” says Pillai.

While the rising heat is usually concentrated across plain and coastal regions which are more vulnerable to its impact, experts note that hilly states in the south aren’t immune to higher temperatures, either. In the hilly, tribal state of Odisha, for example, the state’s chief electoral officer Nikunja Bihari Dhal noted that “ensuring minimal inconvenience for voters and ensuring the well-being of polling parties poses a significant challenge.”

What kind of preventative measures will the authorities take?

In nearly every state, political parties will likely start campaigning through mass public rallies and functions even before voting gets underway. For this reason, Ronita Bardhan, an associate professor at Cambridge University, says that “making extreme weather risks transparent to the public is as essential as the importance of voting.” 

That means authorities need to take preventative and adaptive measures to communicate the timings of rallies and high temperatures to the public through awareness-raising campaigns, the media, and other publicly available channels. “You have to make sure people have that kind of information at hand, which requires a proactive approach from rally organizers and government officials at different levels in all of these different states,” Pillai says. 

Last week, the Indian Health Ministry met with the National Disaster Management Authority to assess how prepared the country was to tackle heatwaves. Both bodies issued advisories with a general list of “do’s” and “don’ts” to prevent serious ailments or death from heatstroke,  including avoiding the sun between noon and 3 p.m., wearing cotton clothes, and ensuring constant rehydration. They also plan to create a central database on heat waves, including collecting data on cases and deaths from heatstroke in each state. 

The Election Commission has also instructed electoral officers in each state to generate awareness around the issue of extreme weather conditions and to take preventative measures to help voters endure the scorching heat as they queue to cast their ballots, with different states issuing their own individual guidelines.

Read More: Why India’s Political Opposition Is So Weak

The experts add that having the right infrastructure is important. “That means having cooling centers and shade provision, and going the extra mile to make sure those arrangements are as thermally comfortable as possible,” says Pillai, in addition to making portable water accessible and distributing O.R.S. hydration to voters in booths. 

Taken more broadly, however, these efforts are part of a larger conversation about heat planning in India—an approach that Pillai stresses should be long-term and sustainable, so that come election time, “it doesn’t take away the possibility of political life and prevents a democracy.”

Will the heat ultimately affect voter turnout?

Despite the hotter temperatures, data from past elections shows heat doesn’t necessarily keep voters away. In fact, the national average voter turnout has consistently risen over the years, from just 45.7% in 1957 to a record-high 67.4% in 2019. 

A study from economists at the University of Kent on climate change and political participation in India, which looked at Assembly elections between 2008 and 2017, further found that while higher temperatures in the year leading up to state elections generally saw a decline in the number of candidates, there was an increase in voter turnout. 

The experts hypothesize that climate effects on farming and agriculture may be responsible for the higher turnout. “High-temperature shocks reduce agricultural output, which drives rural citizens to the polls and it changes how they vote—they make agricultural issues more salient and lead them to elect candidates with an agricultural background,” associate professor Amrit Amirapu, one of the co-authors, told The Indian Express. 

And the sustained turnout makes preventative measures all the more crucial.

“The best thing to do is [to] have very solidly built guardrails that protect people’s health as they engage in the democratic process,” Pillai says.  

source https://time.com/6965370/india-heat-temperature-election/

Your Questions About Trump’s Hush-Money Trial, Answered

Barring any last minute delays, Donald Trump is set to appear at a Manhattan courthouse on Monday for the historic start of his first criminal trial.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The case involves his alleged falsification of business records to cover up a hush-money payment to adult-film star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election. The trial will mark the first time in history that an ex-President is criminally prosecuted in court, and could take Trump away from the campaign trail for more than a month as he runs for a return to the White House. 

Trump faces 34 felony counts in the case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who has accused Trump of doctoring financial records of his companies and orchestrating a scheme to influence the 2016 presidential election. Trump has denied all wrongdoing and accused Bragg of carrying out a politically motivated witch hunt against him.

The unprecedented case is the first of Trump’s four criminal cases to go to trial—and may be the only one to wrap up before the November election. The trial is expected to last six weeks, starting with jury selection on Monday. Prospective jurors will be asked if they have ever attended one of Trump’s rallies, if they belong to groups like the Proud Boys or Antifa, or if they volunteered with a political entity associated with the former President, according to a letter the judge provided attorneys.

Here’s what to know about Trump’s hush-money trial.

What are the legal questions?

Prosecutors will attempt to prove that Trump is guilty of maintaining false business records with the intent to hide a $130,000 hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels, an adult-film actress who claimed she had a sexual encounter with him in 2006. The payments allegedly were made to keep Daniels from speaking publicly about the affair in the final weeks of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

If convicted, Trump could face up to four years in prison for each of the 34 charges against him. While paying hush money is not always illegal, prosecutors allege that Trump reimbursed his then-lawyer Michael Cohen in a series of installment payments processed by his business, which prosecutors say were fraudulently disguised as corporate legal expenses in violation of New York law.

Under New York law, falsifying business records is usually a misdemeanor but it can become a felony when there is an “intent to defraud” that includes an intent to “commit another crime or to aid or conceal” another crime. Bragg has said that the alleged payment scheme was intended to cover up violations of New York election law, which makes it a crime to conspire to illegally promote a candidate. He also said the $130,000 payment exceeded the federal campaign contribution cap and violated state tax laws.

The charges Trump faces are all considered class E felonies in New York, the lowest tier of felony charges in the state. Prosecutors will need to show that Trump not only falsified or caused business records to be entered falsely, but that he did so to conceal another crime.

Will the trial be televised?

The trial is not expected to be televised since New York state is one of three jurisdictions that does not permit audio-visual coverage of trial-court proceedings. Federal judges sometimes make an exception to this long-standing rule barring cameras from their courtrooms, but the judge presiding over the hush-money case has already rejected past media requests for greater access and appears unlikely to change course.

Pictures of Trump in the courtroom, however, may be allowed. When Trump was arraigned in Manhattan last April, Judge Juan Merchan permitted photographers to record still images before the arraignment but ruled that they would have to leave once the arraignment began. He also approved TV cameras in the hallways of the Manhattan courthouse, but said reporters would not be allowed to carry electronic recording devices into the courtroom or overflow rooms, claiming that cameras could disrupt the “dignity and decorum of the court” and put the safety of those involved at risk.

Does Trump have to be there every day?

Under New York state law, Trump is required to attend his entire criminal trial in person, potentially limiting his ability to travel outside of the state as he campaigns for President. The trial is expected to last up to six weeks, depending on how long jury selection takes and whether the judge opts for half-day proceedings or days off to attend other cases.

But Trump may receive some leniency from the judge. The same day he is set to appear in court for the start of the trial, Trump is also scheduled to be deposed in one of the civil lawsuits stemming from the merger of his social media startup with a so-called blank check company. Judge Merchan could allow Trump to miss part of the hush-money trial to attend the deposition.

In the past, Trump has chosen to appear at some court proceedings he wasn’t required to attend, often holding press conferences with reporters outside the courtrooms. He’s used those appearances to amplify both his campaign messages and his assertion that all of the charges he faces are politically motivated.

Who are the witnesses?

Daniels and Cohen are both expected to take the stand as witnesses for the prosecution, with Bragg’s office hoping that Cohen can directly tie Trump to the false business records.

Other witnesses could include Karen McDougal—a former Playboy model who received a $150,000 payment from the National Enquirer for rights to her story about an alleged affair with Trump—and members of Trump’s inner circle, including his longtime assistant Rhona Graff, his former director of Oval Office operations Madeleine Westerhout, and former campaign and White House aide Hope Hicks.

Trump’s lawyers are expected to attempt to undermine Cohen’s testimony by noting that he pleaded guilty to a variety of federal crimes in 2018—including for his role in the hush-money payment—and that he and Trump had a falling out many years ago.

It’s unclear if Trump will take the stand in his own defense, or if his lawyers will call any witnesses.

What happens if Trump gets convicted?

If Trump is convicted, he could face a sentence of up to four years in New York prison for each charge—a maximum of 136 years. And since falsifying business records is a state crime, only the New York governor—Kathy Hochul, a Democrat—could pardon him. 

But given Trump’s age, 77, lack of a prior conviction, the fact that he’s the first former President to ever be criminally tried, and that he may become President again, legal experts say there’s no guarantee that a conviction would result in jail time. The judge is not required to imprison Trump if he’s convicted by a jury; most first-time offenders in non-violent cases are often sentenced to probation, and Trump’s unique position could raise a host of extraordinary issues and considerations in sentencing.

