Connect with us

Published

on

The next front is rapidly emerging in the struggle between supporters and opponents of legal abortion, and that escalating conflict is increasing the chances that the issue will shape the 2024 election as it did last Novembers midterm contest.

President Joe Biden triggered the new confrontation with a flurry of recent moves to expand access to the drugs used in medication abortions, which now account for more than half of all abortions performed in the United States. Medication abortion involves two drugs: mifepristone followed by misoprostol (which is also used to prevent stomach ulcers). Although abortion opponents question the drugs safety, multiple scientific studies have found few serious adverse effects beyond headache or cramping.

Federal regulation of the use and distribution of these drugs by agencies including the FDA and the United States Postal Service has long been overshadowed in the abortion debate by the battles over Supreme Court nominations and federal legislation to ban or authorize abortion nationwide. But with a conservative majority now entrenched in the Court, and little chance that Congress will pass national legislation in either direction any time soon, abortion supporters and opponents are focusing more attention on executive-branch actions that influence the availability of the pills.

Read: The abortion backup plan no one is talking about

The reality of abortion care has been changing very, very rapidly, and now the politics are catching up with it, Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster who served as one of Bidens advisers in 2020, told me.

Tens of thousands of anti-abortion activists will descend on Washington today for their annual March for Lifethe first since the Supreme Court last summer overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a nationwide right to abortion. The activists will cheer the swift moves by some two dozen Republican-controlled states to ban or severely restrict abortion since the Court struck down Roe.

But even as abortion opponents celebrate, they are growing more frustrated about the increased reliance on the drugs, which are now used in 54 percent of U.S. abortionsup dramatically from less than one-third less than a decade ago, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights. With the overturning of Roe, [with] COVID, and with President Bidens loosening of the restrictions on these [drugs] there is a new frontier that everyone is pivoting to, Rebecca Parma, the legislative director for Texas Right to Life, a prominent anti-abortion group, told me.

George W. Bush and Donald Trump, the two Republicans who have held the presidency since the drugs were first approved under Democratic President Bill Clinton, in 2000, took virtually no steps to limit their availability. But conservative activists are already signaling that they will press the Republican presidential candidates in 2024 for more forceful action.

Our job is to make sure this becomes an issue that any GOP candidate will have to answer and address, Kristan Hawkins, the president of the anti-abortion group Students for Life of America, told me. No one can be ambivalent again; it will simply not be an option.

The challenge for Republicans is that the 2022 midterm elections sent an unmistakable signal of resistance to further abortion restrictions in almost all of the key swing states that tipped the 2020 presidential election and are likely to decide the 2024 contest. Would you really want to be Ron DeSantis or Donald Trump running in a close election saying, Im going to ban all abortion pills in Michigan or Pennsylvania right now? says Mary Ziegler, a law professor at UC Davis, who has written extensively on the history of the abortion debate.

Sunday is the 50th anniversary of the original Roe decision, and the Biden administration will mark the occasion with a defiant pro-abortion-rights speech from Vice President Kamala Harris in Florida, where GOP Governor DeSantis, a likely 2024 presidential contender, signed a 15-week abortion ban last April.

White House officials see access to abortion medication as the next battlefront in the larger struggle over the procedure, Jennifer Klein, the director of the White House Gender Policy Council, told me. She said she expects Republicans to mount more sweeping efforts to restrict access to the drugs than they did during the Bush or Trump presidencies. The reason youve seen both Democratic and Republican administrations ensure access to medication abortions is because this is the FDA following their evidence-based scientific judgment, she said. So what I think is different now is you are seeing some pretty extreme actions as the next way to double down on taking away reproductive health and reproductive rights.

Federal regulation of the abortion drugs has followed a consistent pattern, with Democratic presidents moving to expand access and Republican presidents mostly accepting those actions.

Read: The other abortion pill

During the 2000 presidential campaign, for instance, George W. Bush called the Clinton administrations initial approval of mifepristone wrong and said he worried it would lead to more abortions. But over Bushs two terms, his three FDA commissioners ignored a citizen petition from conservative groups to revoke approval for the drug. Under Barack Obama, the FDA formalized relatively onerous rules for the use of mifepristone. Physicians had to obtain a special certification to prescribe the drug, women had to meet with their doctor once before receiving it and twice after, and it could be used only within the first seven weeks of pregnancy.

