ThinkProgress Logo

Health

PHOTOS: Thousands Of Reproductive Rights Advocates March In Protest Of Ireland’s Abortion Ban

By Tara Culp-Ressler on Nov 17, 2012 at 3:14 pm

An estimated 10,000 activists flooded the streets of Dublin on Saturday to protest Ireland’s stringent abortion policies. The predominantly Catholic country has a total ban on all abortion services, with a narrow exception in cases where a pregnancy may threaten a woman’s life. But the recent death of Savita Halappanavar — the 31-year-old Indian woman who died of blood poisoning after an Irish hospital refused to terminate her pregnancy — highlights the fact that women in Ireland struggle to access reproductive health services even when their lives may be at stake. Halappanavar’s tragic story is quickly becoming an international controversy, prompting the Irish government to promise to reexamine its abortion policy.

Thousands of protesters took to the streets today with signs and banners bearing Halappanavar’s image, vowing that the tragic events of her death will “never again” happen in their country (all images via Broadsheet):

Security

Republican Senator Campaigns On Benghazi Tragedy Ahead Of 2014 Election

By Igor Volsky on Nov 17, 2012 at 1:06 pm

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of a small group of Republican senators calling for a Special Committee to investigate the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya. But he may be the first to run campaign ads on the issue ahead of the 2014 elections. These web ads via AmericaBlog:

Clicking on the petition brings the reader to a splash screen on Graham’s campaign website:

On Friday, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) rejected the need for a Special Committee, noting that several committees in the House and Senate are already investigating the tragedy. Reid also called on Republicans to stop politicizing the tragedy and national security. “[E]lections are over; it is time to put an end to the partisan politicization of national security and begin working together to strengthen our efforts to dismantle and destroy the terrorist networks that threaten us,” he said in a letter to Graham’s ally Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) also see no need for the committee.

Election

VIEWPOINT: Republicans Lost Because Voters Rejected Their Economic Vision

By Jeff Spross on Nov 17, 2012 at 12:40 pm

We’re now well into the political aftermath of the 2012 election, and the pattern of destruction is telling. In demographic after demographic, Obama defeated Romney by remarkable margins: 55 percent among women, 60 percent among voters under 30, 71 percent among Hispanic voters, and a stratospheric 93 percent among African-Americans. Rather than a fluke, the Obama coalition of 2008 looks like it’s here to stay, and the recriminations and soul-searching amongst conservatives and Republicans are in full swing.

The sudden post-election shift of major politicians and media figures on immigration reform betrayed a fear that their party’s hard-line stance wrecked its chances with Hispanics. A chorus of conservative bloggers, Republican strategists, and even what’s left of the party’s moderate politicians have laid blame on its nurturance of white nativism, its tone-deafness on women’s reproductive challenges, or the absolutism of its anti-abortion rhetoric.

There’s certainly some truth to these takes. But this notion that scattershot appeasement of various voting blocks is the path back for Republicans makes a fundamental error. It buys into conservatives’ silly caricature of Democrats as a party without a vision — “an incoherent amalgam of interest groups, most of which are vying for benefits for themselves and their members at the expense of other Americans,” as Yuval Levin bitterly put it.

There is, in fact, a fundamental vision that unites virtually all the disparate groups in Obama’s coalition. It’s sitting right there in the exit polling and the narrative of the campaign, for anyone willing to see it. Crudely put, it’s the economic issues: on the practical level, the recognition that the free market, whatever its virtues, does not deal justly with people when left to its own devices. And on the moral level, the simple, elegant, age-old conviction that we are all our brother’s keeper. And it’s the GOP’s rejection of these propositions that set it on the path to electoral defeat.
Read more

Security

Harry Reid Shuts Down McCain On Libya: ‘End The Politicization Of National Security’

By Igor Volsky on Nov 17, 2012 at 11:10 am

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has rejected Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) request to establish a Select Committee to investigate the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11. In a strongly worded letter delivered to the former GOP presidential hopeful on Friday, Reid rebuked Republicans for politicizing the killings and baselessly claiming that the Obama administration is engaged in a cover-up of the incident. “I refuse to allow the Senate to be used as a venue for baseless partisan attacks,” Reid wrote, noting that several committees in the House and Senate are already investigating the tragedy.

Earlier this week, McCain, along with Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), held around the clock press conferences and media appearances insisting that U.N. Ambassador misled the public when she described, five days after the attacks, the incident as a “spontaneous attack” inspired by an anti-Islam video. McCain and Graham promised to block Rice should she be nominated to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State; Ayotte said she would consider the nomination.

In his letter, Reid reminded McCain that “elections are over; it is time to put an end to the partisan politicization of national security and begin working together to strengthen our efforts to dismantle and destroy the terrorist networks that threaten us.” He also rebuked the Arizona senator for skipping a closed-doors committee hearing on Benghazi in order to hold a press conference demanding more information about the attacks:

I am concerned that a Select Committee, as you propose, would duplicate and, ultimately undermine the numerous investigations into the attack that are already proceeding in the Senate committees of jurisdiction, and may serve to further politicize an issue that has already been manipulated by Members of both the House and Senate in service of partisan agendas. [...]

For instance, on Wednesday, Senator McCain failed to attend a classified briefing held by the Senate Homeland Security Committee on this very issue. [...]

One of you, Senator McCain, has gone so far ast o make the outrageous claim that this event was “worse than Watergate” — despite the fact that there is no evidence that any crime was committed, no evidence of any cover-up, and no evidence that the administration has characterized the incident in any way that has not been consistent with the Intelligence Community’s contemporaneous assessments.

Indeed, the GOP’s accusations of an administration cover-up seemed to fall apart after testimony from former CIA chief Gen. David Petraeus on Friday revealed that the CIA approved the declassified talking points used by Rice during her television appearances. The hearings also confirmed that the agency had received conflicting intelligence reports in real time during the attacks.

While one stream of intelligence “from multiple sources, including video at the scene, indicated the group was behind the attack,” other reports “emerged at the same time indicating the violence at the consulate was inspired by protests in Egypt over an ostensibly anti-Islam film that was privately produced in the United States.” Twenty intelligence reports “indicated that anger about the film may be to blame.”

As Reid noted in his letter to McCain, several prominent Republicans have rebuked the GOP’s efforts to politicize the incident. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said, “It’s easy to try and jump to conclusions about what might have happened here. It’s probably better to let the relevant bodies do their work.” Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) has also dismissed McCain’s call for a Select Committee.

Climate Progress

Five Reasons Why Obama Should Reject The Keystone XL Pipeline

By Climate Guest Blogger on Nov 17, 2012 at 10:32 am

Photo: Ben Powless for Tar Sands Action

This Sunday, activists are organizing another round of protests at the White House to urge the President to kill the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. This marks the beginning of a new post-election campaign to pressure the Administration to abandon dirty fossil fuel projects. Below is a piece, written by three of the organizations leading the protests: Oil Change International, 350.org, and Bold Nebraska.

As the President kicks off his second term, there has been much chatter about town as to whether or not he will approve the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Mitt Romney made it clear that he would approve the pipeline on his first day in office—and even went so far as to say he would build it himself if he had too—while the President has emphasized the importance of climate change and renewable energy.

In an interview with AARP, the President noted that doubling fuel efficiency standards on cars would produce savings equivalent to what would be pumped through Keystone XL in 45 years. In his election night speech, he warned of the “the destructive power of a warming planet.”

Keystone XL is a means for reckless expansion of the tar sands industry, which is game over for the climate. The voters who re-elected Barack Obama expect him to create a legacy of action to stop climate change. Rejecting KXL would be a perfect first step to creating that legacy.

Given that climate change—and our country’s climate legacy—are of utmost importance to the President, we’ve identified the top five [commonsense] reasons to reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline:

1) Tar sands are “game over” for the climate. Canada’s tar sands, which Keystone XL would carry, could contain double the carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in history—and green lighting the pipeline that would carry them to the global market would be disastrous for climate change.

2) The supposed benefits of the tar sands pipeline have been overhyped. While supporters once said that the pipeline would bring gas prices down, experts agree that the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline could even increase domestic gas prices—and have little chance of lowering them. Jobs numbers, too, have been wildly inflated; TransCanada gave U.S. officials a job number that was 67 times higher than the number they used in Canada. While every U.S. job is important, the estimates on this project have ranged from 50 permanent jobs, to 2,500 temporary jobs, to TransCanada’s claim of 20,000 jobs. Even unions agree that clean energy jobs outweigh this potential for temporary dirty oil jobs.

3) The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline puts our country’s natural resources at risk. The pipeline route passes through Nebraska’s Ogallala Aquifer, which is the country’s largest source of freshwater. The Aquifer provides drinking water and irrigation for millions of Americans throughout the country. Even a single spill could have disastrous consequences for generations to come—and a University of Nebraska at Lincoln analysis of the pipeline finds that it could have 91 major spills in 50 years.

4) On Tuesday, Nov. 6, Americans voted against dirty energy and against Big Oil. Big Oil bet big on the election—and lost big. Big Oil-backed groups spent over $270 million on television ads in the last two months of the cycle alone, and have little to show for it. A recent Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research poll found that 64 percent of voters say they have a favorable impression of renewable energy. In a Zogby poll released today, only 12 percent of respondents said that the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline was a “priority.” Meanwhile, 48 percent identified renewable energy as a priority.

5) The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline compromises our energy security. The tar sands oil that will pass through the pipeline is intended for the international market, making Keystone XL a pipeline that goes through the U.S.—not to the U.S. Furthermore, the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline continues to feed our dangerous addiction to oil that compromises national security and places American troops in harm’s way.

Canada’s pro-industry energy regulator—the National Energy Board—just announced a sweeping audit of TransCanada’s Canadian operations. This is the latest in a long series of accidents, shutdowns and pipeline safety infractions that have hounded the Canadian pipeline operator TransCanada. Earlier this month, TransCanada was forced to shut its leak prone Keystone I tar sands pipeline down for four days after finding an “anomaly”—a technical term for cracks, corrosion or other defects in a pipeline which may lead to a rupture. These incidents are not unique; TransCanada has a sordid history as a pipeline operator.

Health

Romney’s Transition Chief Is Encouraging States To Implement Obamacare

By Igor Volsky on Nov 17, 2012 at 9:44 am

A little more than a week after Mitt Romney lost his bid for the presidency, the prominent Republican tapped to head his transition is encouraging states to implement the Affordable Care Act, a law which Romney had pledged to eliminate on “day one” during the 2012 campaign.

Former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt — who also served as Health and Human Services Secretary under President George W. Bush — had been helping states establish the law’s exchanges through his firm Leavitt Partners before being tapped for the high-profile transition job. And now, as Republican governors decide how to move forward with the law in the face of a second Obama term, Leavitt is “working to get states to create their own exchanges” — the new marketplaces that will connect consumers with insurance coverage by 2014. States have the option of establishing and administrating their own systems or outsourcing the task to the federal government.

The former Utah governor’s outfit, Leavitt Partners, argues that it will be a “bureaucratic nightmare” for states to deal with the federal government if they don’t have their own exchanges, that states would be giving up the power to design their own uniquely tailored systems if they default to the feds, and that they risk losing regulatory authority over insurers that operate in their states under the auspices of the federally designed exchange.

As of Friday, 19 states had indicated they would let the feds run their exchanges, 11 are still undecided, while 20 states and the District of Columbia “had announced they would set up exchanges partially or fully run by their states.”

Leavitt Partners is heavily invested in the law’s state-based exchanges and “has been advising companies and state legislatures on how to create exchanges.” The group hired former government officials who helped build the Utah exchange soon after the federal health law passed and its websites brags about its abilities to help clients implement the measure.

Justice

VIDEO: Law Professor Explains Why Conservative Argument About Affirmative Action Is Wrong In 120 Seconds

By Scott Keyes on Nov 17, 2012 at 9:00 am

WASHINGTON, DC — A remarkable scene occurred Friday at a conservative judicial conference when a panelist got up and explained to the lily-white audience why affirmative action is still important, dispelling the notion that minorities who attend elite schools should have their qualifications questioned.

Ted Shaw, a professor at Columbia Law School and former president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, drew an eloquent parallel during a Federalist Society convention panel to explain why that notion is problematic. “Why should I not apply taint to white men of a certain age and say, ‘look, you went to college a time when you got a pass or at least you got in to schools where no people of color could get in, so I question your qualifications?’ I don’t do that,” Shaw explained, imploring the audience not to fall in the trap of questioning minority students either. “When I graduated from Columbia Law School, I didn’t take the ‘black bar.’ I took the New York bar, and then the California bar, and passed them”:

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last month on whether to strike down affirmative action programs across the country. It will render a verdict next year.

Security

U.N. Group Recommends Sanctioning Rwandan Defense Minister

By Hayes Brown on Nov 17, 2012 at 9:00 am

Rwandan President Paul Kagame Addresses the U.N.

A United Nations Group of Experts (GoE) has suggested a new target for sanctions related to the ongoing violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: the Rwandan Minister of Defense. The experts offered Defense Minister James Kabarebe’s name up for blacklisting due to his suspected role in arming and leading the M23 rebel group in the Congo, as detailed in a report earlier this year.

The GoE made its pitch to the United Nations Security Council committee responsible for sanctions on the Democratic Republic of Congo on Monday. While no action was taken on that specific suggestion, the committee did decide to send forward the rebel leader Sultani Makenga to the full Council for potential repercussions. Among the punishments that the U.N. has at its disposal for individuals accused of breaching international peace and security are travel bans, freezing of financial assets, and even potential referral to the International Criminal Court.

Drama of being named aside, the question of whether the Security Council will take action against any Rwandan officials is a different story:

Diplomats said it was unlikely the council would find the consensus necessary to add any Rwandans to the U.N. blacklist.

“But the fact that the Group of Experts would make this recommendation will itself send a strong political message to Rwanda about the need to curtail support for M23 rebels,” another diplomatic source said.

The accusations against Kabarebe have prompted the United States, Sweden and the Netherlands to suspend some aid to Rwanda, which relies on donors for about 40 percent of its budget. In September the European Union froze further budgetary support to Rwanda.

Even a slim chance that a member of President Paul Kagame’s cabinet be sanctioned puts Rwanda in an interesting position. Rwanda was elected last month to join the Security Council for a two-year term, starting in January. While no vote will likely come of the GoE’s suggestion at this point, it does still lend itself to the potential that further revelations of the link between Rwanda and the M23 could spur a U.N. response. In that event, Rwandan diplomats would have their work cut out for them.

The situation has the potential to be awkward for for U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice as well. Rice, thought to be the front runner for the position of Secretary of State once Hillary Clinton departs, is particularly close with Kagame. Also, the United States has been accused of holding back the release of the initial GoE report that accused Rwanda of aiding the Congolese rebels, possibly at the behest of Rice.

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up