Trump can still run for President if he’s convicted—or even inside a jail cell—though it would entail a range of unprecedented and untested legal questions if he wins the election after being convicted of a crime.

source https://time.com/6965419/trump-hush-money-trial-legal-questions/

Michigan School Shooter’s Parents Sentenced to at Least 10 Years in Prison

(PONTIAC, Mich.) — A judge sentenced the parents of a Michigan school shooter to at least 10 years in prison Tuesday for failing to take steps that could have prevented a “runaway train” — the killing of four students in 2021.

Jennifer and James Crumbley are the first parents convicted in a U.S. mass school shooting. They were found guilty of involuntary manslaughter after prosecutors presented evidence of an unsecured gun at home and indifference toward the teen’s mental health.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Ethan Crumbley drew dark images of a gun, a bullet and a wounded man on a math assignment, accompanied by despondent phrases. Staff at Oxford High School did not demand that he go home but were surprised when the Crumbleys didn’t volunteer it during a brief meeting.

Later that day, on Nov. 30, 2021, the 15-year-old pulled a handgun from his backpack and began shooting. Ethan, now 17, is serving a life sentence for murder and other crimes.

“These convictions are not about poor parenting,” Judge Cheryl Matthews said. “These convictions confirm repeated acts, or lack of acts, that could have halted an oncoming runaway train.

“About repeatedly ignoring things that would make a reasonable person feel the hair on the back of their neck stand up,” the judge said. “Opportunity knocked over and over again — louder and louder — and was ignored. No one answered.”

Defense attorneys asked that the Crumbleys be spared a prison term, noting they have already served nearly 2 1/2 years in jail after failing to meet a $500,000 bond after their arrest.

The Crumbleys will be eligible for parole after serving 10 years in custody and will get credit for the jail time. If parole is denied, they can’t be held longer than 15 years.

Before sentencing, family members of the slain students asked the judge for a 10-year term, condemning the parents as failures whose selfishness led to four deaths and a community tragedy.

“The blood of our children is on your hands, too,” said Craig Shilling, wearing a hoodie with the image of son Justin Shilling on his chest.

Nicole Beausoleil, the mother of Madisyn Baldwin, recalled simple things she enjoyed doing for her daughter, such as scheduling an oil change for her car or helping choose senior year classes.

“While you were purchasing a gun for your son and leaving it unlocked, I was helping her finish her college essays,” Beausoleil told the Crumbleys.

Five deputies in the courtroom stood watch over the couple and more lined the walls.

Prosecutors said simple acts by both parents could have stopped the catastrophe.

“Consider the devastating impact of their gross negligence that was foreseeable,” prosecutor Karen McDonald told the judge.

She then quoted the grim handwritten lines on Ethan’s math paper: “Help me. Blood everywhere. The world is dead.”

“All the while a 9 millimeter (gun) had just been purchased for him and 50 rounds of ammunition,” McDonald said.

The couple had separate trials in Oakland County court, 40 miles (64 kilometers) north of Detroit. Jurors saw the teen’s violent drawing on his school assignment and heard testimony about the crucial hours before the attack.

Ethan had told a counselor he was sad — a grandmother had died and his only friend suddenly had moved away — but said the drawing only reflected his interest in creating video games.

The Crumbleys attended a meeting at the school that lasted less than 15 minutes. They did not mention that the gun resembled one James Crumbley had purchased just four days earlier — a Sig Sauer 9 mm that Ethan had described on social media as his “beauty.”

His parents didn’t take him home, choosing instead to return to work and accepting a list of mental health providers. School staff said Ethan could stay on campus. A counselor, Shawn Hopkins, said he believed it would be safer for the boy than possibly being alone at home.

No one, however, checked Ethan’s backpack. He pulled the gun out later that day and killed four students — Tate Myre, Hana St. Juliana, Shilling and Baldwin — and wounded seven other people.

Before being sentenced, James Crumbley, 47, stood and insisted he did not know his son was deeply troubled.

“My heart is really broken for everybody involved. … I have cried for you and the loss of your children more times than I can count,” he said.

Jennifer Crumbley, 46, began her remarks by expressing her “deepest sorrow” about the shooting. She also said her comment at her trial about not doing anything differently was “completely misunderstood.”

“My son did seem so normal. I didn’t have a reason to do anything different,” Jennifer Crumbley said. “With the benefit of hindsight and information I have now, my answer would be drastically different.”

She blamed the school for not giving her the “bigger picture” about Ethan: sleeping in class, watching a video of a mass shooting, writing negative thoughts about his family.

“The prosecution has tried to mold us into the type of parents society wants to believe are so horrible only a school or mass shooter could be bred from,” Jennifer Crumbley said. “We were good parents. We were the average family.”

During the trials, there was no testimony from specialists about Ethan’s state of mind. But the judge, over defense objections, allowed the jury to see excerpts from his journal.

“I have zero help for my mental problems and it’s causing me to shoot up the … school,” he wrote. “I want help but my parents don’t listen to me so I can’t get any help.”

Asked about Ethan reporting hallucinations months before the shooting, Jennifer Crumbley told jurors he was simply “messing around.”

At the close of James Crumbley’s trial, the prosecutor demonstrated how a cable lock, found in a package at home, could have secured the gun.

“Ten seconds,” McDonald said, “of the easiest, simplest thing.”

source https://time.com/6965273/michigan-school-shooters-parents-sentenced-to-at-least-10-years-in-prison/

America’s Growing Birthweight Crisis

Americans are increasingly at risk of having lower incomes, poorer health, and a worse shot at opportunity even before they are born. More babies are now born with low birthweights than in the last 30 years. This has caused growing inequalities that can persist if not properly addressed. In certain parts of the country, that risk may be ten-times greater.

Underweight newborns are at an increased risk of long term health challenges, lower IQ scores, and developmental delays. New data shows that the frequency of this problem is rising with more than 300,000 newborns now experiencing low birthweight. This public health and equity issue is increasingly common in low-income communities, communities with poor access to healthy foods, and homes that are near high-polluting sites. 

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Emily Oster, a professor of economics at Brown University and author of Expecting Better writes, “Babies that are born in this group are much more likely to have complications. These include difficulty breathing, difficulty regulating blood sugar, and abnormal neurological signs… Some studies suggest that babies who are born SGA [Small for their Gestational Age] have more long-term issues, including a higher risk for diabetes and lower cognitive skills.”

Lower birth weight can also predict career trajectory and earning power. In a paper published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, researchers looked at thousands of government officials in England and found that even after controlling for other factors like parental education that people born with low birthweight tended to have lower wages and lower ranking roles.

Our team at American Inequality wanted to see how pervasive the issue of low birthweight is not just nationally but within specific communities. We found 29 counties, largely in the South and Midwest, where babies are twice as likely to be born with lower birthweights than the national average.

Pollution during pregnancy

A new report from Human Rights Watch found that babies in Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley” are three times more likely to experience low birthweight. This 85-mile stretch that runs along the Mississippi River between New Orleans and Baton Rouge contains over 200 fossil fuel and petrochemical plants—reportedly the highest density in the Western Hemisphere. Americans living in the area are exposed to higher concentrations of harmful substances. This current generation is paying the price.

The role of food deserts

Low birthweight is a product of many compounding factors including inadequate nutrition. In the 29 counties we looked at, all had elevated levels of obesity and were considered food deserts. Many Americans who don’t have access to healthy foods often turn to fast food as an alternative. In two of the counties, 50% of residents were food insecure, with some residents sharing that when the only grocery store in town closed, they would have to drive 130-miles round-trip to find the next nearest place to purchase food for their family.

I spoke with Dr. Gillian Goddard at ParentData who shared this, “Low birth weight infants are at increased risk of developing insulin resistance in adulthood, which can progress to type 2 diabetes. This results in varying health challenges, which aren’t always diagnosed promptly.”

Low incomes and poor healthcare

In the 29 counties we looked at, median household income was $35,830 and 1 in 3 families lived in poverty. Healthcare is deeply connected to income in America, meaning low income communities often had poor health outcomes and inadequate care.

No place struggles with low birthweight more than Issaquena County in Mississippi. This rural county of 1,100 people has no hospitals, one of the highest poverty rates in the country, and 1 in 4 babies is born weighing less than 5 pounds 8 ounces. Taneria Williams has lived in Issaquena for years, and has given birth to three children with low birthweight, despite her best efforts to avoid it. “As a mother you try to nourish your body as much as you can when you are pregnant. You try to do all the necessary things you have to do to have a healthy baby and I felt because I don’t have the proper health care, I am not able to do that.”