The FDA loosened these restrictions during Obamas final year in office. It reduced the number of physician visits required to obtain the drugs from three to one and increased to 10 the number of weeks into a pregnancy the drugs could be used. The revisions also permitted other medical professionals, such as nurses, to prescribe the drugs if they received certification, and eliminated a requirement for providers to report adverse effects other than death. Trump didnt reverse any of the Obama decisions. He did side with conservatives by fighting a lawsuit from abortion-rights advocates to lift the requirement for an in-person doctors visit to obtain the drugs during the COVID pandemic. But by the time the Supreme Court ruled for the Trump administration in January 2021, Biden was days away from taking office. Within months, women seeking an abortion could consult with a doctor via telehealth and then receive the pills via mail.

On January 3 of this year, the FDA took another major step by allowing pharmacies to dispense the drugs. In late December, the Justice Department issued a legal opinion that the Postal Service could deliver the drugs without violating the 19th-century Comstock Act, which bars use of the mail to corrupt the public morals.

The paradox is that the impact of these rules, for now, will be felt almost entirely in the states where abortion remains legal. Obtaining abortion pills there will be much more comparable to filling any other prescription. But 19 red states have passed laws that still require medical professionals to be present when the drugs are administered, which prevents pharmacies from offering them despite the FDA authorization. And although the FDA has approved use of mifepristone for the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, medical professionals cannot prescribe the drugs in violation of state time limits (or absolute bans) on abortion. In terms of anti-abortion states, the Biden administrations actions have had basically no impact, Greer Donley, a University of Pittsburgh law professor who studies abortion law, told me in an email.

Although the red states have largely walled themselves off from Bidens efforts on medication abortion, conservatives have launched a multifront attempt to roll back access to the pills nationwide. Students for Life has filed another citizen petition with the FDA, arguing that doctors who prescribe the drugs must dispose of any fetal remains as meical waste. In a joint letter released last week, 22 Republican attorneys general hinted that they may sue to overturn the new FDA rules permitting pharmacies to dispense the drugs. In November, another coalition of conservative groups filed a lawsuit before a Trump-appointed judge in Texas seeking to overturn the original certification and ban mifepristone. Jenny Ma, the senior counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, says that decision could ultimately have a broader effect than even the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe: This case, she told me, could effectively ban medication abortion nationwide. It means people in every state may not be able to get abortion pills.

Republicans will also ramp up legislative action against the pills, although their proposals have no chance of becoming law while Democrats control the Senate and Biden holds the veto pen. Republican Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi is planning to reintroduce her SAVE Moms and Babies Act, which would restore the prohibition against dispensing abortion drugs through the mail or at pharmacies.

From the May 2022 issue: The future of abortion in a post-Roe America

However these legal and legislative challenges are resolved, its already apparent that the 2024 GOP presidential field will face more pressure than before to propose executive-branch actions against the drugs. Thats going to be our clarion call in 2024, says Kristi Hamrick, a long-term social-conservative activist, who now serves as the chief strategist for media and policy at Students for Life.

Katie Glenn, the state-policy director at Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, told me that, at the least, the group wants 2024 Republican presidential candidates to press for restoring the requirement to report adverse consequences from the drugs. Former Vice President Mike Pence, a likely candidate, has already suggested that he will support a ban on dispensing the pills through the mail. But the anti-abortion movements long-term goal remains the same: ban mifepristone altogether. Hawkins shows the growing fervor GOP candidates will face when she says, This pill is a cancer that has now metastasized throughout our country.

Simultaneously, abortion-rights advocates are pushing the Biden administration to loosen restrictions even further. Medication abortion has been overregulated for far too long, Ma told me. Many advocates want the FDA to extend permitted use of mifepristone from 10 to 12 weeks, eliminate the requirement that the professionals prescribing the drugs receive a special certification, and begin the process toward eventually making the drug available over the counter.

The immediate question is whether the Biden administration will challenge the red-state laws that have stymied its efforts to expand access. Advocates have argued that a legal case can be made for national FDA regulations to trump state restrictions, such as the requirement for physicians to dispense the drugs. But Biden is likely to proceed cautiously.

We dont have a lot of answers because, frankly, states have not tried to do this stuff in hundreds of years, Ziegler, the author of the upcoming book Roe: The History of a National Obsession, told me. Even so, she added, its a reasonable assumption that this conservative-dominated Supreme Court would resist allowing the federal government to preempt state rules on how the drugs are dispensed.

These mirror-image pressures in each party increase the odds of a clear distinction between Biden (or another Democrat) and the 2024 GOP nominee over access to the drugs. Democrats are generally confident they will benefit from almost any contrast that keeps abortion prominent in the 2024 race. Some, like Lake, see access to the pills as a powerful lever to do that. The issue, she argues, is relevant to younger voters, who are much more familiar than older people with the growing use of medication abortion and are especially dubious that pharmacies can offer certain drugs in some states but not in others.

The impact of abortion on the 2022 election was more complex than is often discussed. As Ive written, in the red states that have banned or restricted the practice, such as Florida, Ohio, and Texas, there was no discernible backlash against the Republican governors or state legislators who passed those laws. But the story was different in the blue and purple states where abortion remains legal. In pivotal states including Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, a clear majority of voters said they supported abortion rights, and, according to media exit polls, crushing majorities of them voted against Republican gubernatorial candidates who pledged to restrict abortion. Those Democratic victories in the states likely to prove decisive again in 2024 have left many Republican strategists leery of pursuing any further constraints on abortion.

Whats clear now is that even as abortion opponents gather to celebrate their long-sought toppling of Roe, many of them wont be satisfied until they have banned the procedure nationwide. It is totally unacceptable for a presidential candidate to say, Its just up to the states now, Marilyn Musgrave, the vice president for government affairs at the Susan B. Anthony group, told me. We need a federal role clearly laid out by these presidential candidates. Equally clear is that abortion opponents now view federal regulatory actions to restrict, and eventually ban, abortion drugs as a crucial interim step on that path. The U.S. may seem in some ways to be settling into an uneasy new equilibrium, with abortion banned in some states and permitted in others. But, as the escalating battle over abortion medication makes clear, access to abortion in every state will remain on the ballot in 2024.

Continue Reading

Sports

Shocks at No. 1 — and No. 2?! Winners, losers and takeaways from MLB draft Day 1

Published

on

By

Shocks at No. 1 -- and No. 2?! Winners, losers and takeaways from MLB draft Day 1

The first day of the 2025 MLB draft is complete! The Washington Nationals selected Eli Willits with the No. 1 pick, opting for the prep shortstop — who might be more likely to sign below slot — in a draft with no clear-cut top prospect. And there were plenty of other intriguing selections as the first three rounds unfolded Sunday night.

The Seattle Mariners had to have been thrilled to have Kiley McDaniel’s No. 1-ranked prospect, Kade Anderson, fall to them at No. 3, and Ethan Holliday was selected at No. 4 by his famous father’s former squad the Colorado Rockies.

We asked ESPN baseball insiders Alden Gonzalez, Jesse Rogers and David Schoenfield to break down their favorite and most head-scratching moves of the draft’s first night, as well as to predict which players will bring the most to their new teams in the long term.


A lot of us were thrown for a loop by the first two selections. What do you make of the Nationals taking Ethan Willits at No. 1 and the Angels picking Tyler Bremner at No. 2?

Gonzalez: I was stunned on both accounts. Though there was definitely some uncertainty around the Nationals’ approach, especially since the firing of GM Mike Rizzo, I didn’t see anybody, anywhere, projecting Willits to be their choice at No. 1 overall. But the Angels drafting Bremner was an even bigger risk. Kiley had him 18th in his latest ranking. Six pitchers were ranked ahead of him. But Bremner might be someone who can rise and impact their major league roster quickly, and the Angels are always looking for that.

Rogers: The first two picks really summed up the uncertainty of the entire draft. The Nationals’ faith in a 17-year-old will be tested over the coming years, but the pick will likely save them some money for later in this draft and give Willits time to grow. The same can be said of many of the top picks: They’re going to need time. There are far fewer sure things this year — though Bremner could be the exception. The Angles love to graduate their players quickly, and as a college arm, he could see the majors sooner rather than later. Like Willits, this could also be a cost-saving move for later spending.

Schoenfield: In a draft that not only lacked a sure-thing No. 1 overall pick but was viewed as weaker at the top than those of recent years, it’s perhaps not a huge surprise that the Nationals and Angels used their picks to strike likely underslot deals with Willits and Bremner, giving them money to spend later in the draft — which they can use on high school prospects who might have slipped, trying to buy them out from going to college. It’s a strategy teams have used with success over the years, so the drafts for the Nationals and Angels will have to be viewed in their totality and not just focused on these two players.


What was your favorite pick of the night — and which one had you scratching your head?

Gonzalez: The Rockies have done a lot of things wrong over these last few … uh, decades. But it was really cool to see them take Ethan Holliday at No. 4 after his father, Matt, starred in Colorado for so long. Outside of the top two picks, Ethan Conrad going 17th to the Cubs was my biggest surprise of the night. Kiley had him ranked 30th; others had him falling out of the first round entirely. There’s uncertainty coming off shoulder surgery. But Conrad, 21, put up a 1.238 OPS in 97 plate appearances before his season ended prematurely in March. And the dearth of college bats probably influenced a slight reach here.

Rogers: I’m loving Billy Carlson to the White Sox at No. 10. Though they lost 121 games last season, Chicago couldn’t pick higher than this spot per CBA rules — but the Sox might have gotten a top-five player. Carlson’s defense will play extremely well behind a sneaky good and young pitching staff that should keep the ball on the ground in the long term. Meanwhile, with the pick of the litter when it came to hitters — college outfielders and high school kids as well — the Pirates took a high school pitcher at No. 6. Seth Hernandez could be great, but they need hitting. A lot of it.

Schoenfield: The Mariners reportedly wanted LSU left-hander Kade Anderson all along, but they certainly couldn’t have been expecting to get him with the third pick. (Keep in mind that the Mariners were lucky in the first place to land the third pick in the lottery, so they added some good fortune on top of good luck.) They get the most polished college pitcher in the draft, one who should move quickly — and perhaps make it a little easier for Jerry Dipoto to dip into his farm system and upgrade the big league roster at the trade deadline. Even though I understand why the Angels did it, Bremner still seems a little questionable. With the second pick, you want to go for a home run, and the consensus is that Holliday or even Anderson is more likely to be a more impactful major leaguer. Bremner’s lack of a third plus pitch is an issue, and you have to wonder if the Angels are relying too much on his control — which, yes, should allow him to get to the majors — and ignoring the possible lack of upside.


Who is the one player you’d like to plant your flag on as the biggest steal of this draft?

Gonzalez: Seth Hernandez, who went sixth to the Pirates and should someday share a rotation with Paul Skenes and Jared Jones. High school pitchers are incredibly risky, especially when taken so early in the draft. But Hernandez is a great athlete who already throws hard, boasts a plus changeup and showed improvement with his breaking ball this spring. He’ll go the Hunter Greene route, from standout high school pitcher to major league ace.

Rogers: Jamie Arnold will look like a steal at No. 11, especially when he debuts in the majors well before many of the players taken around him. I’m not worried about the innings drop in 2025 — not when he was striking out 119 hitters and walking just 27. The A’s need to polish him up but will be pleased by how consistent he’ll be. You can’t go wrong with a college lefty from an ACC school — at least, the A’s didn’t.

Schoenfield: I’m going with Billy Carlson with the 10th pick — with the admitted caveat that the White Sox haven’t exactly been stellar at developing hitters. But Carlson looks like an elite defensive shortstop with plus power, and that alone can make him a valuable major leaguer. If the hit tool comes along, we’re looking at a potential star. OK, he’s Bobby Witt Jr. lite? That’s still an All-Star player.


What’s your biggest takeaway from Day 1 of this draft?

Gonzalez: The Nationals throwing a wrench into the proceedings by selecting Willits. It was a surprising choice, but in their minds an easy one. Interim general manager Mike DeBartolo called Willits the best hitter and best fielder available. And in a draft devoid of can’t-miss, high-impact talent, Willits is no doubt a solid pick — a polished hitter who should stick at shortstop and might consistently hit 20 homers and steal 20 bases at a premium position. He also might come under slot, allowing flexibility later in the draft. But his selection is what allowed Anderson to reach the Mariners at No. 3 and prompted the Rockies to draft Holliday at No. 4, among other dominoes. It set a really interesting tone.

Rogers: Things change quickly in baseball. Whereas college hitters are usually the safest bets early in the draft, this year high school position players dominated. (And they all play shortstop, at least for now.) Athleticism has returned to baseball, and draft rooms are acting accordingly.

Schoenfield: I’m agreeing with Jesse. The selection of that many prep shortstops stood out — and they all seem to hit left-handed and run well, and some of them have big power potential and a cannon for an arm. Look, the hit tool is the most important and the hardest to scout and project, so not all these kids are going to make it, but their potential is exciting and, to Jesse’s point, their wide range of tools is showing that baseball is still drawing top athletes to the sport.

Continue Reading

Business

Economists say the cost of living crisis is over – here’s why many households disagree

Published

on

By

Economists say the cost of living crisis is over - here's why many households disagree

Talk to economists and they will tell you that the cost of living crisis is over.

They will point towards charts showing that while inflation is still above the Bank of England’s 2% target, it has come down considerably in recent years, and is now “only” hovering between 3% and 4%.

