It turns out that one reason Ukraine has killed a dozen Russian generals already while trying to repel Russia’s invasion is that the United States is providing it with real-time targeting intel to do just that, U.S. officials told The New York Times. “The United States has focused on providing the location and other details about the Russian military’s mobile headquarters, which relocate frequently,” the paper reported. The officials wouldn’t say how many generals they helped Ukraine target, doing so in secret to this point “out of fear it will be seen as an escalation and provoke President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia into a wider war,” according to the Times, but they did say that they were not involved in the killing of Gen. Valery Gerasimov, Russia’s highest-ranking uniformed officer, telling the paper that “The United States prohibits itself from providing intelligence about the most senior Russian leaders.” One drone that the U.S. is now providing, the story notes, “can be used to identify and kill individual soldiers, and could take out a general sitting in a vehicle or giving orders on a front line.” The officials quoted in the story all spoke anonymously, while a Pentagon spokesman said that “we will not speak to the details of that information” while acknowledging that the U.S. is presenting “Ukraine with information and intelligence that they can use to defend themselves.”

Source Article from https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-targeting-intelligence-is-helping-ukraine-find-russian-generals-to-kill-officials-say

House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy discussed the 25th Amendment on a call with GOP leadership days after the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and said the process “takes too long,” according to an audio recording obtained by two New York Times reporters and shared with CNN.

McCarthy also said during the call that he wanted to reach out to then-President-elect Joe Biden as he expressed hope for a “smooth transition,” and said he thought impeachment would further divide the nation.

The call took place on January 8, 2021, and the audio was obtained for the new book “This Will Not Pass: Trump, Biden, and the Battle for America’s Future,” by Jonathan Martin and Alex Burns.

At one point in the recording, McCarthy asks an aide for a readout of what House Democrats had been discussing internally. The aide responds, “I think the options that have been cited by the Democrats so far are the 25th Amendment, which is not exactly an elegant solution here.”

McCarthy interjects to say, “That takes too long too. It could go back to the House, right?”

The aide responds, “Correct. If the President were to submit a letter overruling the Cabinet and the vice president, two-thirds vote in the House and the Senate to overrule the President. So it’s kind of an armful.”

That same day, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent out a “Dear Colleague” letter to House Democrats raising the 25th Amendment as an option. The House ended up voting days later on a resolution calling on the vice president to activate the 25th Amendment, with only one Republican, Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, joining all Democrats to support the measure.

CNN has reached out to McCarthy’s office to request comment on the new audio.

At the beginning of the audio, McCarthy can be heard saying, “What the President did is atrocious and totally wrong,” comments that have been previously reported on by The New York Times.

In the aftermath of the deadly attack on the Capitol, a number of Democrats, including members of leadership, publicly called for then-President Donald Trump to be removed from office either through impeachment or the 25th Amendment to the Constitution.

Invoking the 25th Amendment would have required then-Vice President Mike Pence and a majority of the Cabinet to vote to remove Trump from office due to his inability to “discharge the powers and duties of his office” – an unprecedented step.

The new audio release of McCarthy is the latest in a series of such releases featuring the House GOP leader that have shed light on what he said privately to other House Republicans in the aftermath of the January 6 attack. And the fact McCarthy was pressing one of his aides for details about how the 25th Amendment process would work shows there was a serious conversation at the highest levels of GOP leadership about the idea – not just idle chatter – even if it was ultimately deemed not a viable option.

Last month, audio showed that McCarthy did consider asking Trump to resign in the days after the riot, contradicting his office’s earlier denials of New York Times reporting that he had done so.

Audio also showed that in the days following the insurrection, McCarthy told Republican lawmakers on a private conference call that Trump had admitted bearing some responsibility for the deadly attack.

McCarthy has moved to tamp down the potential fallout from the audio releases both in public and in private, and he commented on speaking about the 25th Amendment. McCarthy, who initially vehemently denied the Times’ reporting before the audiotapes of those conversations were released, has argued that he was merely floating potential scenarios about Trump’s future and was not advocating for one option over the other.

“I have never asked the President to resign. I never thought he should resign,” McCarthy said in April when pressed on whether he had believed at any point that Trump should resign. “What I was asked on a phone call was about the process, the 25th Amendment, whether someone was impeached. We walked through ifs, ands and buts. It was never in the process to ask Trump to resign.”

Trump, for his part, said after the initial audiotapes were released that while he didn’t like what he had heard McCarthy saying, their relationship remains strong – in part because McCarthy worked so hard after January 6 to win his support.

In the new audio, McCarthy can also be heard discussing wanting to reach out to Biden.

“I do think the impeachment divides the nation further and continues the fight even greater. That’s why I want to reach out to Biden. I wanted the President to meet with Biden; that’s not going to happen,” McCarthy said, adding, “I want to see about us meeting with Biden, sitting down, make a smooth transition to show that, and continue to keep those statements going.”

McCarthy, who said he used to have breakfast with Biden when he was the vice president, also talked about what would be best for Biden, arguing that a smooth transition would “be beneficial to his presidency, too” and that Biden would be in a “stronger” position if he implores the country to move forward.

McCarthy can also be heard saying on the tape, “I’m trying to do it not from a basis of Republicans, of a basis of, hey, it’s not healthy for the nation. That’s a conversation I want to have with Biden himself.”

This story has been updated with additional developments Wednesday and further details.

CNN’s Lauren Fox contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/04/politics/mccarthy-audio-25th-amendment-biden/index.html

But in marathon meetings and phone calls among White House officials, government lawyers, outside advisers and federal agency officials, a sobering reality settled in: There’s little the White House can do that will fundamentally alter a post-Roe landscape. While officials have spent months planning for the possibility the court would overturn the landmark ruling, the leaked document caught the White House off guard. Officials are discussing whether funding, whether through Medicaid or another mechanism, could be made available to women to travel to other states for an abortion, according to outside advisers who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions, but many doubt whether that is feasible.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/04/white-house-abortion-executive-actions/

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/05/04/ukraine-russia-invasion-live-updates/9639711002/

With Roe v Wade on the brink of defeat, following the leak of a supreme court opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito and signed by four other conservative judges, the court’s views – and track record – on abortion are under extreme scrutiny. Here’s what the nine justices have actually said over the years about it.

‘It’s precedent’: how supreme court justices spoke about Roe v Wade in the past – video

Chief Justice John Roberts

Roberts voted for abortion restrictions in two major cases: in 2007, to uphold a ban on what opponents call “partial-birth abortion”, and in dissent in 2016, when the court struck down Texas restrictions on abortion clinics.

But when a virtually identical law from Louisiana came before the court in 2020, Roberts voted against it – and wrote the opinion striking it down, insisting the 2016 case “was wrongly decided” but that the question nevertheless was “whether to adhere to it” in deciding the 2020 case.

Roberts’ views on when to break with court precedent could determine how far he is willing to go in the Mississippi case. At his 2005 confirmation hearing, he said overturning precedent “is a jolt to the legal system”, which depends in part on stability and evenhandedness.

Merely thinking that an earlier case was wrongly decided is not enough to overturn it, he said – it requires looking “at these other factors, like settled expectations, like the legitimacy of the court, like whether a particular precedent is workable or not, whether a precedent has been eroded by subsequent developments”.

Clarence Thomas

Thomas has repeatedly called for Roe to be overturned, and voted to do so in 1992 when he was a dissenter in Planned Parenthood v Casey.

In 2000, he wrote of Roe: “Abortion is a unique act, in which a woman’s exercise of control over her own body ends, depending on one’s view, human life or potential human life.

“Nothing in our federal constitution deprives the people of this country of the right to determine whether the consequences of abortion to the fetus and to society outweigh the burden of an unwanted pregnancy on the mother. Although a state may permit abortion, nothing in the constitution dictates that a state must do so.”

Stephen Breyer

Breyer, who announced his retriement earlier this year and will be replaced by Ketanji Brown Jackson (whose own record “offers few clues” as to how she’ll lean on abortion cases), led the two supreme court majorities in defense of abortion rights, in 2000 and 2016, though he has acknowledged the controversy over abortion.

Millions of Americans believe “that an abortion is akin to causing the death of an innocent child”, he has said, while millions of others “fear that a law that forbids abortion would condemn many American women to lives that lack dignity”.

Still, Breyer wrote, because the constitution guarantees “fundamental individual liberty”, and because it has to govern even when there are strong divisions in the country, “this court, in the course of a generation, has determined and then redetermined that the constitution offers basic protection to the woman’s right to choose.”

Samuel Alito

Alito, who wrote the majority opinion in the leaked draft, has a long track record of opposing abortion rights. He voted to uphold every abortion law the supreme court has considered since his 2006 confirmation.

Before, as a federal appeals court judge, he voted to uphold a series of Pennsylvania abortion restrictions, including requiring a woman to notify her spouse before obtaining an abortion. The supreme court ultimately struck down that notification rule in Casey and reaffirmed the abortion right in 1992 by a 5-4 vote.

In 1985, while working for the Reagan administration, Alito wrote that the government should say publicly in a pending abortion case “that we disagree with Roe v Wade”. He also noted he was “particularly proud” of his work arguing “that the constitution does not protect a right to an abortion”.

Sonia Sotomayor

Sotomayor joined the court in 2009 with virtually no record on abortion issues, but has voted repeatedly in favor of abortion rights since then.

Recently, when the court allowed Texas’s restrictive abortion law to take effect, Sotomayor accused her colleagues of burying “their heads in the sand”.

Her displeasure with the court’s recent Texas ruling was evident at a virtual appearance she made. “I can’t change Texas’s law, but you can,” she said.

Elena Kagan

Kagan also has repeatedly voted in favor of abortion rights in more than 11 years as a justice. She is also arguably the most consistent voice on the court arguing for the importance of adhering to precedents. She called Texas’s new abortion law “patently unconstitutional” and a “clear, and indeed undisputed, conflict with Roe and Casey”.

Kagan had already grappled with the issue of abortion before becoming a justice. While working in the Clinton White House she was the co-author of a memo that urged the president for political reasons to support a late-term abortion ban proposed by Republicans in Congress, so long as it contained an exception for the health of the woman.

Ultimately, George W Bush signed a similar late-term abortion ban without a health exception. The supreme court upheld it.

Neil Gorsuch

Gorsuch has perhaps the shortest record on abortion among the nine justices. He was in the majority allowing Texas’s restrictive abortion law to take effect. In dissent in 2020, he would have upheld Louisiana’s abortion clinic restrictions.

But Gorsuch insisted at his Senate confirmation hearing that he was concerned about procedural issues, not the subject matter. “I do not care if the case is about abortion or widgets or anything else,” he said.

Brett Kavanaugh

Trump named Kavanaugh to the supreme court shortly after he sided with the administration in a 2017 case involving abortion.

He later dissented from the Louisiana decision, and voted to allow the new Texas law to take effect, though he has taken a less absolutist stance than some of his conservative colleagues.

In the Louisiana case, for example, Kavanaugh wrote that more information was needed about how the state’s restrictions on clinics would affect doctors who provide abortions; and although he voted to allow the Texas law to go into effect, during oral arguments he appeared to have doubts about its novel structure and whether it would lead to a spate of copycat laws, both on abortion and other rights protected by the constitution.

Amy Coney Barrett

Barrett has a long record of personal opposition to abortion rights, co-authoring a 1998 law review article that said abortion is “always immoral”.

Her one public vote on the supreme court concerning abortion was to allow the Texas “fetal heartbeat” law to take effect, though she joined Kavanaugh in raising skeptical questions about its structure.

She also cast two votes as an appeals court judge to reconsider rulings that blocked Indiana abortion restrictions.

In 2016, before Trump’s election victory, she spoke about how she thought abortion law might change if Trump had the chance to appoint justices.

“Roe’s core holding that, you know, women have a right to an abortion – I don’t think that would change,” said Barrett, then a Notre Dame law professor. She said limits on what she called “very late-term abortions” and restrictions on abortion clinics would be more likely to be upheld.

Source Article from https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/may/04/how-supreme-court-justices-voted-abortion-alito-roberts-thomas-kavanaugh

A gas pump is seen at a Shell gas station in Houston on April 1.

Brandon Bell/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Brandon Bell/Getty Images

A gas pump is seen at a Shell gas station in Houston on April 1.

Brandon Bell/Getty Images

It’s going to get even more volatile in energy markets – and hence for gasoline prices.

Crude prices jumped on Wednesday after the European Union proposed a ban on oil imports from Russia as part of a new round of sanctions targeting the country after its invasion of Ukraine.

The details are still being hammered out, and the proposal needs to be unanimously agreed upon by the 27 members of the bloc before going into effect.

Brent crude, the global benchmark for oil, jumped more than 4% on the news and was trading at around $110 a barrel.

Here’s what the proposed EU ban could mean for global oil markets and gasoline prices in the U.S.

How much impact will there be on oil markets?

Crude prices will likely go even higher still after already surging following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Europe is hugely dependent on Russian oil imports. It gets about a quarter of its oil from Russia, by far the biggest single source of oil imports into the continent.

Though Russia could find other buyers like India for the crude, it’s unlikely that Russia will be able to sell the entire allotment that would usually go to Europe.

Heavy sanctions have made some traditional buyers reluctant to deal with Russia. And as part of its latest proposal, the EU is also seeking to ban European ships from transporting Russian oil.

Ultimately it’s expected that an EU ban on Russian oil imports will result in a loss of 2 million barrels a day from Russia.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen making a statement in Brussels on April 27 following the decision by Russian energy giant Gazprom to halt gas shipments to Poland and Bulgaria.

Kenzo Tribouillard/POOL/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Kenzo Tribouillard/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen making a statement in Brussels on April 27 following the decision by Russian energy giant Gazprom to halt gas shipments to Poland and Bulgaria.

Kenzo Tribouillard/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

In fact, the U.S. has been urging Europe to be cautious when the region was considering its oil ban given that Russia could make up the loss of revenue from sales to the EU through higher crude prices.

There are factors that could contain oil prices, however.

Lockdowns in China to deal with an outbreak of Covid-19 cases are expected to reduce global demand for crude, though it’s hard to say how long the measures will last.

What does the EU ban mean for gasoline prices?

European citizens will be hit hard for sure, but even in the U.S., it’s hard to see any relief in sight to gas prices.

After all, what consumers pay at the pump is most directly affected by the global price of crude.

When the price of oil spiked following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the average price of gasoline in the U.S. shot up above $4 a gallon and has remained there since, according to data from the American Automobile Association.

The U.S. is also approaching the summer season, when traditionally more people take to the road.

An oil drilling rig setup in the Permian Basin oil field in Midland, Texas, is pictured on March 13.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

An oil drilling rig setup in the Permian Basin oil field in Midland, Texas, is pictured on March 13.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Something that has tempered gas prices, however, is the Biden administration’s release of emergency oil from the strategy oil reserve. The U.S. is releasing about a million barrels a day and will tap up to 180 million barrels.

Al Salazar, senior vice president with Enverus Intelligence, says if it hadn’t been for the emergency oil release, gasoline prices would have jumped even higher than they already are.

“You’ve basically alleviated any chance of ridiculous oil prices for the summer,” says Salazar.

But there are obvious big question marks about what happens after the U.S. reaches its planned 180 million barrel limit. A lot will depend on the conditions in crude markets at the time.

Can other oil producers step up production?

It’s complicated.

The oil cartel OPEC and its allies, a group known as OPEC+, is in the best position to make up for lost supply, but that’s unlikely.

For one, Russia is a member of OPEC+. Any moves against Russia risks jeopardizing the alliance that has long been important to stabilizing the global price of oil.

Saudi Minister of Energy Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman arrives for an OPEC meeting in Vienna, Austria, on Dec. 5, 2019.

Joe Klamar/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Joe Klamar/AFP via Getty Images

Saudi Minister of Energy Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman arrives for an OPEC meeting in Vienna, Austria, on Dec. 5, 2019.

Joe Klamar/AFP via Getty Images

A bigger concern is that some members of OPEC+ are struggling to meet their current quotas due to political strife and underinvestment.

OPEC+ countries have been gradually increasing production by about 430,000 barrels per day since last summer, in a steady effort to get back to pre pandemic levels of production.

OPEC+ meets again on Thursday and is largely expected to maintain its current plans to increase production only gradually.

What about U.S. producers?

The U.S. is the world’s biggest producer of oil, but most of that oil is consumed domestically.

Drilling more is a lot easier said than done. It takes months for even the fastest producers to build a new well. And labor challenges and supply chain problems are lengthening that timeline.

Oil companies are still proceeding cautiously. These companies are beholden to their investors, and those investors don’t want to invest in further drilling.

They lost a ton of money in the oil crash at the beginning of the pandemic, and growing concerns about environmental impact are making them hesitant to invest further.

That said, U.S. producers aren’t completely dragging their feet.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration forecasts that U.S. producers will increase output by an average of 800,000 barrels a day this year.

But it’s hard to go faster than that, and that simply doesn’t make up for the expected loss of Russian oil.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2022/05/04/1096699894/europe-eu-ban-russia-oil-imports-gasoline-gas-prices

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/05/04/ukraine-russia-invasion-live-updates/9639711002/

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday blasted a potential U.S. Supreme Court ruling that would overturn federal abortion protections under Roe v. Wade and urged Americans to “wake up.”

“It’s just a remarkable moment in American history,” Newsom said, during an appearance in Los Angeles. “At a time when countries around the world are expanding liberties, expanding freedoms, expanding rights, here we are in the United States of America about to roll back rights.”

At a news conference at Planned Parenthood Los Angeles, Newsom stressed that access to reproductive health is legal in the state and that California should stand as a “beacon of hope” to residents of other states.

Earlier this week, Newsom and legislative leaders announced that they will ask voters in November to place permanent protections for abortion in the California Constitution.

“We are not going to be defeated, certainly not here in the state of California,” said Newsom, standing in front of two dozen Planned Parenthood workers who held signs that read, “I stand with Planned Parenthood” and “Bans off our bodies.”

“We’re not going to roll over, we will not back down and we will continue to fill in the gaps and address the disparities that continue to persist, even in a state like ours,” he said. As other states restrict access to abortions, “California will do its best to provide for as many people as we can.”

California’s Constitution includes broad rights of privacy but has no explicit protection for abortion services.

Sue Dunlap, president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood Los Angeles, said the organization is working with a variety of partners across the state, in anticipation of “substantially more people coming to California and to Los Angeles.”

“Our doors will stay open,” she said. “We will do our damndest to take care of every woman who turns to Planned Parenthood and all the other incredible healthcare providers across the state, and we will lift up the values of liberty and freedom, knowing that we will not be defeated in this moment or in the long term.”

Earlier this week, Politico obtained a draft U.S. Supreme Court opinion that seemed to signal the court was poised to overturn the landmark 1973 decision legalizing abortion nationwide. There was an immediate uproar across the country. In L.A., protesters took to the streets Tuesday night.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. confirmed the draft’s authenticity in a statement Tuesday, adding that the document did not “represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case” and that he had ordered an investigation into how the draft got into the hands of reporters at Politico.

Defiant state leaders stood ready Tuesday to protect residents and nonresidents alike from any federal rollbacks of abortion rights.

Most legal and political analysts believe the court will follow through on overturning Roe vs. Wade, a move that has been predicted since former President Trump appointed three justices from a list of nominees compiled by the conservative Federalist Society.

Even so, the unprecedented nature of the leaked opinion had political parties plotting responses and the court facing uncomfortable questions about its ability to remain above partisan politics.

In L.A., Newsom warned that the roll back of federal abortion protections could be just the start.

About 400 people rallied in front of a federal courthouse before marching to Pershing Square, where police declared an unlawful assembly.

“This Supreme Court is poised to roll back constitutionally protected rights and don’t think for a second this is where they stop,” he said. “You think for a second that same sex marriage is safe in the United States of America?”

“Wake up, America. Wake up to who you’re electing,” he added. “I hope people hold these elected officials to account, and I hope they consider the positions of those they are supporting or opposing in this election.”

Celinda Vazquez, chief external affairs officer for Planned Parenthood LA, called this “a devastating week for reproductive healthcare and justice and abortion rights across our country,” but stressed that they would continue to care for hundreds of thousands of patients every day.

“We will not be defeated by any decision,” she said, “and we here in Los Angeles and across the state will not back down.”

Source Article from https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-04/newsom-abortion

(Reuters) – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has canceled an appearance at a judicial conference set to begin on Thursday after a draft decision he wrote indicating the high court would overturn its landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that guaranteed the right to abortion nationwide was leaked.

Alito had been set to appear at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ judicial conference, a gathering of judges from the New Orleans-based federal appeals court and the district courts of Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, a person familiar with the matter said.

But he has since canceled, the person said, and Patricia McCabe, a spokesperson for the Supreme Court, on Wednesday said he was not attending. The spokesperson gave no reason for why Alito, who is the justice assigned to hear emergency appeals from the 5th Circuit, was not going.

Alito, a member of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority, authored the draft opinion that was dated from February and published by Politico on Monday.

The unprecedented leak from the high court sent shock waves through the United States. U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday confirmed the draft’s authenticity but emphasized it was not final, and said the court will investigate the leak, which he called a “betrayal.”

The 5th Circuit’s Office of the Circuit Executive declined to confirm its conference was occurring this week, citing security, but the legal society American Inns of Court in a press release last week detailed the date and location.

Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas were slated to speak separately on Thursday and Friday at the 11th Circuit’s judicial conference in Atlanta, according to an event program.

It was unclear if they would still attend. McCabe referred inquiries about their scheduled appearances to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which did not respond to requests for comment late Wednesday.

The in-person circuit conferences are among the first to be held since the COVID-19 pandemic took hold in March 2020. Similar events are planned this year in the 2nd, 6th, 9th and 10th Circuits and the patent-centric Federal Circuit.

Such conferences are typically a cross between a business meeting and a continuing legal education conference and provide an opportunity for judges to gather and mingle.

Read more:

U.S. Supreme Court launches probe into leak of draft abortion opinion

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Thomson Reuters

Nate Raymond reports on the federal judiciary and litigation. He can be reached at nate.raymond@thomsonreuters.com.

Source Article from https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-courts-alito-cancels-conference-appearance-after-abortion-ruling-leak-2022-05-04/

STOCKHOLM, May 4 (Reuters) – Sweden has received assurances from the United States that it would receive support during the period a potential application to join NATO is processed by the 30 nations in the alliance, Foreign Minister Ann Linde said in Washington on Wednesday.

Sweden and neighbour Finland stayed out of NATO during the Cold War, but Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its invasion of Ukraine have led the countries to rethink their security policies, with NATO membership looking increasingly likely.

Both countries are concerned they would be vulnerable during an application process, which could take up to a year to be approved by all NATO’s members.

“Naturally, I’m not going to go into any details, but I feel very sure that now we have an American assurance,” Linde told Swedish TV from Washington after meeting U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

“However, not concrete security guarantees, those you can only get if you are a full member of NATO,” she added.

Linde declined to say what assurances she had received from Blinken.

“They would mean that Russia can be clear that if they direct any kind of negative activities against Sweden, which they have threatened, it would not be something that the U.S. would just allow to happen … without a response,” she said.

A U.S. State Department statement issued after the meeting said Blinken had reaffirmed Washington’s commitment to NATO’s policy of welcoming new members, but it made no mention of security assurances.

Sweden’s defence minister said last month that an application could trigger a number of responses from Russia, including cyber attacks and hybrid measures – such as propaganda campaigns – to undermine Sweden’s security.

Moscow has warned it could deploy nuclear weapons and hypersonic missiles in the European exclave of Kaliningrad if Sweden and Finland become NATO members. read more

Linde, who will now travel to Canada to discuss security matters with its government, said the United States was strongly supportive of Swedish and Finnish membership in NATO, which would increase stability in the Baltic and Arctic regions.

Both Sweden and Finland are expected to make a decision about whether to apply to join NATO this month. read more

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Source Article from https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-says-it-received-us-security-assurances-if-it-hands-nato-application-2022-05-04/

An unprecedented leak of a draft supreme court decision shows a majority of justices support ending federal protections for abortions in arguably the most controversial court case in generations.

While the draft could still change, if it is not substantially altered it would result in 26 states immediately, or as soon as practicable, banning abortion, a sea change in the American legal and political landscape.

Why would half of the US outlaw abortion?

If the draft decision remains substantially unchanged, it would return the issue of abortion to the states, 26 states stand poised to ban or greatly restrict it. Until the court issues a final decision, the right to abortion is protected under federal law.

That right was established in the landmark 1973 case Roe v Wade. Roe found pregnant people have a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy up to the point a fetus can survive outside the womb, roughly considered 24 weeks gestation, and a legal principle called “viability”.

graphic

The court’s finding in Roe invalidated dozens of state abortion bans, and made it illegal for states to outlaw abortion before viability. The case that was the subject of the leak on Monday, called Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, considered a Mississippi law that banned abortion at 15 weeks. Even though this is not a total ban, it strikes at the heart of the holding that established a federal right to abortion.

Do Americans support abortion?

A recent poll found 70% of Americans think abortion is a choice that should be left to a woman and her doctor, and polling over time has shown support for legal abortion has changed little since Roe v Wade was decided. Only a small minority think abortion should be completely illegal.

If most Americans support the right to abortion, can Congress intervene?

The federal right to abortion hangs on a supreme court decision because, in the nearly 50 years since Roe v Wade was decided, congressional leaders failed to protect the right in statute.

While there are Democrat-led efforts to protect abortion, they are stalled in the Senate. That’s because any new statute would need 60 votes to pass, and the 100-member Senate is evenly split. Democrats broadly support abortion rights, while Republicans almost universally oppose efforts to protect abortion rights.

Some Democrats have proposed ending the 60-vote rule, called the filibuster, to move legislation on abortion and other key items on Joe Biden agenda’s forward. The president has endorsed such a change.

However, two key Democratic senators, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, oppose such a change. It is unclear how the leaked opinion may change their position. Sinema has said she supports abortion rights, while Manchin has issued conflicting messages.

Biden has called on Americans to elect more members of Congress who support reproductive rights in the upcoming midterm elections in November.

How soon would abortion become illegal?

If the issue of abortion were to return to the states, 26 would immediately or as soon as practicable ban abortion.

States would do so through a mix of abortion bans that were invalidated by Roe v Wade but remained on the books, abortion bans “triggered” if Roe is overturned, and laws that limit the gestational age at which a person can terminate a pregnancy. All will probably be the subject of court challenges.

For example, an abortion ban enacted in 1931 could go back into effect in Michigan. There, the Republican-led legislature supports the ban, but the state’s Democratic governor is challenging it in state court.

In Arkansas, the state legislature has enacted a “trigger” ban. There, the state attorney general would need to certify the central holding of Roe was indeed struck down. The attorney general, a Republican, would likely seek to do so quickly.

Trigger bans vary from state to state. While Arkansas requires an attorney general certification, Wyoming requires the governor to certify Roe has been overturned before the law goes into effect five days later.

Other bans, once blocked by the courts because of Roe, could also go into effect. Enforcement of a six-week abortion ban in Iowa could go into effect. Because that is just two weeks after a pregnant person might miss a period, and before most people know they are pregnant, it is effectively a near-total ban.

In all cases, laws will probably be challenged by reproductive rights groups, and it will take time for cases to move through state and perhaps federal courts. Some experts have estimated it could take between six months to two years for most cases to be settled.

What is certain is in that time, Republican-led states would probably seek to push the envelope in terms of criminalizing abortion, and seek to enforce the bans they already have on the books.

How will people terminate pregnancies in states where it is banned?

Making abortion illegal will not stop abortions. People who live in states where abortion is outlawed but want to terminate a pregnancy may seek to travel to states where it remains legal, or obtain medication to end a pregnancy.

Medication abortion can safely end pregnancies up to 10 weeks gestation using a two-pill protocol. However, in states where abortion is illegal, those pills would need to be obtained illicitly, perhaps through through the mail.

Patients who want to go to clinics, or whose pregnancy is too far along to be self-managed with medication, would need to travel potentially hundreds of miles to states where abortion is legal. That may be an impossible hurdle for women whose finances are strained or who cannot find childcare.

People who live in states where abortion remains legal would also be impacted, because they would face longer wait times for appointments as patients flood into clinics from out-of-state. This could create a secondary wave of travel.

Even more broadly, outlawing abortion would substantially undermine care for basic obstetric procedures, such as miscarriage and ectopic pregnancies, in a country which already has among the highest maternal mortality rates in the developed world.

Nearly half (44%) of all future obstetricians and gynecologists are trained in states that would outlaw abortion, making it impossible to train all new doctors in the skills needed to manage induced or spontaneous abortion. Even more doctors may be frightened to provide evidence-based care to women who face life-threatening complications, if their condition is not imminently emergent – but may become so.

How are liberal states responding?

Some Democrat-led states, such as Oregon, are working to protect abortion by providing funds for people who travel to their states to obtain abortions. Others, such as California, are working to build capacity for the thousands of woman who could suddenly find the nearest abortion clinic there.

But in all cases, these efforts will be incomplete. Not all people will be able to travel or obtain medication abortions, and may forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

Source Article from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/04/us-supreme-court-abortion-explainer

KYIV/BRUSSELS, May 4 (Reuters) – The European Union proposed its toughest sanctions yet against Russia on Wednesday, including a phased oil embargo, as Moscow pressed an offensive in eastern Ukraine and close Russian ally Belarus announced large-scale army drills.

Nearly 10 weeks into a war that has killed thousands of people and flattened Ukrainian cities, Russia was intensifying its assault, Ukraine’s defence ministry said, with attacks reported on railway stations used to transport Western arms.

A new convoy of buses began evacuating more civilians from the ravaged southeastern port city of Mariupol, which has seen the heaviest fighting of the war so far. Moscow pledged to halt some military operations this week to allow more evacuations.

Piling pressure on Russia’s already battered $1.8 trillion economy, Brussels proposed phasing out imports of Russian crude oil within six months and refined products by the end of this year.

“(President Vladimir) Putin must pay a price, a high price, for his brutal aggression,” European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen told applauding EU lawmakers in Strasbourg. read more

The plan, if agreed by all 27 EU governments, would follow U.S. and British oil bans and be a watershed for the world’s largest trading bloc, which remains dependent on Russian energy and must find alternative supplies.

U.S. President Joe Biden said he would speak to other Group of Seven leaders this week about possible further steps against Moscow. “We’re always open to additional sanctions,” Biden told reporters in Washington. read more

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba welcomed the news from the EU, but stressed the urgency of acting to starve Russia’s war machine.

“My position is simple: every euro paid to Russia for gas, oil or other goods ends up as rounds of ammunition in Ukraine to kill my compatriots,” he told Austrian TV channel Puls 4 in an interview.

The Kremlin said Russia was weighing various responses to the EU plan, adding that the measures would be costly for European citizens.

A source said EU envoys could reach a deal on Thursday or later this week on the plan, which also targets Russia’s top bank, its broadcasters, and hundreds of individuals.

Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu renewed a warning that Moscow would seek to hit U.S and NATO shipments of weapons into Ukraine.

His ministry said Russian forces disabled six railway stations used to deliver Western arms to Ukraine’s east. It later said it hit 77 military targets throughout the day, including ammunition depots and artillery.

Ukrainian authorities said Russian strategic bombers fired 18 rockets “with the aim of damaging our country’s transport infrastructure” and confirmed an attack on the railways.

Announcing surprise military drills, Belarus’s defence ministry said they posed no threat to neighbours, but Ukraine’s border service said it could not rule out that Belarusian forces might join Russia’s assault.

“Therefore, we are ready,” spokesman Andriy Demchenko said.

Some Russian forces entered Ukraine via Belarus when the invasion began on Feb. 24 but so far no Belarusian troops have been involved in what Moscow calls a “special military operation” to disarm Ukraine and defend its Russian-speaking population from fascists.

Kyiv and its Western supporters say Moscow’s fascism claim is a pretext for an unprovoked war of aggression that has driven more than 5 million Ukrainians to flee abroad.

The Kremlin on Wednesday dismissed speculation Putin would formally declare war on Ukraine and decree a national mobilisation on May 9, when Russia commemorates the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany in World War Two.

Putin is due to deliver a speech and oversee a May 9 military parade in Moscow’s Red Square.

The convoy leaving Mariupol, organised by the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross, was heading for the Ukrainian-controlled city of Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk Governor Pavlo Kyrylenko said.

Russia’s military said it would pause military activity during the day on May 5, 6 and 7 to allow civilians to evacuate from the Azovstal steel works, where civilians and defenders are holding out against Russian forces that have seized the city.

Humanitarian corridors will be opened “for the evacuation of civilians (working personnel, women and children) whose presence in the underground facilities of the plant (has) been announced by the Kyiv authorities,” Russia’s military said.

The first evacuees from Azovstal arrived by bus in Zaporizhzhia on Tuesday after sheltering for weeks in bunkers beneath the sprawling Soviet-era complex. read more

Enjoying her first sun-drenched day after two months underground, evacuee Tetyana Trotsak said she could not stop thinking of those she believed were still stuck in a shelter they shared.

“I’m terribly worried about the civilians and wounded soldiers that are still there,” the 25-year old Mariupol power company employee said on Wednesday. read more

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy urged the U.N. to help rescue more people from Azovstal.

“The lives of the people who remain there are in danger. Everyone is important to us. We ask for your help in saving them,” Zelenskiy said in a statement to U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.

Russia now claims control of Mariupol, once a city of 400,000 but largely reduced to rubble after weeks of siege and shelling. It is key to Moscow’s efforts to cut Ukraine off from the Black Sea – vital for grain and metals exports – and link Russian-controlled territory in the south and east.

Alongside the eastern Donbas region, the southern coastline is Moscow’s key target after its troops failed to take capital Kyiv in the weeks after it invaded.

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Source Article from https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-set-unveil-sanctions-russian-oil-fighting-rages-ukraine-2022-05-04/

Temporary changes to the troubled Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program have resulted in more than 110,000 people with student debt getting around $6.8 billion in relief.

The new figures from the U.S. Department of Education show how many borrowers are benefiting from the policy fixes announced by the Biden administration last year. Hundreds of thousands more could still see their debt discharged as part of the effort. The average amount of debt reduction per borrower is close to $60,000, according to the Education Department.

The public service loan forgiveness was signed into law by then-President George W. Bush in 2007, and allows nonprofit and government employees to have their federal student loans canceled after 10 years, or 120 payments. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau estimates that one-quarter of American workers could be eligible.

More from Personal Finance:
How taxes on wages for Social Security could change

Seniors have high hopes for prescription drug pricing reform
How changing work requirements may help SSI beneficiaries

However, the program has been plagued by problems, making people who actually get the relief a rarity.

Borrowers often believe they’re paying their way to loan cancellation only to discover at some point in the process that they don’t qualify, usually for confusing technical reasons. Lenders have been blamed for misleading borrowers and botching their timelines.

The reforms under the Biden administration include reassessing borrowers’ timelines and counting some payments that were previously ineligible because, say, a borrower was unwittingly in a nonqualifying repayment plan.

How can I benefit from the new rules?

To begin, you want to act quickly, said Mark Kantrowitz, a higher education expert.

That’s because the Biden administration’s new rules for public service loan forgiveness are slated to expire on Oct. 31.

If you have either a Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) or a Federal Perkins Loan, which don’t normally count for public service loan forgiveness but now temporarily do, you’ll need to consolidate those into direct loans with your servicer.

“It typically takes 30 days to 45 days for the consolidation to occur,” Kantrowitz said.

“Borrowers should do this even if they don’t expect to have 120 payments by the deadline, as the previously ineligible payments will count only if they do this,” he added.

In addition, borrowers will also have to prove that their work was considered public service for any stretch of time that they’re trying to get counted toward forgiveness. To do so, you’ll want to file with your servicer a so-called employer certification form for each job you’ve had throughout your timeline.

Borrowers currently jobless or not working in public service may still qualify for forgiveness now, so long as they’ve made 120 qualifying payments in the past, Kantrowitz added.

Also, keep in mind that months during the government’s payment pause and interest waiver on federal student loans, which has been in effect since March 2020, count toward the program, even if you haven’t been paying.

Some borrowers seem to be getting forgiveness automatically after the government’s auditing of these accounts.

Still, taking these steps will make sure you benefit.

Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/04/education-department-forgives-loans-of-over-110000-in-public-service-.html

The poll question used here — whether the respondent believes abortion should be legal in most or all cases, or illegal in all or most cases — offers only a general sense of a voter’s attitudes on the issue. It may not align exactly with whether a voter or a state electorate would support any particular restriction.

Voters who support abortion in “most” cases might accept a ban on abortions after the first trimester, like the one recently enacted in Florida, which would be at odds with Roe v. Wade but affect only about 8 percent of abortions. Conversely, voters who believe abortion should be illegal in most cases might still support allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest — or perhaps even without conditions in the first trimester.

The opponents of Roe have long said they wanted to leave the issue to the voters of each state, and the data suggests that abortion restrictions may cut very differently across the dozen or so states where the issue is likeliest to be in play in the months ahead.

In Texas, which has put into action the most stringent abortion restrictions so far, there are few signs of a fundamental transformation of the state’s politics.

Texans roughly split on abortion overall, making abortion rights more popular there than in the typical state with a trigger law. But abortion was almost a nonissue in the state’s primary in March, with candidates staying focused on the pandemic and immigration. Only 39 percent of Texans said the state’s abortion laws should be “less strict” in a poll in February, several months after the passage of the law, which effectively bans abortion after around six weeks of pregnancy.

Abortion-rights advocates might be on more favorable political terrain in the more traditionally competitive Midwestern states. A modest majority of voters say abortion should be mostly legal in states like Ohio, Michigan and Iowa, where evangelical Christians represent a far smaller share of voters than in the South. The figures are similar in other battleground states, like Arizona and Florida.

It’s unclear if the abortion issue will be enough to redraw the political map. Perhaps it will fade, as it seems to have in Texas. But the stakes are not small for Republicans in this region: The predominantly white working-class voters who swung from Barack Obama to Donald J. Trump in the 2016 presidential election tended to back abortion rights.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/04/upshot/polling-abortion-states.html

Last year, Russia supplied the EU with a quarter of its oil imports, and Germany was the biggest buyer. However, Germany has drastically reduced its reliance on Russian oil imports, down from 35% to 12%. The UK, which is no longer in the EU, is already phasing out Russian oil, which accounts for 8% of its imports.

Source Article from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61318689

Extra food. Special privileges that other inmates didn’t get.

Those are some of the clues that support the belief that an Alabama corrections official and a murder suspect had a romantic relationship before both disappeared, said Lauderdale County Sheriff Rick Singleton.

Vicky White, 56, and Casey White, 38, went missing Friday morning after she said she was taking the inmate to the courthouse before going to seek medical attention because she wasn’t feeling well.

But the two never arrived at the courthouse. And Vicky White didn’t make it to the medical facility.

Documents reveal Vicky White, who had recently announced her plans to retire as the county’s assistant director of corrections, sold her home just days before she and Casey White disappeared.

Documents show the home sold on April 18 for $95,550 – well below the current market value. Online records with Lauderdale County list the home’s total parcel value at $204,700.

Details of a ‘special relationship’ emerge, sheriff says

Vicky White is now the subject of an active arrest warrant for allegedly permitting or facilitating escape in the first degree, the sheriff said Monday. Authorities believe the officer and inmate had a romantic relationship that extended into Vicky White’s non-work hours, Singleton said.

They traced the relationship back to as early as 2020, when Casey White – who was already serving time in a state prison – was first brought to Lauderdale County for an arraignment on murder charges related to the 2015 death of 58-year-old Connie Ridgeway.

“As far as we know that was the earliest physical contact they had,” Singleton said.

Singleton said Casey White and Vicky White had a “special relationship” that was confirmed, in part, by other inmates who told investigators Casey White “was getting extra food on his trays” and “was getting privileges no one else got. And this was all coming from her.”

The sheriff said the pair kept communicating after Casey White was transferred back to the state prison, where he was serving 75 years for a series of crimes in 2015. Casey White returned to the Lauderdale County Detention Facility in February to attend court hearings in his capital murder case.

The Lauderdale County jail had a policy mandating two sworn deputies accompany inmates at all times – including during transportation to the courthouse. Singleton said that policy was emphasized after authorities discovered Casey White had a makeshift knife on him in 2020 and had planned to escape and take a hostage.

But last Friday morning, Vicky White ordered that Casey White be prepared for transport, telling the booking officer that since other officers had already left for court and she was the only officer available with a certified firearm, she was going to take him to the courthouse alone, the sheriff said.

“Being the boss and over the transport, she just informed the booking officer that she was going to carry him to the courthouse and drop him off, which was a flagrant violation of policy. But I’m sure because it was her boss, the booking officer didn’t question it,” Singleton said.

The sheriff has described Casey White as “an extremely dangerous person” and cautioned people not to approach him if they see him and call police instead.

Authorities assume Casey White is armed because Vicky White was armed. The US Marshals Service warned Tuesday they might have an AR-15 rifle and a shotgun.

How the escape unfolded

Surveillance video released by the detention center Tuesday shows Casey White, shackled and handcuffed in an orange jumpsuit, being escorted into the back of Vicky White’s patrol car Friday morning.

From there, Singleton says, the pair drove to a shopping center less than 10 minutes away, abandoned the patrol car and got into a gold or copper-colored 2007 Ford Edge SUV.

Vicky White bought the car in Rogersville, about 25 miles east of Lauderdale County, and staged it in the parking lot the night before their disappearance, Singleton said.

“We know that there was never any effort to go to the courthouse. They went straight to Florence Square parking lot, dumped the patrol car, got in the other vehicle and left,” Singleton said.

“We assume they are going to ditch that car at the first opportunity when they get wind that the description is out there,” the sheriff said. “So we’re back to square one.”

‘I am so disappointed in her,’ DA says

Vicky White was scheduled to retire Friday after almost two decades with the department – though her retirement fund paperwork had not been processed, the sheriff said.

Now, relatives and colleagues of the woman described as “a model employee” with “an unblemished record” have expressed disbelief about her disappearance and emerging details.

Lauderdale County District Attorney Chris Connolly last spoke with Vicky White the day before she disappeared and said he was “absolutely stunned” to learn of the situation. Connoly described the officer as “the most solid person at the jail.”

“I am so disappointed in her,” he said. “She was trusted, and she exploited that trust.”

Vicky White’s mother, who she had been living with for the past five weeks after selling her home, said she never heard her daughter mention Casey White and was shocked to find out she had gone missing with an accused murderer.

“As a mother, I didn’t know how to act because I thought at first it was a mistake. And then when I found out for sure it was, it was just disbelief,” Pat Davis told CNN affiliate WAAY.

The Marshals Service is offering a reward of up to $10,000 for information leading to the location of the fugitive inmate and up to $5,000 for the missing officer.

CNN’s Jade Gordon, Tina Burnside, Jon Passantino, Jamiel Lynch, Ryan Young, Jaide Timm-Garcia and Chuck Johnston contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/04/us/alabama-vicky-white-casey-white-search-wednesday/index.html

  • J.D. Vance won a contested primary for Ohio’s GOP Senate nomination Tuesday.
  • Vance, an author and venture capitalist, trailed GOP rivals until Trump endorsed him two weeks ago.
  • Trump’s influence will be tested in upcoming GOP races in Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Georgia.

WASHINGTON – Donald Trump proved again Tuesday that he remains the strongest political force within the Republican Party as he fueled a primary victory by new U.S. Senate nominee J.D. Vance.

The specific strength of his personal endorsement, however, remains open to question.

Vance won a crowded primary with a little more than 32% of the vote as of late Tuesday, but four other candidates also received good chunks of Trump voters – including Matt Dolan, the businessman who shunned the former president’s endorsement and had urged the party to move past his false claims of election fraud in 2020.

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/05/04/donald-trump-won-ohio-j-d-vance-moves-penn-nc-georgia/9570467002/

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/04/draft-abortion-ruling-democrats-see-court-odds-with-democracy/