Black families routinely receive worse healthcare in America, and this impacts Black babies too. Black babies are twice as likely to be born with low birthweight as white babies. Babies born to college-educated Black women are more likely to have low birthweight than are babies born to white women who dropped out of high school. This indicates that race seems to be a much stronger factor than education in contributing to this social issue.

Economists from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that the U.S. spends more than $5 billion each year addressing challenges emerging from low birthweights.

The trend is getting worse

The preterm birth rate is now at its highest point since 2014. One of the main drivers of this is that food insecurity in America has also risen to its highest point over that same period. 

In 2022, 1 in 12 babies in America was born with a low birthweight. This rate puts the U.S. in a similar ranking with Hungary, Turkey, and Brazil. Nordic countries, on the other hand, have half the rate of low birthweights as is seen in the U.S., largely due to strong healthcare systems, low pollution, healthier foods, and higher incomes.

Preterm babies account for the vast majority of low birthweight babies. 1 in 10 babies is born preterm (born before 37 weeks of the typical 40 week gestational period), which can often come with its own set of health and developmental challenges. The World Health Organization explains that most preterm births happen spontaneously. But, increasingly, health issues for parents like diabetes, pre-eclampsia or heart disease (which are far more common in low-income communities) are driving more preterm births.

Stopping the low birthweight epidemic 

Regular doctor visits are the best method for warning pregnant women about low birthweights, but some lesser known factors can also make a difference. Safer environments and better nutrition can address the low birthweight challenges that the nation is facing. Specifically, this can be done by reducing the exposure pregnant women have to pollution, while also increasing the adoption of the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which is far too low in certain states.

Promoting healthy habits through WIC: WIC is eligible to low-income women who are pregnant all the way up until their infant’s first birthday, but most women don’t know about it. Women who enrolled in WIC saw an 11% reduction in babies born with low birthweight, and this number could rise to 65% if they enrolled early in pregnancy. Children whose mothers participated in WIC while pregnant scored higher on mental development assessments. However, in California, 65% of families that are eligible for WIC participate in the program, whereas in 8 states (Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Illinois, Montana, Utah, and Arkansas) the participation rate is only half that figure. Encouraging more parents to make use of the service in these low uptake states is a data-driven way to ensure that children face fewer challenges throughout their lives. 

Reducing exposure to hazardous environments: A study of 32 million births in the U.S. found that high exposure to pollution is a direct cause of low birthweight. In Cancer Alley, expansion is underway with at least 19 new fossil fuel and petrochemical plants in regions with the highest poverty rates and highest percent of Black residents. Reducing just 5 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) of fine particle pollution can decrease the risk of low birthweight by 15%. Polluting factors should not be developed near vulnerable communities, and in the meantime, pregnant women would benefit from staying away from polluting sites (like downwind of highways) as much as possible. The EPA has a free app to help monitor this, and you can buy some in-home devices too.

The next generation deserves basic nutrition and clean air; and expectant parents deserve the same. We just have to determine how best to ensure they are actually receiving these key factors for success.

source https://time.com/6965173/americas-birthweight-crisis/

Why Donald Trump’s Savvy Pivot On Abortion Shouldn’t Surprise You

This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox.

It was a moment some on the right had long suspected would come but many rank-and-file members refused to admit was possible: their champion against abortion rights, Donald Trump, would go wobbly.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The former—and perhaps future—President this week declined to endorse a federal ban on abortion. Instead, the presumptive Republican nominee said it should remain up to the states to negotiate an inconsistent landscape when it comes to when pregnancies can be terminated. The New York mogul notably didn’t back a federal 15-week ban on abortions, which GOP leaders like Sen. Lindsey Graham and Trump’s former counselor Kellyanne Conway support, showing that Trump’s dominance over the GOP does not always translate to an easy marriage of ideas or ideology. (As President, Trump supported a 20-week federal ban, although his hard lines on abortion rights were incredibly fluid.)

The rage from his anti-abortion base came immediately, but it’s not entirely clear if there will be any electoral consequences for Trump. There is no conservative alternative to his candidacy, and President Joe Biden has made restoring the federal right to an abortion protected for a half century via Roe v. Wade a campaign promise.

Put simply: Trump shifted his position in a way that will anger his right flank that has nowhere else to go and could soften Democrats’ grip on the female vote. The move may be as insincere as it is smart.

Conservative lawmakers and leaders alike were hardly shy about their frustrations. 

“I respectfully disagree with President Trump’s statement that abortion is a states’ rights issue,” said Graham, a South Carolina perma-apologist for Trumpism. “I will continue to advocate that there should be a national minimum standard limiting abortion at [15] weeks because the child is capable of feeling pain, with exceptions for rape, incest[,] and life of the mother.”

Responded Trump: “Many Good Republicans lost Elections because of this Issue, and people like Lindsey Graham, that are unrelenting, are handing Democrats their dream of the House, Senate, and perhaps even the Presidency.” As is his nature, Trump didn’t show any sign of contrition. If anything, he actually revealed something more significant: he made it clear his choice was about politics, not principles. 

Conservatives have made this bargain with Trump before. In 2015, he basically promised religious leaders that he would outsource his nominations for judges to conservatives who have spent a generation preparing for the end of Roe. In turn, religious leaders—especially when it became apparent Trump was heading toward the Republican nomination—rallied behind the thrice-married alleged adulterer who in the weeks before the 2016 votes were cast allegedly used a fixer to pay off a porn star.

Former Vice President Mike Pence, a devout Christian who joined the Trump campaign as its fig leaf to the religious bloc of voters, expressed frustration with Trump’s new position this week. “However much our Republican nominee or other candidates seek to marginalize the cause of life, I know pro-life Americans will never relent until we see the sanctity of life restored to the center of American law in every state in this country,” he said.

And Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, the anti-abortion rights group that advised many in the Trump orbit over the years, similarly slammed the switch. Its leader, Marjorie Dannenfelser, blamed Trump’s consultants for missing the party’s base. But SBA Pro-Life America nonetheless repeated its pledge to help Republicans retake power, joining other groups like Students for Life, the Faith and Freedom Coalition, the Family Research Council, National Right to Life, and CatholicVote. 

While there can be some sincere outrage over Trump’s callous flip-flop in an election year, most of the feigned shock is for show. As one friend—former TIME correspondent Elizabeth Dias—wrote in 2016, religious conservatives made their bet: Trump would be a vessel for their ambitions. (Dias and another former campaign trail pal of mine, Lisa Lerer, will unpack all of this in their new book out in June about the fall of Roe from their perches in The New York Times’ Washington bureau.)

It is important to be honest right now. Conservatives, especially in the self-described pro-life wing of politics, have always known Trump was using them just as much as they were playing with him. It was an unnatural alliance between a playboy and pastors, but it served their needs to give Trump power. Now, firmly atop that MAGA machine, Trump does not need the anti-abortion activists as much. He can take them—and their votes and dollars—for granted because he knows this truth: Where else are they going to go? It may be crass, but Trump is reading the battlefield accurately.

Make sense of what matters in Washington. Sign up for the D.C. Brief newsletter.

source https://time.com/6965211/donald-trump-abortion-religious-conservatives-politics/

Don’t Be Fooled By Trump’s Failure to Endorse a Nationwide Abortion Ban

Former President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that he favors state control over abortion law and policy and declined to endorse a nationwide ban. He also claimed that the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was favored by “all legal scholars” on “both sides.” Abortion is “where everybody wanted it, from a legal standpoint,” according to Trump.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

All of this is patently false, of course. Decades of legal scholarship and advocacy support the federal constitutional right to abortion that Dobbs eliminated. Some scholars who support legal abortion as a matter of policy have criticized the result the Court reached in Roe, but they are in the minority. Others have critiqued the reasoning of Roe v. Wade. Some, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, prefer the equality rationale of Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), where the Court noted the central importance of reproductive freedom to women’s ability to participate fully and equally in the social, political, and economic life of the nation. But the notion that all or most legal scholars wanted the Court to obliterate the right to choose abortion is ludicrous.

No one should be fooled by Trump’s failure to endorse any of the proposed nationwide abortion bans, a move designed to appear “moderate” and lull voters into a false sense of complacency. Make no mistake: a second Trump administration will empower an anti-abortion movement determined to make abortion illegal everywhere. Even if Republicans do not take over Congress, there are plans in place to make medication abortion unavailable and to resurrect the 1873 Comstock Act, an archaic anti-vice law, to ban abortion nationwide. Proponents of fetal personhood, which defines an embryo as a legal person from the moment of fertilization, will be closer to realizing their goal, threatening not only abortion and miscarriage care but also IVF and common forms of contraception. Trump promotes the grotesque lie that Democrats want to “execute babies” to distract from his own party’s extremism.

Trump peddles these false and misleading claims because he understands that the truth about abortion endangers his candidacy and Republicans generally. Far from ending the controversy, returning abortion to the states already has led to outcomes wildly out of step with public opinion. Doctors and hospitals routinely deny patients basic medical care, including miscarriage treatment, because they are not close enough to death to have their rights outweigh those of an embryo or fetus. State laws with no or ineffective exceptions force children, survivors of rape and incest, and people with nonviable fetuses to carry pregnancies regardless of the consequences to their health and future fertility. Maternal health deserts multiply because doctors fear criminal and civil liability. Abortion bans exacerbate a maternal and infant mortality crisis that makes pregnancy a mortal danger to American women—especially Black women, who are almost three times more likely to die from pregnancy and childbirth than their white counterparts.

Read More: How Louisiana Has Become a Microcosm of the Abortion Access Fight

Even people with qualms about abortion in theory don’t favor these horrific results in fact. Recent polling from Gallup and Axios respectively reveals supermajority popular opposition to total and near-total bans on abortion, and majority support, even among Republicans, for keeping the government out of reproductive health care decisions altogether. Every ballot initiative since Dobbs has been resolved in favor of abortion rights and access. In fact, abortion motivates Americans to turn out and vote for candidates who support reproductive freedom.

Perhaps the most pernicious of Trump’s lies is that returning abortion to the states is a victory for democracy. Depriving people of the right to make the most basic decisions about their bodies and lives is deeply undemocratic and a hallmark of authoritarian regimes worldwide. Extreme abortion bans and fetal personhood laws pass despite popular opposition because of unchecked partisan gerrymandering that gives Republicans supermajorities. Even the most conservative lawmakers live in fear of a primary challenge from the right if they support any exceptions, however minor and ineffective, to total abortion bans. Trump says abortion law after Dobbs is “all about the will of the people.” But in fact, Republicans are scrambling to take decisions about abortion out of the people’s hands by preventing referenda from reaching the ballot, protecting state courts that defy public opinion from accountability for their decisions, and disenfranchising voters.

The GOP has long used abortion to secure the support of voters to promote a much broader right-wing agenda. Trump, as promised, packed the federal judiciary with jurists who would destroy the government’s ability to regulate corporations, combat climate change and political corruption, enact sensible gun-safety laws, provide for affordable health care, expand opportunities for women and people of color, fight discrimination, protect the rights of workers and immigrants, ask the wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes, and so on.

The problem is that a majority of Americans actually support each of the policies the Right is determined to undo. To remain in power, Republicans must undermine democratic institutions and practices. Partisan and racial gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the evisceration of campaign finance regulation and voting rights laws are longstanding strategies; more recently, election denialism, insurrection, political violence, and white supremacist resurgence—all fomented by Trump—place democracy and the rule of law in mortal danger. All of this is at stake in Trump’s ultimate lie: his claim to be a champion of democracy rather than the architect of its demise.

source https://time.com/6965160/trump-nationwide-abortion-ban-lies-essay/

Man Arrested for Setting Fire at Bernie Sanders’ Office. Motive Remains Unclear

BURLINGTON, Vt. — A man was charged Sunday with setting a fire outside the Vermont office of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, federal prosecutors said.

Shant Soghomonian, 35, who was previously of Northridge, California, entered the building on Friday and went to Sanders’ third-floor office where security video showed him spraying a liquid on the door and setting it afire, officials said.

The building’s interior suffered some damage from the fire and sprinklers that doused the area with water, but no one was hurt. Sanders, an independent, was not in the office at the time.

Soghomonian was arrested Sunday on a charge of using fire to damage a building used in interstate commerce, according to a statement from Nikolas Kerest, the U.S. attorney for Vermont.

The motive remained unclear. Soghomonian was detained Sunday and could not be reached for comment. It was not immediately known if had a lawyer, and an initial court appearance had not been set, officials said.

The crime carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.

The case was investigated by police departments in Burlington, Shelburne and Williston; Vermont State Police; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; and U.S. Capitol Police, officials said.

source https://time.com/6964462/bernie-sanders-office-fire-man-arrested-charged-motive/