NY Times: GOP Calling Immigrant Surge an ‘Invasion’ Dehumanizing, ‘Could Stoke Violence’

New York Times national politics reporter Jazmine Ulloa has deputized herself to patrol the parameters of acceptable political discourse from her liberal perspective, attacked Republicans candidates again for daring to call the influx of immigrants across our southern border an “invasion,” in Sunday’s edition: “Talk of an Immigrant ‘Invasion’ Grows in Republican Ads and Speech.” As the elections loom, Ulloa’s hypersensitive language radar seems tuned only to the words of one political party. A campaign ad from a Republican congressional candidate from Indiana sums up the arrival of migrants at the border with one word. He doesn’t call it a problem or a crisis. He calls it an “invasion.” .... It was not so long ago that the term invasion had been mostly relegated to the margins of the national immigration debate. Many candidates and political figures tended to avoid the word, which echoed demagoguery in previous centuries targeting Asian, Latino and European immigrants. Few mainstream Republicans dared use it. .... The resurgence of the term exemplifies the shift in Republican rhetoric in the era of former President Donald J. Trump and his right-wing supporters. Language once considered hostile has become common, sometimes precisely because it runs counter to politically correct sensibilities. Immigration has also become more divisive, with even Democratic mayors complaining about the number of migrants in their cities. Democrats and advocates for migrants denounce the word and its recent turn from being taboo. Historians and analysts who study political rhetoric have long warned that the term dehumanizes those to whom it refers and could stoke violence, noting that it appeared in writings by perpetrators of deadly mass shootings in Pittsburgh, Pa.; El Paso, Texas; and Buffalo, N.Y., in recent years. If one truly wanted to police offensive and threatening language, Ulloa should look no further than a “pro-Palestinian” rally at the nearest “progressive” college campus. Republicans defend using the word and see it as an apt descriptor for a situation that they argue has intensified beyond crisis levels and one that could help sway voters. Ulloa extrapolated wildly, going from the word “invasion” to mass murder in three sentences flat. "Analysts" of "extremism" say the I-word suggests racism and anti-semitism. Analysts who study political rhetoric and extremism have continued to raise alarm that the word invasion and what they describe as similarly inflammatory language regarding immigration plays into replacement theory. The racist doctrine, which has circulated in far right-wing corners of the internet, holds that Western elites, sometimes manipulated by Jews, want to “replace” and disempower white Americans. The shooters in Pittsburgh, El Paso and Buffalo echoed the theory in online posts, and targeted Jews, Hispanics and Black people in their killings. She accused Donald Trump of “using language that invokes the racial hatred of Hitler” (Trump’s “poisoning the blood of our country” remark) before relaying concerns about “Republican fear-mongering about migrants" from a researcher at America’s Voice. America’s Voice is hardly a non-partisan one. Their main goal, according to the group’s website, is to “win reforms that put 11 million undocumented Americans on a path to full citizenship."

NPR Cheers Pro-Hamas Campus Agitators: 'Getting Closer to Their Demands?’

National Public Radio’s coverage of the anti-Israel agitators who’ve taken over progressive college campuses while spouting violent rhetoric at Jewish students has been no better than its tax-funded partner PBS (both outlets reside under the taxpayer-supported auspices of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.) NPR’s Friday coverage flattered the protesters, suggesting they were laser-focused on concrete demands that their respective colleges cease financing Israel, while ignoring their vocal support for Hamas terrorists, demonstrated by praising the October 7 massacre of Israelis and reciting eliminationist chants like “From the river to the sea.” Friday’s Morning Edition program aired “Protests against the war in Gaza intensify at Columbia and other universities” without a single mention of the despicable rhetoric from the protests, nothing about the ongoing anti-Semitic ranting and toddler-like tactics when confronted by police, only enthusiasm for the alleged success of the protests. Here’s your tax dollars at work, producing bias by omission: A MARTINEZ, co-host: It's been a week since Columbia University called in the police to clear an encampment of anti-war protesters on a campus lawn. And what a week it's been. LEILA FADEL, co-host: More than a hundred students were arrested that day. And since then, the student demonstrations against Israel's war in Gaza have only intensified. They spread to universities across the country and led to hundreds more arrests. Adrian Florido reported from New York: "For days, protest leaders and university officials have been in negotiations over the encampment's future. The university wants it gone, but the hundreds of students in the camp say they're staying put until their demands are met." Martinez took the protesters seriously: Now, you mentioned that the students are refusing to clear the encampment until their demands are met. What are those demands? Florido sounded empathetic: The big one is divestment. They want Columbia to sell off the stock it owns in companies that do business in Israel and that, the protesters say, are enabling Israel's war in Gaza and its operations in the West Bank." He featured a soundbite from grad student and organizer Ray Guerrero, "who says that if Columbia pulls its money from these companies, other institutions might follow. And that could bring pressure to bear on the Israeli government.…." Martinez asked how the protests would affect graduation ceremonies. ADRIAN FLORIDO: Well, here at Columbia, the encampment is smack in the center of where the school holds its main graduation ceremony. And in fact, all around the encampment, workers are already basically putting up the stages and scaffolding for that event. It's part of why protesters suspect they're about to be removed by force. At USC, the main graduation ceremony has been canceled. And that could happen at other schools because these students showing up to protest say they're not going anywhere. No concern was voiced over the hate chanters ruining a milestone event for those students (suckers) who attend college for the education – cruelly, many of whom also missed out on high school graduation in 2020 because of COVID restrictions. That's one human-interest angle NPR chose to ignore. Note: This story was also included on “Up First.”  a popular NPR podcast delivering brief daily highlights of NPR’s coverage, and introduced there in the most supportive fashion imaginable: “As protests and arrests continue at college campuses across the U.S., are the students calling for divestment in Israel getting closer to their demands?”

PBS NewsHour Again Takes Side of Pro-Hamas Campus Agitators: Just Like Vietnam?

Thursday’s PBS NewsHour covered the hate virus spreading on progressive college campuses nationwide of agitators threatening Israel and Jewish students. Of course, that’s not how PBS saw it, painting those pro-Hamas protesters as standing in the honorable shoes of the 1960s campus rioters that changed the course of American involvement in Vietnam. PBS also took on a University of Vanderbilt president who dared punish students for the violent invasion of a campus building. Anchor Amna Nawaz relayed the good news, from tax-supported PBS’s perspective. Nawaz: Campus protests against Israel's war in Gaza are continuing to grow across the U.S. The University of Southern California announced today it's canceling its main commencement ceremony next month. Encampments are now in place in at least 20 colleges, and hundreds of demonstrators have been arrested in the last several days at multiple schools, including the University of Texas, Ohio State and Emory University….These incidents are just the latest in a series of pro-Palestinian demonstrations unfolding on campuses from coast to coast and beyond, including universities in Paris, Cairo, and Sydney. Some in the U.S. say they want their universities to cut financial ties with Israel. She neutralized concerns of threats against Jewish students Nawaz: Jewish students across the country have said they feel unsafe amid the demonstrations and after being targeted by hate speech and antisemitic symbols. But some are taking part in the protests… Nawaz hosted Vanderbilt University Chancellor Daniel Diermeier, who earlier this month penned an op-ed for the conservative editorial page of the Wall Street Journal on his school’s crackdown on student disruptors that clearly didn’t please PBS, which described his school as a place “where dozens of students have faced suspension, expulsion, and even arrest for their participation in recent protests on campus.” Nawaz took the side of the violent students: "There was a late March incident. Some 27 students or so forced their way into a closed administration building. I understand a campus security officer was injured during that incident. Most of the students had to be escorted out. Four were arrested, is my understanding. Help us understand the line for you. Why were those students arrested and some expelled?" Diermeier explained that his campus has hosted peaceful protests for months, but these students “forced their way into a closed building” and “ran over a security officer” before trying to invade his own office, then sat in a hallway for hours before finally being arrested after refusing to disperse. Nawaz was lawyerly in response: "So the line for you was the physical violence part of it. Had the building been open, you're fine with students entering and sitting in, in protest, in other words?" Has Nawaz seen the video of the frankly pathetic Vandy students she's supporting so strongly, whose freedom to act like spoiled toddlers was so cruelly infringed? After Diermeier explained the issue was disruptive conduct, Nawaz again jabbed from the left. Nawaz: You said in your op-ed that free speech is alive and well at Vanderbilt. But there was an open letter by several members of your faculty that disputes that. They say the administration has been excessive and punitive in its response to student protests. They say the rules seem arbitrary. And they say the criterion that protests must not disrupt university operations, as you say, is perniciously vague and expansive. What do you say to that? After Vanderbilt’s president again defended his university’s response, Nawaz weighed in again on behalf of the disruptive protesters: Nawaz: ….Many would say the purpose of protests is to disrupt. The next night, Nawaz again discussed the “expansion of college protests and encampments” and used more soundbites from protesting students, this time skipping the anti-Semitic threats and slogans entirely and comparing these hateful protests to the takeover of college campuses during the Vietnam War, while pretending that divestment from Israel was the main thrust of the new agitators. (Comparisons to Vietnam War protesters are almost always positive in PBS land.) Nawaz: Many say today's demonstrations echo college protests movements of the past, including against the Vietnam War….As protests of Israel's war in Gaza spread to campuses across the country, some see parallels between today's demonstrations and college protests in the past. These segments in support of anti-Jewish campus disrupters were brought to you in part by BNSF Railway. Transcripts are available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 4/25/24 7:28:18 p.m. (ET) Amna Nawaz: Campus protests against Israel's war in Gaza are continuing to grow across the U.S. The University of Southern California announced today it's canceling its main commencement ceremony next month. Encampments are now in place in at least 20 colleges, and hundreds of demonstrators have been arrested in the last several days at multiple schools, including the University of Texas, Ohio State and Emory University. Amid police confrontations, multiple arrests and large demonstrations, Emory University today became the latest flash point in a wave of pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses. Early this morning, at Boston's Emerson University, violence erupted as police cleared a student encampment. More than 100 were arrested. Authorities say four officers were injured. That followed this clash at the University of Southern California. Officers there say protesters refused to remove their encampments. The protesters say they were provoked. Student Protester: What we just saw was an act of USC acting aggressively and failing to defend, and, in fact, being the aggressor against its students. Amna Nawaz: By nightfall, more than 90 people were taken into custody. Incidents are just the latest in a series of pro-Palestinian demonstrations unfolding on campuses from coast to coast and beyond, including universities in Paris, Cairo, and Sydney. Some in the U.S. say they want their universities to cut financial ties with Israel. Former USC Student: We want the university to disclose its financial holdings and divest from its relationships with financial institutions. And we want the university to recognize and acknowledge to its student body that there is a genocide happening to our families in Gaza. Amna Nawaz: Officials at Columbia University yesterday extended talks with demonstrators to clear the campus, where, that same afternoon, House Speaker Mike Johnson was booed after his remarks. Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA): The cherished traditions of this university are being overtaken right now by radical and extreme ideologies. They place a target on the backs of Jewish students in the United States and here on this campus. Amna Nawaz: Jewish students across the country have said they feel unsafe amid the demonstrations and after being targeted by hate speech and antisemitic symbols. But some are taking part in the protests… Protesters: Free, free Palestine! Amna Nawaz: … which continue to spread to more campuses and show no signs of ending soon. The protests have also reached Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, where dozens of students have faced suspension, expulsion, and even arrest for their participation in recent protests on campus. Joining us now is Vanderbilt University Chancellor Daniel Diermeier to discuss his school's approach, which he outlined in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed. Chancellor, welcome to the "NewsHour." Thanks for joining us. Daniel Diermeier, Chancellor, Vanderbilt University: Thank you for having me. Amna Nawaz: So, before we get into your school's specific experience, I just want to get your reaction to how quickly and how widely these protests have spread across campus. Daniel Diermeier: Yes, I think what we have seen in the last week or two is certainly that these issues and the protests have intensified, but, really, we have had them for the last six months or so. Amna Nawaz: And Vanderbilt has been among those that's seen its own protests. As we mentioned, there was a late March incident. Some 27 students or so forced their way into a closed administration building. I understand a campus security officer was injured during that incident. Most of the students had to be escorted out. Four were arrested, is my understanding. Help us understand the line for you. Why were those students arrested and some expelled? Daniel Diermeier: Absolutely. So, overall, over the last six months, things on campus have gone very well. Our students have done great. They had vigils. They had in-depth discussions. We have had a Passover celebration just like a few days ago with 400 students on our main lawn. And then some students have protesters as well on both sides. We have had displays of, like, the victims in Gaza. We have had displays of the hostages. So all of that has gone very well. But about a month ago, we had a small group of students that forced their way into a closed building. This is our main administration building. And we're still doing some construction. They ran over a security officer. They then tried to get into my office. They were — they tried to push over some of my staff there, but didn't succeed, and sat down in the hallway. And then, after a few hours, we told them that this is inconsistent with university policy, that this is disruptive conduct. We then had three of the students arrested that had pushed over the police officer. We had one student arrested who had smashed over a window, and then the other students left on their own accord and were subject to student discipline subsequently. Amna Nawaz: So the line for you was the physical violence part of it. Had the building been open, you're fine with students entering and sitting in, in protest, in other words? Daniel Diermeier: Well, the issue for us is whether you're disrupting university operations. Now, certainly, when you are forcing your way into a closed building, closed for construction, and you're injuring a public safety officer, that line has been crossed. The critical question for us is always, are you protesting and making your voices heard, or are you engaging in disruptive conduct? That can have many different forms. For example, we would not allow them to enter a classroom with a megaphone and disrupt the class, for example, so it can come in many different forms. This was certainly across the line. Amna Nawaz: You said in your op-ed that free speech is alive and well at Vanderbilt. But there was an open letter by several members of your faculty that disputes that. They say the administration has been excessive and punitive in its response to student protests. They say the rules seem arbitrary. And they say the criterion that protests must not disrupt university operations, as you say, is perniciously vague and expansive. What do you say to that? Daniel Diermeier: Well, I think that this particular issue has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. As I mentioned before, there have been many expressions of student protest on campus. The issue for us is, in this particular case, was that the people forced them — forced their way into a construction building and injured a police officer. I don't think anybody should confuse this with free speech. Amna Nawaz: But, if I may, this line that you draw that it shouldn't disrupt, protests shouldn't disrupt university operations, your opposition here says that that's actually too vague and too expansive. Many would say the purpose of protests is to disrupt. Daniel Diermeier: I think the purpose of protest is to make your voices heard. I don't think the purpose of protest is to injure members of the staff or to disrupt classes. Amna Nawaz: One of the things the students were asking for was a student-led vote, a referendum, in essence, asking for the university to divest itself financially from any financial ties to Israel. My understanding is, you did not allow that vote, that referendum, to move forward, which then, of course, leads students to say that their free speech is being violated. So why not allow them to discuss that and hold that vote? Daniel Diermeier: The university has three principles. One is free speech. One is what we call institutional neutrality, which means that the university will not take policy issues unless they directly and materially affect the operations of the university, for example, not on foreign policy issues. And the third is civil discourse, which means that we treat each other with respect, we listen to each other, and when our students come on campus, they sign a community creed where they affirm their commitment to the last value of civil discourse. The students then had a — wanted to have a referendum to use student government funds to basically boycott any firms that had connection with Israel. That, in Tennessee, is against the law. Even the vote itself would have put our state funding at risk, and so, as consequences of that, we did not allow the vote, and because it's inconsistent with Tennessee state law. But I want to be clear that calling for the boycott of Israel is also inconsistent with our stand on institutional neutrality. Amna Nawaz: You know, Chancellor, I have to ask, if you believe that you and other leaders are handling these protests well, that you are hitting that balance between free speech and safety, why do you think that the protests and objections are spreading as rapidly as they are? I mean, is there a chance here that you are not necessarily hearing the concerns of your students in the way they feel they need to be heard? Daniel Diermeier: I need to distinguish between what's happening on my campus. And on my campus, this was an isolated incident that involved 30 students. What other universities do and how they handle that, I think, is something that will depend on their context. All of us will have — will be tested. Our approach has been that we have been very clear about our principles, the principles I just stated, and that we will enforce those principles, and that's the way we have handled the situation. Amna Nawaz: That is Vanderbilt University Chancellor Daniel Diermeier joining us tonight. Chancellor, thank you very much for your time. Daniel Diermeier: Sure. Thank you. * PBS NewsHour 4/26/24 7:17:45 p.m. (ET) Amna Nawaz: As protests of Israel's war in Gaza spread to campuses across the country, some see parallels between today's demonstrations and college protests in the past. Steven Mintz is a professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin, and Angus Johnston is a professor and historian of American student culture at the City University of New York. Welcome to you both. Professor Johnston, let's just start with what the protesters are calling for here. What is their focus? What do they want as a result of these demonstrations? Angus Johnston, Assistant Professor, City University of New York: Well, it varies campus by campus, but primarily what we're looking for — looking at is, they're looking for a divestment of the universities' financial relationships with Israeli companies, a disentanglement of the universities from relationships with the Israeli government or military, and transparency as to the nature of those relationships where they currently exist. Amna Nawaz: Professor Mintz, how do — what do you make of the demands, as Professor Johnston had laid them out? Is that something you think colleges can achieve? Steven Mintz, Professor of History, University of Texas at Austin: I think they're very unlikely to be achieved. The protests of the 1960s, it was possible to achieve some kind of accommodation. First of all, one of the demands, an end to the military draft, received widespread support throughout society, and Richard Nixon's administration would make that happen. But on campuses themselves, there were some practical goals, like studies programs, women's studies programs, coeducation at the elite private universities, an end to parietals and in loco parentis regulations. There was a lot of ground for accommodation and compromise. And I don't see that much right now. Amna Nawaz: Professor Johnston, what do you make of that? Do you agree? Angus Johnston: Well, I think that the easiest, simplest demand that they're making is a demand for transparency in their universities' relationships with Israeli institutions, and I think that that is something that is certainly winnable on a lot of campuses. I also think that, in a lot of ways, the anti-apartheid movement of the 1970s and '80s is a much better analog than the mass student movement of the late '60s in some ways. And I think it's important to remember that, in the case of the anti-apartheid movement, the calls for divestment on campuses began in the mid-70s. And it was a very, very long and slow process, by which students were adjusting people's views of the crisis itself. Amna Nawaz: What do you make of that, Professor Mintz? Could these protests now start what could be a long chain of changing people's minds when it comes to how they see this issue? Steven Mintz: The context today is very different than in the 1960s or 1970s, when higher education was growing and the federal and state investments in higher education were increasing. Today, the situation of American higher education is extremely precarious. Public support has diminished. Funding is hotly debated in many of the states. There are threats in some state legislatures to tax endowments, to tax university property, to tax university income. Donations to many of the leading universities have declined. This is a very treacherous moment, especially for the most well-endowed and highly selective institutions. Amna Nawaz: Professor Johnston, do you agree with that? I mean, is there a chance here that protesters run the risk of losing support the longer these protests go on, because of this scenario, as Professor Mintz has laid it out? Angus Johnston: Well, I think it's important to note that the protests themselves so far have largely been pretty moderate in their tactics. We're not seeing, as we did in the 1960s, rioting, rocks being thrown at police, even buildings getting burned — being burned down. The protests themselves have been pretty moderate. The thing that is inflaming the situation right now — in terms of their tactics, the thing that's inflaming the situation right now is bringing in the cops and using the police not only to engage in mass arrests against students, but in arresting and in some cases beating and abusing faculty as well. I think it's really important to point out that there are a number of campuses at which the university has decided to take a hands-off approach to these encampments. MIT is one. Berkeley is another. And at these, the encampments have been proceeding with very little issue and very little drama. Amna Nawaz: Professor Mintz, what about that? Because we have seen some pretty heavy-handed tactics in some cases. At your campus, at the University of Texas in Austin, dozens of people were arrested. Police in riot gear were called in to disperse the crowds. Is that necessary? Steven Mintz: Right now, we have many brand-new presidents, unseasoned senior administrators making decisions. One suspects that administrators who were more knowledgeable about past history, had more experience dealing with students, had better rapport with their student populations, that this would be playing out extremely differently. What we need to see on the part of senior administrators is a real willingness to step out of their offices, communicate with the students, and try to achieve some kind of accommodation. Amna Nawaz: Are you saying that you don't believe that the police should have been called in some of these circumstances? Steven Mintz: Absolutely not. And the lesson of history could not be clearer that this only escalates the situation, it worsens the situation, and it results in a degree of alienation that's very difficult to overcome. Amna Nawaz: So, given all that, Professor Mintz, I will ask you, and, then, Professor Johnston, if you would follow, I will just ask you both, where do we go from here? How do you see this unfolding in the weeks ahead? Professor Mintz? Steven Mintz: I think the conversation needs to be made more productive. In this country, if you want political change, you build coalitions. And what I'm not seeing on campus right now is an effort to have effective protests that will bring people together. When people hear anti-American sentiments, they are radically turned off. The demonstrators, in my view, should be calling for peace, for the release of the hostages, and an American foreign policy that will really result in a two-state solution. Amna Nawaz: Professor Johnston, I will give you the last word here. Angus Johnston: I'm really heartened by the fact that, despite what Professor Mintz has said, a lot of faculty have been turning out in support of these students, some of them turning out in support of the students' goals, but others turning out in support of the students' right to protest without being harassed and without being abused by cops. I think we are seeing the development of a new coalition on the campus. And I'm very heartened by that. And I hope that administrators take heed of that and do their bit to de-escalate the situation as well. Amna Nawaz: That is Professor Angus Johnston from the City University of New York and Professor Steven Mintz from the University of Texas at Austin. Thank you both for joining us tonight. Angus Johnston: Thank you. Steven Mintz: You're welcome.

