Alabama's extreme, new abortion law

Alabama's (mostly male) legislature passed, and it's female governor signed, the most stringent anti-abortion law in the nation.    It makes performing an abortion a crime at any stage -- with the only exception being cases where the mother's life is at serious risk.    Pregnancies resulting from rape or incest do not qualify as exceptions.

And who is charged with the crime?    Not the woman who requests the abortion;  that would be bad political optics and arouse political opposition.   No, the penalty is for the doctor or other person who performs the abortion.   It carries a penalty of up to 99 years in prison.

The top Republican in the U.S. House, Kevin McCarthy, says he opposes the bill because it does not allow for rape and incest as exceptions.    Televangelist Pat Robertson says the law is "too extreme."  [see below]

If the law ever goes into effect, it will probably close all abortion facilities in the State of Alabama.    But that is not likely to happen, although the long range survival of Roe v. Wade is in more jeopardy than ever before.

First, this law will not go into effect until six months after passage.   Second, it will be appealed and will likely be over-turned by an Appeals Court.   It may never reach the Supreme Court.

The conservative majority at the Roberts Court seems content with an incremental approach, one that gradually makes it harder to obtain an abortion, without such a sweeping criminalization as does this law.

In fact, if this Alabama law did reach the top court, it would probably be overturned because it is so extreme and Chief Justice Roberts is an incrementalist and an  institutionalist to whom respect for existing law (in this case Roe v. Wade) is important;  and overturning established law must have a compelling rationale.

So, I think we can all take a deep breath about immediate criminalization.   The long-range view is somewhat less certain, especially if Trump gets reelected and has a chance to appoint more conservatives to the Supreme Court.


Let's look at the basic issue that makes this such a divisive issue and such a fierce fight.   In my view, "a woman's right to choose" is not the only basic issue we should be talking about.   It's also the unanswerable question of:   when does life begin?

Note the zeal with which anti-abortionists have pursued "personhood" bills that would declare an embryo a "person" at the moment of conception.   They recognize the importance of that designation for the larger argument.

As with all the difficult questions that reach the Supreme Court for decision, this is a clash between two rights.   Here it's the undeniable woman's right to choose what happens to her body in conflict with another human being's right to life.

I support a woman's right to choose an abortion early in pregnancy, because I do not accept the view that "life begins at conception."   I think creating a life is much more complicated and has many more steps than a sperm penetrating an ovum and beginning a process of developing.   At what point is this embryo a person, a human being?

That is more of a philosophical question than a biological one.   I'm confident that it does not become a person at conception.   If I believed that, I might also believe -- as many anti-abortionists believe -- that abortion is murder.

If one believes it's murder, then their draconian reactions and laws make more sense.   If one does not believe that life begins at conception, then when does it begin -- and, ergo, when does abortion become murder?

The fact is that we cannot give a good answer to those questions because development is a gradual process with no definitive end point to define when we can say "finished."

Until we recognize, however, that this is what we're really fighting about -- not just the woman's right to choose but that right in conflict with a human's right to life -- and refocus our efforts on this conflict -- I don't see any resolution.  Propaganda and debate will remain in the realm of religious preaching and feminist rhetoric -- while in contrast the ultimate decisions will be the result of power politics.

I do recognize that, in pregnancies that result from rape, or from coercive tactics in abusive relationships, or from incest, there is the additional factor that the woman was violated and impregnated against her will.   Yes, I agree that should be considered in coming to some decision about the balance of rights.

But, in none of these exceptions does the developing fetus ask to be created.   The sperm and egg do no know the circumstances of their creation.   So from the fetus' point of view, it is always the innocent victim.   So it's inconsistent that anti-abortionists would differentiate outcome based on how the pregnancy came to be:   i.e., why allow abortion in cases of rape and not in other cases?   Anti-abortionists who allow this exception are granting credence to the woman's right, because her pregnancy was forced upon her.   But, from the fetus/person's' point of view, that seems unfair.

But from the raped woman's view of her pregnancy, she is also the innocent victim.   Why should she have to bear the fruits of someone else's crime?

See, the more we look beyond the simplistic thinking, the more complex the problem becomes.   Complex problems with conflicting rights do now lend themselves to easy solutions.

Ralph

PS:   Note on Pat Robertson's calling it "too extreme:"   A later reading of his full quote clarifies that Robertson is not saying it's too extreme for him, but he thinks it's not the case to send up to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade (their real purpose) because it's too extreme and the Court probably won't take the case for a hearing.

"How Trump Thinks Tariffs Work
(And How They Actually Work)"

by Annie Lowery

reprinted from The Atlantic, May  14, 2019

"Last week, President Donald Trump increased tariffs on $200 billion worth of goods imported from China, the latest salvo in the administration’s months-long trade war with Beijing. On Monday, China said it would retaliate with tariffs on $60 billion worth of American products, warning that it would “never succumb to foreign pressure.”

"Trump argued that additional tariffs were necessary to force concessions from the Chinese and would redound to the benefit of American manufacturers and the American economy. 'Tariffs will bring in FAR MORE wealth to our Country than even a phenomenal deal of the traditional kind. Also, much easier & quicker to do,' he said in one of his numerous tweets on the subject. He added: “'Tariffs will make our Country MUCH STRONGER, not weaker. Just sit back and watch!'

"Oh, really? To make the case for his trade war, and to measure his administration’s success in it, Trump is relying on blatant falsehoods and misconceptions. Taking those falsehoods as truths and those misconceptions as correct—accepting Trump’s theory of trade, that is—the United States might be stronger, the deals might be phenomenal, and the trade war might be good and easy to win. But the Chinese have not yet backed down, and show no signs of doing so. In the meantime, the businesses and consumers sitting back and watching the trade war are bearing modest, but measurable costs.

"In Trump’s mind, tariffs are a potent, unilateral weapon, and protectionism is a potent, necessary economic philosophy. He argues that his tariffs are a direct tax on Beijing—a way of sapping Chinese manufacturers, raising American revenue, aiding domestic businesses, and giving Washington leverage in trade negotiations. 'Tariffs are NOW being paid to the United States by China of 25% on 250 Billion Dollars worth of goods & products,' he said on Twitter. 'These massive payments go directly to the Treasury of the U.S.'

"This is not at all how it works; the Chinese government is no more apt to fork over billions of yuan for Trump’s tariffs than Mexico’s government is to pay for a border wall. Rather, tariffs fall on the American importers of Chinese goods, who often pass those cost increases onto American consumers. That means every time Trump raises tariffs, he risks raising costs on families and businesses.

"Earlier this month, Trump argued that this dynamic did not exist. 'The Tariffs paid to the USA have had little impact on product cost, mostly borne by China,' he wrote, intimating that Chinese companies have lowered their prices to remain competitive.

"That has not, in fact, happened. In a new paper, economists based at Princeton, Columbia, and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York write: 'Although in principle the effect of higher tariffs on domestic prices could be offset by foreign exporters lowering the pre-tariff prices that they charge for these goods, we find little evidence of such an improvement in the terms of trade up to now.' The authors estimate that Trump’s tariffs were costing consumers about $1.4 billion in real income a month by the end of 2018.

'Trump has promised to use the revenue that the government raises from China (remember, the government is not actually raising money from China) to help businesses harmed by the trade war. Washington will demand payments from Beijing, use the money to buy food, and pass the food on 'to starving people in nations around the world!' he said. It is true that the government is planning more aid for agricultural firms hit by the trade war, and that Trump wants the U.S. Department of Agriculture to figure out some work-around. But at best, such a plan would involve taking American taxpayer dollars and using them to buy American agricultural goods to ship abroad or to bail out American farms.

'Trump’s misconceptions on trade are not limited to tariffs. He continues to argue that the United States’ trade deficit with China is a sign it is getting ripped off, and that it is bleeding itself dry by engaging in commerce with the Chinese: 'The United States has been losing, for many years, 600 to 800 Billion Dollars a year on Trade. With China we lose 500 Billion Dollars. Sorry, we’re not going to be doing that anymore!' There are many issues with the two countries’ economic relationship, and many ways that China does not play fair. But trade imbalances are not in and of themselves a bad thing. The United States has a trade deficit with China in large part because goods are cheaper to produce there, and Americans choose to consume huge amounts of them; the deficit is not a way of measuring capital losses in the United States.

"As for tariffs bringing 'FAR MORE wealth to our Country:' The trade war thus far has not caused tremendous macroeconomic damage. But it has hit certain industries and businesses very hard—dairy farms in Wisconsin, for instance—while increasing consumer prices a smidge. Economists have estimated that Trump’s trade war cost the country a sliver of GDP last year, in part by forcing businesses to rejigger their supply chains. (The pain is worst in heavily Republican counties, one analysis found.) Given Trump’s new tariffs and China’s retaliatory measures, the cost might be yet greater this year.

"Not that Trump himself would admit it. In his mercantilist, protectionist understanding of the world, trade wars are good, tariffs are a way of hitting the bad guy, and whatever the United States is doing on trade, it is winning. Alas, here in the real world, Trump’s trade war means that consumer goods are about to get more expensive and certain exporting businesses are about to face a much tougher climate, all thanks to the White House."

=============

Stop and contemplate for a moment that this is just one of many areas of managing our government where Trump does not understand the facts and refuses to listen to experts readily available to him.  Even Trump's Chair of Economic Advisers, in a televised interview, contradicted the Trump's rationale.

It probably doesn't happen on FoxNews or even on CNN;  but, on more liberal media,   the president's economic ignorance is a source of ridicule.  And of course the recent revelation that he lost over a billion dollars in his businesses in one 10 year period adds to the scorn greeting his claims of being such a business genius.

It's long been a truism to say that the combination of ignorance and power in a leader is a dangerous situation.   With Trump, we have to add to that dyad the qualities of arrogant belief in his own thoughts, stubborn resistance to advice, and a near complete recalcitrance to learning from experience if it contradicts what his gut tells him.

No, if this trade war goes badly, rather than question whether he was wrong, Trump will simply find someone else to blame -- the Democrats, most likely . . . and probably Barack Obama along with the current crop.

Ralph

Trump pressuring Ukraine to smear Biden -- using a foreign government to interfere in a US election. Sound familiar?

Jonathan Chait lays out the case in a May 10 article in New York magazine's "Intelligencer."    Rudy Giuliani is tasked with the dirty deed.   Here's what Chait wrote:

*     *     *     *     *

"In 2016, Donald Trump’s campaign learned Russia was working to help him win, and many of its members actively sought to exploit that assistance.  In 2020, now possessing the powers of the Executive Branch,  [Trump's campaign is] pressuring a foreign government to assist Trump’s reelection campaign. The effort consists of Trump’s agents lobbying Ukraine to smear his political rivals.

"The smear campaign is being run by Rudy Giuliani, who — perhaps operating on the theory that a massive scandal boasted about [in] the media by its perpetrators is less damaging than one uncovered by investigators — is broadcasting his scheme. 'There’s nothing illegal about it,' [Giuliani] tells the New York Times. 'Somebody could say it’s improper.'

"Well, yes, they could. It’s grossly, terrifyingly improper.

"Giuliani is trying to get Ukraine to pursue two investigations: one against the last democratic presidential nominee, and another against the leading candidate to be the next one. The first is based on murky charges that have circulated on the right that Hillary Clinton’s campaign conspired with Ukraine to gin up the Russia investigation. (This presumes that without Clinton starting it, there was no serious evidence to investigate Trump’s connections to Russia, which is absurd on its face.)

"The second is based on charges that, during his time as vice-president, Joe Biden improperly used his power to benefit his son, Hunter. The Times laid out this accusation in a lengthy report last week. The charge is that Hunter Biden was working for a Ukrainian energy company that was being threatened with prosecution, and Joe Biden demanded Ukraine fire the prosecutor.

"But Bloomberg News investigated this claim and thoroughly debunked it. Bloomberg reveals that the prosecution of Hunter Biden’s client had already been shelved at the time Joe Biden was calling for the prosecutor to be removed. And, as the Times acknowledges, the prosecutor Biden called to be fired was widely considered to be corrupt, and the Obama government supported the prosecution of Hunter Biden’s client anyway. There is no quid, no pro, no quo in this story. Biden acted completely in line with administration policy, and his actions had no bearing on his son’s interests.

"So why would Ukraine pursue baseless charges? Because its government has a strong interest in mollifying Trump. The Times reported last year that Ukraine halted its cooperation with the Mueller probe because it couldn’t risk provoking Trump. 'The cases are just too sensitive for a government deeply reliant on United States financial and military aid, and keenly aware of Mr. Trump’s distaste for the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, into possible collusion between Russia and his campaign, some lawmakers say.'

"Having used that leverage defensively, to get Ukraine to withhold cooperation into the probe of his campaign, Trump is now using it offensively, to gin up charges against his targets. His involvement and interest in the effort is transparent. During one of Giuliani’s meetings with Ukrainian officials, he 'called Mr. Trump excitedly to brief him on his findings.'  Giuliani tells the Times that his work has Trump’s 'full support,' and he is making the president’s interest extremely clear to Ukraine’s government.  'I’m going to give them reasons why they shouldn’t stop [the investigation] because that information will be very, very helpful to my client,' he says.

"Trump is already burbling excitedly about the project. “I’m hearing it’s a major scandal, major problem,'  Trump said on Fox News. 'I hope for [Biden] it is fake news. I don’t think it is.'

"Unlike the Russia scandal, this episode is one that Trump’s reelection campaign can undertake with the benefit of advance planning and some lawyering (Giuliani being at least technically a lawyer, or at least having the benefit of legal counsel he can consult). On its face there is nothing illegal here. Trump is leveraging his power as president to compel a dependent foreign government to smear the opposition party. It’s just something no president has ever thought to do before. The powers legally available to a corrupt president and a party that has turned a blind eye to his violations of governing norms may be more terrifying than anybody has considered."

*     *     *     *     *

But is that true?    That there is "nothing illegal here"?    Wouldn't this be pressuring a foreign government that is dependent on US aid to do the political will of the president of the United States?   In other words, investigate the political enemy of the president during a re-election campaign?   How is that different from accepting help from a foreign government (Russia) to give dirt on one's political enemy (Clinton)?   Is it because of timing -- that Biden is not yet the official opponent?   I really don't get it.

Nevertheless, Rudy's announced trip to Ukraine was dropped, supposedly due to the outcry of outrage, as in Chait's article.   That doesn't mean they'll drop the deal -- maybe they'll just be a little less public with it.

Ralph