Archives for October 2017

 

Photo by Robert Del Tredici

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are my emphasis. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

Friday, 27 October 2017, Day 201:

 

Trump says sexual harassment claims against him are ‘fake news,’ but there are corroborators, The Washington Post, Glenn Kessler, Friday, 27 October 2017: “16 women have accused Trump of sexually harassing them. While the president dismisses this as ‘fake news,’ the problem for the White House is that some of these women have produced witnesses who say they heard about the incident at the time — long before Trump made his political aspirations known. Such contemporaneous accounts are essential to establishing the credibility of the allegation because they reduce the chances that a person is making up a story for political purposes. In the case of sexual allegations, such accounts can help bolster the credibility of the ‘she said’ side of the equation. Often, a sexual assault will happen behind closed doors. The contemporary corroborators can explain what they heard at the time and whether the story being told now is consistent with how the story was told years earlier. This does not necessarily mean the allegation is true, but it does give journalistic organizations more confidence to report on the allegation.” See also, Why Harvey Weinstein is disgraced but Donald Trump is president, Vox, Anna North and Ezra Klein, published (and included in this daily chronicle) on Thursday, 26 October 2017.

The first charges are filed in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, CNN, Pamela Brown, Evan Perez, and Shimon Prokupecz, Friday, 27 October 2017: “A federal grand jury in Washington on Friday approved the first charges in the investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller, according to sources briefed on the matter. The charges are still sealed under orders from a federal judge. Plans were prepared Friday for anyone charged to be taken into custody as soon as Monday, the sources said. It is unclear what the charges are…. Mueller was appointed in May to lead the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Under the regulations governing special counsel investigations, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who has oversight over the Russia investigation, would have been made aware of any charges before they were taken before the grand jury for approval, according to people familiar with the matter.” See also, Special Counsel Robert Mueller Sends a Message: He’s Deadly Serious, The New Yorker, John Cassidy, published on Saturday, 28 October 2017: “On Friday night, CNN reported that a grand jury in Washington, D.C., has approved the first charges arising from the special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion between Donald Trump’s Presidential campaign and the Russian government. Citing ‘sources briefed on the matter,’ the network said that a judge had ordered the charges kept under seal, but that at least one arrest could take place as early as Monday. Details were scant. The CNN report didn’t specify what the charges were or whom they had been brought against. But the news created an immediate furor, as other news organizations sought to follow up the story, and people on television and social media began speculating about the nature of the charges. Shortly before midnight, the Wall Street Journal confirmed CNN’s scoop, without providing any additional details.” See also, CNN broke news in the Russia probe. Roger Stone, one of Trump’s former campaign advisers and a longtime Republican operative, was suspended from Twitter after tweeting insults and attacks against CNN anchor Don Lemon and New York Times columnist Charles Blow on 27 October, Avi Selk, published on Sunday, 29 October 2017.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’s Schedule Shows Focus on Religious and Nontraditional Charter Schools at the Expense of Public Schools, The New York Times, Eric Lipton, Friday, 27 October 2017: “For years, Betsy DeVos traveled the country — and opened her checkbook — as she worked as a conservative advocate to promote the expansion of voucher programs that allow parents to use taxpayer funds to send their children to private and religious schools. A detailed look at the first six months of Ms. DeVos’s tenure as the secretary of education — based on a 326-page calendar tracking her daily meetings — demonstrates that she continues to focus on those programs as well as on charter schools. Her calendar is sprinkled with meetings with religious leaders, leading national advocates of vouchers and charter schools, and players involved in challenging state laws that limit the distribution of government funds to support religious or alternative schools…. [T]he emphasis, a review of the calendar shows, is on the same kinds of alternatives that Ms. DeVos promoted when she was a conservative philanthropist donating money to groups like Alliance for School Choice and the Foundation for Excellence in Education, which advocate school choice.” See also, A quarter of the schools Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has visited are private, even though such schools educate just one-tenth of the nation’s schoolchildren, The Washington Post, Moriah Balingit, Friday, 27 October 2017. See also, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos offers buyouts to shrink Education Department workforce, The Washington Post, Danielle Douglas-Gabriel, Friday, 27 October 2017: “The U.S. Department of Education on Friday informed staff in the Office of Federal Student Aid, the arm of the agency that handles grants and loans to college students, that buyouts are being offered to shrink the division. In a memo obtained by The Washington Post, the department said it received approval from the Office of Personnel Management to offer early retirement and voluntary separation incentive payments. The offer, according to the memo, does not extend to all positions. Eligible employees will receive an email from human resources by Wednesday.”

Continue reading Week 41, Friday, 27 October-Thursday, 2 November 2017:

[Read more…]

 

Keeping Track (of some things), Staying Outraged (it is possible), and Resisting (it’s essential)

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are my emphasis. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

Friday, 20 October 2017, Day 274:

 

After Video Refutes John Kelly’s Charges Against Congresswoman Frederica Wilson, She Raises the Issue of Race, The New York Times, Yamiche Alcindor and Michael D. Shear, Friday, 20 October 2017: “Video of a 2015 speech delivered by Representative Frederica S. Wilson revealed Friday that John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, misrepresented her remarks when he accused her of bragging about securing $20 million for a South Florida F.B.I. building and twisting President Barack Obama’s arm. Mr. Kelly, escalating a feud between Mr. Trump and Ms. Wilson, had cast the congresswoman on Thursday as a publicity-seeking opportunist. However, the video, released by The Sun Sentinel, a newspaper in South Florida, showed that during her nine-minute speech, Ms. Wilson never took credit for getting the money for the building, only for helping pass legislation naming the building after two fallen federal agents. She never mentioned pleading with Mr. Obama, and she acknowledged the help of several Republicans, including John A. Boehner, then the House speaker; Representatives Mario Diaz-Balart and Carlos Curbelo; and Senator Marco Rubio. Ms. Wilson, in an interview on Friday, called Mr. Kelly a liar and hinted strongly that the altercation, prompted by a call from President Trump to the widow of a fallen black soldier, was racially charged. ‘The White House itself is full of white supremacists,’ she said. ‘I feel very sorry for him because he feels such a need to lie on me and I’m not even his enemy,’ Ms. Wilson said of Mr. Kelly. ‘I just can’t even imagine why he would fabricate something like that. That is absolutely insane. I’m just flabbergasted because it’s very easy to trace.’ While she stopped short of accusing Mr. Kelly, a retired Marine general, of racial animus, she did say that others in the White House are racially biased. ‘They are making themselves look like fools. They have no credibility,’ she said. ‘They are trying to assassinate my character, and they are assassinating their own because everything they say is coming out and shown to be a lie.’… [White House Press Secritary Sarah Huckabee] Sanders … told a reporter who questioned Mr. Kelly’s veracity that ‘if you want to get into a debate with a four-star Marine general, I think that that’s something highly inappropriate.'” See also, Video shows John Kelly, Trump’s chief of staff, made false claims about congresswoman Frederica Wilson in feud over Trump’s condolence call, The Washington Post, David Nakamura, Friday, 20 October 2017. See also, John Kelly, Trump’s chief of staff, owes congresswoman Frederica Wilson an apology, The Washington Post, Editorial Board, Friday, 20 October 2017: “White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly owes Rep. Frederica S. Wilson (D-Fla.) an apology. That is the only conclusion that can be drawn after watching a video of the representative’s remarks at the dedication of an FBI building in Miramar, Fla., in 2015. Mr. Kelly took to the lectern in the White House briefing room Thursday to defend President Trump’s handling of a condolence call to a widow of one of the soldiers killed in Niger and to attack Ms. Wilson as selfish and politically motivated for her criticism. To bolster that characterization, he offered up his remembrance of the dedication of the FBI building in memory of two FBI agents who had been killed in the line of duty. He claimed Ms. Wilson used the occasion to take unseemly credit for securing federal funding for the building. ‘We were stunned,’ he said, ‘stunned that she had done it. Even for someone that is that empty a barrel, we were stunned.’ But, as a video by the Florida Sun Sentinel of Ms. Wilson’s remarks that day shows, Mr. Kelly got it all wrong. She did not say she got money for the building. She was generous and graceful in sharing credit for how legislation naming the building was fast-tracked. And she spent most of her nine-minute speech praising the FBI agents killed in a gunfight with drug dealers: ‘Today it is our patriotic duty to lift up Special Agent Benjamin Grogan and Special Agent Jerry Dove from the streets of South Florida and place their names and pictures high, where the world will know that we are proud of their sacrifice, sacrifice for our nation.'” See also, Let’s Compare John Kelly’s Lie About Congresswoman Frederica Wilson With Reality, The Intercept, Robert Mackey, Friday, 20 October 2017: “White House Chief of Staff John Kelly lied on Thursday when he falsely claimed that Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Fla., had loudly boasted about obtaining money for an FBI building in Miami during a dedication ceremony he attended in 2015. We know this for a fact because, on Friday, the South Florida Sun Sentinel published video of Wilson’s complete remarks at the event…. It is jarring to listen to Kelly’s description of Wilson’s behavior and then hear the entirely respectful and generous remarks she actually delivered. But the contrast gives us a chance to trace the exact contours of how much a seething resentment at modern American society has distorted the White House chief of staff’s perception of reality, like that of his boss. As my colleague Shaun King writes, that Kelly said he was enraged by Wilson’s remarks as she made them is perhaps even more disturbing, because it means that this is not just about his faulty memory. (And his memory is faulty: in his remarks on Thursday, Kelly misremembered not just what Wilson said that day, but the name of one of the agents the building was dedicated to, and said, incorrectly, that the agents had been killed by ‘drug traffickers,’ instead of bank robbers.) So the distorted lens through which the man now running the Oval Office views the world does not only warp his recollection of events, but his understanding of them as they unfold in front of his eyes.” See also, Here are the four-star generals Donald Trump has publicly bashed, The Washington Post, Herman Wong, Friday, 20 October 2017. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said it is “highly inappropriate” to question a four-star general. This article identifies three four-star generals Trump has bashed.

John Kelly and the Language of the Military Coup, The New Yorker, Masha Gessen, Friday, 20 October 2017: “Consider this nightmare scenario: a military coup. You don’t have to strain your imagination—all you have to do is watch Thursday’s White House press briefing, in which the chief of staff, John Kelly, defended President Trump’s phone call to a military widow, Myeshia Johnson. The press briefing could serve as a preview of what a military coup in this country would look like, for it was in the logic of such a coup that Kelly advanced his four arguments. Argument 1. Those who criticize the President don’t know what they’re talking about because they haven’t served in the military…. 2. The President did the right thing because he did exactly what his general told him to do…. 3. Communication between the President and a military widow is no one’s business but theirs…. 4. Citizens are ranked based on their proximity to dying for their country. Kelly’s last argument was his most striking. At the end of the briefing, he said that he would take questions only from those members of the press who had a personal connection to a fallen soldier, followed by those who knew a Gold Star family. Considering that, a few minutes earlier, Kelly had said most Americans didn’t even know anyone who knew anyone who belonged to the “one per cent,” he was now explicitly denying a majority of Americans—or the journalists representing them—the right to ask questions. This was a new twist on the Trump Administration’s technique of shunning and shaming unfriendly members of the news media, except this time, it was framed explicitly in terms of national loyalty.”

Senate to take up the AUMF (authorization for use of military force) debate as Trump defends his reaction to Niger attack, The Washington Post, Karoun Demirjian, Friday, 20 October 2017: “The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is taking up a long-awaited debate about authorizing military force against the Islamic State as President Trump comes under unprecedented public scrutiny for his treatment of dead soldiers’ families, following an ambush on troops helping to fight Islamic terrorists [in Niger]. Senators will grill Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis in an open hearing on Oct. 30 about whether the administration thinks it is necessary for Congress to pass a new authorization for use of military force, or AUMF, to replace existing AUMFs that date back to the early years of the George W. Bush administration. The hearing is seen as a precursor to a more congressionally driven legislative effort to write an AUMF that can draw enough Republican and Democratic support to pass. Lawmakers have wrangled for years over whether or how to replace the existing 2001 AUMF, which authorized operations against al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and affiliated groups in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, and the 2002 AUMF, which allowed for operations in Iraq, with a new AUMF more focused on present-day and future threats — particularly the Islamic State. Many members of Congress have charged that the existing AUMFs do not provide a firm legal basis for current operations, a view that both the Obama and Trump administrations have argued against. But the timing of this hearing has put an increased urgency behind the AUMF debate, as Congress and the nation demand answers about what led to the deaths of four U.S. Special Forces in Niger on a support mission to fight Islamic terrorists like the Islamic State.”

Continue reading Week 40, Friday, 20 October – Thursday, 26 October 2017:

[Read more…]

 

Keeping Track (of some things), Staying Outraged (it is possible), and Resisting (it’s essential)

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are my emphasis. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

Friday, 13 October 2017, Day 267:

 

Trump sets new conditions for the U.S. to stay in the Iran nuclear deal, tossing the issue to Congress, The Washington Post, Anne Gearan and Abby Phillip, Friday, 13 October 2017: “President Trump on Friday officially disavowed the international nuclear deal with Iran, undermining but not terminating an agreement he called weak and poorly constructed. The administration asked Congress to attach new caveats that could either alter the pact or lead to its rupture. Sounding frustrated and angry, Trump also threatened to unilaterally withdraw from the seven-nation accord if his concerns are not met…. His decision to withdraw presidential ‘certification’ of the deal throws its future into doubt by tying continued U.S. participation to new requirements for Iran. But the approach also falls well short of Trump’s repeated campaign vow to scrap the deal altogether, marking the latest collision between his ‘America first’ worldview and the realities of global diplomacy and dealmaking. The move was immediately met with opposition Friday from U.S. allies that are part of the pact and with skepticism from many U.S. lawmakers, including some Republicans. Iran, meanwhile, responded with a threat of its own, vowing in a statement to walk away if Iranian ‘rights and interests in the deal are not respected.'” See also, Trump Disavows Nuclear Deal, but He Doesn’t Scrap It, The New York Times, Mark Landler and David E. Sanger, Friday, 13 October 2017. See also, Fact-checking Trump’s speech on the Iran deal, The Washington Post, Glenn Kessler, published on Saturday, 14 October 2017. See also, Assessing Trump’s Criticisms of Iran and the Nuclear Deal. Trump Offered Misleading or Incomplete Claims About Iran and the Nuclear Deal in His Rebuke. The New York Times, Linda Qiu, Friday, 13 October 2017: “President Trump declared his intention not to recertify the Iran nuclear deal in a forceful speech on Friday. But the rationale he provided includes several misleading or incomplete statements about the terms of the deal, what he considers a violation of the agreement and Iran itself.”

Trump Defies the World on Iran, The New Yorker, Robin Wright, Friday, 13 October 2017: “Defying most of the world, President Trump announced on Friday that the landmark 2015 Iran nuclear deal is no longer in the U.S. interest, and took the first step toward unravelling it. The accord—brokered jointly with Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia, during two years of often tortuous diplomacy—is the most significant agreement stemming proliferation of the world’s deadliest weapon in more than a quarter century. It now faces a precarious future—with the United States, not Iran, shaping up as the first country to violate its terms…. The unveiling of the Trump Administration’s long-awaited Iran policy—after nine months of contentious internal debate—is somewhat of a compromise. The President did not formally pull out of the deal, despite his description of it, on Friday, as ‘one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into.’ But he is now refusing to certify—as required every ninety days by U.S. law—that Iran has fully complied, even though his own Administration acknowledges that Tehran has met all its obligations for two years. International inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency have also reported eight times, most recently in August, that Tehran is obeying the terms…. Trump’s decision to decertify Iran—after twice certifying its compliance this year—now punts action to Congress. It has sixty days to decide whether to re-impose punitive sanctions that were originally lifted as the incentive for Iran to surrender most of its nuclear program. If Congress re-imposes sanctions, the United States will be violating its obligations under the Iran deal…. Trump’s long-anticipated Iran policy has sweeping implications far beyond Iran. It creates tensions with allies, and China and Russia, as well, that could have a major impact on other global crises. It undermines diplomacy to resolve the escalating showdown with North Korea. It weakens U.S. credibility on arms control—and, for that matter, international agreements on any issue. It threatens U.S. efforts to defuse other flash points in the Middle East. And it risks escalating tensions with Iran—and the first tentative engagement on regional issues, after almost four decades of hostility. The world’s major powers quickly spurned Trump’s appeal to amend or renegotiate the Iran accord.” See also, European Leaders Criticize Trump’s Disavowal of Iran Deal, The New York Times, Stephen Castle and Thomas Erdbrink, Friday, 13 October 2017: “Iran, Russia and European leaders roundly condemned President Trump’s decision on Friday to disavow the Iran nuclear deal, saying that it reflected the growing isolation of the United States, threatened to destabilize the Middle East and could make it harder to resolve the growing tensions on the Korean Peninsula. The reaction was far from panicked, as Mr. Trump’s decision punts to Congress the critical decision of whether the United States will reimpose sanctions on Iran — a step that would effectively sink the deal. But Mr. Trump also warned that unless the nuclear agreement was altered and made permanent — to prohibit Iran from ever developing nuclear weapons — he would terminate the agreement, an ultimatum that threw the future of the accord into question.”

Trump taps climate change skeptic Kathleen Harnett White to lead the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The CEQ advises the president on environmental matters and ensures federal agencies comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. The Hill, Devin Henry, Friday, 13 October 2017: “President Trump has nominated a skeptic of climate change science to lead the White House’s environmental policy board. The White House late Thursday announced that Trump picked Kathleen Hartnett White to serve as a member, and eventually chairwoman, of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). White is a fellow for energy and environment issues at the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) and the former chairwoman of the state’s Commission on Environmental Quality. But her views on climate change do not align with the scientific consensus, which says greenhouse gas emissions produced by human activity is the driving factor behind a dangerous warming trend around the globe. At the TPPF — which has received funding from the fossil fuel industry — White led a project to ‘explain the forgotten moral case for fossil fuels,’ and she has written that carbon dioxide is the gas ‘that makes life possible on the earth and naturally fertilizes plant growth.’ ‘Whether emitted from the human use of fossil fuels or as a natural (and necessary) gas in the atmosphere surrounding the earth, carbon dioxide has none of the attributes of a pollutant,’ she wrote in a 2014 paper that argued ‘global warming alarmists are misleading the public about carbon dioxide emissions.’ She was also a critic of the Obama administration’s environmental initiatives, calling them a ‘deluded and illegitimate battle against climate change’ in an op-ed for The Hill last year and arguing against regulations like the Clean Power Plan rule for power plants.” See also, Trump Names Former Texas Regulator Kathleen Harnett White as White House Environmental Adviser. She has called renewable energy ‘unreliable and parasitic.’ The New York Times, Lisa Friedman, Friday, 13 October 2017: “The appointment is the latest in a series of disputed environmental nominations. This week, Mr. Trump nominated Barry Lee Myers, the chief executive of AccuWeather, a for-profit weather forecasting company, to lead the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Last week, the president nominated Andrew Wheeler, a coal lobbyist, to be deputy administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Environmentalists say Mr. Trump is stacking agencies with those who either reject the scientific consensus that human-made emissions cause climate change or lack the scientific qualifications for their jobs. ‘Now you have a full house for the fossil fuel industry,’ said Christy Goldfuss, who served as managing director of the White House environmental council under former President Obama. She called Mrs. White’s appointment particularly troubling, citing a piece she wrote entitled, ‘Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case.’ In it, Mrs. White argued that labeling carbon dioxide emissions as a pollutant is ‘absurd’ and asserted that it should be considered the ‘gas of life.’ Mrs. White also has called renewable energy ‘unreliable and parasitic,’ described global warming as ‘a creed, a faith, a dogma that has little to do with science,’ and asserted that science does not dictate policy in democracies.”

Continue reading Week 39, Friday, 13 October – Thursday, 19 October 2017:

[Read more…]

 

Keeping Track (of some things), Staying Outraged (it is possible), and Resisting (it’s essential)

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are my emphasis. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

Friday, 6 October 2017, Day 260:

 

2017 Nobel Peace Prize Goes to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), The New York Times, Rick Gladstone, Friday, 6 October 2017: “In a year when the threat of nuclear warfare seemed to draw closer, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded on Friday to an advocacy group behind the first treaty to prohibit nuclear arms. The group, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, a Geneva-based coalition of disarmament activists, was honored for its efforts to advance the negotiations that led to the treaty, which was reached in July at the United Nations. ‘The organization is receiving the award for its work to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and for its groundbreaking efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition of such weapons,’ the Norwegian Nobel Committee said in a statement. The choice amounted to a blunt rejoinder to the world’s nine nuclear-armed powers and their allies, which boycotted the negotiations. Some denounced the treaty as a naïve and dangerous diversion. It also represented a moment of vindication for the members of the winning organization, known by its acronym ICAN, and for the United Nations diplomats who were responsible for completing the treaty negotiations. ‘This prize is a tribute to the tireless efforts of many millions of campaigners and concerned citizens worldwide who, ever since the dawn of the atomic age, have loudly protested nuclear weapons, insisting that they can serve no legitimate purpose and must be forever banished from the face of our earth,’ ICAN said in a statement.” See also, The 2017 Nobel Peace Prize Goes to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), a Grassroots Anti-Bomb Group, The New Yorker, Robin Wright, Friday, 6 October 2017: “The dreamers won. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons is still so green that, when the call came from the Norwegian Nobel Committee, the group initially thought it was a prank. But, in the middle of two brewing crises over nuclear weapons, the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded on Friday to a global coalition of young activists who defied the United States and the eight other nuclear powers this summer to win support at the United Nations for the first treaty to ban the world’s deadliest weapon. With dogged determination, ICAN, which was formed just a decade ago, generated support from more than a hundred and twenty countries for the landmark accord. Fifty-three nations have signed it since the formal process began, on September 20th. The Trump Administration led a boycott of talks on the ICAN initiative at the United Nations last spring.” See also, The world has nearly 15,000 nuclear weapons. This year’s Nobel Peace Prize honors the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and its quest to abolish all of them. The Washington Post, Michael Birnbaum, Friday, 6 October 2017.

Trump Administration Rolls Back Birth Control Mandate for Employer Health Insurance, The New York Times, Robert Pear, Rebecca R. Ruiz, and Laurie Goodstein, Friday, 6 October 2017: “The Trump administration on Friday moved to expand the rights of employers to deny women insurance coverage for contraception and issued sweeping guidance on religious freedom that critics said could also erode civil rights protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. The twin actions, by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Justice Department, were meant to carry out a promise issued by President Trump five months ago, when he declared in the Rose Garden that ‘we will not allow people of faith to be targeted, bullied or silenced anymore.’ Attorney General Jeff Sessions quoted those words in issuing guidance to federal agencies and prosecutors, instructing them to take the position in court that workers, employers and organizations may claim broad exemptions from nondiscrimination laws on the basis of religious objections. At the same time, the Department of Health and Human Services issued two rules rolling back a federal requirement that employers must include birth control coverage in their health insurance plans. The rules offer an exemption to any employer that objects to covering contraception services on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions. More than 55 million women have access to birth control without co-payments because of the contraceptive coverage mandate, according to a study commissioned by the Obama administration. Under the new regulations, hundreds of thousands of women could lose those benefits.” See also, Trump’s cold war on Obamacare, The Washington Post, Aaron Blake, Friday, 6 October 2017.

Jeff Sessions Issued New Guidance on Protecting ‘Religious Liberty.’ Critics fear the policy may provide a loophole for discrimination against women and LGBT people. BuzzFeed News, Dominic Holden and Zoe Tillman, Friday, 6 October 2017: “Attorney General Jeff Sessions instructed federal agencies and attorneys on Friday to protect religious liberty in a broad, yet vague, guidance memo that critics fear could give people of faith — including government workers and contractors — a loophole to ignore federal bans on discrimination against women and LGBT people. The guidance says the government cannot unduly burden people or certain businesses from practicing their faith, noting, ‘The free exercise of religion includes the right to act or abstain from action in accordance with one’s religious beliefs.’ The policy does not create new law, but rather interprets how the government should construe the Constitution and existing federal law. It comes on the heels of the Justice Department weighing in on a religious liberty case, in which lawyers under Sessions argued in a brief to the US Supreme Court that a Christian baker had a First Amendment right to deny a gay couple a cake for their wedding.” See also, Civil liberties groups decry Sessions’s guidance to executive branch agencies on religious freedom, The Washington Post, Matt Zapotosky and Sarah Pulliam Bailey, Friday, 6 October 2017: “Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued sweeping guidance to executive branch agencies Friday on the Justice Department’s interpretation of how the government should respect religious freedom, triggering an immediate backlash from civil liberties groups who asserted the nation’s top law enforcement officer was trying to offer a license for discrimination.” See also, Jeff Sessions’s guidance to federal agencies on religious freedom undercuts LGBT rights, Southern Poverty Law Center, David Dinielli, Friday, 6 October 2017: “Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued guidance today setting forth the views of the Department of Justice about how federal agencies should protect religious freedom. The guidance directs agencies to give the broadest possible protection to people, companies and government contractors who cite religious beliefs to avoid compliance with anti-discrimination and other laws. This latest memo reflects the Trump administration’s continuing campaign to roll back the rights of the most vulnerable members of society, including LGBT people. By saying virtually nothing about how the invocation of religious exemptions can cause real harm to real people, it invites taxpayer-funded agencies, government employees, government contractors and government grant recipients to discriminate against LGBT people, as long as they cite a religious reason for doing so. Religious freedom is a treasured right in our country, and it should never be used as a guise for harming others. The guidance memo ignores this competing American value – that in exercising our rights we must and should account for the rights and well-being of others. Freedom of religion does not give us the right to impose our beliefs on others, or to discriminate. The clear intent of this guidance is to undermine the many gains LGBT Americans and others have achieved in securing dignity and equality for themselves and their families. It is motivated by the false notion that LGBT rights, reproductive rights and other rights have come at the expense of religious liberties, an idea that is an affront to the millions of Americans of faith who reject discrimination against all people, including LGBT people. It does not reflect who we are as a nation, with a clear majority of Americans supporting laws that protect LGBT people from unequal treatment.”

Continue reading Week 38, Friday, 6 October – Thursday, 12 October 2017:

[Read more…]