So why does the cost of living still feel like such a pressing issue for so many households? The short answer is because, depending on how you define it, it never ended.

Economists like to focus on the change in prices over the past year, and certainly on that measure inflation is down sharply, from double-digit levels in recent years.

But if you look over the past four years then the rate of change is at its highest since the early 1990s.

But even that understates the complexity of economic circumstances facing households around the country.

For if you want a sense of how current financial conditions really feel in people’s pockets, you really ought to offset inflation against wages, and then also take account of the impact of taxes.

More on Cost Of Living

That is a complex exercise – in part because no two households’ experience is alike.

But recent research from the Resolution Foundation illustrates some of the dynamics going on beneath the surface, and underlines that for many households the cost of living crisis is still very real indeed.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

UK inflation slows to 3.4%

The place to begin here is to recall that perhaps the best measure of economic “feelgood factor” is to subtract inflation and taxes from people’s nominal pay.

You end up with a statistic showing your real household disposable income.

Consider the projected pattern over the coming years. For a household earning £50,000, earnings are expected to increase by 10% between 2024/25 and 2027/28.

Subtract inflation projected over that period and all of a sudden that 10% drops to 2.5%.

Now subtract the real increase in payments of National Insurance and taxes and it’s down to 0.2%.

Now subtract projected council tax increases and all of a sudden what began as a 10% increase is actually a 0.1% decrease.

Read more:
UK economy figures ‘not as bad as they look’, analysts say
More options than ever for savers to beat inflation

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Will we see tax rises in next budget?

Of course, the degree of change in your circumstances can differ depending on all sorts of factors. Some earners (especially those close to tax thresholds, which in this case includes those on £50,000) feel the impact of tax changes more than others.

Pensioners and those who own their homes outright benefit from a comparatively lower increase in housing costs in the coming years than those paying mortgages and (especially) rent.

Nor is everyone’s experience of inflation the same. In general, lower-income households pay considerably more of their earnings on essentials, like housing costs, food and energy. Some of those costs are going up rapidly – indeed, the UK faces higher power costs than any other developed economy.

But the ultimate verdict provides some clear patterns. Pensioners can expect further increases in their take-home pay in the coming years. Those who own their homes outright and with mortgages can likely expect earnings to outpace extra costs. But others are less fortunate. Those who rent their homes privately are projected to see sharp falls in their household income – and children are likely to see further falls in their economic welfare too.

Continue Reading

Environment

E-quipment highlight: Perkins TracStar battery electric power unit

Published

on

By

E-quipment highlight: Perkins TracStar battery electric power unit

The off-highway equipment experts at Perkins and McElroy have teamed up to develop a plug-and-play battery electric power unit designed to help equipment OEMs and upfitters to seamlessly transition from diesel to battery electric power.

Designed to occupy the same space as the companies’ diesel-engined power units, Perkins dropped its new battery power unit into the similarly new McElroy TracStar 900i pipe fusion machine (specialized equipment used to join thermoplastic pipes like HDPE or polypropylene by heat-welding them end-to-end to form a continuous length pf pipe).

Perkins’ battery electric power unit replaces the company’s proprietary 134 hp, 3.6 liter 904 Series Tier V diesel engine, enabling units that are already deployed to be quickly upgraded to electric power – and helping trade allies and development partners to easily retrofit existing equipment in order to add zero-emission options to their operational fleet.

“We’re actively helping customers navigate the shift in power system requirements, with a range of advanced power systems including electric, diesel-electric and alternative fuel compatible engines,” says Jaz Gill, vice president, global sales, marketing at Perkins. “When it comes to the innovative fully integrated battery electric power unit, it can be ‘dropped in’ to a machine to replace a diesel engine. The system consists of a Perkins battery along with inverters, motors and on-board chargers – all packaged up into a compact drop-in system to support seamless transition from diesel to electric for our customers looking to make that move.”

Advertisement – scroll for more content

McElroy believes that an electric, emissions-free power unit like this one will open new opportunities and applications for its customers.

“Their team has done a phenomenal job of integrating their battery electric system into our TracStar 900i,” explains McElroy President and CEO Chip McElroy. “We’re really excited to see what the market thinks about this concept.”

Development of the battery electric powered pipe fusion machine was completed in about nine months. Future Perkins-powered electric equipment running the 904 diesel (small excavators, telehandlers, pumps, and gensets) could be developed even more quickly. You can find out more in the company’s promo video, below.

Perkins electric power unit


SOURCE | IMAGES: McElroy, Perkins.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending