Connect with us

Published

on

In a Truth Social video posted this morning, Donald Trump says abortion policy should be left to the states. The result, he noted, will be a wide range of restrictions, with different states drawing lines at different points in pregnancy. Although he does not say which cutoff he prefers, he has previously said Florida’s “heartbeat” law, which applies around six weeks of gestation and prohibits most abortions, is “a terrible thing and a terrible mistake.” And in the Truth Social video, he says that “like Ronald Reagan, I’m strongly in favor of exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother.”

By ruling out federal abortion restrictions, Trump provoked criticism from pro-life activists who favor a national ban. But those activists will never support Joe Biden, who not only views the 2022 reversal of Roe v. Wade as a grave injustice but favors legislation that would re-establish a federal right to abortion. Trump is clearly more worried about alienating voters who oppose broad restrictions on abortion, which surveys suggest is most of them.

During aMeet the Press interview last September, Trump, who once described himself as “pro-choice,” declined to say whether he would “sign federal legislation that would ban abortion at 15 weeks.” But he said he would “come together with all groups” to arrive at “something that’s acceptable,” implying that he was open to the idea of federal restrictions. Now he is saying “the states will determine [abortion policy] by vote or legislation, or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land,” meaning “the law of the state.” The bottom line, he says, is respecting “the will of the people.”

ReversingRoe, Trump argues, served that end by freeing states to regulate abortion as they see fit. Through his Supreme Court appointments, he brags, “I was proudly the person responsible for the ending of”Roe. That result, he claims, was “something that all legal scholars” on “both sides” favored.

That is obviously not accurate. While it is true that some supporters of abortion rights criticized Roe’s reasoning, that does not necessarily mean they thought the Constitution was irrelevant to the debate. As an appeals court judge, for example, the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that Roe went too far, too fast, and she favored grounding a constitutional right to abortion in the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection rather than an unenumerated right to privacy or bodily autonomy. But Trump’s claim of bipartisan agreement that Roe was wrongly decided reflects his attempt to align his position with what he thinks most Americans want.

In the latest Gallup poll, 52 percent of Americans described themselves as “pro-choice,” while 44 percent identified as “pro-life.” Thirty-four percent said abortion should be “legal under any circumstances,” compared to 13 percent who said it should be “illegal in all circumstances.” A majority (51 percent) said abortion should be “legal only under certain circumstances,” a view that encompasses a wide range of policies.

That majority position could describe a broad ban with the exceptions that Trump supports, for example, or a much more liberal policy that generally allows abortion through 20 weeks of gestation, which would cover nearly all abortions. Even the 15-week limit that Florida’s Supreme Court recently upheld would allow something like 96 percent of abortions. By contrast, Florida’s “heartbeat” law, which will take effect unless voters approve an abortion-rights ballot initiative in November, covers a much larger share of abortions. According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 55 percent of abortions are performed after six weeks. The ban also would apply to many abortions performed in the sixth week.

All of those policies could be described as making abortion “legal only under certain circumstances.” But Gallup also found that 47 percent of Americans thought abortion should be legal in “any” or “most” circumstances, which would rule out the law that Trump deemed “a terrible mistake.” Another 36 percent said abortion should be legal “only in a few circumstances,” which could mean a six-week ban or even a general prohibition with limited exceptions.

“When asked about the legality of abortion at different stages of pregnancy,” Gallup reports, “about two-thirds of Americans say it should be legal in the first trimester (69%), while support drops to 37% for the second trimester and 22% for the third. Majorities oppose abortion being legal in the second (55%) and third (70%) trimesters.”

We also know that even voters in red states, expressing their preferences at the ballot box rather than in surveys, have opposed stricter abortion policies. In August 2022, a little more than a month after the U.S. Supreme Court overturnedRoe inDobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Kansas voters overwhelmingly rejected a ballot initiative that would have overriden a 2019 ruling in which the state Supreme Court held that the Kansas Constitution protects a right to abortion. That November, Montana voters rejected an initiative that would have recognized “infants born alive” after an “attempted abortion” as “legal persons” and imposed criminal penalties for failing to provide them with “medical care.” Kentucky voters, meanwhile, rejected an initiative declaring that the state constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion. And in Ohio last November, voters approved an initiative amending the state constitution to protect “reproductive decisions,” including abortion.

More generally, Democrats seem to have reaped an electoral benefit by emphasizing abortion rights, boosting turnout among voters inclined to support them. That factor helps explain why Democrats performed better than expected in the 2022 midterm elections and why they won important state races in Kentucky, Virginia, and Pennsylvania last fall.

Dobbs is “wreaking electoral havoc, shifting partisan calculations, and calling into question balances of federal and state power,”Reason’s Elizabeth Nolan Brown noted last year. “It’s also ushering in a new level of representative democracy in determining the limits of reproductive freedomalong with a backlash to the process that could reach far past policies surrounding abortion.” The upshot, she suggested, “could better reflect the underlying political reality that American opinions about abortion are complex, nuanced, and not terribly extreme.”

In this context, you can see why Trump’s position, which embraces a federalist approach without endorsing any particular policy aside from rape, incest, and life-of-the-mother exceptions, makes political sense. It also jibes with what the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a longtimeRoe foe, imagined would happen after that decision was overturned. ScaliacomplainedthatRoe”destroyed the compromises of the past, rendered compromise impossible for the future, and required the entire issue to be resolved uniformly, at the national level.”

InDobbs, Justice Samuel Alito agreed with Scalia that the Constitution does not limit how far the government can go in regulating abortion. But his majority opinion was ambiguous in describing what would happen next. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives,” he wrote. That formulation, which could refer to members of Congress as well as state legislators, left open the possibility that “the entire issue” would be “resolved uniformly, at the national level.” This is the possibility that Trump has now joined Scalia in rejecting.

Although we should not credit Trump with caring much about what the Constitution requires, the legal rationale for national abortion legislation has always been dubious. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, for instance, prohibits certain kinds of late-term abortions “in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce”an attempt to justify the law by invoking the power to regulate interstate commerce. As Independence Institute scholar David Kopel and University of Tennessee la professor Glenn Reynolds havenoted, that language is baffling “to any person not familiar with the Commerce Clause sophistries of twentieth century jurisprudence,” since “it is not really possible to perform an abortion ‘in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce'” unless “a physician is operating a mobile abortion clinic on the Metroliner.”

When Sen. Lindsey Graham (RS.C.) proposed a 15-week federal abortion ban in 2022, he invoked the 14th Amendment’s guarantees of due process and equal protection. Those guarantees apply to “any person,” which in Graham’s view includes fetuses (or, as he prefers, “unborn children”). Although some abortion opponents have long favored thatinterpretation, the Supreme Courtexplicitly rejected itinRoeand has yet to revisit the issue.

Many of Graham’s fellow Republicans were dismayed by his attempt to renationalize the abortion issue. “I don’t think there’s an appetite for a national platform here,” said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (RW.Va.). “I’m not sure what [Graham is] thinking here. But I don’t think there will be a rallying around that concept.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (RKy.) likewise said most of his Republican colleagues “prefer this be handled at the state level.” Those Republicans included Sen. John Cornyn (RTexas), who said “there’s obviously a split of opinion in terms of whether abortion law should be decided by the states.” He added that “my preference would be for those decisions to be made on a state-by-state basis.”

Graham’s bill, which attracted just nine co-sponsors, never made it out of committee. And now Trump has made it clear that he opposes such legislation.

Biden, meanwhile, continues to support legislation that would renationalize the abortion issue in the opposite direction. A 2022 bill, for example, would have prohibited states from banning or regulating abortion prior to “viability,” which nowadays is generally said to occur around 23 or 24 weeks into a pregnancy. It failed by a 49-to-51 vote in the Senate.

That bill would have gone even further than Roe and its progeny, which allowed restrictions on pre-viability abortions as long as they did not impose an “undue burden” on the right to terminate a pregnancy. And it would have overriden regulations that most Americans seem to favor.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (DConn.), did not even bother to provide a constitutional pretext. But adifferent version of the bill, which the House passed in 2021, framed it as an exercise of the power to regulate interstate commerce:

Abortion restrictions substantially affect interstate commerce in numerous ways. For example, to provide abortion services, health care providers engage in interstate commerce to purchase medicine, medical equipment, and other necessary goods and services. To provide and assist others in providing abortion services, health care providers engage in interstate commerce to obtain and provide training. To provide abortion services, health care providers employ and obtain commercial services from doctors, nurses, and other personnel who engage in interstate commerce and travel across State lines.

The same sort of capacious Commerce Clause reasoning, of course, also could justify national restrictions on abortion, as in the case of the Partial-Abortion Ban Act. Since Democrats take it for granted that Congress has the authority to legislate in this area, they are opening the door to federal policies they would abhor, contingent on which party happens to control the legislative and executive branches.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said she was “deeply disappointed” by Trump’s unilateral repudiation of a national solution to the abortion issue. That position, she complained, “cedes the national debate to the Democrats who are working relentlessly to enact legislation mandating abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy.” If they are successful, she warned, “they will wipe out states’ rights.”

But the same could be said of Republicans who are determined to impose a national abortion ban, and Trump’s rejection of that approach reinforces his argument that he is a moderate compared to Biden and other Democrats. “It must be remembered that the Democrats are the radical ones on this [issue],” he says in the Truth Social video, “because they support abortion up to and even beyond the ninth month.” He wants voters to know he is repelled by “the concept of having an abortion in the later months and even execution after birth.”

Leaving aside Trump’s dubious claim that Democrats favor infanticide, there is a kernel of truth to his gloss. According to Gallup, 60 percent of Democrats say abortion should be “legal under any circumstances.” And under Blumenthal’s bill, states would have been barred from banning abortion even after viability “when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.” That is a vague and potentially broad exception, especially if “health” is read to cover mental as well as physical health.

At the same time, Trump’s focus on late-term abortions elides the reality of when the procedure is typically performed. According to the CDC’s data, more than 80 percent of abortions are performed prior to the 10th week, while just 4 percent are performed at 16 weeks or later. Trump’s emphasis on “abortion up to and even beyond the ninth month” (whatever that might mean) also obscures the extent to which he disagrees with voters who favor bans that cover most or nearly all abortions. But it aligns him with the views expressed by most Americans, who generally favor some restrictions while opposing a complete ban.

Continue Reading

UK

Care whistleblower ‘who saw elderly resident being punched’ could face removal from Britain

Published

on

By

Care whistleblower 'who saw elderly resident being punched' could face removal from Britain

A care worker who reported the alleged abuse of an elderly care home resident, which triggered a criminal investigation, is facing destitution and potential removal from Britain after speaking up.

“Meera”, whose name we have changed to protect her identity, said she witnessed an elderly male resident being punched several times in the back by a carer at the home where she worked.

Sky News is unable to name the care home for legal reasons because of the ongoing police investigation.

“I was [a] whistleblower there,” said Meera, who came to the UK from India last year to work at the home.

“Instead of addressing things, they fired me… I told them everything and they made me feel like I am criminal. I am not criminal, I am saving lives,” she added.

Meera
Image:
‘Meera’ spoke up about abuse she said she witnessed in the care home where she worked

Like thousands of foreign care workers, Meera’s employer sponsored her visa. Unless she can find another sponsor, she now faces the prospect of removal from the country.

“I am in trouble right now and no one is trying to help me,” she said.

More on Migrant Crisis

Meera said she reported the alleged abuse to her bosses, but was called to a meeting with a manager and told to “change your statement, otherwise we will dismiss you”.

She refused. The following month, she was sacked.

The care home claimed she failed to perform to the required standard in the job.

She went to the police to report the alleged abuse and since then, a number of people from the care home have been arrested. They remain under investigation.

‘Migrants recruited because many are too afraid to speak out’

The home has capacity for over 60 residents. It is unclear if the care home residents or their relatives know about the police investigation or claim of physical abuse.

Since the arrests, the regulator, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), carried out an investigation at the home triggered by the concerns – but the home retained its ‘good’ rating.

Meera has had no reassurance from the authorities that she will be allowed to remain in Britain.

In order to stay, she’ll need to find another care home to sponsor her which she believes will be impossible without references from her previous employer.

She warned families: “I just want to know people in care homes like these… your person, your father, your parents, is not safe.”

She claimed some care homes have preferred to recruit migrants because many are too afraid to speak out.

“You hire local staff, they know the legal rights,” she said. “They can complain, they can work anywhere… they can raise [their] voice,” she said.

Becky Johnson
Image:
Sky’s Becky Johnson spoke to ‘Meera’

Sky News has reported widespread exploitation of care visas and migrant care workers.

Read more:
More than 100 migrants face being in UK illegally
Immigration crackdown will fuel ‘exodus’ of nurses
New English language and UK citizenship requirements for migrants

Currently migrants make up around a third of the adult social care workforce, with the majority here on visas that are sponsored by their employers.

As part of measures announced in April in the government’s immigration white paper, the care visa route will be closed, meaning care homes will no longer be able to recruit abroad.

‘Whole system is based on power imbalance’

But the chief executive of the Work Rights Centre, a charity that helps migrants with employment issues, is warning that little will change for the tens of thousands of foreign care workers already here.

“The whole system is based on power imbalance and the government announcement doesn’t change that,” Dr Dora-Olivia Vicol told Sky News.

She linked the conditions for workers to poor care for residents.

Dr Dora
Image:
Work Rights Centre CEO Dr Dora-Olivia Vicol

“I think the power that employers have over migrant workers’ visas really makes a terrible contribution to the quality of care,” she said.

Imran agrees. He came to the UK from Bangladesh, sponsored by a care company unrelated to the one Meera worked for. He says he frequently had to work 14-hour shifts with no break because there weren’t enough staff. He too believes vulnerable people are being put at risk by the working conditions of their carers.

Migrant workers ‘threatened’ over visas

“For four clients, there is [a] minimum requirement for two or three staff. I was doing [it] alone,” he said, in broken English.

“When I try to speak, they just directly threaten me about my visa,” he said.

“I knew two or three of my colleagues, they are facing the same issue like me. But they’re still afraid to speak up because of the visa.”

Meera

A government spokesperson called what happened to Imran and Meera “shocking”.

“No one should go to work in fear of their employer, and all employees have a right to speak up if they witness poor practice and care.”

James Bullion, from the CQC, told Sky News it acts on intelligence passed to it to ensure people stay safe in care settings.

Additional research by Leah Adin

Continue Reading

UK

Donald Trump may be denied privilege of addressing parliament on UK state visit

Published

on

By

Donald Trump may be denied privilege of addressing parliament on UK state visit

Donald Trump may be denied the honour of addressing parliament on his state visit to the UK later this year, with no formal request yet submitted for him to be given that privilege.

It comes after President Macron’s successful state visit this week, in which he was invited to speak in front of both Houses of Parliament.

Sky News has been told the Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, hasn’t so far received a request to invite the US president to speak in parliament when he is expected to visit in September.

It was confirmed to MPs who have raised concerns about the US president being allowed to address both houses.

Kate Osborne, Labour MP for Jarrow and Gateshead East, wrote to the speaker in April asking him to stop Mr Trump from addressing parliament, and tabled an early-day motion outlining her concerns.

“I was happy to see Macron here but feel very differently about Trump,” she said.

“Trump has made some very uncomfortable and worrying comments around the UK government, democracy, the Middle East, particularly around equalities and, of course, Ukraine.

“So, I think there are many reasons why, when we’re looking at a state visit, we should be looking at why they’re being afforded that privilege. Because, of course, it is a privilege for somebody to come and address both of the houses.”

But the timing of the visit may mean that any diplomatic sensitivities, or perceptions of a snub, could be avoided.

Macron addressing Parliament
Image:
France’s President Emmanuel Macron addressed parliament during his state visit this month

Lord Ricketts, a former UK ambassador to France, pointed out that parliament isn’t sitting for much of September, and that could help resolve the issue.

In 2017, he wrote a public letter questioning the decision to give Donald Trump his first state visit, saying it put Queen Elizabeth II in a “very difficult position”.

Parliament rises from 16 September until 13 October due to party conferences.

The dates for the state visit haven’t yet been confirmed by Buckingham Palace or the government.

However, they have not denied that it will take place in September, after Mr Trump appeared to confirm they were planning to hold the state visit that month. The palace confirmed this week that the formal planning for his arrival had begun.

With the King likely to still be in Scotland in early September for events such as the Braemar Gathering, and the anniversary of his accession and the death of Queen Elizabeth on the 8th September, it may be expected that the visit would take place sometime from mid to the end of September, also taking into consideration the dates of the Labour Party conference starting on the 28th September and possibly the Lib Dem’s conference from the 20th-23rd.

Donald Trump. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Mr Trump has said he believes the trip to the UK will take place in September. Pic: Reuters

When asked about parliamentary recess potentially solving the issue, Ms Osborne said: “It may be a way of dealing with it in a very diplomatic way… I don’t know how much control we have over Trump’s diary.

“But if we can manoeuvre it in a way that means that the House isn’t sitting, then that seems like a good solution, maybe not perfect, because I’d actually like him to know that he’s not welcome.”

A message from the speaker’s office, seen by Sky News, says: “Formal addresses to both Houses of Parliament are not automatically included in the itinerary of such a state visit.

“Whether a foreign head of state addresses parliament, during a state visit or otherwise, is part of the planning decisions.”

The King and Mr Trump raising a toast in 2019. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Mr Trump made his first state visit to the UK in June 2019 during his first presidency. File pic: Reuters

It’s understood that if the government agrees to a joint address to parliament, the Lord Chamberlain’s office writes to the two speakers, on behalf of the King, to ask them to host this.

It will be Mr Trump’s second state visit.

During his first, in 2019, he didn’t address parliament, despite the fact that his predecessor, Barack Obama, was asked to do so.

It was unclear if this was due to the fact John Bercow, the speaker at the time, made it clear he wasn’t welcome to do so.

However, it didn’t appear to dampen Mr Trump’s excitement about his time with the Royal Family.

Read more from Sky News:
Two women killed as BMW crashes into care home
Officers who confronted Southport killer win bravery award

Speaking earlier this year, he described his state visit as “a fest” adding “it’s an honour… I’m a friend of Charles, I have great respect for King Charles and the family, William; we have really just a great respect for the family. And I think they’re setting a date for September.”

It is expected that, like Mr Macron, the pageantry for his trip this time will revolve around Windsor, with refurbishment taking place at Buckingham Palace.

Continue Reading

UK

Liverpool retires number 20 shirt at all levels in honour of Diogo Jota

Published

on

By

Liverpool retires number 20 shirt at all levels in honour of Diogo Jota

Liverpool have retired the number 20 shirt in honour of Diogo Jota – the first time it has made such a gesture.

The club said it was a “unique tribute to a uniquely wonderful person” and the decision was made in consultation with his wife and family.

The number 20 will be retired at all levels, including the men’s and women’s first teams and academy squads.

A statement said: “It was the number he wore with pride and distinction, leading us to countless victories in the process – and Diogo Jota will forever be Liverpool Football Club’s number 20.”

The club called it a “recognition of not only the immeasurable contribution our lad from Portugal made to the Reds’ on-pitch successes over the last five years, but also the profound personal impact he had on his teammates, colleagues and supporters and the everlasting connections he built with them”.

Jota's wife joined Liverpool players to view tributes at Anfield on Friday. Pic: Liverpool FC
Image:
Jota’s wife joined Liverpool players to view tributes at Anfield on Friday. Pic: Liverpool FC

Pic: Liverpool FC
Image:
Pic: Liverpool FC

Newly-married Jota died alongside his brother when his Lamborghini crashed in northern Spain on 3 July.

Police said this week that all the evidence so far suggests Jota was the one driving the vehicle.

Liverpool teammates joined members of Jota’s family, including his wife Rute, at a huge memorial site outside Anfield on Friday.

Read more from Sky News:
Mystery in space is most likely ‘oldest comet ever seen’
Trump may be denied privilege of addressing parliament

A fan looks at messages written onto a memorial wall created near Anfield Stadium. Pic: Reuters
Image:
A fan looks at messages on a memorial wall near Anfield. Pic: Reuters


Liverpool's captain Virgil van Dijk and Liverpool's player Andrew Robertson arrive on the day of the funeral ceremony of Liverpool's Portug
Image:
Virgil van Dijk and Andy Robertson were among players at the funeral. Pic: Reuters

The star’s funeral took place last weekend, with Liverpool colleagues and members of the Portuguese national team in attendance.

Reds captain Virgil van Dijk carried a shirt bearing the number 20 made from flowers.

Liverpool players returned to the club’s training ground for the start of pre-season on Tuesday.

Their first game since Jota’s death will be on Sunday when they play a friendly away against Preston North End.

Continue Reading

Trending