Monthly Archives: June 2024

Biden and Trump on Abortion.

Posted on by
Reply

            President Biden is a Catholic, and he long favored some restrictions on abortion when he was a senator (1973-2009).[1]  He now says that “Roe v. Wade got it right” and in the words of the New York Times “he seeks to put support for abortion at the heart of his re-election campaign.” 

            Biden has sought to by-pass the Supreme Court’s decision to return the question of abortion to the states.  Since “nearly two thirds” of abortions are by means of medication and that medication could be obtained in any state through the mail, Biden’s Justice Department has led the way by defending access to the medications (chiefly mifepristone).  On the one hand, the administration persuaded the Supreme Court to unanimously reject a lawsuit trying to limit access to the drug. On the other hand, the Department has issued an opinion that sending abortifacients through the mail does not violate the Comstock Act of 1873’s ban on sending abortifacients through the mail.[2]  He has also endorsed the Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.) in its effort to expand the list of approved providers to retail pharmacies.  His Department of Health and Human Services has “warned”[3] pharmacies that they might be violating civil rights laws if they refuse to dispense drugs that have multiple purposes. 

            In a second term, Biden wants to pass a law that would affirm the right to abortion throughout the United States.  He acknowledges that, to achieve this goal, the Democrats will need majorities in both the House and the Senate, and the end of the filibuster in the Senate.[4] 

            Former President Trump called himself “very pro-choice” a quarter-century ago.  When he sought the Republican nomination in 2026, he became an opponent of abortion.  He appointed three new Justices to the Supreme Court, which then overturned “Roe v. Wade.”  The Court returned the matter to the states to decide.  Former President Trump supports that decision.[5]  Trump also acted against public funding for abortions through the so-called Title X grants. 

However, Trump has been opaque, at the least, about other measures being suggested by opponents of any abortions for anyone anywhere.  In response to the—apparently previously unrecognized–fact that most abortions are performed by means of medications and those medications can be obtained through the mail, abortion opponents hastily turned to the Comstock Act.  Here the Trump campaign has not yet formulated a policy. 

Both candidates have moved far from their older positions, although Trump has moved farthest.  In the words of the New York Times, Trump has “largely treated abortion policy as a political transaction.”  It appears that the remark holds true for both men.  Now voters will exercise their right to choose which man’s political career to terminate for the health of the country. 

[1] For example, in 2006 he told an interviewer that “I do not view abortion as a choice and a right. I think it’s always a tragedy, and I think that it should be rare and safe, and I think we should be focusing on how to limit the number of abortions.” And further that “I won’t support public funding and I won’t support partial birth abortion.” Joe Biden described being an ‘odd man out’ with Democrats on abortion in 2006 interview | CNN Politics  In 2019 he abandoned his opposition to Medicaid funding abortions. 

[2] On the Act, see Comstock Act of 1873 – Wikipedia.  On its namesake, see Anthony Comstock – Wikipedia.  For the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, see New York Society for the Suppression of Vice – Wikipedia. 

[3] i.e. threatened.

[4] A Senate rule requires at least sixty votes to pass legislation.  The filibuster could be removed by a simple majority.  The Democrats currently have such a majority with 50 Senators and Vice President Harris as a tie-breaker.  The Democrats had a narrow majority in the House of Representatives from 2020 to 2022.  So, in theory and as in many earlier situations, they could have passed such a law without waiting for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.  The failure of the Democrats to seize this opportunity after President Trump had appointed three conservative Supreme Court Justices puzzles me.  One possible explanation is that the filibuster rule enables the minority party to block most of the legislation of the majority party at a time when elections are close to evenly balanced.  If you eliminate the filibuster so you can drive over your opponents, the same thing could happen to you after the next election.  For example, if the Republicans win control of the Congres and the White House, they could ram through a national abortion ban.  So, perhaps Biden’s proposed law will not be pressed if he wins a second term. 

[5] This seems consistent with his April 2024 statement that he would not sign a national abortion ban if passed by a future Congress.                    

Exit.

Posted on by
Reply

            In 2013, Jeff Bezos bought the “Washington Post” newspaper.[1]  The paper had struggled, but it soon began showing a profit. 

            In recent years, things have taken a bad turn.[2]  Since 2020 half the paper’s readers have fled and the “Post” lost $77 million in 2023 alone.  This could have gone on for quite a while if Bezos had been willing to use his immense wealth to subsidize a failing business.  He wasn’t. 

            In June 2023, Bezos parted company with CEO Fred Ryan.  Bezos replaced Ryan with a trusted confidant from Amazon, Patty Stonesipher.  She determined that the paper had to cut costs and do more with less.  Specifically, the paper’s employment rolls were about 240 people too heavy.  Executive Editor Sally Buzbee[3] had added 41 editorial employees in 2021.[4]   

            Bezos did what a host of other American publications have done.  He got in a hard-nosed Brit to turn things around.[5]  In November 2023, Bezos hired Will Lewis as CEO and publisher.[6]  Lewis spent some time studying the issues and getting to know his new colleagues.  Among those colleagues was executive editor Sally Buzbee.  Then Lewis came up with a plan.  The newsroom as he found it had a simple division between news and opinion.  He would split the newsroom into three divisions: news, opinion, and social media and service journalism.  In April 2024, Lewis presented his plan to senior staff.  He would bring in a new editor for the news division, while Sally Buzbee would be offered the editing role at social media and service journalism.  Buzbee interpreted this move as a demotion.[7]  She considered her options.

            In mid-May 2024, Buzbee told Lewis that the paper planned to publish an article on a British newspaper scandal in which he was named.[8]  Lewis tried to talk her out of this plan.  She refused.  Lewis told Buzbee that, in the words of the New York Times, “her decision represented a lapse in judgment.”  However, Lewis did not prevent the “Post” from running the story later in May 2024.

            Buzbee resigned on 1 June 2024.  “Sally is an incredible leader and a supremely talented media executive who will be sorely missed. I wish her all the best going forward.”—Will Lewis. 

[1] On Bezos, see: Jeff Bezos – Wikipedia 

[2] Useful background in A Decade Ago, Jeff Bezos Bought The Washington Post. Now He’s Paying Attention to It Again. – The New York Times (nytimes.com) 

[3] On Buzbee, see: Sally Buzbee – Wikipedia

[4] Sally Buzbee, Washington Post Editor, to Leave Role – The New York Times (nytimes.com) 

[5] See: The British Aren’t Coming. They’re Here. – The New York Times (nytimes.com)  The article is scheduled to run in the 10 June 2024 paper.  According to the NYT, “hard-nosed, scrappy journalism is a cherished tradition in Britain, where broadsheets and tabloids have battled it out for decades, often on budgets dwarfed by American rivals.”  Tina Brown is quoted saying that “the British press is much less self-important, and what I call the elite press in the U.S. is far more sententious about their place in the world.”  NB: We’re not used to thinking of the U.S. as the ‘old country” where tradition reigns.  Still, it would explain a lot.     

[6] On Lewis, see William Lewis (journalist) – Wikipedia and Will Lewis Named C.E.O. of The Washington Post – The New York Times (nytimes.com) 

[7] It could also be seen as a slap in the face meant to force her out of the “Post” entirely.  Buzbee had only been at the “Post” for three years; high-level jobs in journalism are thin on the ground; and she is 59 years old, with a lot of good earning-years in front of her. 

[8] Briefly, some of Rupert Murdoch’s tabloid newspapers were being sued over illegal phone-hacking.  There are multiple plaintiffs, including Prince Harry, and multiple defendants.  Lewis was not one of the defendants.  Instead, the plaintiffs wanted to list Lewis and others as subsequently having tried to conceal evidence of the hacking. 

Fact Check 4.

Posted on by
Reply

            Donald Trump and his defenders have responded to his conviction in New York. 

            Claim: “This [New York County, i.e. Manhattan] is a place where Donald Trump got 5 percent of the vote.  There was no jury of his peers, it was a jury of his adversaries.”—Representative Nick Langworthy, (R-NY). 

            False: “Mr. Trump received 12 percent of the vote in New York County, not 5 percent, in the 2020 election.”[1]  Furthermore, “Mr. Trump’s defense also took part in jury selection, dismissing several prospective jurors.”[2] 

            Claim: First, “The judge, Juan Merchan, “told jurors that they don’t have to agree unanimously.”—Sean Hannity. 

False: “falsifying business records is a crime[3] only if done to conceal or aid another crime.  That other crime, according to prosecutors, was a state election law[4]…, which prohibits helping or preventing the election of a candidate ‘by unlawful means’.”  Additionally, “prosecutors do not have to prove that those crimes were committed.”[5] Judge Merchan instructed jurors that they had to agree unanimously” that Trump broke the state law; they did not have to agree unanimously about exactly how Trump broke the law.

Claim: Second, “We don’t know yet the [second] crime [used to enhance the misdemeanor falsification of business records charges into a felony] is…  [But] you [the jury] can turn it into a felony by tying it to some tax law in New York, something they never mentioned throughout the trial.”—Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fl). 

            False: “Mr. Rubio is simply wrong to say prosectors (sic) “never” mentioned it through the entire trial.”  First, the April 2023 indictment charged Trump with falsifying business records “with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof.”  The prosecutors elaborated, saying that the other crimes were “violating election laws and deceiving tax authorities.”  Second, both the prosecutors and Judge Merchan “referred to the other crimes throughout court proceedings.” 

            Still, I’m confused.  Trump paid money to Stormy Daniels through Michael Cohen.  The payment was in return for her remaining silent about what the media sometimes delicately refers to as their “tryst.”  This seems to have been a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA).  For understandable reasons, the press seems to prefer the term “Hush money.”[6]  The state law used by the prosecutors bans helping or preventing the election of a candidate “by unlawful means.”  If such a bargain or payment was not illegal, then the concealing of the bargain or payment by illegal means would remain a misdemeanor. 

            What was unlawful about paying Stormy Daniels to keep her mouth shut? 

[1] Linda Qui, “Trump Trial Is Subject Of Many False Claims,” NYT, 2 June 2024. 

[2] The prosecution and the defense each were allowed 10 peremptory challenges. 

[3] Ms. Qui wrote “crime” when she meant “felony.” 

[4] Ms. Qui wrote that “the crime was the state election law,” when she meant “violation of a state election law.” 

[5] I think that Ms. Qui is trying to say that prosecutors were alleging a conspiracy to commit a crime, which is illegal even if the crime is not committed.  But I’m not sure.  Where were the editors? 

[6] On NDAs, Non-disclosure agreement – Wikipedia; on “Hush money,” Hush money – Wikipedia