PBS Sympathizes With Pro-Hamas Camping Protesters at Columbia: ‘Free Speech’

Tuesday’s edition of the PBS NewsHour took a deep-dive look at the anti-Jewish, pro-Hamas protesters camped out at Columbia University, with some “protesters” spewing eliminationist rhetoric at Israel and telling Jewish students to “go back to Poland.” One girl stood in front of a group of Jewish counter protesters holding a sign that read “Al Qassam’s next targets.” (Al Qassam is the military wing of Hamas.) Yet anchor Geoff Bennett’s intro was disconcertingly mild, ignoring all the disgusting details of the pro-Hamas demonstrators, while predominantly portraying them as victims of an over-aggressive college administration. Whatever actual goals the protests may have (divestment by the universities from Israel companies, perhaps) weren’t mentioned. Bennett: College campuses in several parts of the country are struggling tonight with just where to draw the line between allowing protests and free speech and preventing antisemitism and intimidation….Police said they were called in by university officials, who said protesters breached barricades and behaved in a -- quote -- "disruptive and antagonizing manner." Some faculty disputed that characterization by the school…. Hundreds of students have turned out for protests. On Thursday, [Columbia’s president] Shafik called the New York Police Department to break up tent encampments, and more than 100 protesters were arrested. Many students and faculty felt Shafik's crackdown has been excessively harsh in squelching free speech. Bennett put the genuine threat to Jewish students in passive terms, noting “but some students, Jewish students, in particular, as well as some alumni and faculty, say there's too much hostility on campus, leading some to feel threatened for their safety.” After quotes from a concerned non-Jewish student and the Anti-Defamation League, he pivoted: Bennett: But protesters say the crackdown is not justified. Aya Lyon-Sereno is a sophomore at Barnard College, which is part of Columbia, majoring in urban studies. She's Jewish. Aya Lyon-Sereno, Student, Barnard College: Barnard students have been evicted from dorms they're paying for, have been given 15 minutes to gather any belongings and are not allowed to eat in any dining halls, are not allowed to, like, use their meal plans and have been really, really criminalized. (A shame PBS didn’t cover such unfair practices by colleges during the COVID hysteria, when they were kicking out students out of housing they’d paid for, for the crime of…grocery shopping.) He brought Irene Mulvey into the studio, president of the (hard-left) American Association of University Professors, who delivered hypocritical talking points about defending freedom of expression on campus. Yet Mulvey signed an open letter at the height of the Black Lives Matter hysteria voicing concerns about “microaggressions” on campus. But now violent threats against Jews are part of “free speech.” Mulvey called them “peaceful protesters,” and pompously lamented “we saw the suppression of speech and silencing of voices because somebody might not like what they're saying. And that is a real danger in a democracy.” When Bennett asked, “How should a university balance the expression of free speech and student safety?” Mulvey was dismissive: “There's genuine -- there's harassment and antisemitism has, is not new, it's not the first time hate speech has reared its ugly head on campus. There are policies in place to deal with these kinds of things. And that's where we should go, policies that ensure due process for the students. And then what we're seeing instead is new policies being drafted on time, manner and place of protest….” Bennett followed up strongly: Well, thinking about this from the perspective of Jewish students who say they feel intimidated. If there is a climate of harassment on campus, isn’t the administration morally compelled and also compelled by law, by Title IX, to address it and shut it down? Mulvey said in times like these, “….you have to err on the side of free and open inquiry. There -- hate speech, antisemitism has no place on campus or anywhere and there are policies to deal with that. But in higher education, our primary focus should be academic freedom, free speech, and -- free speech and associational rights for students.” Bennett then went to Dr. Andrew Marks at Columbia University, who quibbled with a couple of Mulvey’s false assertions and noted examples of anti-Semitism on campus, but also praised Columbia’s president and said things were quieting down. This segment was brought to you in part by Consumer Cellular A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 4/23/24 7:03:29 p.m. (ET) Geoff Bennett: College campuses in several parts of the country are struggling tonight with just where to draw the line between allowing protests and free speech and preventing antisemitism and intimidation. As the school year nears its end, Columbia University announced it would stay on a hybrid schedule until the end of the spring semester next week. And students were arrested at New York University last night. Police arrested more than 100 people at NYU, as the turmoil that has roiled Columbia over the past week spreads to other schools. Protester: It's a really, really outrageous crackdown by the university to allow the police to arrest students on our own campus. Geoff Bennett: Police said they were called in by University officials, who said protesters breached barricades and behaved in a — quote — "disruptive and antagonizing manner." Some faculty disputed that characterization by the school. It came as a wave of pro-Palestinian protests and encampments have spread in the past week since Columbia University President Minouche Shafik testified before a congressional committee about antisemitism on campus. Many are students, but not all are from the respective school where they are protesting. Earlier in the day, at least 60 people were arrested at Yale. There have been similar protests at Emerson, MIT, Boston University, the University of Michigan, and the University of California. Protesters: Free, free, free Palestine! Geoff Bennett: Columbia has been the flash point for a week now. Hundreds of students have turned out for protests. On Thursday, Shafik called the New York Police Department to break up tent encampments, and more than 100 protesters were arrested. Many students and faculty felt Shafik's crackdown has been excessively harsh in squelching free speech. Protesters: The people united will never be defeated! Geoff Bennett: But some students, Jewish students, in particular, as well as some alumni and faculty, say there's too much hostility on campus, leading some to feel threatened for their safety. Michael D'Agostino is a junior at the engineering school. He's not Jewish, but says he's watched what's happened too often. Michael D’Agostino, Student, Columbia University: The campus, honestly, it's full of a lot of hate and disagreement. And it's honestly just sad to see. It seems a pretty awful thing said to not only practicing Jews, but, I mean, people that are ethnically Jewish, simply for wearing like a Star of David.   Geoff Bennett: The Anti-Defamation League posted a video, contending it had become too dangerous as well. Man: Two individuals threw a rock at my head, hit me right in the face. I'm calling public safety. NYPD, where are you? Geoff Bennett: But protesters say the crackdown is not justified. Aya Lyon-Sereno is a sophomore at Barnard College, which is part of Columbia, majoring in urban studies. She's Jewish. Aya Lyon-Sereno, Student, Barnard College: Barnard students have been evicted from dorms they're paying for, have been given 15 minutes to gather any belongings and are not allowed to eat in any dining halls, are not allowed to, like, use their meal plans and have been really, really criminalized. Geoff Bennett: She also said the administration's approach has backfired. Aya Lyon-Sereno: The atmosphere on campus has been really tense, and I and many other students attribute that to the administration's actions, that people are feeling like it's tense on campus, people are feeling unsafe because there's a ton of cops in riot gear here. Geoff Bennett: For his part, President Biden also criticized many of the protests yesterday. Joe Biden, President of the United States: I condemn the antisemitic protests. I also condemn those who don't understand what's going on with the Palestinians. Geoff Bennett: And, today, before he went into court, former President Donald Trump blamed President Biden. Donald Trump, Former President of the United States (R) and Current U.S. Presidential Candidate: What's going on at the college level, at the colleges, the Columbia, NYU and others, is a disgrace. And it's a — it's really on Biden. He has the wrong signal. He's got the wrong tone. He's got the wrong words. Geoff Bennett: The situation is also starting to affect the commencement season. The University of Southern California canceled all outside speakers, it says, out of concern for public. That followed a much-criticized decision to cancel the remarks of valedictorian Asna Tabassum, a Muslim student, over unspecified safety concerns. While Columbia University's administration has faced criticism for how it's handled the events and the arrest of students, concerns remain about the safety of Jewish staff and students on campus. We will get both of these perspectives first from Irene Mulvey, President Of The American Association of University Professors. She spent 37 years teaching mathematics at Fairfield University before retiring. Dr. Mulvey, thank you for being with us. And we should say that members of the Columbia University chapter of your organization are expected to move to censure the university president for her decision to call in the NYPD last week to arrest demonstrators. Why? Why is that warranted, in your view? Irene Mulvey, President, American Association of University Professors: Well, I think the idea of calling in police in riot gear on peaceful protesters protesting outside is a remarkably disproportionate and wrong-ended response to the events we're seeing on campus, because higher education is founded on listening, learning, discussion, debate, free and open inquiry. We challenge students to challenge their most deeply held beliefs in order to justify them to themselves and to others. Our goal is communication in service of understanding. Instead, we saw the suppression of speech and silencing of voices because somebody might not like what they're saying. And that is a real danger in a democracy. Geoff Bennett: Well, how should a university balance the expression of free speech and student safety? Irene Mulvey: There's genuine — there's — harassment and antisemitism has — is not new. It's not the first time hate speech has reared its ugly head on campus. There are policies in place to deal with these kinds of things. And that's where we should go, policies that ensure due process for the students. And then what we're seeing instead is new policies being drafted on time, manner and place of protest. So, your protest has to be over in a roped-off area in a tiny space on campus. This is suppression of speech. So the idea of, if you're suppressing speech in order to keep students safe, that's a false choice. You can do both. Geoff Bennett: Well, thinking about this from the perspective of Jewish students who say they feel intimidated, if there is a climate of harassment on campus, isn't the administration morally compelled and also compelled by law, by Title IX, to address it and shut it down? Irene Mulvey: The institution is required to allow for the most free and open expression, while also ensuring that conversations are civil and dialogue is respectful. But in situations like this, these are — people have extremely strong positions, and these are polarizing times, that debates are heated and messy. And so you have to err on the side of free and open inquiry. There — hate speech, antisemitism has no place on campus or anywhere and there are policies to deal with that. But in higher education, our primary focus should be academic freedom, free speech, and — free speech and associational rights for students. Geoff Bennett: As protests spread to other campuses, what lessons could other college administrators, university administrators take away from what's transpired at Columbia? Irene Mulvey: They could think about creative ways to respond. They could think about ways to encourage communication and dialogue in open forums across their campus and engaging all students, so that all students have an opportunity to hear other points of view, to understand other points of view, to question other points of view. They should figure out creative ways to respond, because what happened at NYU and Columbia is completely unacceptable. The silencing of speech in a democracy because somebody doesn't like it, this is a real danger. Geoff Bennett: Irene Mulvey is president of the American Association of University Professors. Thank you for your insights. Irene Mulvey: Thank you. Geoff Bennett: Let's turn now to Dr. Andrew Marks. He's the chair of the department of physiology and cellular biophysics at Columbia University. Thank you for being with us. Dr. Andrew R. Marks, Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics Chair, Columbia University: Thanks for having me. Geoff Bennett: So how do you feel about Dr. Shafik's handling of the ongoing demonstrations at Columbia? And what do you make of this view that the old policies in place to deal with student demonstrations were sufficient? Dr. Andrew R. Marks: I think she's doing the best that she can. I think that her heart is in the right place. I think it's an incredibly difficult situation and there are no easy answers. The university, Columbia University, has had policies in place which I think are capable of dealing with this situation if they're able to be enforced. Geoff Bennett: Have you witnessed incidents of antisemitism on campus? Dr. Andrew R. Marks: Yes, I have. I have seen antisemitic slurs being hurled at Jewish students. And it's been very painful to watch. I have seen antisemitic hate language written on the college walk in the middle of campus and posters hanging that have been very offensive. Geoff Bennett: What more should Columbia be doing? What more could Columbia be doing to make Jewish students feel safer? Dr. Andrew R. Marks: Well, I think Columbia has already done quite a lot and taken steps. And my personal observation is that, over the last several days, the hate speech has been toned down on campus. The problem is that, as you know, Columbia's campus is in the middle of New York City. And when you leave campus either — in either direction, there's a tremendous amount of antisemitic hate speech being hurled at students and faculty from people outside the campus. Geoff Bennett: When it comes to what's happening on campus, how should a university balance student safety and student expression? Dr. Andrew R. Marks: Well, I think that students should be allowed to protest, absolutely. And I think that the limit has to be on hate speech. So I think that, as long as the protests are civil and respectful of other members of the community, that needs to be protected and encouraged. When it drifts over to hate speech, then it becomes offensive and I think threatening to the Jewish community at the university. Geoff Bennett: What do you think is informing and influencing Dr. Shafik's response to these ongoing protests? Dr. Andrew R. Marks: Again, she's been in an incredibly difficult situation. And I wanted to clarify a couple of things I heard your previous speaker say. First of all, there — the actions taken against students had nothing to do with the content of their speech, except when it comes to hate speech, of course, but in terms of what they were protesting. It really had to do with them breaking the existing rules of the university. And President Shafik is responsible for the safety of all students. And she took an action, which I was not in favor of, bringing in the police. I wanted to negotiate or talk to the students some more before that. But she did that because she felt it was necessary to preserve the safety of the Jewish community on the campus and other people on campus. I was one of the people in the Senate Executive Committee that helped write the event policy. And it's important to note that that was done in complete collaboration and working very closely with students. And while no policy is perfect, we tried to come up with one that was fair. Your previous speaker mentioned that we were limiting protests to tiny parts of campus. That's not accurate. There were designated areas and times and place, which is common for all university campuses. And had the students adhered to those guidelines, things would have gone much differently.

NPR: Baby Sleep Training ‘Sacrifices Our Babies' Well-Being on Altar of Capitalism’

Greg Rosalsky of National Public Radio’s podcast “Planet Money” (which aims to explain the economy to listeners) has returned back from “lengthy parental leave” smitten by leftist social media rants, as shown in Monday’s segment “Sleep training: Life preserver for parents or "symptom of capitalism"?” No surprise, given the woke lunacy that has taken over taxpayer-supported NPR. ….Now that I'm a working parent, I want to take just one brief moment to complain on behalf of all of us. Like millions of parents before me, I've discovered it's hard to be productive when you're sleep deprived. He explained the concept of "sleep training," a “euphemism for the most infamous and controversial method: Cry It Out. Basically, you put your baby in a crib or bassinet in a separate room and don't come back until the morning. If they cry, so be it. The idea is they will learn to self-soothe and become good sleepers.…" Facebook and other companies have begun "subsidizing the cost of sleep training coaching for their workers." But then Rosalsky, who worked in the Obama White House, went off on a bizarre tangent, triggered by a stray political comment. For example, my wife was targeted with a post from a baby sleep consultancy called Taking Cara Babies that marketed their services to us (and our employers)….. It seemed pretty innocuous. But the most liked comment was the following: "Wish we had actual parental leave like the rest of the modern world so we weren't forced to sleep train and get back to work like good little capitalists." It turns out this sentiment can be found across the internet….There's a large community of parents who disparage sleep training -- and, in particular, any form of cry it out -- as basically a cruel practice that sacrifices our babies' well-being on the altar of capitalism. He went on, quoting comment after comment, before reining it in slightly. Whole Mother Therapy, which provides online therapy to parents, for example, argues on their blog that "Sleep training is a symptom of capitalism -- it cuts parents off from the natural attachment and nurturance that is essential for infant and baby development." "Sleep training is breaking your child's mind and nervous system to fit into the productivity model capitalism requires," tweeted an X user named HR. But is not wanting to be really sleep deprived only driven by economic concerns? If I had the luxury of not working, I probably would still want to be well-slept. And aren't there a whole bunch of countries that have capitalist economies -- but, at the same time, robust safety nets -- that give parents greater opportunity to stay home and be sleep-deprived without having to go into work? I'll let you be the judge. His concluding snark made no sense: As for us, we've pursued a strategy that you might call sleep training lite. Basically, when our baby cries in the night, we either feed him if it's been a while since he's eaten or we hold his hand and sing Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star to him while he stays in his crib. Honestly, it worked really well between months 4 and 7. But recently, he started teething, and... well, we're both really tired. Take that, capitalism. Public-funded radio: Come for the sleep tips, stay for the socialism? PS: Christopher Rufo used this story to mock an NPR reporter being all about "factual news" on the website: This NPR employee wants you to believe that NPR is a home for unbiased, factual news, but the first story on the homepage is: "Sleep training: A life preserver for parents or a 'symptom of capitalism'?" Everyone knows NPR is biased, except NPR employees who are paid to deny it. https://t.co/zUZbTc92K7 — Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) April 23, 2024

PBS News Show Defends 'The Unhoused' From 'Punitive' Laws Banning Street Camping

Sunday’s edition of PBS News Weekend spent 13 minutes out of its allotted 25 taking the loose liberal attitude toward homelessness (“the unhoused”) as a Supreme Court case looms. PBS found yet another liberal, an assistant public health professor at Cornell University, to make its preferred ideological case in the first segment, arguing an Oregon law limiting homeless camping in public spaces punishes people for being on the streets. JOHN YANG: Tomorrow, the Supreme Court hears arguments about whether laws limiting homeless encampments in public places are unconstitutional because they punish people for being homeless. The case is about laws in Grants Pass, Oregon, a city of about 40,000 in the state’s southwest corner, but the outcome could reshape policies nationwide for years to come. CHARLEY WILLISON, Cornell University: ….cities generally use much more punitive policies, these criminalization approaches that are at the heart of Johnson vs. Grants Pass to effectively punish people who are experiencing homelessness for behaviors that are associated with the realities of homelessness. Now, importantly, the use of these punitive policies actually facilitate cycles of homelessness and does not effectively end homelessness…. (Willison would throw in another “punitive” description before she was done.) Asked about Florida’s new camping ban, she responded similarly: “So these camping bans and other broadly punitive responses again, where we see people who are experiencing homelessness being either fined through civil penalties or criminalized through criminal penalties for realities associated with homelessness….” She responded to Yang’s question about a new California law to provide more drug treatment with liberal fantasizing, with no opposing views from Yang: ….For example, having more accountability, where cities are required to spend a certain proportion of their budgets on housing will likely help improve the situation and require cities to engage in these evidence-based policies which are far more effective. The anchor transitioned directly to a field report from Montana, with reporter Joe Lesar of Montana PBS speaking to Steve and Belinda Ankney, “[who] have been living in their trailer on the streets of Bozeman for the past three years.” Lesar admitted “Both have struggled with addiction” and Belinda has been previously jailed, which she blamed on “not getting the right help, not being on the right meds.” Lesar: To tackle this growing issue, Bozeman recently implemented a new ordinance limiting camping in the same spot to 30 days with an option for filing for an extension. There are rules about keeping camps clean, and after three warnings $25 civil penalties will be issued…. The reporter at least provided some anecdotes from citizens helping pay for homeless upkeep, with the head of an environmental consulting firm noting he’d suffered thefts on his company’s property and the harassment of an employee. But he ended with the view of a hand-wringing social worker and a lecture from the trailer-living denizen: Heather Grenier, Human Resources Development Council: Just general sentiment that everyone deserves the safe warm place to sleep is that doesn’t really resonate with everyone anymore. Steve Ankney: “….there are good people in Bozeman, just the ugly overshadows the good so bad.” The segment ended with a graphic of a federal government statistic claiming a 551% increase in “individuals experiencing chronic patterns of homelessness” from 2007 to 2023, which is a bit vague. When even the liberal Washington Post editorial page admits “There is no constitutional right to pitch your tent on the sidewalk” -- the kind of common-sense argument absent from PBS -- it’s clear that taxpayer-supported outlets like PBS and National Public Radio are pitched far to the left of the average American taxpayer who is involuntarily supporting them. This segment was brought to you in part by Consumer Cellular, and taxpayers like you. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS News Weekend 4/21/2024 7:12:56 p.m. (ET) JOHN YANG: Tomorrow, the Supreme Court hears arguments about whether laws limiting homeless encampments in public places are unconstitutional because they punish people for being homeless. The case is about laws in Grants Pass, Oregon, a city of about 40,000 in the state southwest corner, but the outcome could reshape policies nationwide for years to come. Charley Willison teaches public health at Cornell University. She`s the author of "Ungoverned and Out of Sight: Public Health and the Political Crisis of Homelessness in the United States." Charley, in the filings for this case Grants Pass as well there these laws are about public health and public safety. The two homeless people who have brought this case say it`s really about pushing homeless people out of the -- out of Grants Pass getting them to move on to go someplace else. What`s your take on that? CHARLEY WILLISON, Cornell University: This is such an important question. And what this case is really getting at is a deep tension that American cities face when thinking about how to respond to homelessness across the country, but especially in West Coast cities that have very limited shelter capacity, and are also in the midst of a housing crisis. And these two tensions that I`d like to emphasize are that cities generally use much more punitive policies these criminalization approaches that are at the heart of Johnson versus Grants Pass to effectively punish people who are experiencing homelessness for behaviors that are associated with the realities of homelessness. Now, importantly, the use of these punitive policies actually facilitate cycles of homelessness and does not effectively end homelessness. While the alternative addressing homelessness through the use of more housing, as well as housing paired with access to social and medical services, does successfully end homelessness. However, we have seen cities across the United States have much less emphasis on the use of housing and supportive services compared to these punitive policies that are at the heart of this case. JOHN YANG: But at the same time, these camping bans are really spreading just this spring. Governor DeSantis and Florida signed a ban statewide banning camping in public places. But you say this really doesn`t help homelessness is it, does it hurt it? CHARLEY WILLISON: So these camping bans and other broadly punitive responses again, where we see people who are experiencing homelessness being either find through civil penalties or criminalized through criminal penalties for realities associated with homelessness, whether it is sleeping in public sitting down in public eating public, things like this do actually promote cycles of homelessness. Now, the Florida law that is in question is a ban on camping. However, it is also using an interim solution where there are temporary shelters and that will hopefully be used, as opposed to criminalizing people. So banning camping as opposed to incarcerating people, or finding people directing people into temporary shelters, which appear to be sanctioned camping sites. JOHN YANG: What about the ballot proposal that narrowly passed earlier this year in California that directs counties to spend more money on housing programs and drug treatment programs? Will that help? Will that make a difference? CHARLEY WILLISON: Proposition one in California, which passed just about a month ago, this raises the issue of the housing crisis itself, and the need for West Coast cities in particular, but especially cities across the United States, to engage in more housing based solutions, which are the only solution that effectively successfully ends homelessness. Across the country having these investments and in California, especially where there are by far very limited or far more limited shelter and housing opportunities compared to other East Coast cities. For example, having more accountability, where cities are required to spend a certain proportion of their budgets on housing will likely help improve the situation and require cities to engage in these evidence based policies which are far more effective. JOHN YANG: From your perspective, what`s the public health issue or what`s the public health effect implications of homelessness? CHARLEY WILLISON: There are many, many grave public health effects of homelessness. If we think about homelessness, in general, people experiencing homelessness, whether it is short term or long term face group far greater morbidity and mortality compared to the general population. And this is both in the short term and the long term. For example, we know that people who are experiencing sheltered homelessness, so this is when they don`t have to sleep outside, they have a place to go their mortality rates are about three times higher than the general population. Whereas people who are experiencing unsheltered homelessness, which is the population that is at the heart of this court case, have mortality rates are about 10 times higher than the general population. So when we`re thinking about population health and homelessness is absolutely a public health problem because of the grave and dire consequences for people and their health in these ways. JOHN YANG: In your view, what`s at stake in this case? CHARLEY WILLISON: There are many things at stake in this case, but I would say probably the most important thing is again, going back to this tension, where cities have placed a lot of very robust resources in these punitive responses to homelessness. Now, if they are allowed to continue to do this, the question will be whether or not cities will be incentivized to create these alternative solutions using housing paired with social medical services, which we know actually successfully ends homelessness. However, if the court rules in favor of Johnson, we I think this is a very big opportunity for cities to engage in these evidence based solutions and make investments especially in West Coast cities, where they have not previously done so, so that we may actually successfully reduce and end homelessness. JOHN YANG: Charley Willison of Cornell University. Thank you very much. CHARLEY WILLISON: Thank you so much. JOHN YANG: In some cities with growing numbers of homeless people, the issue goes beyond encampments and public places. They`re also coping with more people living in cars and RVs parked on city streets. Montana PBS`s Joe Lesar reports on how city leaders in Bozeman Montana are dealing with the tensions arising from this more visible display of homelessness. STEVEN ANKNEY, Bozeman resident: Terry, oh, man, you got to have thick skin out here. BELINDA ANKNEY, Bozeman resident: Oh, we got the windows broke out. Not went up there. It`s just completely gone. STEVEN ANKNEY: Yeah, that one`s had the BB come through there. JOE LESAR (voice-over): Steve and Belinda Ankney, have been living in their trailer on the streets of Bozeman for the past three years. STEVEN ANKNEY: We take plates around or if people are having a hard time and they`re not eating, they`ll stop by and ask if we can help her anyway. JOE LESAR (voice-over): The rising cost of living has only compounded issues they I`ve been facing for years.   BELINDA ANKNEY: I was raised with the drugs. I was raised with the alcohol. That`s all I knew. JOE LESAR (voice-over): Both have struggled with addiction. Belinda works full time at a restaurant. But health issues made worse by inconsistent access to care have affected Steven`s ability to work. BELINDA ANKNEY: One of the biggest misconceptions is that we want to be here that we`re not trying to get out. JOE LESAR (voice-over): Belinda`s legal troubles out another barrier to securing housing. BELINDA ANKNEY: Yeah, the mental health issues. The drug issues the in and out of incarceration not getting the right help not being on the right meds, you know, just as (inaudible). JOE LESAR (voice-over): Urban camping as it`s been named, has increased by 200 percent in the last two years, according to city officials. It`s a growing issue. It`s increasingly dividing Bozeman. WOMAN: If Bozeman is too expensive to live in, choose another place to live. MAN: But it feels more like a warzone with all these housing crises and no solutions to anything. MAN: Bozeman doesn`t owe anybody anything. MAN: I`ve never seen or been in a city where there`s so much conflict over how this homelessness thing. JOE LESAR (voice-over): To tackle this growing issue, Bozeman recently implemented a new ordinance limiting camping in the same spot to 30 days with an option for filing for an extension. There are rules about keeping camps clean, and after three warnings $25 civil penalties will be issued. If unsanitary conditions continue, the city can clear camp 72 hours after giving notice. But some are criticizing city leaders for putting too much of a burden on the unhoused. Others feel they`re being too lenient. Mayor Terry Cunningham says the rules about where camping will be allowed will help make the situation more manageable. MAYOR TERRY CUNNINGHAM, Bozeman, Montana: You can`t be parked in front of a business, you can`t be parked in front of a school, childcare facility, residence, et cetera. So narrowing the areas that it is acceptable to camp in front of is important so we can get some level of predictability and control. JOE LESAR (voice-over): But many camps are already in compliance with those rules. A group of businesses are suing the city alleging that it is refusing to enforce existing laws within the homeless encampments. Andrew Hinnenkamp runs one of the businesses involved in the lawsuit. ANDREW HINNENKAMP, Principal, Modulus Corporation: Early on, we had some thefts of services on the property. We had a little bit of a harassment interaction with an employee and one of the individuals. TERRY CUNNINGHAM: homelessness has always been on the radar. This with urban camping RV`s, more cars. This is a recent phenomenon. JOE LESAR (voice-over): Because of the generators, new model cars and TV antennas, there`s a sentiment in Bozeman that people are choosing to camp in order to save money on housing. City officials acknowledged that some people are doing that and will be asked to move on. But figuring out who those people are comes with challenges. TERRY CUNNINGHAM: One of the difficulties is having the discussion and saying why are you currently homeless? We -- they are not required to provide us with that information and often are uncomfortable answering those types of questions. JOE LESAR (voice-over): The population of people experiencing homelessness in Bozeman has increased by 50 percent since 2020. In the groups providing services to this growing population have struggled to meet the demand. HEATHER GRENIER, President, Human Resources Development Council: As a result of COVID there was this big uptick in demand and there was this outpouring of support. And now that outpouring of support has dropped off, but the demand has stayed up at this level and the resources are very insufficient to meet the need. JOE LESAR (voice-over): Heather Grenier, who runs the nonprofit Human Resource Development Council, says her organization`s caseload is at capacity. And there are not many alternatives available. HEATHER GRENIER: It`s remarkably difficult because there`s no pathway for us to help them. There`s no housing. There`s no rental assistance to help them get into housing. And even if there were a housing unit, there`s no transitional housing. JOE LESAR (voice-over): Usage of HRDC overnight shelter has nearly doubled since 2019. Some of that needs should be eased when they`re new 24/7 shelter opens, but that`s not expected until next year. Grenier believes this newer, more visible form of homelessness has caused a shift in attitudes around Bozeman. HEATHER GRENIER: Just general sentiment that everyone deserves the safe warm place to sleep is that doesn`t really resonate with everyone anymore. BELINDA ANKNEY: Are we out? Are we out for it? STEVEN ANKNEY: No. I`ve seen not. I don`t know. BELINDA ANKNEY: OK. JOE LESAR (voice-over): Cost between a lack of services and a frustrated community, are people like Steven and Belinda? STEVEN ANKNEY: There are good people in Bozeman there. Yeah. It`s just the ugly overshadows the good so bad. This is what it`s about. We are having me struggles and we are having these problems. But as soon as we get through them, we are going to be okay. We are going to get to the other side. JOE LESAR (voice-over): Yeah. For PBS News Weekend, I`m Joe Lesar in Bozeman, Montana.

NYT’s Annie Karni Pouts Over Speaker Johnson Doing ‘What Passes for Brave in Today’s GOP’

Congressional correspondent Annie Karni got snarky against Republicans (and, perhaps, some of her fellow reporters?) in Sunday’s New York Times, after House Speaker Mike Johnson received some backhanded praise from some quarters of the media/Democratic alliance for pushing a military aid bill for Ukraine through: “Mike Johnson, Like Pence, Does What Passes for Brave in Today’s GOP: His Job.” The accolades directed at Speaker Mike Johnson in recent days for finally defying the right wing of his party and allowing an aid bill for Ukraine to move through the House might have seemed a tad excessive. After all, a speaker’s entire job is to move legislation through the House, and as Saturday’s vote to pass the bill demonstrated, the Ukraine measure had overwhelming support. But Mr. Johnson’s feat was not so different from that of another embattled Republican who faced a difficult choice under immense pressure from hard-right Republicans and was saluted as a hero for simply doing his job: former Vice President Mike Pence. When Mr. Pence refused former President Donald J. Trump’s demands that he overturn the 2020 election results as he presided over the electoral vote count by Congress on Jan. 6, 2021 -- even as an angry mob with baseball bats and pepper spray invaded the Capitol and chanted “hang Mike Pence” -- the normally unremarkable act of performing the duties in a vice president’s job description was hailed as courageous. Mr. Pence and now Mr. Johnson represent the most high-profile examples of a stark political reality: In today’s Republican Party, subsumed by Mr. Trump, taking the norm-preserving, consensus-driven path can spell the end of your political career. Karni brought her paper’s hostile labeling pattern with her. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Pence, both mild-mannered, extremely conservative evangelical Christians who have put their faith at the center of their politics, occupy a similar space in their party. They have both gone through contortions to accommodate Mr. Trump and the forces he unleashed in their party, which in turn have ultimately come after them….Mr. Pence has been offering Mr. Johnson private encouragement in recent weeks, as he faced growing discontent from the far right. Karni saved space for Ukraine president and media hero Zelensky praising Johnson “for the decision that keeps history on the right track,” but instantly pivoted with “Not everyone was eager to pile on the kudos,” citing a Democrat who aired criticism precisely like Karni’s. “I’m so glad Republicans finally realize the gravity of the situation and the urgency with which we must act,” Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the Rules Committee, said on Friday as the House was about to take a vote to clear the way for the bill. “But you don’t get an award around here for doing your damn job.” Karni got the scoop from The View’s allegedly Republican co-host. Alyssa Farah Griffin, a former top aide in the Trump administration, was lukewarm, at best, in her praise for Mr. Johnson, who she noted had dithered for months before moving ahead on Ukraine aid, even though it was clear there was a broad consensus that the aid was critical. “It’s remarkable that this is being viewed as a brave or heroic move -- simply putting a bill on the House floor for a vote that has bipartisan support to pass,” she said. “In the period of time that Johnson waffled over whether to even allow a vote on it or not, Ukraine lost ground and Ukrainians were killed by Russians.” Alyssa Farah served with Trump for almost his entire term, and then quickly became a high-paid host on The View. Why is she the "bravery" judge? But the Times just did a puff piece on her.  Even after Johnson did what the Democrats (who waved Ukrainian flags on the House floor) wanted, Karni didn’t pause from her petulance. Even after his impassioned comments, he hesitated before releasing the text of the bills, prompting Democrats to worry that his indecision and desire to appeal to the far right would again win out.

PBS 'Washington Week' Gang Hails Speaker Johnson Finding His 'Inner Reagan' on Ukraine

The latest, foreign-policy-facing episode of Washington Week with The Atlantic found the weekly journalistic roundtable quite comfortable with both American hard and soft power -- as long as President Biden and the Democrats hold the reins. Jeffrey Goldberg, moderator of Washington Week and editor-in-chief of The Atlantic magazine, was joined by Eugene Daniels of Politico, Seung Min Kim of the Associated Press, Vivian Salama of The Wall Street Journal, and Graeme Wood of The Atlantic. There was a scattering of hostile labeling, with three “far right” labels foisted on Republicans, including a "very raucous far right." PBS doesn't find "far left" for Ilhan Omar or Rashida Tlaib. But most striking was the panel’s praise for previously mocked House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) for finding his (yes) “inner Reagan.” Now that the press has decided defending Ukraine against Putin’s Russia is vital, the 40th president’s reputation has shifted from warmonger to responsible internationalist. Atlantic journalist Graeme Wood particularly loved Speaker Johnson finally “getting a grip on reality” on Ukraine, which in media terms meant Johnson turning away from his “hard-right” flank toward sweet reason – boosted by Democrats in Congress, who saved his speaker position -- by pushing an additional $60 billion in spending for military aid to Ukraine. Goldberg set up a clip of Johnson arguing for military aid to Ukraine, even mentioning an "axis of evil" (remember those?) consisting of China, Iran, and Russia, but this time to media approval. When asked by host Goldberg whether what we’re seeing is “the true Mike Johnson,” Wood responded thusly. Wood: I don’t know if it’s the true Mike Johnson. But having just been in Poland about a week ago, it seems to most polls and there are some parts of the world where the stakes are very high with these issues, that it’s a person, Mike Johnson, getting a grip on reality. I mean, Poles are seeing this as, arming Ukraine means stopping Kiev from falling and then stopping Russia from getting to the Polish border, which by the way, it’s been there before. Knowing how public television has traditionally treated Ronald Reagan’s presidency, this exchange registered as ironic: Jeffrey Goldberg: ….Vivian, let’s add onto that. Has Johnson found his inner Reagan? And is he strong enough to withstand what might be coming from the isolationist wing? Vivian Salama: I think he would love to believe that he’s found his inner Reagan. Goldberg: I mean, every Republican wants to find their inner Reagan, right? And did the Democrats backing this package show their "inner Reagan" as well? Later there was “optimism” Israeli’s embattled Netanyahu was listening to the wisdom of the American president and refraining from major countermeasures after Iran fired drones and missiles into Israel. Goldberg: So, that brings me to this question about President Biden and his relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu. It seems like there’s been a little bit of a reset in their relationship. And by that, I mean it seems as if Netanyahu is actually listening a bit to Joe Biden now, or is that -- am I over-indexing? Wood: Yes, you might be a little bit too optimistic. But, you know, the hope was that during these last weeks, so much has changed, so much of the narrative could have changed, and it was a frozen and very bad narrative for a number of reasons in the Gaza War. But what can Netanyahu make of this? I mean, there are many Israelis who wish he would just disappear. But the next best thing would be for something in the frozen conflict, in the frozen situation to move…. Wood later admitted he wasn’t a Netanyahu fan: "We’ve got to understand, too, what type of pressure Netanyahu was under. I’ll speak with a rare note of sympathy with Bibi here, because if your country is attacked with 300 drones and ballistic missiles and you do nothing, I don’t think there’s any country that would allow an attack like that to go completely unanswered…." Journalists are certainly more confident of projecting American might during Democratic administrations. Exporting United States military might to Ukraine and putting the diplomatic squeeze on an ally are now admirable traits. Strange days! This sudden new respect for American military power was brought to you in part by Consumer Cellular, and taxpayers like you. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS Washington Week with The Atlantic 4/19/24 8:02:01 p.m. (ET) Jeffrey Goldberg: So, it seems that Mike Johnson, the unlikeliest speaker in recent memory, even Washington reporters who know everything admit that they hadn't heard of him before his selection, might not be falling off the tightrope quite yet. The far right of his party has predictably turned on him, but Donald Trump hasn't, so far at least, and neither have the Democrats. Is Marjorie Taylor Greene inadvertently bringing back bipartisanship? I'll talk about this and the consequences for Ukraine and Israel funding with Eugene Daniels, a White House correspondent and co-author of Politico's playbook, Seung Min Kim is a White House reporter with the Associated Press, Vivian Salama is a national politics reporter for The Wall Street Journal, and Graeme Wood is my colleague and a staff writer at The Atlantic. Welcome, all. Seung Min, you're in the hot seat. Just came from the White House. So, the House is poised to pass this $95 billion foreign aid package finally, and if the speaker gets this done, it's going to be with the help of the Democrats obviously, and his right most members, including Marjorie Taylor Greene, who may or may not be, for further discussion, the most powerful person on the Hill. They're pretty livid. So, what are the chances that Johnson gets this done, and in so doing, also subverts his speakership? Seung Min Kim, White House Reporter, The Associated Press: The chances, on the one hand, the chances are good that the foreign aid package will pass the House tomorrow. On a procedural vote earlier today, you had 316 votes. That is far past the majority, helped with a lot of Democrats, like you said, and a significant portion of Republicans as well. And, you know, that will have to go back to the Senate, and then to the president's desk for it to be signed. But the real question is what happens to Speaker Mike Johnson and his leadership position. What's been really interesting over the last couple of days is that it's not just Marjorie Taylor Greene anymore who's threatening to oust him from his speakership. The numbers, slowly, they are growing. You have two more House Republicans now on the record saying they would support him that what we call a motion to vacate, that maneuver, that mechanism that allows one person to oust a speaker. And why that matters -- Jeffrey Goldberg: The mechanism that was fatal to Kevin McCarthy. Seung Min Kim: Definitely, yes, that mechanism. And what's critical here is that the margins in the House are so narrow after there's one person leaving the house after this week and he will have just a one seat majority. That is almost untenable for any speaker to navigate, much less someone who is inexperienced and has a very raucous far right portion of the conference like Mike Johnson does. Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. But I want to show you a chart from -- just to look at this. These are the last Republican speakers, and you see that it's not a job that lasts forever these days. Mike Johnson is at 178 days and counting. I'm not asking Eugene for you to predict the future, although can you predict the future? Daniels, White House Correspondent, Politico: No, not yet. I'm learning. Jeffrey Goldberg: All right. I mean, what are the chances that he finds himself in really dire straits? And what are the chances that Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic leader, comes in to save him? Eugene Daniels: That's the key to this, right? That the chances of whether or not he gets saved, it's all up to Hakeem Jeffries. If Hakeem Jeffries signals either in front of cameras or behind the scenes to Democrats that, hey, I will let you not come, you can leave, we want you to protect and defend him, Mike Johnson, in any kind of vote, then they will do that. Jeffrey Goldberg: What's the Democratic interest in keeping Johnson in power? Eugene Daniels: The reason that they are, the people that are interested in it, is, one, they're worried about who would come next, right? If Marjorie Taylor Greene, if you're not far right enough for her, people are worried about who's coming next. And also, he's doing something that Kevin McCarthy did not do. He's acting in good faith with the Democrats at this point, right? The way that he's negotiating and trying to get these bills to the floor is something that they wanted from Kevin McCarthy. He would not do. Also, Kevin McCarthy was kind of bad mouthing Democrats on air a day after. They saved his bill, and so they were upset about that. They said, you know, we're not saving you, you're on your own. Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. Eugene Daniels: So, they're not getting that from Johnson. Jeffrey Goldberg: Johnson is kind of cool, understated approach is working. Eugene Daniels: It's working. It's working. Jeffrey Goldberg: Yes. Vivian, do you have any thoughts on, on whether he can maneuver this Ukraine bill to passage and maintain his job? Vivian Salama, National Politics Reporter, The Wall Street Journal: It's looking increasingly likely that he will get the Ukraine bill over the finish line. Now, whether or not he maintains his job is another story. Remember, Ukraine was at one point a largely bipartisan issue. Most people in Congress on both sides of the aisle supported some sort of U.S. aid package. However, it has become increasingly a political flashpoint. And there is one person that has driven a lot of that rhetoric, and that is Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, where he made it increasingly become a political issue, where he would say, why are we giving billions of dollars to Ukraine? You know, the country is falling apart. We have problems at the border. And so that has grown. And we've seen then the hardliners in the Republican Party pushing back on Ukraine aid. And that's where we are. It is not a substantive issue here. It is a political issue. And now you see Donald Trump coming along and saying, well, okay, we can give them aid in the form of a loan and everything has changed suddenly. Jeffrey Goldberg: I want to get to Trump. Before we get to Trump, I want to -- so NewsHour's Amna Nawaz earlier this week interviewed President Zelenskyy in Kyiv, and he made his feelings about all of this quite clear. Listen to this one segment. Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukrainian President: We wanted another way to get this money last year, but for today, it doesn't matter. We need to survive and we need to defend our people. And that's why your decision, the ball is on your field, yes? Please, just make decision. Jeffrey Goldberg: So, I'm not, I'm not saying that what I'm going to play you now is a direct consequence of PBS' global reach, but, Speaker Johnson causation, correlation, we can have that debate later, but Zelenskyy's plea, it seems as if, you know, that kind of thinking that Zelenskyy is talking about there kind of moved Speaker Johnson. Listen to this. This is kind of an extended riff by Johnson on Ukraine, in which he sounds like an old style Reagan Republican. Listen, listen to this. Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA): I think providing lethal aid to Ukraine right now is critically important. I really do. I really do believe the intel and the briefings that we've gotten. I believe Xi and Vladimir Putin and Iran really are an axis of evil. I think they're in coordination on this. I think that Vladimir Putin would continue to march through Europe if he were allowed. To put it bluntly, I would rather send bullets to Ukraine than American boys. My son is going to begin in the Naval Academy this fall. This is a live fire exercise for me, as it is so many American families. This is not a game. It's not a joke. We can't play politics with this. And I'm willing to take personal risk for that, because we have to do the right thing, and history will judge us. Jeffrey Goldberg: Graeme, this is pretty remarkable given where Johnson was in the sort of Trumpian quasi isolationist framework. Are we seeing something very unusual? Is this the true Mike Johnson? Graeme Wood, Staff Writer, The Atlantic: I don't know if it's the true Mike Johnson. But having just been in Poland about a week ago, it seems to most Poles and there're some parts of the world where the stakes are very high with these issues, that it's a person, Mike Johnson, getting a grip on reality. I mean, polls are seeing this as arming Ukraine means stopping Kyiv from falling, and then stopping Russia from getting to the Polish border, which, by the way, it's been there before. So it's a matter of someone who -- you know, maybe he has to satisfy Marjorie Taylor Greene, maybe not. These are political questions that are, that are unfamiliar to parts of the world where they're wondering about their future independence and prosperity. Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. I would love as an exercise to try to explain Marjorie Taylor Greene's politics to the prime minister of Poland, but that we'll do that on another show. But, Vivian, come, come, let's add onto that. Has Johnson found his inner Reagan? And is he strong enough to withstand what might be coming from the isolationist wing? Vivian Salama: I think he would love to believe that he's found his inner Reagan. Jeffrey Goldberg: I mean, every Republican wants to find their inner Reagan, right? Yes. Vivian Salama: And one of the things that I've heard a lot from folks on the Hill is that a lot of this is he's driven by faith, that he believes because of his faith that it is imperative upon the United States, it's incumbent upon the United States to help allies, including the Ukrainians who are on the frontline of this war, whether or not -- Jeffrey Goldberg: So, why did we wait so long? Vivian Salama: Well, that's just the issue. There's so much political headwind and it's taken so much time for the party to sort of coalesce around this concept that we have to do this. And it was -- as a standalone issue, I don't know if Ukraine aid would have passed, but we're lumping it in with other issues, support for Israel, support for Taiwan. And so it pads it with those issues that do have more bipartisan support at the moment and can sort of get through the house a lot quicker. Also remember there was a lot of pushback on border security that Republicans wanted to basically get a win by adding border security and linking it to Ukraine aid. And that is largely what slowed down the passage of this. And so this has been a major issue. Eugene Daniels: It's his faith, but there's also like a practical aspect of this. He said, I believe the intel, he gets a lot more access to information as speaker than he did as a kind of a rank and file backbencher in the House. So, he is getting information that he wasn't getting before. This is not the Mike Johnson that many of us did not know when you -- a few months ago, right? Jeffrey Goldberg: Wait, I want to study that sentence. This is not the Mike Johnson that they didn't know. Eugene Daniels: He's somebody we used to know. We know someone else. Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. Eugene Daniels: But like that is such a bit of integral part of understanding this change in him. He's in leadership. And there's a different way that you have to operate. His kind of dragging his feet, in my estimation, has always been -- he does have to make it look like he's not being pushed by Democrats to do anything. And a lot has changed in the months leading up to this. Jeffrey Goldberg: Talk about that from the White House perspective. I mean, obviously, he's in leadership. He's getting intel. Now, obviously, if you're in the paranoid nether regions of American politics, you think, oh, then he's like being influenced by the deep state. But what he's getting is real time intelligence about the Ukrainian struggles, right? Is this part of -- I mean, obviously, statutorily, you know, the speaker has to be involved in a lot of this, but is the White House cultivating Mike Johnson in a kind of way. Seung Min Kim: Right. I mean, that was a huge part of the White House's strategy when it came to persuading Mike Johnson on the need for additional Ukraine aid. If you recall literally the day after he was elected speaker, they brought him to the situation room right away. This is where he met Jake Sullivan. He met other national security officials. He met President Biden and spoke to him briefly for the first time. And he was exposed to the kind of information that he did not have as a rank and file member. He was then brought up for multiple meetings. He and National Security Committee chairman had regular briefings recently, obviously had multiple conversations. And that was part of the administration's strategy to convince him and give them real time, concrete information to try to persuade him that this is real, that his is a problem. And what's been fascinating to watch when it comes to Mike Johnson is that you do see an evolution of someone understanding that you can't behave the way as a rank and file member than you would as a leader, and not only as a leader of a House Republican conference, but a leader as a Speaker of the House. Which is why you can go from someone who voted against Ukraine aid like Mike Johnson did to someone who was shepherding it through at the risk of his own job. Vivian Salama: It wasn't just, by the way, the administration who's been lobbying him. Foreign leaders have been lining up to see Mike Johnson. I interviewed the Polish president just this week who had been in to see him a few weeks ago. And one by one, they'd all been going in saying, you do not understand what this threat means. Europe could fall. The Ukrainians have no more ammunition. We are literally at the brink. And I think over time they have managed to get to him, especially people like President Duda of Poland, who's very persuasive. He's also an ally of Trump's and then speaks sort of that language. Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. He's a kind of a populist. Vivian Salama: He's considered right wing. And he appeals both to Trump. He did see Trump as well this week. But he also met with Mike Johnson. Others have as well. And so, progressively, over time, I think those European leaders and parliamentarians, you know, foreign ministers, you name it, they have managed to really get to him and make him understand the stakes here. Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. Graeme, this is the actual sort of largest question or most important question. What does this -- if this aid, and, obviously, it's a big package, Israel, Taiwan, but if this aid is freed up for Ukraine, tell us what that means on the battlefield. Graeme Wood: Yes. So, these briefings are very sobering for one reason, which is anything could happen between now and the end of the year. And that could mean the collapse of the Ukrainian frontline. The collapse of the Ukrainian frontline could mean the end of Ukraine as the state that we know it as. And once that happens, then that line starts moving and the political calculations of Europe change completely. So, I think some of the conversations that can happen in Washington can be about, okay, maybe we lose Ukraine. But a complete geo strategic reset that could happen with the collapse of a frontline in Ukraine is an extremely sobering thought. And that's why I think it's been so urgent that these conversations happen with -- Jeffrey Goldberg: So, you think it's plausible that it's not just that Russia will solidify its position in Crimea and in the east. You think that without U.S. resupply, the frontline could actually collapse and Russia could do what it couldn't do two years ago? Graeme Wood: Yes, that is plausible. It seems like right now the line could be frozen. But, you know, the way these things happen is slowly, slowly than all at once. Jeffrey Goldberg: Like Afghanistan. Graeme Wood: Yes. Things can happen so quickly that it would be pretty urgent to at least keep the line where it is. Now, having a plan for it to actually resolve the war, of course, is what everyone would want. But the disaster, the catastrophe that would happen, if the line really collapsed, would be unthinkable. Jeffrey Goldberg: Part of that catastrophe would be that Russia would then be in a better position to threaten actual NATO allies, and then we are required, by treaty, to come to their defense, as opposed to Ukraine, which is not in NATO.

Hopelessly Woke NPR Places Trigger Warning on Declaration of Independence

The hopeless wokeness of tax-funded National Public Radio has been confirmed by NPR senior business editor Uri Berliner, who started shockwaves with his Free Press essay “I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust” providing chapter and verse of how NPR had been take over fully by the left, and as a result blowing several major stories like Russiagate, the Hunter Biden laptop, and dismissing the coronavirus lab leak theory. For his whistleblowing efforts, the veteran journalist Berliner was suspended from NPR for five days before resigning. Demonstrating the totality of NPR bias, new chief executive Katherine Maher is in the spotlight after a series of bizarre tweets resurfaced in which she sounds like an Artificial Intelligence parody of a leftist media elitist, such as when she excused looting during the summer 2020 riots. Berliner targeted Maher directly on X: "I cannot work in a newsroom where I am disparaged by a new CEO whose divisive views confirm the very problems at NPR I cite in my Free Press essay." One example of anti-American wokeness is the “editor’s note” NPR staff felt obliged to place on archived stories about its on-air reading every Independence Day of the Declaration of Independence in full, an honorable tradition apparently now consigned to the ash-heap of history. Yes, one of America’s founding documents now requires a trigger warning, in the view of partially government funded radio (hat tip: Masks are bad, actually on X): Editor's note on July 8, 2022: This story quotes the U.S. Declaration of Independence -- a document that contains offensive language about Native Americans, including a racial slur. The transcripts of previous years of the annual reading now include the warning, relating to the Declaration’s reference to the “merciless Indian savages” purportedly whipped up by King George III of England to wage “domestic insurrections” on the rebellious colonists. NewsBusters previously explored how NPR host Leila Fadel in 2022 preened about NPR’s “break with tradition” in no longer reading the document on air, so as to explore “what equality means” instead, with Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep and two liberal Harvard professors. Four days later, perhaps after an internal “struggle session,” the sad editor’s note appeared.

PBS’s Pathetic O.J. Simpson Take: Outrage Over Racism, Not Denial of Justice

PBS recruited the late football star and (acquitted) double murderer O.J. Simpson into the American race wars. On the April 11 PBS NewsHour had an odd take on the death of Simpson, whose televised trial captivated America 30 years ago, bringing in Dave Zirin, sports editor for the aging hard-left magazine The Nation. Together, he and NewsHour reporter William Brangham used the famous trial not as an example of justice denied, but to portray America as a historic haven of anti-black racism. Reporter William Brangham took us down that bloody memory lane before pivoting to the racial import of the trial. O.J. Simpson's trial and his initial acquittal was an enormous moment of reckoning for many, exposing another stark racial fissure in America, in particular, the chasm between how black and white Americans saw the police and the justice system. The trial also underscored glaring issues in how we view domestic violence, interracial marriage and the growing culture of media celebrity. The NewsHour’s expert source was the sports editor for the hard-left magazine The Nation, who in a series of repellent columns since October 7 condemned Israel but not Hamas for war crimes. He used the Simpson case as a ready means to condemn America as racist, even though the case itself featured a black man acquitted of a murder charge of which he was almost surely guilty. There certainly would be no condemnation of the majority-black jury acquitting a black football star of a crime he almost certainly committed. BRANGHAM: Dave Zirin wrote about all of this in a piece in The Nation today titled: "O.J. Simpson was a Rorschach test for America." And he joins me now. Dave Zirin, great to see you again on the NewsHour. You write in your piece -- quote -- "If anyone had illusions that the United States was in fact united, the O.J. Simpson trial and subsequent verdict quickly put an end to that." Remind us what the country experienced that day when that not guilty verdict came down. DAVE ZIRIN: ….it exposed that when it comes to the United States of America, there really is nothing united about it. White people experience particularly the criminal justice system and police one way, and black people experience it in a different way. And out of that, you get a white opinion out of the O.J. Simpson verdict that this was one of the great injustices of the 20th century, that someone just got away literally with a double homicide. And then, on the other side, in black America, there was an overwhelming belief that the police were corrupt, that O.J. Simpson was railroaded, and that the entire situation stank so much of racism and tainted testimony that there is no way there should have been a conviction…. Brangham acceded to Zirin’s left-wing viewpoint: "And yet, as you also document in your piece, that, for so many black Americans, this happening in Los Angeles, coming a couple of years after Rodney King and all of the revelations of racism in the L.A. Police Department, just seemed like, as you're saying, the culmination, this sort of apex of racial animosity towards black people." Zirin naturally agreed, bringing up the then-recent Rodney King beating and verdict. Then Brangham chided O.J. Simpson, not for his crimes, both proven and alleged, but for having “sort of steadfastly refused to talk about what it was like to be a black man in America” before his trial. This strange segment was brought to you in part by BDO. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 4/11/24 7:15:01 p.m. (ET) Geoff Bennett: O.J. Simpson, whose murder trial captivated international attention for months, died yesterday of cancer. His case dominated headlines during the '90s and was a prime example of people's fascination with celebrity and crime. But the trial was about much more than that, highlighting major fissures in America and one whose legacy is still discussed some decades later. William Brangham has our look. William Brangham: He was a football Hall of Famer, one of the greatest running backs of his generation, who suffered a precipitous fall from grace. O.J. Simpson's legacy would forever be tarnished by the 1994 murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman. They were repeatedly stabbed to death at her Los Angeles home two years after the Simpsons divorced. O.J. Simpson was charged in their killings after blood was found in his home and on his car. Millions of Americans sat glued to their televisions, watching as Simpson fled in a white Ford Bronco on the Southern California freeway. Police trailed him for 60 miles. He was eventually arrested and put on trial. The country was similarly riveted by the nine-month-long televised proceedings, transfixed by the grisly details, allegations of domestic violence, and what would become iconic closing arguments. Johnnie Cochran, Former Attorney For O.J. Simpson: If it doesn't fit, you must acquit. William Brangham: It would eventually be dubbed the trial of the century. Christopher Darden, Prosecutor: He was also one hell of a great football player, but he's still a murderer. William Brangham: The case also further exposed the racism inside the Los Angeles police force. All along, Simpson maintained his innocence, and he was ultimately acquitted. Woman: We, the jury, in the above-entitled action, find the Defendant, Orenthal James Simpson, not guilty of the crime of murder in violation of penal code section 187. William Brangham: Two years later, a civil suit filed by the victims' families found Simpson liable for their deaths. His assets were seized, and he was ordered to pay over $33 million in damages. They were never fully paid. It was all a stark contrast to his younger days. Hailed as one of the nation's top athletes, in the 1960s, Simpson was a decorated football star, an all-American at the University of Southern California. He was awarded the Heisman Trophy in 1968. And the next year, he was the number one draft pick, taken by the Buffalo Bills, where he went on to play nine seasons and was a five-time All-Pro. Simpson parlayed his fame and trademark charm into a successful career on screen, most famously as the pitchman for Hertz rental cars in the 1970s. He went on to act on TV and in movies, like in the late 80s slapstick "The Naked Gun." Well after the murder trials, Simpson had another run-in with the law. He was convicted of armed robbery and other felonies and served nine years in prison for stealing sports memorabilia in Las Vegas. He claimed the goods had originally been stolen from him. O.J. Simpson, Former NFL Player: I have done my time. I'd just like to get back to my family and friends. And, believe it or not, I do have some real friends. William Brangham: Simpson's family said he died Wednesday after battling prostate cancer. O.J. Simpson was 76 years old. O.J. Simpson's trial and his initial acquittal was an enormous moment of reckoning for many, exposing another stark racial fissure in America, in particular, the chasm between how Black and white Americans saw the police and the justice system. The trial also underscored glaring issues in how we view domestic violence, interracial marriage and the growing culture of media celebrity. Dave Zirin wrote about all of this in a piece in "The Nation" today titled: "O.J. Simpson was a Rorschach test for America." And he joins me now. Dave Zirin, great to see you again on the "NewsHour." You write in your piece — quote — "If anyone had illusions that the United States was in fact united, the O.J. Simpson trial and subsequent verdict quickly put an end to that." Remind us what the country experienced that day when that not guilty verdict came down. Dave Zirin, "The Nation": Wow, I remember it like it was yesterday. That's how powerful a moment it was in the American psyche. And what it revealed is that this country could have one common experience, watching this trial, and draw entirely different conclusions from it. And it exposed that when it comes to the United States of America, there really is nothing united about it. White people experience particularly the criminal justice system and police one way, and Black people experience it in a different way. And out of that, you get a white opinion out of the O.J. Simpson verdict that this was one of the great injustices of the 20th century, that someone just got away literally with a double homicide. And then, on the other side, in Black America, there was an overwhelming belief that the police were corrupt, that O.J. Simpson was railroaded, and that the entire situation stank so much of racism and tainted testimony that there is no way there should have been a conviction. And so, therefore, the jury's decision was just. So, what it really revealed was that you can have a common experience, but, then, at the end of the day it's viewed an entirely different ways based upon the color of your skin. William Brangham: Going back to that issue of how a lot of white Americans saw it, you write how O.J. being acquitted, to many, seemed like this is an example of a rich celebrity being able to buy and assemble this dream team that gets him past all of this evidence and gets him acquitted. Do you think that is how a lot of people saw that? Dave Zirin: Oh, at the time, the discussion about O.J.'s ability to hire this incredible dream team of attorneys led by the legendary Johnnie Cochran, not to mention people like F. Lee Bailey, Barry Scheck, a group of people who everybody knew in legal circles coming together, people said at the time, a lot of people, this is not justice. Even Chris Rock had a line in his stand-up act that said, if O.J. Wasn't a rich celebrity with these lawyers, he'd be known as or Orenthal, the white lady killer. And that was a stark statement. But it was once something that was widely seen in the culture that, wow, if O.J. is found innocent, it'll be because he hired the best that money could buy. William Brangham: And yet, as you also document in your piece, that, for so many Black Americans, this happening in Los Angeles, coming a couple of years after Rodney King and all of the revelations of racism in the L.A. Police Department, just seemed like, as you're saying, the culmination, this sort of apex of racial animosity towards Black people. Dave Zirin: Absolutely. I mean, and the police chief, the former police chief by 1995, Daryl Gates, there was a very militarized approach to policing in what were called anti-gang initiatives in the Black community. And that led to a great deal of violence and a great deal of mistrust, which is why, after the Rodney King beating, nobody in L.A. really saw it as just a Rodney King story, but as emblematic of how Black people and brown people were treated by Daryl Gates' police department. And that's just in 1992. So the city is actually still rebuilding by 1994, when the trial begins. And so it's not like it was some distant memory. It was part of a continuum for many people of a racist and out-of-control police department. And then when there were revelations in the trial of legitimate police misconduct, that only sealed the deal for a lot of folks who thought to themselves, I'm not sure if O.J. Simpson can get a fair trial in the city and county of Los Angeles. William Brangham: Right. And this all comes, as you also write that it's ironic, in a way, that O.J. Simpson was the vehicle through which we start to even see this in its sharpest form, because, all throughout his career, he sort of steadfastly refused to talk about what it was like to be a Black man in America. Dave Zirin: Yes, O.J. consciously positioned himself commercially as somebody who would be different from civil rights figures at the intersection of sports and Black politics, people like Jim Brown, for example. O.J. Simpson was not going to be that. He was not going to be somebody who raised a fist on the medal stand at any ceremony. He was going to be O.J. Simpson. Like he liked to say to reporters very famously: "I'm not Black. I'm O.J." And positioning himself commercially that way meant that there was a great distance between O.J. Simpson and the Black community. But as was said quite often in 1995, when O.J. was arrested and put on trial, that was when he and a lot of other people discovered that he was, in fact, a Black man in the United States. William Brangham: Dave Zirin of "The Nation," always great to talk to you. Thank you so much for talking with us. Dave Zirin: Thank you for having me.

PBS: AZ Abortion Ban Dates to When Slavery Was Legal and Only White Men Could Vote

PBS took another bite out of the surprise decision that recently emerged out of Arizona’s Supreme Court, on the Saturday edition of PBS News Weekend, anchor John Yang really loaded the ideological dice in his introduction: “The near-total abortion ban that the Arizona Supreme Court revived this week dates back to when Arizona wasn’t a state yet, when slavery was legal, and when only white men had the vote. Many Republican officeholders and candidate scrambled to distance themselves from the law.” Yang introduced PBS’s version of a Republican guest: “Barrett Marson is a Republican strategist based in Arizona….it’s a swing state in the presidential election. You got a toss-up Senate race, and you got a couple of congressional contests that are going to be very close. How is this, what happened this week, the Supreme Court decision, going to affect those races?” Barrett Marson: ….I think last week, we were a lean-Trump state. And I think this week, we’re a lean-Biden state. I think Kari Lake is on the wrong end of this issue. And, in fact, you know, I think a lot of Republicans who have quite frankly championed this kind of thing for what two generations are finding themselves, at least in Arizona, on the wrong side of how voters feel about this issue. Yang: Have the Democrats picked up on this? Are they pressing this? Marson: I mean, that is what they are doing. 24/7. And rightly so, I mean, look, right now, you know, again, a week ago, I would have said the border and immigration and the economy and inflation, were absolutely not only the top two issues, but they were very much Republican issues. And now, I think abortion is the number one and prevailing issue. It is the issue that will take the oxygen out of the room for any other issue…. Yang likened the Republican Party’s current status on the abortion issue to being “sort of like the dog that caught the car? They don`t know what to do with it now?” Marson again flashed pro-choice credentials: "[Arizona] will have an initiative on the ballot most likely, and that would allow abortion up to 24 weeks. And I think that will pass maybe now with 60-plus percent of the vote if, especially if it is a choice between zero abortions, and maybe something a little bit too far to the left but better something that’s legal than nothing." When asked about Florida’s upcoming ballot initiative to preserve the abortion option, Marson embraced the idea of young people voting for Democrats: Marson: Well Florida has been trending Republican, for sure. But again, this ballot initiative has the chance, both in Arizona and Florida, to bring out so many young people, so many first-time voters, and we don’t know whether they will stick around, you know, come out for the abortion initiative, but stick around for Joe Biden and Ruben Gallego and, you know, and Senate candidates and House candidates down the ballot. Certainly they’re going to come out for the abortion initiative, and it’ll be up to the Democratic candidates up and down the ballot to convince them to stick around and vote for them as well. Last month Marson appeared on the NewsHour also to suggest moderate voters like himself could vote for Biden, which makes him PBS’s ideal “Republican strategist.” This pro-abortion segment was brought to you in part by Certified Financial Planner. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsWeekend 4/13/24 7:05:51 p.m. (ET) JOHN YANG: The near total abortion ban that the Arizona Supreme Court revived this week dates back to when Arizona wasn`t a state yet, when slavery was legal, and when only white men had the vote, many Republican officeholders and candidate scrambled to distance themselves from the law. It underscores some of the political consequences of the U.S. Supreme Court`s decision to strike down the constitutional right to seek an abortion and leave it up to the states to decide whether to regulate it. Barrett Marson is a Republican strategist based in Arizona. And before we get going, Mr. Marson, something we should make clear to the viewers. You`re not working for any candidates on the ballot this fall. BARRETT MARSON, Republican strategist: No, I am not. And thanks a lot for having me on, John. JOHN YANG: Thanks. In Arizona, it`s a swing state in the presidential election. You got a toss-up Senate race, and you got a couple of congressional contests that are going to be very close. How is this what happened this week, the Supreme Court decision going to affect those races? BARRETT MARSON: Well, I think you said it all in that sentence there except for that was what was last week. This week now, I don`t know if the Senate race is a toss-up anymore. I don`t know. You know, I think last week, we were a lien Trumps state. And I think this week, we`re a lien Biden state. I think Kari Lake is on the wrong end of this issue. And, in fact, you know, I think a lot of Republicans who have quite frankly championed this kind of thing for what two generations are finding themselves, at least in Arizona, on the wrong side of how voters feel about this issue. JOHN YANG: Have the Democrats picked up on this? Are they pressing this? BARRETT MARSON: I mean, that is what they are doing. 24/7. And rightly so I mean, look, right now, you know, again, a week ago, I would have said the border and immigration and the economy and inflation, were absolutely not only the top two issues, but they were very much Republican issues. And now, I think abortion is the number one and prevailing issue. It is the issue that will take the oxygen out of the room for any other issue. So you will see abortion be front and center in every time Democrats open their mouths on the campaign stump, and Republicans right now just don`t have an answer for that. JOHN YANG: You mentioned Kari Lake, she`s running for Senate this time, two years ago, when she was running for governor, she called this a great law. And you`ve also mentioned other candidates and officeholders, who have been championing this law or this idea and now have to deal with it, how should they deal with it? How can they deal with it? BARRETT MARSON: Well, look, it`s been dogma in the Republican Party for, you know, again, two generations, three generations. So I think, frankly, just own it. You know, talk about why you are pro-life, talk about the benefits, talk about the need, maybe for more of a social safety net, but talk about the benefits of being pro-life, because there is no really running away. And they`re, you know, otherwise, just like Kari Lake, you look like a massive flip flopper. And you know, two years ago, she called this the model for other states. And now she`s talking about she`s pro-choice. So, you know, I think you should just a Republican candidate should just own this. They`ve been wanting to do this for a couple generations. They`ve done it, celebrate it and embrace it. JOHN YANG: To that point, you also mentioned this has been Republican dogma. They got it. They got what they wanted when they were when Roe was overturned. Is this sort of like the dog that caught the car? They don`t know what to do with it now? BARRETT MARSON: Well, it is certainly an Arizona where the electorate is at least willing to have some sort of legal abortion, whether it is we will have an initiative on the ballot most likely, and that would allow abortion up to 24 weeks. And I think that will pass maybe now with 60 plus percent of the vote if especially if it is a choice between zero abortions, and maybe something a little bit too far to the left but better something that`s legal than nothing. JOHN YANG: Florida, of course, finds itself in a similar situation their Supreme Court cleared the way for a six-week band to take effect at the beginning of May. They`ve got are likely to have a constitutional ballot initiative on their ballot as well. Is it going to have the same effect there? Or do you think it`s different? BARRETT MARSON: Well, you know, Florida is a, you know, has been trending Republican, for sure. But again, this ballot initiative has the chance, both in Arizona and Florida, to bring out so many young people, so many first time voters, and we don`t know whether they will stick around, you know, come out for the abortion initiative, but stick around for Joe Biden and Ruben Gallego and, you know, and Senate candidates and House candidates down the ballot. Certainly they`re going to come out for the abortion initiative, and it`ll be up to the Democratic candidates up and down the ballot to convince them to stick around and vote for them as well. JOHN YANG: Republican strategist Barrett Marson, thank you very much. BARRETT MARSON: Thank you.

PBS Copies Kamala: ‘Second Term for Donald Trump Means More Bans, More Suffering’

After the surprise ruling by the Arizona Supreme Court to approve a Civil War-era law banning abortions except to save the life of the mother, the Friday edition of Amanpour & Co. (airing on PBS after first running on CNN International) hosted a predictably pro-choice liberal law professor as a guest. But the real liberal outrage spewed from guest host Bianna Golodryga, who let her own personal thoughts overwhelm any attempt at a balanced take, over the taxpayer-funded airwaves: "Arizona has become Ground Zero for America's battle on reproductive rights," she said. "The U.S. Vice President, Kamala Harris, is in the state today, arriving hot on the heels of a decision by the Supreme Court there to hold up a Civil War era law banning nearly all abortions. A law Republican legislators then fought to protect. She is also going to send a clear message that a second term for Donald Trump means more bans, more suffering."     After blaming Trump for the ruling “by installing several conservative justices on the federal Supreme Court bench during his term” Golodryga introduced her guest, law professor Mary Ziegler, and emotionally commiserated with her: As an expert on the history of the law, I would imagine you yourself were equally shocked to hear the ruling announced this week in Arizona. I mean, just the draconian measures that it takes, bringing us back to literally a judge who wrote it, having been appointed by President Abraham Lincoln at the time. After citing Trump’s own criticism of the Arizona decision, she noted: “it really puts Republicans in a bind in a sense all of these years with their attempts to overturn Roe finally happening. It's as if the dog finally caught the car and the consequences are quite significant.” But the host dismissed America’s federalist system of state law when she said that Trump’s rational view that abortion restrictions “should be done piecemeal up to the states is creating a lot of havoc. And obviously, at the end of the day it's women and their families and their doctors who are paying the ultimate price.” She wasn’t finished, continuing her pro-choice monologue in the guise of an interview: We know, obviously, that there are real-life consequences and impacts from these laws, primarily women and families who don't have the resources to travel to another state. The fact that they even have to speaks volumes. But let's just give one example. There's Katie Cox. She sued in Texas for the right to obtain an abortion after she learned that her fetus had a rare genetic disorder. She eventually had to leave the state for care. Listen to what she told NBC News about the impact of that. Cox was also President Biden’s guest at this year’s State of the Union address, a political aspect Golodryga skipped.  The host prodded Ziegler to respond: Can you talk about the emotional trauma and toll that this is having on women, on families? And it's very simple to just say this is people who are looking for an abortion, full stop. I mean, a lot of these women have suffered unimaginably. They may want to continue to have children in the future and now can't because of the risks that they take by leaving, by seeking care elsewhere, just give us some of that. Ziegler is author of the 2022 book Dollars for Life: The Anti-Abortion Movement and the Fall of the Republican Establishment, described by publisher Yale University Press as “A new understanding of the slow drift to extremes in American politics that shows how the antiabortion movement remade the Republican Party.” But on this segment at least, Ziegler's understated advocacy came off less liberal than the “journalist” interviewing her. A transcript is available, click "Expand." Amanpour & Co. 4/13/24 1:32:32 a.m. (ET) Bianna Golodryga: Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour. Arizona has become ground zero for America's battle on reproductive rights. The U.S. vice president, Kamala Harris, is in the state today, arriving hot on the heels of a decision by the Supreme Court there to hold up a civil war era law banning nearly all abortions. A law Republican legislators then fought to protect. She is also going to send a clear message that a second term for Donald Trump means more bans, more suffering. A line we can probably expect to hear more of as an election season heats up. For his own part, the former president said that the Arizona ruling goes too far. But that's a stark contrast to Trump's previous campaign for the presidency, where he repeatedly promised to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision, which made abortion legal across the country. Something he made good on by installing several conservative justices on the federal Supreme Court bench during his term. So, what happens now, and how will this development impact women in Arizona and across America? Joining me now on this is law professor and author Mary Ziegler. She's an expert on the history and politics of abortion. Mary, you're the perfect person to have on for this discussion. As an expert on the history of the law, I would imagine you yourself were equally shocked to hear the ruling announced this week in Arizona. I mean, just the draconian measures that it takes, bringing us back to literally a judge who wrote it, having been appointed by President Abraham Lincoln at the time. Just first, your professional reaction to that news. MARY ZIEGLER, PROFESSOR, U.C. DAVIS SCHOOL OF LAW AND AUTHOR, "ABORTION AND THE LAW IN AMERICA": I think it both was and wasn't surprising. I mean, I think once Roe v. Wade was overturned, we knew that a lot of these zombie laws were on the books, and it was just a matter of time before a state Supreme Court let one of them go into effect. So, I think it's both hard to believe that Arizona, which is obviously a divided kind of purple swing state, is being governed by a law from before the Civil War, that, you know, by its terms, for example, says you cannot perform an abortion if a woman is going to suffer permanent impairment of a major bodily function or infertility, by its terms you're not allowed to intervene in those cases. That is shocking to me as a person, but as someone who studies this it seemed kind of inevitable after it was overturned. GOLODRYGA: Yes, the only exceptions are the life of the mother, rape and incest are not included here and the decision the thought behind this decision by this very conservative Supreme Court is that with Roe no longer the law of the land that the statute is now enforceable, the statute, from the 1800s. What do you make -- I mean, is that too cute by half, given the concern -- despite the conservative nature of this court, for a State Supreme Court to come to that conclusion? ZIEGLER: Well, and the argument in the case legally was actually pretty narrow. Planned Parenthood was arguing essentially that the state legislature, which had passed a 15-week ban, wanted 15 weeks to be the policy and that they had sort of intended to override this 1864 law, and the State Supreme Court didn't buy that argument. There could be other arguments you could make. For example, we've seen litigators across the United States arguing that an abortion ban like this would violate a state guarantee of equality or privacy or a right to life, and we may see additional challenges to the law in the Arizona Supreme Court. But I think that the problem for us, as far as the Arizona Supreme Court is concerned, is that these are justices who are subject to re-election. These are unlike the U.S. Supreme Court justices who have lifetime appointments. And if one of these justices were to lose their attention election, they would be replaced by from a list of nominees by the governor who in the case of Arizona is a Democrat. So, whatever the legal rationale for this ruling, the justices who joined the majority, I think, put themselves in the political crosshairs come November. GOLODRYGA: Yes, and the court put this ruling on hold and then sent it down to the lower court for additional arguments on the law's constitutionality. So, this case has not ended as of yet. That having been said, I mean, it came 24 hours after the former president finally issued his policy and took a stance on his views on abortion by saying that it's up to the states and that that should be the end of the discussion. Here's what he said. DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (R) AND CURRENT U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (R): Again, fighting Roe v. Wade was right from the beginning all about bringing the issue back to the states pursuant to the 10th Amendment and states' rights. It wasn't about anything else. That's what it was. We brought it back to the states and now lots of things are happening and lots of good things are happening. GOLODRYGA: So, then, after this decision in Arizona, he went out and said that it was too far. Kari Lake who had supported this law beforehand then once it actually was handed down said that she didn't support it. I mean, this really puts Republicans in a bind in a sense all of these years with their attempts to overturn Roe finally happening. It's as if the dog finally caught the car and the consequences are quite significant. And the fact that, in his view, it should be done piecemeal up to the states is creating a lot of havoc. And obviously, at the end of the day it's women and their families and their doctors who are paying the ultimate price. ZIEGLER: Yes, I mean, I think one of the things Former President Trump has done, too, is he's had former Trump campaign officials making promises, essentially, that Trump is going to revive another zombie law called the Comstock Act from 1873, just a little after this Arizona law, and use it as a nationwide ban on abortion. When you ask the Trump campaign about whether they're going to do that, the Trump campaign doesn't answer the question, and says that president -- Former President Trump is a supporter of states' rights. So, we're kind of in a scenario where patients and doctors don't know how these laws are going to be interpreted. And we don't know what Former President Trump would do if he's given a second term, because his former officials are saying he actually has this backdoor ban that doesn't require Congress. His campaign isn't weighing in one way or another. So, we're kind of all in the dark about what a second Trump administration would mean, whether it would mean more of the status quo, which has been kind of this state-by-state chaos, or if it would mean some kind of effort to have a nationwide zombie law like Arizona's imposed on states with protections for abortion rights and states that don't have protection for abortion rights. Because, you know, the Trump campaign just isn't explaining which of those positions is right, right, won't answer these questions directly. GOLODRYGA: There are some Republicans like Lindsey Graham that say that the president -- the former president is just wrong on this, there should be a federal law with a 15-week ban. From your perspective, just the likelihood that you think something like that could actually happen. ZIEGLER: Well, I think the likelihood of Congress passing anything like a 15-week ban is pretty much zero, which is why in part I don't think it made sense politically from Trump's standpoint to endorse a ban that's never going to pass.I think that's why you've seen the sort of smarter conservatives like the groups in the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025 saying the only way we're going to get a nationwide ban is through a law that's already on the books that we're reinterpreting or reinventing as a ban. The odds of congressional action I think are very low. GOLODRYGA: And what about Alabama? Because we see the tentacles of this extending far beyond just abortion, it's even into IVF and areas where now an embryo is viewed as a live person. And we saw the chaos that ensued following that. Republicans and Democrats have really benefited over the years from IVF. There was an attempt perhaps to codify that in Congress. That didn't happen. I mean, that's just one example. Do you expect more in other states, if not IVF, than other unintended consequences from the overturning of Roe? ZIEGLER: Yes, absolutely. So, the U.S. anti-abortion movement was not focused on taking down Roe. It was focused in a bigger picture way on the recognition of the idea that embryos and fetuses are persons with constitutional rights. And that was kind of the thrust of the Alabama ruling. It was a little narrower, it was that embryos had rights just under the context of wrongful death. But the court's reasoning was much broader and suggested that embryos and fetuses just had rights across the board full stop. If that's right, that raises lots of other questions, not just about IVF. So, for example, if many conservatives believe that common contraceptives like the birth control pill or the morning after pill are abortifacients, that would violate fetal rights. If fetuses and embryos have rights, we've seen some in the anti-abortion movement asking why they can't punish women and other abortion seekers, because of course, women and other abortion seekers are punished for other homicide offenses. There are a lot of other possibilities here because if an embryo or a fetus is a person, they're a person for all purposes, like all contexts, all the time, not just the context of abortion. So, I think we'll have to stay tuned, but this is sort of a Pandora's box in many ways. GOLODRYGA: A Pandora box has created a patchwork of different scenarios and laws in various states. If we can put up a graphic of the United States just in terms of what we've seen following the overturning of Roe, you have 21 states that ban abortion or restrict the procedure earlier in pregnancies now than the standard that had been set and had the law of land by Roe, 14 states have full bans in almost all circumstances, two have bans after six weeks. We know on Monday, Florida's Supreme Court allowed a six-week ban to go soon into effect, but voters will get to weigh in on that issue in the fall, and there is hope that the same will be the case in Arizona. With abortion on the ballot now, do you see this as a potential game changer and solution? ZIEGLER: Potentially, right? So, ballot initiatives have been significant so far, all of them that have on ballot since Dobbs have passed. We've seen several in places like Michigan and Ohio create pretty broad reproductive rights that trumped some laws on the books. Michigan too had an older law that was undone potentially by this ballot initiative. The reason it isn't a perfect fix necessarily is, one, not every state has a mechanism for voters to initiate this kind of measure. And two, conservatives are already aware of this and are trying to find backdoor ways to get a federal ban that would override any state protections, which is where this Comstock Act idea comes in. Essentially, Jonathan Mitchell, who represented Former President Trump in his disqualification case before the Supreme Court, said to "The New York Times," you know, we don't need a ban because we have the Comstock Act. The Comstock Act can be interpreted as a ban, that overrides whatever protection voters put in place in their own states. So, I think the ballot initiatives are incredibly important, definitely a possible game changer, but not without potential pitfalls. GOLODRYGA: We know, obviously, that there are real-life consequences and impacts from these laws, primarily women and families who don't have the resources to travel to another state. The fact that they even have to speaks volumes. But let's just give one example. There's Kate Cox. She sued in Texas for the right to obtain an abortion after she learned that her fetus had a rare genetic disorder. She eventually had to leave the state for care. Listen to what she told NBC News about the impact of that. KATE COX, SUED TEXAS FOR THE RIGHT TO AN ABORTION: There's still -- we're going through the loss of a child. There is no outcome here that I take home my healthy baby girl, you know. So, it's hard, you know. GOLODRYGA: Can you talk about the emotional trauma and toll that this is having on women, on families? And it's very simple to just say this is people who are looking for an abortion full stop. I mean, a lot of these women have suffered unimaginably. They may want to continue to have children in the future and now can't because of the risks that they take by leaving, by seeking care elsewhere. Just give us some of that. ZIEGLER: Yes. I mean, I think one of things we've seen is that when you have an abortion ban in place, the meaning of abortion isn't clear. States are not using medical definitions. And in part, what that means is that people with wanted pregnancies who are experiencing pregnancy complications or stillbirth or miscarriage are finding themselves unable to get treatment too because physicians don't want to lose their medical licenses, they don't want to go to prison for anywhere between, you know, five years up to life in prison in states like Texas where Kate Cox was located. And the upshot of that is people are being turned away and experiencing complications that, you know, affect their health, their future fertility in their lives. The other upshot is that physicians don't want to deal with these scenarios, right? They don t want to be faced with patients like Kate Cox, where they're being forced to choose between their liberty or their medical license on the one hand and denying needed care on other. So, we began to see a flight of physicians, especially obstetricians and gynecologists from states with these kinds of prohibitions, particularly in rural areas that were already underserved. And that too has these knock-on effects for people seeking obstetric and gynecological care because they're having a harder time finding a position to treat them at all, even when they're not experiencing these pregnancy complications. So, one of the things we've seen is that these bans affect people who are seeking abortions, to be sure, but also people who aren't, right? People who may be experiencing anything else related to pregnancy. GOLODRYGA: Mary Ziegler, we appreciate the time and your expertise. Thank you. ZIEGLER: Thanks for having me.  

PBS Objectivity? AZ Abortion Ban Cuts off ‘Critical Release Valve,’ No More ‘Fleeing’

The PBS NewsHour led its Tuesday evening newscast with the week’s big issue: abortion, an issue of such apparent import (and perceived advantage to the Democratic Party in November) that both anchors took a biased crack at it before the segment itself. Co-anchor Geoff Bennett: Arizona will soon be the latest state with a near-total abortion ban after the state's Supreme Court revived a 160-year-old law. The law provides no exceptions for rape or incest. And, in its 4-2 opinion, the conservative majority wrote -- quote -- "Physicians are now on notice that all abortions, except those necessary to save a woman's life, are illegal." Co-anchor Amna Nawaz: Doctors who perform abortions could face criminal prosecution and prison time, though the Democratic attorney general says she will not prosecute. It's the latest test of the limits on abortion since the Supreme Court ended federal abortion protections from the decades-old Roe v. Wade decision…. After a soundbite from Arizona’s Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs saying the “abortion ban is extreme and hurts women,” Bennett introduced journalist Carter Sherman, who writes from the United States for the left-wing UK paper The Guardian about (ahem) “reproductive health.” The outlet in question -- and that euphemism for abortion -- were two hints that what’s about to unfold won't hew to PBS’s congressional mandate for "strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature.” Bennett: What's the expected impact on women's health care in Arizona and in the surrounding region? Sherman: Arizona has been a critical release valve for places like Texas, which have a total abortion ban on the books right now. So, if we ban abortion totally, or almost totally, in Arizona, there's going to be plenty of people throughout the Southwest who previously might have fled to Arizona for abortions who will now have to travel even farther out. Abortion rights supporters also say that this could have massive impacts on things like maternal mortality. So there's going to be really wide-ranging effects, really across the region in a variety of health areas. They pivoted to the political repercussions. The takeaway: Good for Democrats. Carter Sherman: I think that this decision today is going to make Arizona one of the biggest battlefields, particularly in abortion, but also in the presidential race, also in the Senate race, in the 2024 elections. What we're looking at here is a potentially very galvanized population outraged by the overturning of Roe, outraged by a near-total abortion ban, and those people might decide to go to the polls en masse and vote not just for abortion rights, but also for Democrats…. Sherman, who previously wrote for the former left-wing outlet Vice, appeared on the NewsHour last month to disdain pro-life “crisis pregnancy centers” where women sometimes walked out of with their fetuses intact. This pro-abortion segment was brought to you in part by American Cruise Lines. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour April 9, 2024 7:03:19 p.m. (ET) Geoff Bennett: Arizona will soon be the latest state with a near-total abortion ban after the state's Supreme Court revived a 160-year-old law. The law provides no exceptions for rape or incest. And, in its 4-2 opinion, the conservative majority wrote — quote — "Physicians are now on notice that all abortions, except those necessary to save a woman's life, are illegal." Amna Nawaz: Doctors who perform abortions could face criminal prosecution and prison time, though the Democratic attorney general says she will not prosecute. It's the latest test of the limits on abortion since the Supreme Court ended federal abortion protections from the decades-old Roe v. Wade decision. And in this election year, there is already an effort under way to get a pro-abortion rights amendment on Arizona's ballot in November. Arizona's Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs responded to today's court decision. Gov. Katie Hobbs (D-AZ): Arizona's 2022 abortion ban is extreme and hurts women. And the near-total Civil War era ban that continues to hang over our heads only serves to create more chaos for women and doctors in our state. As governor, I promise I will do everything in my power to protect our reproductive freedoms. Geoff Bennett: Carter Sherman covers reproductive health for The Guardian and joins me now. Thanks so much for being with us. Carter Sherman, The Guardian: Thank you for having me. Geoff Bennett: So, the Arizona State Supreme Court lifted a stay on this 1864 law that was passed before Arizona was a state. Help us understand how they arrived at this decision. Carter Sherman: So this ban has been the source of court battles and chaos since the overturning of Roe almost two years ago. What happened is, after a very long period of litigation, the Supreme Court of Arizona decided today that, since there is no more Roe v. Wade, there is no reason why this 1864 ban should not go into effect. Now, what's unclear at this point is when exactly that ban will fully take effect and be enforceable, in the words of the court. Abortion providers and their supporters are at this time really trying to figure out what this decision means for all the people on the ground in Arizona. Geoff Bennett: How is it that the Civil War era law supersedes the previous law that the legislature passed and the previous governor signed in 2022 that made abortion accessible up to 15 weeks? Carter Sherman: When the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion nationwide in Roe v. Wade in 1973, that meant that there were several laws across the country that dated back decades that were no longer going to be in effect. And many of these laws were never really, truly dealt with. They just went dormant. And so, when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe in 2022, suddenly, all of these states, including Arizona, had to deal with these so-called zombie laws that they had not ever really fully reckoned with. Arizona had also in 2022 passed a separate 15-week abortion ban. But what happened was that 15-week abortion ban and this near-total abortion ban from 1864 just sort of coexisted, and they weren't really harmonized in any kind of way. In this case, in particular, Planned Parenthood has argued that these laws needed to be harmonized, and that's why that the 15-week ban should be allowed to stand over the 1864 ban. That's not the argument that the Arizona Supreme Court accepted today. Geoff Bennett: Well, in the meantime, Arizona's attorney general, Kris Mayes, says she will not prosecute any doctor who performs abortion procedures. Mayes says that this is a collective effort with the state's governor. How is that being received by county prosecutors, who could potentially use their own discretion? Carter Sherman: I think that there are many, many questions about what it really means for an official like Mayes to say that she will try to hold off on any kind of prosecutions of abortion providers. The providers that I have talked to and I have heard from don't necessarily feel like they are totally in the clear at this point, and they are confused about what it means moving forward if they were to provide abortions. Geoff Bennett: What's the expected impact on women's health care in Arizona and in the surrounding region? Carter Sherman: Arizona has been a critical release valve for places like Texas, which have a total abortion ban on the books right now. So, if we ban abortion totally, or almost totally, in Arizona, there's going to be plenty of people throughout the Southwest who previously might have fled to Arizona for abortions who will now have to travel even farther out. Abortion rights supporters also say that this could have massive impacts on things like maternal mortality. So there's going to be really wide-ranging effects really across the region in a variety of health areas. Geoff Bennett: And there's also the political impact. Arizona, as you well know, is among a handful of key battleground states. An effort is already under way right now to put a measure on the 2024 ballot that would enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution. How might this affect not just the presidential election, but that key Senate race, that hotly contested Senate race in Arizona? Carter Sherman: I think that this decision today is going to make Arizona one of the biggest battlefields, particularly in abortion, but also in the presidential race, also in the Senate race, in the 2024 elections. What we're looking at here is a potentially very galvanized population outraged by the overturning of Roe, outraged by a near-total abortion ban, and those people might decide to go to the polls en masse and vote not just for abortion rights, but also for Democrats. There's actually been, since the decision came out today, many Republicans in the state saying: This was a bad idea. I don't support this decision. And some of them had said that they will work to try to figure out a way back to this 15-week abortion limit and not a near-total abortion ban. I have covered this issue for many years. I have covered it long before Roe was overturned. And I have never really seen this sort of immediate 180 from Republicans in this way on this issue. Geoff Bennett: That is Carter Sherman with The Guardian. Thanks so much for sharing your reporting and your insights with us. Carter Sherman: Thank you for having me.

PBS Panel Sees Peril for GOP on Abortion, Touts 'Powerful' Biden Ad on 'Trump Did This'

Abortion is back in the news with a vengeance, after the Arizona Supreme Court reinstated a Civil War era ban on abortion and candidate Donald Trump reacted with a moderate, federalist stance on abortion, disappointing some in the pro-life movement and making him an unfair figure of mockery in the mainstream press. Friday’s episode of public television’s weekly roundtable panel Washington Week with The Atlantic was dominated by abortion politics as a lifesaver for the Democrats (if not for the victims of abortion). Guest moderator Franklin Foer of The Atlantic set the table: FRANKLIN FOER: Arizona’s Supreme Court reinstates a 160-year-old abortion ban, and as a spate of states rush to restrict reproductive rights, Republicans, including Donald Trump, scramble to insulate themselves from a potential political backlash….the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled in favor of reviving a Civil War-era law that prohibits nearly all abortions. Republicans are running to distance themselves from the surprise decision while Democrats seize the opportunity to make gains in the battleground state. The ruling came just a day after former President Trump said he opposes a national abortion ban following months of mixed signals. How will Republican candidates navigate the post-Roe landscape now confronting them? As usual, the journalists were unanimously liberal. National Public Radio political editor Domenico Montanaro touted Republicans had lost "special election after special election" on abortion and lamented “the chaos that has ensued with women not having access to reproductive rights in -- millions of women across the South in particular, this chaotic sort of patchwork of abortion laws across the country, that’s made it really, really difficult.”   PBS NewsHour political reporter Lisa Desjardins said Trump showed he wasn't worried about his base, "he's not worried about all of those hard-right evangelicals." Susan Glasser of The New Yorker said Trump can't deny he was responsible for all this, "he has taken credit so many times for dismantling Roe." GLASSER: What I found interesting is immediately have the Biden campaign in the immediate aftermath of Trump's video, they put out a new advertisement I found particularly powerful of a Texas couple that wanted to have a baby. The woman experienced a miscarriage and she was denied necessary medical care in Texas, sent home, developed an infection, got sepsis, nearly died and she probably can't have a kid now. It is intimate and powerful and there's nothing about politics until the end, and the tagline is just "Trump did this." I think those words will haunt him. She took a maximalist ideological stance, expressed via obscurantist pro-choice labeling, telling tax-paying viewers that abortion was a “human right,” and thus all talk of states’ rights was irrelevant. (At least there was no dithering about whether men could get pregnant.) Glasser: If this is a human right for women, to have access to health care, to have access to their reproductive rights, your rights shouldn’t depend on what state you live in. If it’s a right, it’s a right, and it shouldn't matter that in Texas you have no access to something that you have in California. She played Democratic political strategist and moral arbiter and assumed the audience was on her side, even if she admitted that it was rather “ghoulish” to cheer for Democrats while supposedly extremist abortion policies were becoming law in various states. Glasser: ….I saw the Biden campaign estimates that already one in three women in America has lost access to reproductive health care as a result of the Supreme Court`s decision. And so there’s this almost ghoulish phenomenon, right? Like we’re like, well, it's a great issue for the Democrats or, you know, that it’s really good news. But, of course, in a real sense, these laws are actually going into effect….So, it’s a weird situation where we’re talking about the political advantage that might come to abortion rights supporters at a time when millions of women are actually losing their rights. This pro-abortion segment was brought to you in part by Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards.