Politics Briefing: Warren ends presidential bid - The Globe and Mail | Canada News Media
Connect with us

Politics

Politics Briefing: Warren ends presidential bid – The Globe and Mail

Published

 on


Hello,

The race to be the Democratic nominee for president is truly down to two contenders this morning, as Senator Elizabeth Warren has decided to end her campaign.

Ms. Warren, one of the country’s foremost authorities on bankruptcy law before getting into politics, was an early favourite to win the nomination. However, she began to lose ground late last year as the party’s progressive wing started to coalesce around Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. She did not win any primaries or caucuses, and finished a disappointing third in her home state of Massachusetts.

Story continues below advertisement

Ms. Warren’s exit means the party will not nominate a female presidential candidate in 2020.

Mr. Sanders and former vice-president Joe Biden are the two men left standing. The next primaries will be held next Tuesday.

This is the daily Politics Briefing newsletter, written by Chris Hannay. It is available exclusively to our digital subscribers. If you’re reading this on the web, subscribers can sign up for the Politics newsletter and more than 20 others on our newsletter signup page. Have any feedback? Let us know what you think.

TODAY’S HEADLINES

The International Criminal Court has authorized an investigation into the activities of the United States in Afghanistan, including the torture of detainees. The court will also look into the actions of the Taliban and Afghan security forces.

At a security conference in Ottawa, Chinese ambassador Cong Peiwu denied his government had set up concentration camps for members of the Uyghur minority. The camps have been well documented by journalists.

At the same conference, General Jonathan Vance – Canada’s top soldier – said China and Russia were Canada’s top security threats in the cyber and physical spheres, respectively.

Story continues below advertisement

Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland says the federal government is considering a range of options to address the escalating fears of coronavirus’s spread. Ms. Freeland is leading the newly created group of cabinet ministers looking at the issue.

The Bank of Canada’s interest-rate cut yesterday, in response to worries about the coronavirus’s impact on the economy, is being matched by other banks. But economists are wondering about what kind of knock-on effects the cut will have, such as whether it could further heat up Canada’s hot real-estate market.

The federal Innovation, Science and Industry department spent only $2.3-billion of its $3.3-billion budget in 2018-19. The department’s annual report says the shortfall is mostly because of unspent money in programs meant to support innovative tech companies.

Ontario’s high-school teachers’ union says it sees no path forward in negotiations with the province after the government went public with its position on class sizes and online learning. Work action by the province’s unions, such as strikes, is expected to continue.

As members of the Wet’suwet’en Nation discuss a tentative deal with the B.C. and federal governments, a key factor will be the overlapping land claims in the region.

And Matthew Mendelsohn, a senior public servant tasked with keeping the government on track about its promises, is returning to academia. Mr. Mendelsohn was a key player in the Trudeau government’s early push on “deliverology,” an approach popularized in Britain to keep a government accountable for its promises. “It’s not the end of deliverology,” a Trudeau spokesperson told the Canadian Press.

Story continues below advertisement

Natalie Pon (The Globe and Mail) on the Conservative leadership race: “To enact real change, we need a leader with a clear vision for this country and for the future of conservatism. I consider myself a small-c conservative in ideology, but I often struggle to explain to my peers why I am a big-C Conservative when the Tories project themselves as little more than the party of boutique tax credits and blanket opposition to the carbon tax.”

Robyn Urback (The Globe and Mail) on how Joe Biden could fair in the general election: “The presumption is that Mr. Biden can turn purple states blue in a way Mr. Sanders cannot. The problem with that line of thinking, however, is that it failed spectacularly in the not-so-distant past, when the party backed Hillary Clinton over the same flailing Vermont senator. Her team overestimated Ms. Clinton’s base of support in states such as Michigan and Wisconsin and underappreciated the appeal of a disruptor such as Mr. Trump to an American electorate hungry for an outsider. The results of that election were not only a shock to pollsters but also a blow to the political dictum that the most broadly palatable candidate will necessarily be the successful one.”

Sarah Kendzior (The Globe and Mail) on age and the race for the U.S. presidency: “That said, the cold reality is that there is a decent chance neither candidate, should he win, will be able to serve two terms. There is a fundamental instability in a gerontocracy, which is ironic since voters embrace elderly white men – in particular, Joe Biden – because they see them as safe. They are seen as safe because they are familiar. White men benefit from the self-fulfilling prophecy of ‘electability’ that knocked out all the black, Latino, Asian and female Democratic candidates.”

Ujjal Dosanjh (The Globe and Mail) on why the U.S. needs to fix its own drug-price problem: “If we allow the United States to import drugs from Canada in numbers that could actually impact prices there, our own drug inventories will be depleted, and the pharmaceutical companies will have no financial incentives to restock those shelves.”

Got a news tip that you’d like us to look into? E-mail us at tips@globeandmail.com. Need to share documents securely? Reach out via SecureDrop

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



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

Exit mobile version