The silver-tongued GOP star in danger of losing his job
Sen. Cory Gardner is a very good politician — even Democrats concede that. But will it be enough in left-leaning Colorado?
By BURGESS EVERETT
Cory Gardner stormed into the Senate in 2014 at the height of anti-Obama fervor on the right, a fresh face vowing to be a “new kind of Republican” in a state drifting toward Democrats.
Now up for a second term in Colorado, Gardner is selling himself essentially the same way. Only this time Donald Trump’s in the White House, the president is deeply unpopular here and Gardner has a record in the Senate to defend — one that includes having the president's back more often than not. Compounding his predicament: Colorado Republicans were just blown out in the midterms.
But to hear the exceedingly upbeat Gardner tell it, no course correction is in order: There’s still room in Colorado for a conservative but pragmatic Republican who gets along with Trump.
"You talk to some people and it’s like, 'Oh my God, nobody got a single vote other than Hillary Clinton in Colorado,'" Gardner said in an interview during two days of non-stop barnstorming across the state. “If I were a Democrat, I would say the same thing: 'When Democrats win, it’s permanent. And when Republicans lose it's permanent.' That's just what they want the narrative to be. And it's just not true."
As he seeks reelection on the front lines of the GOP’s efforts to defend its majority, Gardner’s formidable political skills face an even tougher test than when he pulled off his upset win five years ago over Democratic Sen. Mark Udall. He’s campaigning in a manner that makes Trump seem almost like an afterthought, as Gardner toils away on parochial issues like water management and takes on international ones like confronting North Korea.
He rarely mentions the president, except for when he’s asked directly about him or when he can point to his relationship with Trump as a plus for the state.
At a Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce event, Gardner told the suits in attendance that he’d spoken to the president about permanently locating U.S. Space Command in their region. But at a Lincoln Day GOP dinner in Alamosa — a remote town of about 10,000 near the New Mexico border — he all but avoided Trump. Gardner was introduced there as the “fifth-most bipartisan senator” — a soundbite voters are likely to hear throughout the campaign — before he took the stage and lit into socialism.
It’s far from assured Gardner can walk this tightrope for the next 18 months and keep his job. Democrats have made him their No. 1 Senate target next year, confident the state’s shift left has gone into overdrive since Trump took office. Colorado Democrats carry personal grudges against Gardner for the way he campaigned against Udall, and he's up against a well-oiled Democratic Party machine backed by deep-pocketed outside groups.
Gardner’s opponents argue that his 49 percent support among state Republicans — combined with Trump’s 55 percent disapproval rating in the state and significant Democratic voter registration gains in voter registration — will spell the senator’s doom.
“There’s a lot of momentum at our back,” said former state Sen. Mike Johnston, a leading Democratic contender. The midterm elections were “just halftime.”
Nearly a dozen Democrats are running in the primary to take on Gardner, and the party’s Washington leadership is not picking favorites. Aside from Johnston, who’s already raised nearly $2 million, there’s former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, a favorite among the liberal grass roots; former diplomat Dan Baer; and former U.S. Attorney John Walsh. A few House members are flirting with the race, plus a handful of others.
And some believe former Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper could jump in if his presidential campaign stalls.
“There was a lot of speculation early on that there’s going to be some sort of A-list recruit,” said National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Todd Young (R-Ind.). There hasn’t been, he said, “because Cory has been doing his work.”
Still, it’s a good time to be a Democrat in Colorado. In the past year alone, the state’s GOP gubernatorial nominee lost by 10 points, Republicans lost a critical swing House seat in the Denver suburbs and Democrats cemented healthy statehouse majorities.
But Gardner predicts the Legislature's liberal "overreach" will swing the pendulum back his way. And some Democrats are sounding a note of caution.
“A lot of Democrats underestimate his skills as a politician and overestimate the certainty of a blue wave,” Romanoff said in an interview. “A lot of people have said to me ‘Cory is toast,’” he added, but “that’s completely wrong.”
If upstart senators could be created from test tubes, you’d probably end up with someone like Gardner. A 44-year-old with a streak of silvery hair and boundless energy, his staffers often have to take shifts during the day to keep up with him and Gardner doesn’t even drink coffee.
Gardner’s dexterity with language has served him well. He’s highly disciplined without sounding programmed.
And he has a quick wit: Informed that a Pueblo steel mill he toured last week was established in 1881, Gardner deadpans that just-retired octogenarian Sen. Orrin Hatch was in office at that time. At another point, he complains that his daughter used Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) as a source for a school report on North Korea rather than asking him.
After initially declining to run in 2014, Gardner entered the race just nine months before the election. He launched a furious sprint that caught Democrats off guard.
That won’t happen again, they say.
“‘Look at me, I’m a moderate guy,’” is how state Democratic Party Chairman Morgan Carroll described Gardner’s pitch to voters in 2014. It worked on short notice, Carroll said, but now, “This state hates Trump” and Gardner is “embracing Trump.”
The challenge for Democrats is to contrast Gardner’s claims of bipartisanship with his record. They’re focusing on his votes to repeal Obamacare, confirm Trump’s nominees and support the president’s emergency declaration on the border wall. Gardner did buck the president on votes during the shutdown and on immigration reform, and he condemned Roy Moore's candidacy in Alabama while leading the party's campaign arm.
With Gardner constantly caught between Trump and independent voters, Democrats are drawing a parallel between Gardner’s tactics and former GOP Dean Heller, who faced similar political terrain last year in Nevada. “Dean tried to do the same thing. And lost,” said Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chair Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.).
Many Republicans were bracing for Gardner to tack left this year in preparation for his campaign. But the idea that Gardner would suddenly vote like a liberal belies who he is. Though he has often tried to work across the aisle, Gardner is reliably conservative on most issues other than immigration. As chairman of the NRSC, he devoted himself for two years to defeating incumbent Democrats.
“People are surprised to find out that I’m a Republican,” Gardner said, when asked about the uproar that ensued when he endorsed Trump’s reelection.
“I believe in limited government, I believe in low taxes,” he added later. “If that makes me a conservative, that makes me a conservative.”
In Pueblo, after speaking about water quality, Gardner was reminded that Trump looms large over everything. In quick succession, he was asked whether he backs the president’s border wall, then what he thinks of the administration’s “assault” on air quality. He said border security is important but that he sympathizes with those attracted to a better life in the United States and agrees that “all of us have an interest to ensure our water and air are clean."
To the extent that Gardner does talk about Trump, he argues that his state has more influence over the White House with a Republican senator.
“Absolutely," Gardner said. The effort he's made to forge a relationship with the president "is for Colorado."
Democrats say that approach works for Gardner, but only to a point.
“Trump is likely to do things on immigration and health care that will imperil Sen. Gardner,” said Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), who partnered with Gardner on immigration last year. “It will be difficult to distinguish himself from President Trump because he has supported the president’s positions.”
Gardner avoids blanket criticisms of Trump; instead, he’s picked a handful of discrete issues to create some daylight. He held up Trump's judicial nominees in an effort to protect the state’s burgeoning marijuana industry and derailed the nomination of Herman Cain to the Federal Reserve. Gardner complained about the 35-day shutdown but did not go after Trump over it.
The issue where Gardner is most critical of the president is North Korea.
“The president has, I’m afraid, taken pressure off of North Korea. He believes it’s a way for him to negotiate with Kim Jong Un,” Gardner said. “I believe it’s a rope a dope.”
In the Senate, Gardner wants to take up comprehensive immigration reform and steps to stop election interference by Russia. He said he wants to do more than just confirm Trump's nominees. Asked whether that means trying to repeal Obamacare as he's supported in the past, Gardner demurs. “Obamacare has failed,” he offers, but getting rid of it is unrealistic.
Taken together, a campaign blueprint emerges: Hold together Colorado Republicans, then cobble together a coalition of independents and conservative Democrats to put him over the top. In Colorado that means clearing about 48 percent of the vote.
“He appeals to a lot of the unaffiliated voters,” Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) said of Gardner. (Colorado has more than 1.2 million people registered as unaffiliated.) And, “he’ll run ahead of Trump."
Colorado’s political history indicates its voters are open to splitting tickets: In 2004, Democrat Ken Salazar won a Senate seat as and George W. Bush carried Colorado in his reelection campaign.
But Colorado is seen as a long shot at best for Trump, and Republicans have lost their registration advantage there. There’s likely no other way for Gardner to win than draw crossover voters.
Gardner’s already working on his pitch for those Democrats, the latest iteration of his “new kind” of Republicanism. Except this time, it’s that he’s the same guy who stood in front of windmills in 2014 and said he's "working across party lines."
Asked whether he’s changed since his electric run in 2014, Gardner chuckles.
“Yeah,” he said. “I think my suits have all gotten older and more worn out.”
April 30, 2019
Allots $50M
House panel allots $50M to study gun violence
By RACHEL ROUBEIN
House Democratic appropriators are allocating $50 million to study gun violence, aiming to accelerate research that had been effectively off-limits at the CDC for more than two decades.
The House Labor-HHS-Education fiscal 2020 funding bill unveiled this afternoon provides $25 million to CDC and $25 million to NIH to research how to prevent firearm injury and death. The funding, which has been sought by gun violence-prevention advocates and some prominent doctors' groups, will likely face resistance from Republicans.
Lawmakers haven't provided funding to study gun violence at the CDC in over two decades, largely because of a spending provision that had a chilling effect on research. A budget deal in March 2018 clarified that the federal government can study gun violence, as long as it doesn't use the research to promote gun control.
Republicans last month said they were wary of providing new money for gun research, claiming Democrats are trying to score political points because the CDC already has the authority to study gun violence.
However, the CDC, which collects data on gun violence injuries, said it's limited in what it can do without more money.
"Dedicated funding from Congress would help CDC to move forward in this work," an agency spokesperson told POLITICO in March.
Addressing gun violence is a priority for House Democrats, who earlier this year passed a bill, H.R. 8 (116), largely along party lines, mandating federal background checks on all gun sales. The issue has received a boost from some doctors , who recently have become more visible advocates for gun control after the NRA scolded them for speaking up about firearm policy.
The House appropriations health subcommittee will mark up the bill Tuesday.
By RACHEL ROUBEIN
House Democratic appropriators are allocating $50 million to study gun violence, aiming to accelerate research that had been effectively off-limits at the CDC for more than two decades.
The House Labor-HHS-Education fiscal 2020 funding bill unveiled this afternoon provides $25 million to CDC and $25 million to NIH to research how to prevent firearm injury and death. The funding, which has been sought by gun violence-prevention advocates and some prominent doctors' groups, will likely face resistance from Republicans.
Lawmakers haven't provided funding to study gun violence at the CDC in over two decades, largely because of a spending provision that had a chilling effect on research. A budget deal in March 2018 clarified that the federal government can study gun violence, as long as it doesn't use the research to promote gun control.
Republicans last month said they were wary of providing new money for gun research, claiming Democrats are trying to score political points because the CDC already has the authority to study gun violence.
However, the CDC, which collects data on gun violence injuries, said it's limited in what it can do without more money.
"Dedicated funding from Congress would help CDC to move forward in this work," an agency spokesperson told POLITICO in March.
Addressing gun violence is a priority for House Democrats, who earlier this year passed a bill, H.R. 8 (116), largely along party lines, mandating federal background checks on all gun sales. The issue has received a boost from some doctors , who recently have become more visible advocates for gun control after the NRA scolded them for speaking up about firearm policy.
The House appropriations health subcommittee will mark up the bill Tuesday.
Not enthused
Ernst ‘not enthused’ about backing Moore for Fed
By VICTORIA GUIDA
The tide in the Senate is showing signs of turning against Stephen Moore, President Donald Trump’s pick for a seat on the Federal Reserve, with one member of Republican leadership voicing strong concern over his disparaging comments about women.
“His past writings are ridiculous,” Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) told reporters Monday evening. “I’m not enthused about supporting him, let’s put it that way.”
Pressed for her specific objections, Ernst added: “Look at his writings … I’m a woman.”
Moore, who has not yet officially been nominated, in a 2002 column decried the fact that the NCAA had allowed female referees. “Is there no area in life where men can take vacation from women?” he wrote.
He said women should participate in sporting events “if and only if, they look like [sports journalist] Bonnie Bernstein,” adding that Bernstein should wear halter tops.
He also wrote in 2014 that women earning more than men could be “disruptive to family stability.” On Sunday, he apologized for some of the things he has written about women but wasn’t specific.
Trump's selection of Moore had sparked a backlash because he is an overt political ally of the president and has called for Fed Chairman Jerome Powell to be fired for supporting interest rate hikes last year.
But his demeaning comments about women have added yet another obstacle to his path to potential confirmation.
While administration officials have said they still back Moore for the Fed, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said on Monday morning that they were reviewing his past comments.
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) said he thought Moore would be an interesting pick for the Fed but added that he too has qualms about what he has said about women.
“I think everybody does,” he told reporters. “My wife is a professor, you know? She broke through a lot of ceilings and everything,” adding that he has a granddaughter who “thinks she can do anything.”
“I know him, but a lot of these things have come up about his taxes, about his child support and alimony, about things he’s written about women,” he said. He said those things would all be considered if he’s nominated. Shelby is a senior member of the Banking Committee, which would have jurisdiction over Moore’s nomination.
Sen. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.), the lone female Republican on the committee, offered no indication as to her opinion.
“We will have a thoughtful process like every confirmation,” said McSally, a veteran of the U.S. Air Force.
Notably, Moore also criticized the concept of women in combat in his column about a woman refereeing a men’s game. “What’s next? Women invited to bachelor parties? Women in combat? (Oh yeah, they’ve done that already.)”
Ernst also served in the Iowa Army National Guard.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said she has been focused on other things but would do her homework on Moore. Asked whether she has reservations, she told reporters: “Just the reservations that you guys have come up with. I’ll have to figure out how much is there.”
On ABC’s “This Week,” Moore said he wished the focus would be on his economic ideas.
“These articles that you’re talking about were 17, 18 years ago,” he said. “Frankly, I didn’t even remember writing some of these they were so long ago.”
“Now you asked me the question of whether I’m apologetic about some of those columns,” he added. "They were humor columns, but some weren’t funny, and so I am apologetic. I’m embarrassed by some of those things I wrote. But I do think we should get back to the issue of whether I’m qualified to be on the Federal Reserve Board.”
He also addressed another comment — that Cincinnati and Cleveland are the “armpits of America,” as he said in 2014 — saying he no longer thinks that.
“I am a Chicago boy,” he said Sunday. “Cincinnati and Cleveland have been our rivals. But, you know, the irony of that statement which was made five years ago is today the Ohio economy is booming. I just wrote a column saying, you know, look Cincinnati and Cleveland aren’t the armpits of America, they’ve become the economic arsenal, Ohio is booming. And unfortunately, my home city of Chicago, my home state of Illinois is in the pits.”
“Ohio’s doing all the right things,” he said. “No, I do not believe Ohio is the armpit anymore.”
By VICTORIA GUIDA
The tide in the Senate is showing signs of turning against Stephen Moore, President Donald Trump’s pick for a seat on the Federal Reserve, with one member of Republican leadership voicing strong concern over his disparaging comments about women.
“His past writings are ridiculous,” Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) told reporters Monday evening. “I’m not enthused about supporting him, let’s put it that way.”
Pressed for her specific objections, Ernst added: “Look at his writings … I’m a woman.”
Moore, who has not yet officially been nominated, in a 2002 column decried the fact that the NCAA had allowed female referees. “Is there no area in life where men can take vacation from women?” he wrote.
He said women should participate in sporting events “if and only if, they look like [sports journalist] Bonnie Bernstein,” adding that Bernstein should wear halter tops.
He also wrote in 2014 that women earning more than men could be “disruptive to family stability.” On Sunday, he apologized for some of the things he has written about women but wasn’t specific.
Trump's selection of Moore had sparked a backlash because he is an overt political ally of the president and has called for Fed Chairman Jerome Powell to be fired for supporting interest rate hikes last year.
But his demeaning comments about women have added yet another obstacle to his path to potential confirmation.
While administration officials have said they still back Moore for the Fed, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said on Monday morning that they were reviewing his past comments.
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) said he thought Moore would be an interesting pick for the Fed but added that he too has qualms about what he has said about women.
“I think everybody does,” he told reporters. “My wife is a professor, you know? She broke through a lot of ceilings and everything,” adding that he has a granddaughter who “thinks she can do anything.”
“I know him, but a lot of these things have come up about his taxes, about his child support and alimony, about things he’s written about women,” he said. He said those things would all be considered if he’s nominated. Shelby is a senior member of the Banking Committee, which would have jurisdiction over Moore’s nomination.
Sen. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.), the lone female Republican on the committee, offered no indication as to her opinion.
“We will have a thoughtful process like every confirmation,” said McSally, a veteran of the U.S. Air Force.
Notably, Moore also criticized the concept of women in combat in his column about a woman refereeing a men’s game. “What’s next? Women invited to bachelor parties? Women in combat? (Oh yeah, they’ve done that already.)”
Ernst also served in the Iowa Army National Guard.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said she has been focused on other things but would do her homework on Moore. Asked whether she has reservations, she told reporters: “Just the reservations that you guys have come up with. I’ll have to figure out how much is there.”
On ABC’s “This Week,” Moore said he wished the focus would be on his economic ideas.
“These articles that you’re talking about were 17, 18 years ago,” he said. “Frankly, I didn’t even remember writing some of these they were so long ago.”
“Now you asked me the question of whether I’m apologetic about some of those columns,” he added. "They were humor columns, but some weren’t funny, and so I am apologetic. I’m embarrassed by some of those things I wrote. But I do think we should get back to the issue of whether I’m qualified to be on the Federal Reserve Board.”
He also addressed another comment — that Cincinnati and Cleveland are the “armpits of America,” as he said in 2014 — saying he no longer thinks that.
“I am a Chicago boy,” he said Sunday. “Cincinnati and Cleveland have been our rivals. But, you know, the irony of that statement which was made five years ago is today the Ohio economy is booming. I just wrote a column saying, you know, look Cincinnati and Cleveland aren’t the armpits of America, they’ve become the economic arsenal, Ohio is booming. And unfortunately, my home city of Chicago, my home state of Illinois is in the pits.”
“Ohio’s doing all the right things,” he said. “No, I do not believe Ohio is the armpit anymore.”
Guaido takes to streets
Venezuela’s Guaido takes to streets in military uprising
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó took to the streets with activist Leopoldo Lopez and a small contingent of heavily armed soldiers early Tuesday in a bold and risky call for the military to rise up and oust socialist leader Nicolas Maduro.
“I want to tell the Venezuelan people: This is the moment to take to the streets and accompany these patriotic soldiers,” said Lopez, who had been detained since 2014 for leading anti-government protests. “Everyone should come to the streets, in peace.”
Lopez said he has been freed from house arrest by members of the military responding to an order by Guaidó, whom the U.S. and dozens of other governments recognize as Venezuela’s rightful leader.
As he spoke on a highway overpass, troops loyal to Maduro sporadically fired tear gas from inside the adjacent Carlota air base as the crowd of a few hundred civilians, some of them brandishing Venezuelan flags, scurried for cover.
The crowd was growing as people sensed what could be their strongest opportunity yet to overthrow the government after months of turmoil that has seen Maduro withstand an onslaught of protests and international pressure with the support of the top military command and allies such as Russia and Cuba.
“It’s now or never,” said one of the young rebellious soldiers, his face covered in the blue bandanna preferred by the few dozen soldiers who stood alongside Guaidó and Lopez.
The dramatic events playing out in the opposition’s stronghold in wealthier eastern Caracas appeared not to have triggered a broader military revolt.
Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino on Twitter rejected what he called an attempt by a “subversive movement” to generate “panic and terror.” Meanwhile, socialist party chief Diosdado Cabello said most of Caracas was calm and called on government supporters to amass at the presidential palace to defend Maduro from what he said was a U.S.-backed coup attempt.
“We’re going to Miraflores palace to defend the revolution, to defend Nicolas and to defend the legacy of Hugo Chavez,” said Cabello in a phone call to state TV.
The tumultuous events started when Guaidó — who has been recognized by the U.S. and dozens of other nations as the legitimate interim president — appeared in an early morning video shot next to the air base a day before what he was promoting as a definitive putsch to oust Maduro. He was surrounded by heavily armed soldiers backed by a few armored vehicles.
Guaidó said soldiers who had taken to the streets were protecting Venezuela’s constitution.
“The armed forces have taken the right decision,” said Guaidó. “With the support of the Venezuelan people and the backing of our constitution they are on the right side of history.”
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó took to the streets with activist Leopoldo Lopez and a small contingent of heavily armed soldiers early Tuesday in a bold and risky call for the military to rise up and oust socialist leader Nicolas Maduro.
“I want to tell the Venezuelan people: This is the moment to take to the streets and accompany these patriotic soldiers,” said Lopez, who had been detained since 2014 for leading anti-government protests. “Everyone should come to the streets, in peace.”
Lopez said he has been freed from house arrest by members of the military responding to an order by Guaidó, whom the U.S. and dozens of other governments recognize as Venezuela’s rightful leader.
As he spoke on a highway overpass, troops loyal to Maduro sporadically fired tear gas from inside the adjacent Carlota air base as the crowd of a few hundred civilians, some of them brandishing Venezuelan flags, scurried for cover.
The crowd was growing as people sensed what could be their strongest opportunity yet to overthrow the government after months of turmoil that has seen Maduro withstand an onslaught of protests and international pressure with the support of the top military command and allies such as Russia and Cuba.
“It’s now or never,” said one of the young rebellious soldiers, his face covered in the blue bandanna preferred by the few dozen soldiers who stood alongside Guaidó and Lopez.
The dramatic events playing out in the opposition’s stronghold in wealthier eastern Caracas appeared not to have triggered a broader military revolt.
Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino on Twitter rejected what he called an attempt by a “subversive movement” to generate “panic and terror.” Meanwhile, socialist party chief Diosdado Cabello said most of Caracas was calm and called on government supporters to amass at the presidential palace to defend Maduro from what he said was a U.S.-backed coup attempt.
“We’re going to Miraflores palace to defend the revolution, to defend Nicolas and to defend the legacy of Hugo Chavez,” said Cabello in a phone call to state TV.
The tumultuous events started when Guaidó — who has been recognized by the U.S. and dozens of other nations as the legitimate interim president — appeared in an early morning video shot next to the air base a day before what he was promoting as a definitive putsch to oust Maduro. He was surrounded by heavily armed soldiers backed by a few armored vehicles.
Guaidó said soldiers who had taken to the streets were protecting Venezuela’s constitution.
“The armed forces have taken the right decision,” said Guaidó. “With the support of the Venezuelan people and the backing of our constitution they are on the right side of history.”
Post-announcement surge
Biden extends lead by 11 points in CNN poll with post-announcement surge
By CAITLIN OPRYSKO
One of the first polls conducted since Joe Biden finally announced his presidential run shows the former vice president has jumped out to a commanding lead in the 2020 Democratic primary.
According to a CNN poll out Tuesday, Biden's lead in the Democratic primary field grew by 11 percentage points following his announcement Thursday, underscoring his status as the man to beat in the early going in both polling and fundraising. Nearly four in 10 Democratic or Democratic-leaning voters — 39 percent — picked Biden as their top choice to take on President Donald Trump next year, up from 28 percent in March.
By comparison, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is polling in second place, sits 24 points back, at 15 percent in the CNN poll.
Biden’s bounce corresponds with an emphasis on electability over all else in the Democratic primary, with 46 percent of potential Democratic voters calling it “extremely important” for the party to nominate a candidate with a good chance of beating Trump, compared to 31 percent who said the same about a candidate having the right experience to be president.
About a quarter of respondents said it was important that the eventual nominee be willing to reach across the aisle to get things done.
Biden isn’t the only candidate who made gains in the packed field that now includes 20 declared presidential hopefuls. South Bend (Ind.) Mayor Pete Buttigieg also saw a bump in his polling numbers, rising six points from last month to 11 percent. He rounds out the middle tier of candidates, which also includes Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) at 8 percent and followed by Beto O’Rourke at 6 percent and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) at 5 percent. Every other candidate included in the poll sat at 2 percent or less.
While Biden appears to have run away with the lead for now, with the Iowa caucuses still nine months out, more than half of potential Democratic voters said they’re not set in their candidate preference — 64 percent responded that they’re still likely to change their mind. Among the third of those polled who said they’re unlikely to change their mind, Biden sits at 50 percent compared to Sanders at 21 percent and Warren at 8 percent.
By CAITLIN OPRYSKO
One of the first polls conducted since Joe Biden finally announced his presidential run shows the former vice president has jumped out to a commanding lead in the 2020 Democratic primary.
According to a CNN poll out Tuesday, Biden's lead in the Democratic primary field grew by 11 percentage points following his announcement Thursday, underscoring his status as the man to beat in the early going in both polling and fundraising. Nearly four in 10 Democratic or Democratic-leaning voters — 39 percent — picked Biden as their top choice to take on President Donald Trump next year, up from 28 percent in March.
By comparison, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is polling in second place, sits 24 points back, at 15 percent in the CNN poll.
Biden’s bounce corresponds with an emphasis on electability over all else in the Democratic primary, with 46 percent of potential Democratic voters calling it “extremely important” for the party to nominate a candidate with a good chance of beating Trump, compared to 31 percent who said the same about a candidate having the right experience to be president.
About a quarter of respondents said it was important that the eventual nominee be willing to reach across the aisle to get things done.
Biden isn’t the only candidate who made gains in the packed field that now includes 20 declared presidential hopefuls. South Bend (Ind.) Mayor Pete Buttigieg also saw a bump in his polling numbers, rising six points from last month to 11 percent. He rounds out the middle tier of candidates, which also includes Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) at 8 percent and followed by Beto O’Rourke at 6 percent and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) at 5 percent. Every other candidate included in the poll sat at 2 percent or less.
While Biden appears to have run away with the lead for now, with the Iowa caucuses still nine months out, more than half of potential Democratic voters said they’re not set in their candidate preference — 64 percent responded that they’re still likely to change their mind. Among the third of those polled who said they’re unlikely to change their mind, Biden sits at 50 percent compared to Sanders at 21 percent and Warren at 8 percent.
Awful, deliberate division...
Biden blasts Trump's 'God-awful, deliberate division' of the country
By CAITLIN OPRYSKO
Joe Biden is putting his own spin on President Donald Trump’s “make America great again” campaign slogan.
In an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” the former vice president said that his motto would be: “Make America moral again.”
Biden, who has not been shy about his intention to criticize Trump at the outset of his campaign, ripped into the president's handling of the country while in office.
"Make America return to the essence of who we are, the dignity of the country, the dignity of people, treating our people with dignity," Biden said. "End this God-awful, deliberate division that’s being taken in order to — separating people to aggrandize his own power."
Outlining a potential Biden presidency, the former vice president stressed that unity would be one of three major prongs.
“We can’t stay fractured like we are now,” he said.
Biden was also pressed on recent allegations from women who said the former vice president was overly touchy with them, making them uncomfortable. Although Biden said he took responsibility for his actions and acknowledged that times have changed, he did not offer an apology.
The former vice president came under fire for his response to the allegations, which at first amounted to silence from Biden while his spokespeople issued statements. After he finally posted a video on Twitter addressing the issue personally for the first time, the former vice president caught heat for appearing to poke fun at it days later in a speech to union workers.
"Some people were wondering, do you really get it?" GMA anchor Robin Roberts asked Biden of the joke.
"I really do," he responded.
"Here's the deal — I've always thought that part of leadership, part of politics was listening to people, hearing them, making them feel comfortable," he continued. "It's my responsibility to be more sensitive to whether or not someone wants me to reassure them or wants to say hello or wants to show affection toward. And that's my responsibility."
Biden’s wife Jill defended his tactile approach to communication but said he would need to change his approach going forward.
"I think what you don't realize is how many people approach Joe,” she said. "Men and women, looking for comfort or empathy. But going forward, I think he's gonna have to judge, be a better judge, of when people approach him, how he's going to react. That he maybe shouldn't approach them."
She also acknowledged that there had been situations where a man imposed on her personal space and made her feel uncomfortable, adding that at least once incident had been notable enough to come home and tell her husband about it.
"I just sort of stepped aside. I didn't address it. I, like you said, I mean, things have changed. There was a time when women were afraid to speak out," Biden said of how she addressed it. "And I can remember specifically — it was in a job interview. And so that’s where we’ve moved from, that now if that same thing happened today, I'd turn around and say, 'What do you think you're doing?' So I think it's — it's totally different."
Asked how he planned to stand out in a field that now encompasses 20 White House hopefuls, the former vice president shot down the criticism that he’s running for Barack Obama’s third term in the White House.
Biden argued for building on the progress of the Obama administration and doubled down on his embrace of the former president. Online, Biden's campaign released a three-minute video cut with Obama’s 2017 speech awarding Biden with the Medal of Freedom.
The former vice president has led nearly every national and early nominating state poll since before he officially jumped into the race Thursday, and crushed his competitors in first-day fundraising totals. But while some in the Democratic establishment have eyed Biden as the most electable candidate in the expansive primary field, he’s faced questions about whether the party has shifted too far left in recent years for him to be named its standard bearer.
Last month, Biden told reporters he was “proud” to be an “Obama-Biden Democrat,” which he reiterated Tuesday.
“I’m really proud of serving with Barack, with the president,” Biden said on “Good Morning America.” “But look, it’s a new time, a new day. We’re moving on to deal with the things that are within our grasp, I’ve worked my whole life. Finishing the job on equality for women. Finish the job in terms of what we’re going to do about the environment, make bold new steps forward.”
He asserted that though Trump is overseeing a booming economy, he hadn’t done enough to help “the vast majority of the working-class and middle-class people” and asked Trump voters to consider whether or not they’d benefited “significantly” from his signature tax law.
“They know they’re not being treated very well. This is about restoring the dignity of work,” he said, “and it’s not happening right now.”
Jill Biden interjected with some veiled criticism of the several relative political newcomers who have jumped into the 2020 race, pointing out that Biden’s experience in the White House is unmatched.
“The one thing that does differentiate you is experience,” she said. “He doesn’t need any on the job training. He jumps right in, he’s been vice president, so from day one Joe can take everything.”
By CAITLIN OPRYSKO
Joe Biden is putting his own spin on President Donald Trump’s “make America great again” campaign slogan.
In an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” the former vice president said that his motto would be: “Make America moral again.”
Biden, who has not been shy about his intention to criticize Trump at the outset of his campaign, ripped into the president's handling of the country while in office.
"Make America return to the essence of who we are, the dignity of the country, the dignity of people, treating our people with dignity," Biden said. "End this God-awful, deliberate division that’s being taken in order to — separating people to aggrandize his own power."
Outlining a potential Biden presidency, the former vice president stressed that unity would be one of three major prongs.
“We can’t stay fractured like we are now,” he said.
Biden was also pressed on recent allegations from women who said the former vice president was overly touchy with them, making them uncomfortable. Although Biden said he took responsibility for his actions and acknowledged that times have changed, he did not offer an apology.
The former vice president came under fire for his response to the allegations, which at first amounted to silence from Biden while his spokespeople issued statements. After he finally posted a video on Twitter addressing the issue personally for the first time, the former vice president caught heat for appearing to poke fun at it days later in a speech to union workers.
"Some people were wondering, do you really get it?" GMA anchor Robin Roberts asked Biden of the joke.
"I really do," he responded.
"Here's the deal — I've always thought that part of leadership, part of politics was listening to people, hearing them, making them feel comfortable," he continued. "It's my responsibility to be more sensitive to whether or not someone wants me to reassure them or wants to say hello or wants to show affection toward. And that's my responsibility."
Biden’s wife Jill defended his tactile approach to communication but said he would need to change his approach going forward.
"I think what you don't realize is how many people approach Joe,” she said. "Men and women, looking for comfort or empathy. But going forward, I think he's gonna have to judge, be a better judge, of when people approach him, how he's going to react. That he maybe shouldn't approach them."
She also acknowledged that there had been situations where a man imposed on her personal space and made her feel uncomfortable, adding that at least once incident had been notable enough to come home and tell her husband about it.
"I just sort of stepped aside. I didn't address it. I, like you said, I mean, things have changed. There was a time when women were afraid to speak out," Biden said of how she addressed it. "And I can remember specifically — it was in a job interview. And so that’s where we’ve moved from, that now if that same thing happened today, I'd turn around and say, 'What do you think you're doing?' So I think it's — it's totally different."
Asked how he planned to stand out in a field that now encompasses 20 White House hopefuls, the former vice president shot down the criticism that he’s running for Barack Obama’s third term in the White House.
Biden argued for building on the progress of the Obama administration and doubled down on his embrace of the former president. Online, Biden's campaign released a three-minute video cut with Obama’s 2017 speech awarding Biden with the Medal of Freedom.
The former vice president has led nearly every national and early nominating state poll since before he officially jumped into the race Thursday, and crushed his competitors in first-day fundraising totals. But while some in the Democratic establishment have eyed Biden as the most electable candidate in the expansive primary field, he’s faced questions about whether the party has shifted too far left in recent years for him to be named its standard bearer.
Last month, Biden told reporters he was “proud” to be an “Obama-Biden Democrat,” which he reiterated Tuesday.
“I’m really proud of serving with Barack, with the president,” Biden said on “Good Morning America.” “But look, it’s a new time, a new day. We’re moving on to deal with the things that are within our grasp, I’ve worked my whole life. Finishing the job on equality for women. Finish the job in terms of what we’re going to do about the environment, make bold new steps forward.”
He asserted that though Trump is overseeing a booming economy, he hadn’t done enough to help “the vast majority of the working-class and middle-class people” and asked Trump voters to consider whether or not they’d benefited “significantly” from his signature tax law.
“They know they’re not being treated very well. This is about restoring the dignity of work,” he said, “and it’s not happening right now.”
Jill Biden interjected with some veiled criticism of the several relative political newcomers who have jumped into the 2020 race, pointing out that Biden’s experience in the White House is unmatched.
“The one thing that does differentiate you is experience,” she said. “He doesn’t need any on the job training. He jumps right in, he’s been vice president, so from day one Joe can take everything.”
April 29, 2019
Explained by a doctor.....
What’s missing from the conversation about later abortions, explained by a doctor
Abortion opponents are accusing doctors of infanticide. Here’s the reality of abortion later in pregnancy, according to a doctor.
By Anna North
President Trump on Saturday yet again claimed that doctors in America are executing babies.
“The baby is born,” Trump said at a rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin. “The mother meets with the doctor. They take care of the baby. They wrap the baby beautifully, and then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby.”
Trump’s inflammatory words are part of a larger movement. At an especially contentious time in the abortion debate, opponents of the procedure have focused their attention on abortions that happen late in pregnancy. In some cases, they’re implying that laws allowing later abortions make it legal to kill a baby after birth (they do not).
Such claims began to proliferate in January, after Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam made some confusing comments about an abortion bill in his state. Abortion opponents claimed his comments were an endorsement of infanticide. They argued that babies are sometimes born alive after failed abortions that happen late in pregnancy, and that they are then “left to die” or even executed by doctors.
“The governor stated that he would even allow a newborn baby to come out into the world,” Trump told a crowd in El Paso, Texas, in February, “and wrap the baby, and make the baby comfortable, and then talk to the mother and talk to the father and then execute the baby.”
Abortion rights advocates and abortion providers have responded to rhetoric like this by saying that the case of a baby born after a failed abortion is so rare as to be essentially unheard of, and that if that did happen, doctors would care for the baby like any other patient. But the debate continues, so I reached out to a doctor who provides abortions for an in-depth explanation of what abortions late in pregnancy actually look like, and how the picture painted by Trump and others compares to reality.
Dr. Kristyn Brandi is a New Jersey OB-GYN with fellowship training in family planning, and a board member of Physicians for Reproductive Health. As a doctor, she delivers babies and cares for pregnant women, and also performs abortions. She told me that because of today’s legal requirements for abortion procedures, it’s essentially impossible for a baby to be born alive after a failed abortion, and that equating late abortion with infanticide is insulting to patients, many of whom are grieving the end of a much-wanted pregnancy.
Trump and others describe “late-term abortion” (which, Brandi explains, is not a medically accurate term) as something that can happen at 40 weeks’ gestation, even when a woman is in labor.
In reality, as Brandi told Vox in February, “patients do not request abortion when they are in labor and doctors do not provide it.” More than 90 percent of abortions happen within the first trimester of pregnancy. But some patients do get abortions after that, in the second and third trimesters (about 1.4 percent of abortions happen at 21 weeks’ gestation or later, according to Planned Parenthood). Brandi explained to me what happens during those procedures, why patients seek them, and what the current political debate about them is missing. Our conversation, via phone and email, has been edited and condensed.
Anna North
Throughout the last few months, there’s been a lot of focus on abortions that happen later in pregnancy. Can you talk a little about why people seek such abortions?
Kristyn Brandi
Thank you for using the more appropriate terminology. A lot of the people I’ve been talking to about abortions that happen later in pregnancy use these weird terms like “late-term abortion.”
Anna North
Can you explain why the term “late-term abortion” is not accurate?
Kristyn Brandi
Usually, as medical professionals, we talk about abortion in relation to gestational age, but we don’t use terms like “late” because it doesn’t really apply. And when we talk about late-term pregnancy, we’re actually referring to pregnancies that are a week after their due date, so 41 weeks’ gestation, which is very different than what we’re talking about typically when people say late-term abortion. Which I think really reflects the fact that people that are having these conversations may not have that medical background, and so we’re not speaking the same language and it creates confusion for everyone involved.
Anna North
Given that, can you talk to me about the reasons that people seek the procedure later in pregnancy?
Kristyn Brandi
I should say that when we’re talking about these abortions later in pregnancy, this is about 1 percent of all abortion care. The majority of abortions happen in the first trimester. Patients that are seeking care later, often it’s related to their health, so either they themselves are diagnosed in pregnancy with some type of medical complication or their fetus was diagnosed with some type of genetic abnormality that makes their quality of life after they deliver really poor. And, unfortunately, we are typically unable to diagnose these things until the second or the third trimester, so it leaves patients to be having these conversations later in their pregnancy.
There’s also structural and socioeconomic reasons why people show up later in pregnancy. For example, I’m at a center where I’m the referral center for the state, and so patients that are seeking care elsewhere may get referred to me and I’m often hours away from where they initially sought care. So it takes a while for them to get up to see me, and that includes not just the time it takes to come up here but also making sure they have child care for the children they already have, getting transportation. There’s so many different types of barriers that are created for health care in general, but specifically abortion care.
Anna North
Can you give some examples of situations you’ve seen where a patient sought an abortion late in pregnancy?
Kristyn Brandi
In recent memory, I had a clinic day where several patients had come to the clinic for abortion later in pregnancy for very different reasons. A person in one room had a fetus with trisomy 13 [a chromosomal disorder that can result in severe intellectual and physical disability], which was not diagnosed until later in pregnancy. In the next room, I had a patient for whom I was the fourth doctor she had seen — she kept being referred to other doctors because of her complex medical history and had to save enough for a bus ride for each doctor she saw. The last patient had a history of a near-fatal event in her last pregnancy, and while she didn’t personally agree with abortion, she decided it was the best thing for her to prevent the risk of her own death in this pregnancy.
Anna North
Talk to me all bit more about the structural barriers you mentioned. Can you give some more examples?
Kristyn Brandi
As more and more abortion restrictions come up, it creates a lot of barriers for patients seeking care. For example, there are some laws that say you have to come [for counseling] prior to obtaining an abortion, and that just may not be feasible for a lot of people, particularly if you live three hours, four hours away in a different state from where you’re getting care. It just is not something that our patients can manage, and it’s not their fault.
There’s some new laws that cause clinics that are nearby to close because they just can’t meet these standards that are not medically necessary, but that states put on these clinics to restrict care.
Anna North
Would removing some of those barriers mean fewer abortions later in pregnancy?
Kristyn Brandi
I think so. Again, it’s not the majority of abortions, but there are many people that are having these barriers. It can actually change a lot of what abortion care looks like if just we improved access to patients being able to get care in a timely way.
Anna North
I think a clear picture of what happens during an abortion would be helpful to our readers in making sense of some of the debates right now. I know some abortions are performed with medication, and some are surgical — can you describe both types, and talk a little about how the procedure changes at different stages of pregnancy?
Kristyn Brandi
A patient can decide on a medication abortion up to 10 weeks, with two different pills, mifepristone and misoprostol. A surgical abortion is often a seven- to 10-minute in-office procedure with vacuum aspiration, administered by a licensed clinician who gently dilates the cervix just enough to protect the cervix, then empties the uterus.
If an abortion is performed at 20 weeks or later, a drug may be injected to stop the fetal heartbeat before the uterus is emptied. How we complete the procedure depends on the wishes of the patient, their own medical circumstances, and our medical judgement. Sometimes we use a combination of instruments and aspiration to empty the uterus, and other times we proceed with an induction of labor just as we would with a stillbirth.
Medically, every pregnancy is different, and every person’s health circumstances are unique. There isn’t a bright line, so we can’t say, “We always do this.” We provide the procedure that is best for each patient based on their decision and our medical judgment.
Anna North
What typically happens to fetal remains after an abortion? Does this vary depending on when in pregnancy the abortion occurs?
Kristyn Brandi
Medical facilities dispose of bodily tissue, including embryonic and fetal tissue, in a sanitary manner that minimizes exposure to pathogens and risk of infection. Fetal tissue is treated respectfully and handled in a way that protects the privacy of patients. In some instances, patients may request a different disposition of the embryonic or fetal tissue. Such requests are deeply personal and tend to vary based on a patient’s cultural or religious traditions.
Anna North
Let’s talk a little bit about what’s been in the news the last few months. I was watching the debate in the Senate over [Nebraska] Sen. [Ben] Sasse’s bill, and he said, “We know that some babies, especially late in gestation, survive attempted abortions. We know, too, that some of these babies are left to die.” That struck me because it didn’t jibe with what I’ve read and heard from providers, which is that it’s extremely rare, if not unheard of, for a baby to be born alive after a failed abortion attempt. What would be your response to Sasse’s claim?
Kristyn Brandi
I also have been hearing a lot of these types of stories, and it also is shocking me as someone that provides this care every day. I think they’re trying to use extreme language and sensationalization to make people uncomfortable with talking about care that is just part of medical care. I think there’s a lot of confusion about what happens within abortion later in pregnancy and the unique circumstances that involve each individual patient, so it’s really hard to understand a lot of the nuances around this conversation when you’re just having these two sides that are using talking points to argue with each other.
Anna North
What kinds of nuances do you feel like are being missed here?
Kristyn Brandi
I think some of it is just a misunderstanding about what abortion care looks like, and particularly equating it to infanticide, which is really insulting. It’s insulting for me as an abortion provider, but I can’t imagine how insulting it is for my patients or women that have experienced abortion and they’re hearing all these crazy stories. I can’t imagine how disheartening it is and how it further perpetuates the stigma around abortion. How could you talk about your own abortion when you hear all these things in the media?
Anna North
Just to make sure we drill down on some of the claims we’ve been hearing here, I’ve even seen an estimate on an anti-abortion website that more than 900 babies survive attempted abortions every year, extrapolating from a 2007 British study. Is this a thing that happens? Do infants survive abortions, and what would happen medically if that did occur?
Kristyn Brandi
[In] typical abortion care, this is something that can never happen, and part of it is actually because of politics. There was this [2003] partial-birth abortion ban, which restricted this from happening. If we did what these politicians are claiming we’re doing, we’re already breaking the law. No one is actually doing that. At least, I should say, no credible doctor or practitioner is doing anything anywhere even close to what they’re suggesting.
Anna North
Explain that a little bit more to me. What is being suggested that can’t happen under that law?
Kristyn Brandi
Under that law, something has to be done to the pregnancy to stop it from growing prior to the abortion happening, specifically to avoid the scenario where a potential pregnancy is delivered and could survive outside of the patient. We have to do something to the pregnancy in order to prevent this from happening, so it’s already off the table.
But I think a lot of the confusion is that people are conflating abortion care with comfort care. For example, there are some patients that are in a similar scenario where their pregnancy outcome, for whatever reason, either a fetal anomaly or something in their medical situation, did not result in a pregnancy that will survive for very long outside of them. And so some patients elect to undergo something similar to a labor induction, which allows them to deliver what they call their baby and be able to actually spend time with it and be able to offer it comfort care.
Again, thinking about the scenarios that I’ve seen, it’s really terribly heartbreaking scenarios where it’s a desired pregnancy that people want to spend last moments with before this baby passes. And to think of the patients that I’ve seen that have gone through that, where they just want to hold their baby one last time before it passes away, those are the scenarios that these politicians are suggesting that we are performing infanticide on.
It breaks my heart to hear conservative media and politicians using these terms and not holding the hand of patients that are going through this process.
Anna North
Talk to me a little bit about the emotional aspect of the procedure for patients who are ending up seeking this later in pregnancy, especially if these are patients who had a wanted pregnancy and there’s an abnormality.
Kristyn Brandi
I think it’s very emotional for many patients. Someone has been planning this pregnancy and been preparing and getting their nursery all set up and then, all of a sudden, is faced with this devastating news; it’s heartbreaking.
I think to compound that with all of the stigma around abortion — I’ve had many patients come to me and say they never thought they would be in this circumstance, that perhaps they didn’t agree initially with abortion care because they just didn’t see how it would affect them. Many of them are very happy and relieved to be able to have that care available to them when they needed it the most.
Anna North
I think those were all the specific questions I had. Is there anything else you want to say on any of this that we didn’t touch on?
Kristyn Brandi
I think the one thing that is getting a little bit overlooked in this conversation is about how particularly this affects a vulnerable population. Patients that are having abortions later in pregnancy may face additional barriers — [they may be] of lower socioeconomic status, minority patients, LGBT patients, undocumented patients, or immigrant patients. They’re facing a lot of the brunt of this and it’s further perpetuating disparities.
Anna North
They are facing the brunt of this because they’re more likely to face some of those barriers to care earlier in pregnancy?
Kristyn Brandi
Right. Or they may not be able to access prenatal care and they’ll get these diagnoses later in pregnancy, and so a lot of later abortion disproportionately affects vulnerable populations. So not only trying to decrease barriers to abortion care but also improving access to prenatal care, improving access to contraception, improving access to any health care or decreasing a lot of the barriers that are faced by vulnerable populations may actually be able to help people get access to the care they need.
Abortion opponents are accusing doctors of infanticide. Here’s the reality of abortion later in pregnancy, according to a doctor.
By Anna North
President Trump on Saturday yet again claimed that doctors in America are executing babies.
“The baby is born,” Trump said at a rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin. “The mother meets with the doctor. They take care of the baby. They wrap the baby beautifully, and then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby.”
Trump’s inflammatory words are part of a larger movement. At an especially contentious time in the abortion debate, opponents of the procedure have focused their attention on abortions that happen late in pregnancy. In some cases, they’re implying that laws allowing later abortions make it legal to kill a baby after birth (they do not).
Such claims began to proliferate in January, after Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam made some confusing comments about an abortion bill in his state. Abortion opponents claimed his comments were an endorsement of infanticide. They argued that babies are sometimes born alive after failed abortions that happen late in pregnancy, and that they are then “left to die” or even executed by doctors.
“The governor stated that he would even allow a newborn baby to come out into the world,” Trump told a crowd in El Paso, Texas, in February, “and wrap the baby, and make the baby comfortable, and then talk to the mother and talk to the father and then execute the baby.”
Abortion rights advocates and abortion providers have responded to rhetoric like this by saying that the case of a baby born after a failed abortion is so rare as to be essentially unheard of, and that if that did happen, doctors would care for the baby like any other patient. But the debate continues, so I reached out to a doctor who provides abortions for an in-depth explanation of what abortions late in pregnancy actually look like, and how the picture painted by Trump and others compares to reality.
Dr. Kristyn Brandi is a New Jersey OB-GYN with fellowship training in family planning, and a board member of Physicians for Reproductive Health. As a doctor, she delivers babies and cares for pregnant women, and also performs abortions. She told me that because of today’s legal requirements for abortion procedures, it’s essentially impossible for a baby to be born alive after a failed abortion, and that equating late abortion with infanticide is insulting to patients, many of whom are grieving the end of a much-wanted pregnancy.
Trump and others describe “late-term abortion” (which, Brandi explains, is not a medically accurate term) as something that can happen at 40 weeks’ gestation, even when a woman is in labor.
In reality, as Brandi told Vox in February, “patients do not request abortion when they are in labor and doctors do not provide it.” More than 90 percent of abortions happen within the first trimester of pregnancy. But some patients do get abortions after that, in the second and third trimesters (about 1.4 percent of abortions happen at 21 weeks’ gestation or later, according to Planned Parenthood). Brandi explained to me what happens during those procedures, why patients seek them, and what the current political debate about them is missing. Our conversation, via phone and email, has been edited and condensed.
Anna North
Throughout the last few months, there’s been a lot of focus on abortions that happen later in pregnancy. Can you talk a little about why people seek such abortions?
Kristyn Brandi
Thank you for using the more appropriate terminology. A lot of the people I’ve been talking to about abortions that happen later in pregnancy use these weird terms like “late-term abortion.”
Anna North
Can you explain why the term “late-term abortion” is not accurate?
Kristyn Brandi
Usually, as medical professionals, we talk about abortion in relation to gestational age, but we don’t use terms like “late” because it doesn’t really apply. And when we talk about late-term pregnancy, we’re actually referring to pregnancies that are a week after their due date, so 41 weeks’ gestation, which is very different than what we’re talking about typically when people say late-term abortion. Which I think really reflects the fact that people that are having these conversations may not have that medical background, and so we’re not speaking the same language and it creates confusion for everyone involved.
Anna North
Given that, can you talk to me about the reasons that people seek the procedure later in pregnancy?
Kristyn Brandi
I should say that when we’re talking about these abortions later in pregnancy, this is about 1 percent of all abortion care. The majority of abortions happen in the first trimester. Patients that are seeking care later, often it’s related to their health, so either they themselves are diagnosed in pregnancy with some type of medical complication or their fetus was diagnosed with some type of genetic abnormality that makes their quality of life after they deliver really poor. And, unfortunately, we are typically unable to diagnose these things until the second or the third trimester, so it leaves patients to be having these conversations later in their pregnancy.
There’s also structural and socioeconomic reasons why people show up later in pregnancy. For example, I’m at a center where I’m the referral center for the state, and so patients that are seeking care elsewhere may get referred to me and I’m often hours away from where they initially sought care. So it takes a while for them to get up to see me, and that includes not just the time it takes to come up here but also making sure they have child care for the children they already have, getting transportation. There’s so many different types of barriers that are created for health care in general, but specifically abortion care.
Anna North
Can you give some examples of situations you’ve seen where a patient sought an abortion late in pregnancy?
Kristyn Brandi
In recent memory, I had a clinic day where several patients had come to the clinic for abortion later in pregnancy for very different reasons. A person in one room had a fetus with trisomy 13 [a chromosomal disorder that can result in severe intellectual and physical disability], which was not diagnosed until later in pregnancy. In the next room, I had a patient for whom I was the fourth doctor she had seen — she kept being referred to other doctors because of her complex medical history and had to save enough for a bus ride for each doctor she saw. The last patient had a history of a near-fatal event in her last pregnancy, and while she didn’t personally agree with abortion, she decided it was the best thing for her to prevent the risk of her own death in this pregnancy.
Anna North
Talk to me all bit more about the structural barriers you mentioned. Can you give some more examples?
Kristyn Brandi
As more and more abortion restrictions come up, it creates a lot of barriers for patients seeking care. For example, there are some laws that say you have to come [for counseling] prior to obtaining an abortion, and that just may not be feasible for a lot of people, particularly if you live three hours, four hours away in a different state from where you’re getting care. It just is not something that our patients can manage, and it’s not their fault.
There’s some new laws that cause clinics that are nearby to close because they just can’t meet these standards that are not medically necessary, but that states put on these clinics to restrict care.
Anna North
Would removing some of those barriers mean fewer abortions later in pregnancy?
Kristyn Brandi
I think so. Again, it’s not the majority of abortions, but there are many people that are having these barriers. It can actually change a lot of what abortion care looks like if just we improved access to patients being able to get care in a timely way.
Anna North
I think a clear picture of what happens during an abortion would be helpful to our readers in making sense of some of the debates right now. I know some abortions are performed with medication, and some are surgical — can you describe both types, and talk a little about how the procedure changes at different stages of pregnancy?
Kristyn Brandi
A patient can decide on a medication abortion up to 10 weeks, with two different pills, mifepristone and misoprostol. A surgical abortion is often a seven- to 10-minute in-office procedure with vacuum aspiration, administered by a licensed clinician who gently dilates the cervix just enough to protect the cervix, then empties the uterus.
If an abortion is performed at 20 weeks or later, a drug may be injected to stop the fetal heartbeat before the uterus is emptied. How we complete the procedure depends on the wishes of the patient, their own medical circumstances, and our medical judgement. Sometimes we use a combination of instruments and aspiration to empty the uterus, and other times we proceed with an induction of labor just as we would with a stillbirth.
Medically, every pregnancy is different, and every person’s health circumstances are unique. There isn’t a bright line, so we can’t say, “We always do this.” We provide the procedure that is best for each patient based on their decision and our medical judgment.
Anna North
What typically happens to fetal remains after an abortion? Does this vary depending on when in pregnancy the abortion occurs?
Kristyn Brandi
Medical facilities dispose of bodily tissue, including embryonic and fetal tissue, in a sanitary manner that minimizes exposure to pathogens and risk of infection. Fetal tissue is treated respectfully and handled in a way that protects the privacy of patients. In some instances, patients may request a different disposition of the embryonic or fetal tissue. Such requests are deeply personal and tend to vary based on a patient’s cultural or religious traditions.
Anna North
Let’s talk a little bit about what’s been in the news the last few months. I was watching the debate in the Senate over [Nebraska] Sen. [Ben] Sasse’s bill, and he said, “We know that some babies, especially late in gestation, survive attempted abortions. We know, too, that some of these babies are left to die.” That struck me because it didn’t jibe with what I’ve read and heard from providers, which is that it’s extremely rare, if not unheard of, for a baby to be born alive after a failed abortion attempt. What would be your response to Sasse’s claim?
Kristyn Brandi
I also have been hearing a lot of these types of stories, and it also is shocking me as someone that provides this care every day. I think they’re trying to use extreme language and sensationalization to make people uncomfortable with talking about care that is just part of medical care. I think there’s a lot of confusion about what happens within abortion later in pregnancy and the unique circumstances that involve each individual patient, so it’s really hard to understand a lot of the nuances around this conversation when you’re just having these two sides that are using talking points to argue with each other.
Anna North
What kinds of nuances do you feel like are being missed here?
Kristyn Brandi
I think some of it is just a misunderstanding about what abortion care looks like, and particularly equating it to infanticide, which is really insulting. It’s insulting for me as an abortion provider, but I can’t imagine how insulting it is for my patients or women that have experienced abortion and they’re hearing all these crazy stories. I can’t imagine how disheartening it is and how it further perpetuates the stigma around abortion. How could you talk about your own abortion when you hear all these things in the media?
Anna North
Just to make sure we drill down on some of the claims we’ve been hearing here, I’ve even seen an estimate on an anti-abortion website that more than 900 babies survive attempted abortions every year, extrapolating from a 2007 British study. Is this a thing that happens? Do infants survive abortions, and what would happen medically if that did occur?
Kristyn Brandi
[In] typical abortion care, this is something that can never happen, and part of it is actually because of politics. There was this [2003] partial-birth abortion ban, which restricted this from happening. If we did what these politicians are claiming we’re doing, we’re already breaking the law. No one is actually doing that. At least, I should say, no credible doctor or practitioner is doing anything anywhere even close to what they’re suggesting.
Anna North
Explain that a little bit more to me. What is being suggested that can’t happen under that law?
Kristyn Brandi
Under that law, something has to be done to the pregnancy to stop it from growing prior to the abortion happening, specifically to avoid the scenario where a potential pregnancy is delivered and could survive outside of the patient. We have to do something to the pregnancy in order to prevent this from happening, so it’s already off the table.
But I think a lot of the confusion is that people are conflating abortion care with comfort care. For example, there are some patients that are in a similar scenario where their pregnancy outcome, for whatever reason, either a fetal anomaly or something in their medical situation, did not result in a pregnancy that will survive for very long outside of them. And so some patients elect to undergo something similar to a labor induction, which allows them to deliver what they call their baby and be able to actually spend time with it and be able to offer it comfort care.
Again, thinking about the scenarios that I’ve seen, it’s really terribly heartbreaking scenarios where it’s a desired pregnancy that people want to spend last moments with before this baby passes. And to think of the patients that I’ve seen that have gone through that, where they just want to hold their baby one last time before it passes away, those are the scenarios that these politicians are suggesting that we are performing infanticide on.
It breaks my heart to hear conservative media and politicians using these terms and not holding the hand of patients that are going through this process.
Anna North
Talk to me a little bit about the emotional aspect of the procedure for patients who are ending up seeking this later in pregnancy, especially if these are patients who had a wanted pregnancy and there’s an abnormality.
Kristyn Brandi
I think it’s very emotional for many patients. Someone has been planning this pregnancy and been preparing and getting their nursery all set up and then, all of a sudden, is faced with this devastating news; it’s heartbreaking.
I think to compound that with all of the stigma around abortion — I’ve had many patients come to me and say they never thought they would be in this circumstance, that perhaps they didn’t agree initially with abortion care because they just didn’t see how it would affect them. Many of them are very happy and relieved to be able to have that care available to them when they needed it the most.
Anna North
I think those were all the specific questions I had. Is there anything else you want to say on any of this that we didn’t touch on?
Kristyn Brandi
I think the one thing that is getting a little bit overlooked in this conversation is about how particularly this affects a vulnerable population. Patients that are having abortions later in pregnancy may face additional barriers — [they may be] of lower socioeconomic status, minority patients, LGBT patients, undocumented patients, or immigrant patients. They’re facing a lot of the brunt of this and it’s further perpetuating disparities.
Anna North
They are facing the brunt of this because they’re more likely to face some of those barriers to care earlier in pregnancy?
Kristyn Brandi
Right. Or they may not be able to access prenatal care and they’ll get these diagnoses later in pregnancy, and so a lot of later abortion disproportionately affects vulnerable populations. So not only trying to decrease barriers to abortion care but also improving access to prenatal care, improving access to contraception, improving access to any health care or decreasing a lot of the barriers that are faced by vulnerable populations may actually be able to help people get access to the care they need.
Wobbling Fast
This Black Hole’s Jets Are Wobbling Fast Because It’s Dragging Space-Time
BY GENEVIEVE SCARANO
Astronomers have spotted wobbly jets of particles shooting out from a black hole, and they believe that this strange motion could be happening because the black hole’s strong gravitational pull is dragging space around it.
Named V404 Cygni, this black hole is nine times more massive than the sun and located almost 8,000 light-years from Earth, said a National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) press release. The black hole belongs to a binary system where it and a star that’s similar to a sun orbit one another, Space.com reported. V404 Cygni draws in material from its companion star, and as the material streams toward the black hole, it develops a rotating disk, also known as an accretion disk, that surrounds the black hole.
“We’ve never seen this effect happening on such short timescales,” James Miller-Jones, of the Curtin University node of the International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research (ICRAR), who led a team using the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA), said in the press release.
This strange phenomenon causes some of the particles that fall into the black hole to escape through relativistic jets, which are long energetic plasma beams that flow from the black hole’s axis of rotation at a rate of more than half the speed of light. According to astronomers, V404 Cygni’s jet material moves as fast as 60 percent of the speed of light.
The rapid wobble, also known as precession, has not been spotted before in other similar systems. Explaining this mysterious occurrence requires using an effect of Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity. According to the theory, massive objects, such as black holes, distort space and time, and when they spin, their gravitational influence pulls space and time around with it, also known as frame-dragging.
Particularly in V404 Cygni, the black hole’s spin axis is misaligned from the plane of its orbit with its starry companion, which causes the frame-dragging effect to “warp” the inner area of the disk and then pull the warped portion around with it. The jets originate from either the black hole or the inner disk, causing a change in jet orientation and producing the “wobbling” effect similar to a spinning top toy.
“This is the only mechanism we can think of that can explain the rapid precession we see in V404 Cygni,” Miller-Jones said in the press release. “You can think of it like the wobble of a spinning top as it slows down, only in this case, the wobble is caused by Einstein’s general theory of relativity.”
Miller-Jones and his team observed the black hole using the VLBA, a network of 10 radio telescopes located around the world that are monitored and owned by the NSF. Since 1938, this black hole has been a hot topic for many observations, and in 2015, which was the year of its most recent outburst, Miller-Jones and his team started making observations of V404 Cygni.
The group of astronomers, which studied the black hole’s jet activity, published their findings in the journal Nature on April 29. The black hole’s accretion disk is roughly 10 million kilometers (about 6.2 million miles) wide, and Miller-Jones noted that only the inner few thousand miles is warped and puffed up by strong radiation pressure that yields a doughnut-like shape. The jets’ rapid direction changes led the team to alter their observation strategy.
Typically, astronomers will generate a single image using data collected over the course of many hours, similar to how a long time exposure works. This time though, the astronomers made 103 individual images that were each approximately 70 seconds long, and then combined them to make a movie in order to show the jets’ rapid motion.
“We were gobsmacked by what we saw in this system — it was completely unexpected,” Greg Sivakoff, of the University of Alberta, said in the press release. “Finding this astronomical first has deepened our understanding of how black holes and galaxy formation can work. It tells us a little more about that big question: ‘How did we get here?’”
BY GENEVIEVE SCARANO
Astronomers have spotted wobbly jets of particles shooting out from a black hole, and they believe that this strange motion could be happening because the black hole’s strong gravitational pull is dragging space around it.
 |
| Artist rendering |
Named V404 Cygni, this black hole is nine times more massive than the sun and located almost 8,000 light-years from Earth, said a National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) press release. The black hole belongs to a binary system where it and a star that’s similar to a sun orbit one another, Space.com reported. V404 Cygni draws in material from its companion star, and as the material streams toward the black hole, it develops a rotating disk, also known as an accretion disk, that surrounds the black hole.
“We’ve never seen this effect happening on such short timescales,” James Miller-Jones, of the Curtin University node of the International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research (ICRAR), who led a team using the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA), said in the press release.
This strange phenomenon causes some of the particles that fall into the black hole to escape through relativistic jets, which are long energetic plasma beams that flow from the black hole’s axis of rotation at a rate of more than half the speed of light. According to astronomers, V404 Cygni’s jet material moves as fast as 60 percent of the speed of light.
The rapid wobble, also known as precession, has not been spotted before in other similar systems. Explaining this mysterious occurrence requires using an effect of Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity. According to the theory, massive objects, such as black holes, distort space and time, and when they spin, their gravitational influence pulls space and time around with it, also known as frame-dragging.
Particularly in V404 Cygni, the black hole’s spin axis is misaligned from the plane of its orbit with its starry companion, which causes the frame-dragging effect to “warp” the inner area of the disk and then pull the warped portion around with it. The jets originate from either the black hole or the inner disk, causing a change in jet orientation and producing the “wobbling” effect similar to a spinning top toy.
“This is the only mechanism we can think of that can explain the rapid precession we see in V404 Cygni,” Miller-Jones said in the press release. “You can think of it like the wobble of a spinning top as it slows down, only in this case, the wobble is caused by Einstein’s general theory of relativity.”
Miller-Jones and his team observed the black hole using the VLBA, a network of 10 radio telescopes located around the world that are monitored and owned by the NSF. Since 1938, this black hole has been a hot topic for many observations, and in 2015, which was the year of its most recent outburst, Miller-Jones and his team started making observations of V404 Cygni.
The group of astronomers, which studied the black hole’s jet activity, published their findings in the journal Nature on April 29. The black hole’s accretion disk is roughly 10 million kilometers (about 6.2 million miles) wide, and Miller-Jones noted that only the inner few thousand miles is warped and puffed up by strong radiation pressure that yields a doughnut-like shape. The jets’ rapid direction changes led the team to alter their observation strategy.
Typically, astronomers will generate a single image using data collected over the course of many hours, similar to how a long time exposure works. This time though, the astronomers made 103 individual images that were each approximately 70 seconds long, and then combined them to make a movie in order to show the jets’ rapid motion.
“We were gobsmacked by what we saw in this system — it was completely unexpected,” Greg Sivakoff, of the University of Alberta, said in the press release. “Finding this astronomical first has deepened our understanding of how black holes and galaxy formation can work. It tells us a little more about that big question: ‘How did we get here?’”
Not really surprising at all....
Donald Trump's shocking, shameful about-face on Otto Warmbier
Analysis by Chris Cillizza
When Otto Warmbier was returned to the United States in 2017 and died shortly afterward, President Donald Trump condemned the North Korean regime for the imprisonment and suspected torture of the college student who was arrested in 2015 for alleged spying.
"You are powerful witnesses to a menace that threatens our world, and your strength inspires us all," Trump said, addressing Warmbier's parents, during his 2018 State of the Union address. "Tonight, we pledge to honor Otto's memory with American resolve." He added in that same speech: "We need only look at the depraved character of the North Korean regime to understand the nature of the nuclear threat it could pose to America and our allies."
Fast forward to Thursday in Hanoi, when, at a summit with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, Trump said this of Warmbier and North Korea: "He tells me that he didn't know about it and I will take him at his word." Trump added that Kim "felt badly about it. He felt very badly."
Wait. WHAT?
Trump is, apparently, taking the word of a brutal dictator who had his half-brother murdered with nerve gas at an airport and who continues to live a posh lifestyle while his country suffers the effects of staggering economic sanctions? The guy who North Korean media says began driving a car at age 3, helped cure Ebola and can control the weather? We're going to believe THAT guy???
On its face, Kim's claim that he was unaware of Warmbier's arrest and treatment is beyond laughable. Kim rules North Korea with an iron fist. He wouldn't know that an American college student had been arrested in his country? He would miss how Warmbier's arrest and incarceration became a massive national and international story? And at no time in the 18 months Warmbier was held would anyone in Kim's government ever see fit to mention that they were holding an American prisoner?
Like I said, that's beyond unbelievable.
Warmbier's parents, Fred and Cindy, released a sharp statement Friday criticizing the President's approach.
"We have been respectful during this summit process. Now we must speak out. Kim and his evil regime are responsible for the death of our son Otto. Kim and his evil regime are responsible for unimaginable cruelty and inhumanity. No excuses or lavish praise can change that. Thank you," their statement said.
So why did Trump reverse course on Warmbier and North Korea? Simple: Because it was the politically expedient thing to do.
Trump wants to make a denuclearization deal with North Korea. He suspects, rightly, that doing so would be a massive foreign policy achievement and a major pillar of his presidential legacy. To make that deal, which Trump was unable to close during this second summit with Kim, he knows that he has to keep Kim happy, keep him talking and keep him in the right mindspace to make a deal.
In order to do that, Trump is willing to say and do whatever is needed -- up to and including giving a violent dictator a pass on the wrongful imprisonment and mistreatment of an American college student who, after being held for 18 months, was returned to the United States in a vegetative state and died days later.
Trump responded Friday on Twitter.
"I never like being misinterpreted, but especially when it comes to Otto Warmbier and his great family," the President tweeted Friday. "Remember, I got Otto out along with three others. The previous Administration did nothing, and he was taken on their watch.
"Of course I hold North Korea responsible for Otto's mistreatment and death. Most important, Otto Warmbier will not have died in vain. Otto and his family have become a tremendous symbol of strong passion and strength, which will last for many years into the future. I love Otto and think of him often!"
While Trump's willingness to overlook Kim's clear falsehoods about Warmbier may make an eventual denuclearization deal more likely (although, at this point, who really knows?) the question that has to be asked is, at what cost? How much of our moral principles and standing in the world are we willing to sacrifice to appease a dictator with a horrendous human rights record?
Trump's answer -- at least on Thursday -- appears to be all of our moral principles. Because if we have to accept the farce that Kim Jong Un knew nothing about what happened to Otto Warmbier, what other atrocities will we be made to overlook?
Rick Santorum said it best on CNN Thursday morning.
"This is reprehensible, what he just did," the Republican former Pennsylvania senator told anchor John Berman of Trump. "He gave cover, as you said, to a leader who knew very well what was going on with Otto Warmbier. And again, I don't understand why the President does this. I am disappointed, to say the least, that he did it."
Yup.
Analysis by Chris Cillizza
When Otto Warmbier was returned to the United States in 2017 and died shortly afterward, President Donald Trump condemned the North Korean regime for the imprisonment and suspected torture of the college student who was arrested in 2015 for alleged spying.
"You are powerful witnesses to a menace that threatens our world, and your strength inspires us all," Trump said, addressing Warmbier's parents, during his 2018 State of the Union address. "Tonight, we pledge to honor Otto's memory with American resolve." He added in that same speech: "We need only look at the depraved character of the North Korean regime to understand the nature of the nuclear threat it could pose to America and our allies."
Fast forward to Thursday in Hanoi, when, at a summit with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, Trump said this of Warmbier and North Korea: "He tells me that he didn't know about it and I will take him at his word." Trump added that Kim "felt badly about it. He felt very badly."
Wait. WHAT?
Trump is, apparently, taking the word of a brutal dictator who had his half-brother murdered with nerve gas at an airport and who continues to live a posh lifestyle while his country suffers the effects of staggering economic sanctions? The guy who North Korean media says began driving a car at age 3, helped cure Ebola and can control the weather? We're going to believe THAT guy???
On its face, Kim's claim that he was unaware of Warmbier's arrest and treatment is beyond laughable. Kim rules North Korea with an iron fist. He wouldn't know that an American college student had been arrested in his country? He would miss how Warmbier's arrest and incarceration became a massive national and international story? And at no time in the 18 months Warmbier was held would anyone in Kim's government ever see fit to mention that they were holding an American prisoner?
Like I said, that's beyond unbelievable.
Warmbier's parents, Fred and Cindy, released a sharp statement Friday criticizing the President's approach.
"We have been respectful during this summit process. Now we must speak out. Kim and his evil regime are responsible for the death of our son Otto. Kim and his evil regime are responsible for unimaginable cruelty and inhumanity. No excuses or lavish praise can change that. Thank you," their statement said.
So why did Trump reverse course on Warmbier and North Korea? Simple: Because it was the politically expedient thing to do.
Trump wants to make a denuclearization deal with North Korea. He suspects, rightly, that doing so would be a massive foreign policy achievement and a major pillar of his presidential legacy. To make that deal, which Trump was unable to close during this second summit with Kim, he knows that he has to keep Kim happy, keep him talking and keep him in the right mindspace to make a deal.
In order to do that, Trump is willing to say and do whatever is needed -- up to and including giving a violent dictator a pass on the wrongful imprisonment and mistreatment of an American college student who, after being held for 18 months, was returned to the United States in a vegetative state and died days later.
Trump responded Friday on Twitter.
"I never like being misinterpreted, but especially when it comes to Otto Warmbier and his great family," the President tweeted Friday. "Remember, I got Otto out along with three others. The previous Administration did nothing, and he was taken on their watch.
"Of course I hold North Korea responsible for Otto's mistreatment and death. Most important, Otto Warmbier will not have died in vain. Otto and his family have become a tremendous symbol of strong passion and strength, which will last for many years into the future. I love Otto and think of him often!"
While Trump's willingness to overlook Kim's clear falsehoods about Warmbier may make an eventual denuclearization deal more likely (although, at this point, who really knows?) the question that has to be asked is, at what cost? How much of our moral principles and standing in the world are we willing to sacrifice to appease a dictator with a horrendous human rights record?
Trump's answer -- at least on Thursday -- appears to be all of our moral principles. Because if we have to accept the farce that Kim Jong Un knew nothing about what happened to Otto Warmbier, what other atrocities will we be made to overlook?
Rick Santorum said it best on CNN Thursday morning.
"This is reprehensible, what he just did," the Republican former Pennsylvania senator told anchor John Berman of Trump. "He gave cover, as you said, to a leader who knew very well what was going on with Otto Warmbier. And again, I don't understand why the President does this. I am disappointed, to say the least, that he did it."
Yup.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)