adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Politics

Donna Brazile: COVID-19 doesn't care about your politics. So why are we fighting? – USA TODAY

Published

 on



I learned from Hurricane Katrina that preventing and meeting disasters require values like excellence, resilience, civility and unity.

play
Show Caption

Hide Caption

Biden announces COVID vaccine mandates for businesses, federal workers

The president unveiled a new “six-pronged strategy” to contain COVID-19 in the U.S with the growing threat of the Delta variant.

Staff Video, USA TODAY

Once again, we’ve seen that killer storms, like killer viruses, don’t discriminate based on political party. It’s time we stop the endless partisan feuding and fighting tearing us apart and defend ourselves against these deadly threats as a united people.

Hurricane Ida and the tornadoes and torrential rains it spawned killed more than 80 people in eight states. More than 400,000 homes and businesses in my home state of Louisiana, where Ida made landfall, remained without electricity last week, nine days after the storm. And the COVID-19 pandemic has killed more than 650,000 people in the United States.

There is no question that human-caused climate change is making hurricanes develop with greater force. There is also no question that the COVID-19 pandemic is far from over, that more pandemics will follow, that safe and effective vaccines are the best way to protect us, and that masks are needed when infections are rampant.

So why are we fighting with each other when we should be fighting climate change, improving our infrastructure and fighting the coronavirus?

USA TODAY’s opinion newsletterGet the best insights and analysis delivered to your inbox.

Growing up on the Gulf Coast near New Orleans, I lived through multiple hurricanes – Betsy, Camille, Frederic and more — and saw the havoc, chaos, destruction and death such storms bring. As a young girl, I saw “The Wizard of Oz” as a horror movie because of the roaring winds that carried Dorothy into the unknown.

Sixteen years to the day before Ida struck, Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast in a far-worse disaster, causing more than 1,800 deaths and an estimated $125 billion in damage as levees broke in New Orleans.

Every member of my large extended family was displaced by Katrina. Some of my relatives lost their homes. Most rebuilt. A few began new lives in other states. Thankfully, none lost their lives.

Even worse than Katrina, the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, killed nearly 3,000 people.

Bipartisan effort to rebuild

There are lessons from our recovery from Katrina and the 9/11 attacks that we should apply today in our fight against climate change and COVID-19.

Led by President George W. Bush, members of Congress from both parties united to approve $14.6 billion to redesign and rebuild the levee system in the New Orleans area — and when Ida hit, the levees held. The Army Corps of Engineers will ask for an additional $3.2 billion to make further improvements to the levees, and I hope the request will win bipartisan support as well.

Americans also united behind President Bush to strengthen our defenses against terrorism and depose the Taliban government in Afghanistan, which gave harbor to al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. President Barack Obama approved the raid by Navy SEALs that cornered and killed bin Laden in 2011.

There has not been a major terrorist attack against our homeland since the horror of 9/11 – good news both parties can take credit for.

U.S. forces exited Afghanistan at the end of August under a deal negotiated by the Trump administration and carried out by the Biden administration. Regrettably, the Taliban are back in power, but they have pledged not to again allow Afghanistan to become a launching pad for international terrorism and to improve their treatment of women and girls. Only time will tell whether they stick to their pledges.

Crisis should bring us together

Moments of crisis like the 9/11 attacks, deadly storms caused by climate change, and pandemics can shape a nation for the better, or they can spiral out of control from hyperpartisan criticism and infighting.

If we apply the lessons of our successful response to 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, we can take the steps necessary to fight climate change, rebuild our infrastructure nationwide as we rebuilt Louisiana’s levies, and get vaccinated against COVID-19.

Getting this done will require enacting the $1 trillion bipartisan traditional infrastructure bill already passed by the Senate. Congress should also enact the broader $3.5 trillion human infrastructure and jobs plan President Biden has proposed. And an overwhelming number of Americans need to get vaccinated against COVID.

I’ve spent my life working to elect Democrats and defeat Republicans. But after Katrina struck, I didn’t attack President Bush for the disaster that hit on his watch. Instead, I spoke with him and asked: “Mr. President, how can I help you?”

“Civility,” Bush said. He was right.

Several weeks after Katrina, Democratic Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco asked me to serve on the Louisiana Recovery Authority board as an unpaid lobbyist to Congress to seek funds for rebuilding. I took the assignment, and would have done so just as enthusiastically if asked by a Republican governor.

I learned from Katrina that preventing and meeting disasters require core values like excellence, resilience, civility and unity. Unity flows from civility.

In a column I wrote 16 years ago after Hurricane Katrina, I said: “Unity springs from mutual respect, from setting aside the blame game and working, in good faith and trust, with one another.” Those words remain just as true today.

Donna Brazile (@donnabrazile) is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, an ABC News contributor, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University and the King Endowed Chair in Public Policy at Howard University. She previously served as interim chair of the Democratic National Committee and of the DNC’s Voting Rights Institute, and managed the Gore campaign in 2000.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Politics

Trump is consistently inconsistent on abortion and reproductive rights

Published

 on

 

CHICAGO (AP) — Donald Trump has had a tough time finding a consistent message to questions about abortion and reproductive rights.

The former president has constantly shifted his stances or offered vague, contradictory and at times nonsensical answers to questions on an issue that has become a major vulnerability for Republicans in this year’s election. Trump has been trying to win over voters, especially women, skeptical about his views, especially after he nominated three Supreme Court justices who helped overturn the nationwide right to abortion two years ago.

The latest example came this week when the Republican presidential nominee said some abortion laws are “too tough” and would be “redone.”

“It’s going to be redone,” he said during a Fox News town hall that aired Wednesday. “They’re going to, you’re going to, you end up with a vote of the people. They’re too tough, too tough. And those are going to be redone because already there’s a movement in those states.”

Trump did not specify if he meant he would take some kind of action if he wins in November, and he did not say which states or laws he was talking about. He did not elaborate on what he meant by “redone.”

He also seemed to be contradicting his own stand when referencing the strict abortion bans passed in Republican-controlled states since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Trump recently said he would vote against a constitutional amendment on the Florida ballot that is aimed at overturning the state’s six-week abortion ban. That decision came after he had criticized the law as too harsh.

Trump has shifted between boasting about nominating the justices who helped strike down federal protections for abortion and trying to appear more neutral. It’s been an attempt to thread the divide between his base of anti-abortion supporters and the majority of Americans who support abortion rights.

About 6 in 10 Americans think their state should generally allow a person to obtain a legal abortion if they don’t want to be pregnant for any reason, according to a July poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Voters in seven states, including some conservative ones, have either protected abortion rights or defeated attempts to restrict them in statewide votes over the past two years.

Trump also has been repeating the narrative that he returned the question of abortion rights to states, even though voters do not have a direct say on that or any other issue in about half the states. This is particularly true for those living in the South, where Republican-controlled legislatures, many of which have been gerrymandered to give the GOP disproportionate power, have enacted some of the strictest abortion bans since Roe v. Wade was overturned.

Currently, 13 states have banned abortion at all stages of pregnancy, while four more ban it after six weeks — before many women know they’re pregnant.

Meanwhile, anti-abortion groups and their Republican allies in state governments are using an array of strategies to counter proposed ballot initiatives in at least eight states this year.

Here’s a breakdown of Trump’s fluctuating stances on reproductive rights.

Flip-flopping on Florida

On Tuesday, Trump claimed some abortion laws are “too tough” and would be “redone.”

But in August, Trump said he would vote against a state ballot measure that is attempting to repeal the six-week abortion ban passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature and signed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.

That came a day after he seemed to indicate he would vote in favor of the measure. Trump previously called Florida’s six-week ban a “terrible mistake” and too extreme. In an April Time magazine interview, Trump repeated that he “thought six weeks is too severe.”

Trump on vetoing a national ban

Trump’s latest flip-flopping has involved his views on a national abortion ban.

During the Oct. 1 vice presidential debate, Trump posted on his social media platform Truth Social that he would veto a national abortion ban: “Everyone knows I would not support a federal abortion ban, under any circumstances, and would, in fact, veto it.”

This came just weeks after Trump repeatedly declined to say during the presidential debate with Democrat Kamala Harris whether he would veto a national abortion ban if he were elected.

Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, said in an interview with NBC News before the presidential debate that Trump would veto a ban. In response to debate moderators prompting him about Vance’s statement, Trump said: “I didn’t discuss it with JD, in all fairness. And I don’t mind if he has a certain view, but I don’t think he was speaking for me.”

‘Pro-choice’ to 15-week ban

Trump’s shifting abortion policy stances began when the former reality TV star and developer started flirting with running for office.

He once called himself “very pro-choice.” But before becoming president, Trump said he “would indeed support a ban,” according to his book “The America We Deserve,” which was published in 2000.

In his first year as president, he said he was “pro-life with exceptions” but also said “there has to be some form of punishment” for women seeking abortions — a position he quickly reversed.

At the 2018 annual March for Life, Trump voiced support for a federal ban on abortion on or after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

More recently, Trump suggested in March that he might support a national ban on abortions around 15 weeks before announcing that he instead would leave the matter to the states.

Views on abortion pills, prosecuting women

In the Time interview, Trump said it should be left up to the states to decide whether to prosecute women for abortions or to monitor women’s pregnancies.

“The states are going to make that decision,” Trump said. “The states are going to have to be comfortable or uncomfortable, not me.”

Democrats have seized on the comments he made in 2016, saying “there has to be some form of punishment” for women who have abortions.

Trump also declined to comment on access to the abortion pill mifepristone, claiming that he has “pretty strong views” on the matter. He said he would make a statement on the issue, but it never came.

Trump responded similarly when asked about his views on the Comstock Act, a 19th century law that has been revived by anti-abortion groups seeking to block the mailing of mifepristone.

IVF and contraception

In May, Trump said during an interview with a Pittsburgh television station that he was open to supporting regulations on contraception and that his campaign would release a policy on the issue “very shortly.” He later said his comments were misinterpreted.

In the KDKA interview, Trump was asked, “Do you support any restrictions on a person’s right to contraception?”

“We’re looking at that and I’m going to have a policy on that very shortly,” Trump responded.

Trump has not since released a policy statement on contraception.

Trump also has offered contradictory statements on in vitro fertilization.

During the Fox News town hall, which was taped Tuesday, Trump declared that he is “the father of IVF,” despite acknowledging during his answer that he needed an explanation of IVF in February after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos can be considered children under state law.

Trump said he instructed Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., to “explain IVF very quickly” to him in the aftermath of the ruling.

As concerns over access to fertility treatments rose, Trump pledged to promote IVF by requiring health insurance companies or the federal government to pay for it. Such a move would be at odds with the actions of much of his own party.

Even as the Republican Party has tried to create a national narrative that it is receptive to IVF, these messaging efforts have been undercut by GOP state lawmakers, Republican-dominated courts and anti-abortion leaders within the party’s ranks, as well as opposition to legislative attempts to protect IVF access.

___

The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Saskatchewan Party’s Scott Moe, NDP’s Carla Beck react to debate |

Published

 on

 

Saskatchewan‘s two main political party leaders faced off in the only televised debate in the lead up to the provincial election on Oct. 28. Saskatchewan Party Leader Scott Moe and NDP Leader Carla Beck say voters got a chance to see their platforms. (Oct. 17, 2024)

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Saskatchewan political leaders back on campaign trail after election debate

Published

 on

 

REGINA – Saskatchewan‘s main political leaders are back on the campaign trail today after hammering each other in a televised debate.

Saskatchewan Party Leader Scott Moe is set to make an announcement in Moose Jaw.

Saskatchewan NDP Leader Carla Beck is to make stops in Regina, Saskatoon and Prince Albert.

During Wednesday night’s debate, Beck emphasized her plan to make life more affordable and said people deserve better than an out-of-touch Saskatchewan Party government.

Moe said his party wants to lower taxes and put money back into people’s pockets.

Election day is Oct. 28.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 17, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending