democracynow.org
Stories:
"Stop the Sham": Thousands Rally as Supreme Court Hears Biggest Abortion Case in a Generation
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in the most significant abortion case in a generation. Abortion providers in Texas, led by Whole Woman’s Health, have challenged provisions of a sweeping anti-choice law passed by the Texas state Legislature in 2013 despite a people’s filibuster and an 11-hour stand by Texas state Senator Wendy Davis. The provisions at stake force abortion clinics to meet the standards of hospital-style surgery centers and require providers to obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital—a task many can’t achieve, in part due to anti-choice sentiment. Similar restrictions have been passed in multiple states. As the case was being argued inside the court, a few thousand people rallied outside in support of Whole Woman’s Health, including fellow abortion providers and women who have had abortions. Democracy Now! was at the rally and also spoke with the anti-choice protesters, who held a competing demonstration.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in the most significant abortion case in a generation. Abortion providers in Texas, led by Whole Woman’s Health, have challenged provisions of a sweeping anti-choice law passed by the Texas state Legislature in 2013 despite a people’s filibuster and an 11-hour stand by Texas state Senator Wendy Davis. The provisions at stake force abortion clinics to meet the standards of hospital-style surgery centers and require providers to obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital—a task many can’t achieve in part due to anti-choice sentiment. Similar restrictions have passed in multiple other states. Already, with the law partially in place, about half of the more than 40 abortion clinics in Texas have closed. If the law comes into full effect, the second largest state in the U.S. could be left with just nine or 10 clinics.
AMY GOODMAN: With the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia less than three weeks ago, the Supreme Court has only eight justices, making it unlikely the case would set a national precedent restricting abortion, and opening the way for a 4-4 tie. Such a tie could leave in place a lower court ruling largely upholding the Texas law, potentially impacting other states in the same appeals court circuit—Mississippi, which has just one abortion clinic, and Louisiana, where a similar admitting privileges law threatens to close all but one clinic in the state.
The stakes were high Wednesday when attorney Stephanie Toti stood before the Supreme Court to represent the Texas abortion providers. It was her first time ever arguing a case at the Supreme Court. After the arguments, she addressed reporters outside.
STEPHANIE TOTI: Texas abortion clinics have a documented history of safety that goes back for decades. There is absolutely no evidence of any substandard provider in Texas. Those clinics are subject to rigorous scrutiny by state officials. They are inspected at least once a year and often more than that. And the evidence in the record shows that those inspections demonstrate that these clinics have been operating safely.
And further, the law gives Texas regulators the tools they would need to shut down a substandard provider. The state Department of Health can come in at any time and issue a clinic closure order. If it really believed that these clinics weren’t safe, it had the authority, under existing law, to shut them down. These laws have nothing to do with safety. These laws are simply about stopping women from accessing their constitutionally protected right to abortion.
AMY GOODMAN: Stephanie Toti, who argued the Supreme Court case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, speaking outside the Supreme Court Wednesday. Well, as the arguments went on inside, a few thousand people packed onto the sidewalk outside the Supreme Court. At the center of the crush was an anti-choice rally, surrounded on three sides by pro-choice demonstrators. Speaking on both sides tried to drown each other out. The supporters of Whole Woman’s Health chanted "stop the sham," a reference to what they say is a false claim the Texas abortion regulations are aimed at protecting women’s health. Many supporters wore bright purple, the official color of Whole Woman’s Health.
Well, Democracy Now! was there at the Supreme Court Wednesday. The journey began early, as Democracy Now!’s Amy Littlefield got ready to board a bus in New York.
AMY LITTLEFIELD: Today, the Supreme Court is hearing the most important abortion rights case in almost 25 years. We’re here in front of the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York City. That’s the organization that’s arguing the case before the Supreme Court today. It’s about 3:45 in the morning. It’s dark. It’s raining. And we’re about to get on a bus with a bunch of activists who are headed down to D.C. to rally in front of the Supreme Court and show their support for abortion rights. Let’s get on the bus.
What’s your name, and what are you doing on this bus at 4:00 in the morning?
DR. MONICA DRAGOMAN: Hi. I’m Monica Dragoman. I am a woman. I am an obstetrician/gynecologist, and I also am an abortion provider. And I’m here because I support women’s ability to self-determine and decide when and if they want to have a family. And it’s a privilege to do the work that I do. It’s a privilege to take care of the women that I interact with. And there’s really no more important place to be today than on this bus.
AMY LITTLEFIELD: So it’s about four hours later. We’re still on the bus headed into D.C., and everyone’s getting ready to rally.
ORGANIZER: Repro rights are under attack. What do we do? Stand up! Fight back! Repro rights are under attack. What do we do?
BUS RIDERS: Stand up! Fight back!
AMY LITTLEFIELD: So we’ve arrived here in Washington, D.C. We’ve gotten off the bus, and we’re heading over to the Supreme Court.
PRO-CHOICE PROTESTERS: Stop the sham! Stop the sham! Stop the sham!
SONYA RENEE TAYLOR: What’s up, y’all? Are you on fire today? My name is Sonya Renee Taylor. I am a performance poet, an activist and an unapologetic woman who has had an abortion. Let me say that again: I am an unapologetic woman who has had an abortion. I was a 20-year-old college sophomore putting myself through school when I got pregnant. I reject the narrative that there must be some externally decided, good enough reason for any of us to access safe, legal, professional, compassionate abortion care and services. I do not owe the Texas Legislature, anti-choice fearmongers or even the Supreme Court of the United States any explanation as to why I had an abortion.
AMY LITTLEFIELD: Next up is Andrea Ferrigno, corporate vice president at Whole Woman’s Health, the lead plaintiff in the abortion case.
ANDREA FERRIGNO: I am so thankful. For so long, we’ve felt, as providers, so alone. And to see all of you here come bear witness as we bring our case to the Supreme Court is just unbelievable. Thank you. Thank you. As a Hispanic immigrant from Latin America, I know what it’s like not to have access to safe, legal abortion care, in an environment where women’s voices matter. This is why this work is so important for me on both a professional and personal level. But I have also witnessed firsthand how laws like HB 2 can force clinics to shut down. I think about the woman on the phone that begged me to see her after our clinic was shut down by this law, and I still remember the desperation in her voice when she said, "Please, please, just see me. I won’t tell anyone. Why can’t you just see me? Please," and not having a logical answer to her because there’s no logic behind this.
AMY LITTLEFIELD: Could you say your full name and where you’re from?
ROSE BARNES-COVENANT: My name is Rose Barnes-Covenant, and I’m from Washington, D.C. Our generation has spent a lot of time thinking that progress has been made, and it’s being taken from us. And if we don’t stand up now, we’re not going to have a choice. There are a lot of women here that did this work in the '70s, and I think my generation thinks this is old news. And now we're slowly seeing an erosion of our rights, where it’s harder to fight if they take it piece by piece. And it’s finally gotten to a point where people have to stand up. And if not, we’ll just—we’ll go back to the ’60s.
PRO-CHOICE PROTESTERS: Stop the sham! Stop the sham! Stop the sham!
UNIDENTIFIED: Springfield, Virginia.
AMY LITTLEFIELD: And why are you here today?
UNIDENTIFIED: I’m here because in the '70s and the ’80s, when I had to worry about my reproductive health, I was able to do so. I don't think it’s right for people who have a lot of money to be able to fly to a different state to get abortion access. It’s all about access. I had access. These girl should have access. I can’t believe we’re still fighting this.
DR. SARA IMERSHEIN: My name is Dr. Sara Imershein, and I am an abortion provider. I performed my first abortion as a routine procedure in 1980 during my internship at New York’s Bellevue Hospital. My professors, my mentors remembered wards filled with injured and infected women and the many women who died before abortion was legal and available. We must not forget their stories or their lives, and we must remember: Women will seek abortion even when it is illegal. Abortion is medical, not political. Abortion is medical, not political!
BRENDA PEARL: My name is Brenda Pearl. I’m an activist, I’m an African American, and I am a woman. And I’m a student from Ohio. And I’m here to share my story. In the summer of 2014, I became pregnant. I was planning to continue my studies that fall. And having a baby at that time in my life would have derailed my plans and goals. I had just enough money for books, with not a cent more. I also had life—I also had a life path in front of me, a path I longed to follow. For that reason, I chose to have an abortion. It was one of the hardest decisions I ever made, but in the end it was a decision to determine the fate of my life.
The state of Ohio makes it very difficult for women to access safe, legal abortion. First you have to schedule an appointment to receive state-mandated information. It’s misleading information that is meant to discourage you from having the abortion that is your constitutional right. They also make you have an ultrasound, even after you already probably had an ultrasound. It was painful to feel I was pressured to listen to the heartbeat. Then you have to wait 24 hours to come back, and the procedure itself. Personally, the biggest obstacle was paying for the abortion. Except in extreme cases, you have to pay for it yourself. I am sharing my story with you today to raise my voice about the protection of safe, legal abortions, and also about truth, free will, healing and freedom. Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: Ohio student Brenda Pearl speaking outside the Supreme Court Wednesday. When we come back, we’ll hear from pro- and anti-choice sides of the issue outside the Supreme Court, as the justices heard the most important case on abortion in a generation. Back in a minute.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: "Invocation" by Matana Roberts, here on Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: We return to Democracy Now!'s Amy Littlefield outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday. As the court heard arguments in the most significant abortion case in a generation, a challenge to provisions in Texas's sweeping anti-choice law HB 2, both sides of the abortion debate rallied outside.
AMY LITTLEFIELD: So, we’re here on the border between the pro-choice and the anti-choice sides right outside the Supreme Court. On one side are the pro-choice activists, and on the other side are the anti-choice activists. They have two competing rallies here. Let’s talk to some of the people on the anti-choice side.
KRISTAN HAWKINS: Kristan Hawkins. I’m the president of Students for Life of America.
AMY LITTLEFIELD: And why are you here today?
KRISTAN HAWKINS: I’m here today because we want to show the justices that this is a pro-life generation. Majority of Americans agree with our side, and the majority of Americans agree with the commonsense safety regulations in HB 2.
AMY LITTLEFIELD: I saw some research recently, though, that seven in 10 women—or seven in 10 people are on the pro-choice side. What makes you say that you have more people on your side?
KRISTAN HAWKINS: When you look at the polling and you actually ask people on the issues, we have the majority. We don’t use labels—pro-life, pro-choice. Most millennials are like, "I don’t want to be labeled. I don’t even understand what the labels mean." When you ask people, "When do you think abortion should be legal? Under what circumstances should be—abortion should be legal?" we’re winning all day long.
TROY NEWMAN: I’m Troy Newman. I’m the president of Operation Rescue.
AMY LITTLEFIELD: And what are you doing here today at the Supreme Court?
TROY NEWMAN: Well, we’re praying, number one, that the court is going to uphold the Texas law, HB 2. And number two, we’re testifying to the fact that women die inside abortion clinics. This is commonsense regulation. I want to see abortion ended today, but this is commonsense regulation that’s going to make sure that women are given the best and most proper healthcare.
AMY LITTLEFIELD: Will these laws in Texas help to achieve your goal of ending abortion?
TROY NEWMAN: Well, yes, because abortionists simply cannot or will not rise to the level of being a normal physician. You don’t—you don’t come out of medical school, by and large, and say, "I want to become an abortionist." You sink to the level of being an abortionist. It’s so commonsense. To see these people so completely angry is—they’re off their rocker.
AMY LITTLEFIELD: Although it sounds like you might agree with one thing on the pro-choice side, which is that these laws are ultimately threatening to and perhaps aimed at ending abortion, right?
TROY NEWMAN: I will. I will do anything to—I will do anything safe, legal and moral to end the child killing. And you know what that does? It saves women’s lives, and it saves babies’ lives. These ghouls over here are chanting to kill more babies. I find that repugnant and disgusting.
AMY LITTLEFIELD: Troy Newman, you’ve been criticized in the past for some of your tactics. Some people have even gone so far as to call you a domestic terrorist and to say that you’ve called for the murder of abortion providers.
TROY NEWMAN: Yeah.
AMY LITTLEFIELD: Is that true?
TROY NEWMAN: Yeah, it’s ridiculous. If any of that were true, I wouldn’t be able to stand here.
AMY LITTLEFIELD: One more question. One in three women will have an abortion by age 45.
TROY NEWMAN: Yeah.
AMY LITTLEFIELD: What happens to those women if abortion becomes inaccessible in the United States?
TROY NEWMAN: Imagine this: They have a beautiful baby.
ANTI-CHOICE PROTESTERS: No more Roe! No more Roe!
NAVYA KUMAR: I’m Navya Ravi Kumar. I’m from Austin, Texas. OK, that’s weird. You take—
AMY LITTLEFIELD: What’s happening right now, can I just describe it? We’re right here on the border between the pro-choice and anti-choice side, and there is a sign that’s being—someone is putting behind you.
NAVYA KUMAR: Yeah, I mean, this, in itself, is problematic, because that’s not a fetus. That’s a literal baby, and it’s like three months old. So, that doesn’t even make any sense.
AMY LITTLEFIELD: You’re talking about the picture on the sign.
NAVYA KUMAR: Yeah.
AMY LITTLEFIELD: Do you have a response to that? She says that what’s on your sign is not a fetus, it’s a baby.
ANTI-CHOICE PROTESTER: We don’t discriminate of people based on their looks or their age or their location. We love babies. Every child has to be cared for and fed, no matter where they’re located. That’s why we love.
NAVYA KUMAR: That wasn’t the argument, but OK. The argument was that they are talking about aborting fetuses. Fetuses are not babies. Babies are born. That’s the definition of a baby. But we learn that in eighth grade science, so that’s good.
AMY LITTLEFIELD: Do you have a response to that?
ANTI-CHOICE PROTESTER: This is a female. We love females. We protect females, whether they’re in the womb or not. We don’t believe that promiscuous sex gives you a right to kill. You can have as much promiscuous sex as you want, but we don’t kill.
NAVYA KUMAR: Thanks for giving me the right to have sex. I didn’t know that you controlled my body. So, thanks for that.
SONYA RENEE TAYLOR: Are you ready for the next speaker? Dr. Valerie Peterson!
DR. VALERIE PETERSON: I found myself pregnant in July of 2015. And while it was an unplanned pregnancy, it was a very wanted pregnancy. I wanted to have my baby. So you know what I did? I do what women are supposed to do: We go get prenatal care. And I started getting prenatal care for my baby.
But soon after I started getting the prenatal care, the doctors thought that something was wrong with the fetus. So, at 16 weeks, my son received the diagnosis of alobar holoprosencephaly, which means that his brain did not fully develop. My son had half a brain. My doctor told me I had two choices: I could continue to carry the pregnancy, or I could terminate the pregnancy because it was 100 percent incompatible with life.
I live in Austin. And I say, "You know what? Doc, hey, can we take care of this right now?" And the doctor said, "No, unfortunately, because of the Texas laws, you have to go to Planned Parenthood or another provider." And, boy, was I emotionally distraught, was I mentally distraught. I broke down crying. I didn’t know what to do. And I also found out that it was a multiple-day process that I would have to go through.
Knowing that my baby was 100 percent not viable, eventually, you know what I did? I flew to Florida. I flew to Orlando the next day. I couldn’t take the emotional pain. I couldn’t wait another day. And had I not had the resources, I don’t know if I would be here talking to you today.
AMY LITTLEFIELD: Next up at the podium is Dr. Willie Parker, who provides abortions in the South. And it looks like he’s wearing a purple hat with an emblem of a golden uterus on it.
DR. WILLIE PARKER: Hey, I flew in last evening from Jackson, Mississippi, where I saw people, women at the Pink House, the last clinic in Mississippi. Yesterday I saw a woman from Louisiana who—now that state will only have one clinic because of recent changes in the law. But she came to Jackson because that was the closest clinic to her. I told her that I would be here today, and she told me that she works as a health administrator in an ER, that they were seeing women there with complications from do-it-yourself medications on the Internet. And when I told her that I was going to be here, she said, "You make sure that you tell them up there what’s happening down here." So I’m keeping my word to her.
America, we have a problem. But don’t worry, there’s a doctor in the house, 'cause today I'm going to diagnose that problem for you, and I’m going to make some treatment recommendations. I spent the last 25 years of my career figuring out the problems of women’s health. So when I put my medical hat on—this is not my medical hat—and I look at women’s health in this country, it seems to me that we have an epidemic of invasive political conservatitis. Now, "What is that?" you might ask. Political conservatitis is where the bodies of reproductive-age women in this country are being invaded by a species of conservative politics, where politicians are in places making rules about things that they don’t know anything about.
AMY LITTLEFIELD: So, here are these two dueling rallies at the Supreme Court. While Dr. Willie Parker was speaking at the pro-choice rally just several yards away right here in front of the Supreme Court, House Speaker Paul Ryan suddenly emerged from the court building and addressed the rally here.
SPEAKER PAUL RYAN: It is great to see you. We are the pro-life movement, and we are here. And we are the pro-life movement and here to stand up for the women. We are here to stand up for the unborn. And we are here to stand up for the rule of law. We are here to defend Texas.
PRO-CHOICE PROTESTERS: Stop the sham! Stop the sham! Stop the sham!
NANCY NORTHUP: And now, our final speaker at this rally to close us out today. When you start a lawsuit, it takes a brave person to step forward. I am so proud to now introduce Amy Hagstrom Miller, who’s the CEO of Whole Woman’s Health.
AMY HAGSTROM MILLER: So, just look at all of you. Many of you took off work. You got on buses from all across the country. You arranged child care. And some of us have even brought our kids along. And you’ve come here in the cold to stand united for abortion access. Thank you for making the journey. But here’s the sad part. However far you traveled, however tough it was, for most of you, coming here today was nothing compared to what a woman in Texas goes through to get an abortion.
I dream of a world where no one comes into my clinics thinking that they are the only person they know who has had an abortion, thinking that they are the only Christian that has had an abortion, thinking that they are the only good mother who has had an abortion.
We stand in opposition to HB 2 and any law like it that shuts down clinics, forces women to delay care and creates obstacles to abortion. But we also stand for something. We stand here to affirm that women are good. We stand to affirm that women are moral and kind, to affirm that when a woman has decided to end a pregnancy, we can witness her dreams and her aspirations and affirm that she is put on this Earth to see them out and act on her own gifts. That is the world we stand for, and that is the world we will create together. Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: Amy Hagstrom Miller, president and CEO of Whole Woman’s Health, the lead plaintiff in the most significant abortion case in a generation, speaking outside the Supreme Court Wednesday as the court heard arguments in the case. Special thanks to Democracy Now!'s Amy Littlefield, Elizabeth Press, Hany Massoud, Robby Karran and Chris Belcher. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I'm Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh. ... Read More →
The Libya Gamble: Inside Hillary Clinton's Push for War & the Making of a Failed State
The New York Times has published a major two-part exposé titled "The Libya Gamble" on how then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed President Obama to begin bombing Libya five years ago this month. Today, Libya is a failed state and a haven for terrorists. How much should Hillary Clinton be blamed for the crisis? We speak to journalist Scott Shane of The New York Times.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Five years ago this month, the United States and allied nations began bombing Libya, striking forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. The Obama administration said the strikes were needed to enforce a no-fly zone and to protect Libyan protesters who took to the streets as part of the Arab Spring. Inside the Obama administration, there was a deep division over whether the U.S. should intervene militarily. One of the most hawkish members of Obama’s Cabinet was Hillary Clinton, then the secretary of state.
The New York Times has just published two major pieces [part one, part two] looking at Clinton’s role pushing for the bombing of Libya. The special report is titled "The Libya Gamble." In a moment, we’ll be joined by Scott Shane, one of the report’s co-authors, but first a video package produced by The New York Times.
JO BECKER: Hillary Clinton’s role in the military intervention that ousted Muammar Gaddafi in Libya is getting new scrutiny as she runs for president. The U.S. relationship with Libya has long been complicated. Colonel Gaddafi, who ruled from 1969 until 2011, was an eccentric dictator linked to terrorism. Still, when he gave up his nuclear program a decade ago and provided information about al-Qaeda, he became an ally of sorts. In 2009, when Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state, she welcomed one of Colonel Gaddafi’s sons to Washington.
SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON: We deeply value the relationship between the United States and Libya.
JO BECKER: But two years later, when Colonel Gaddafi threatened to crush the Arab Spring protests in Libya, she helped persuade President Obama to join other countries in bombing his forces to prevent a feared massacre.
SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON: This operation has already saved many lives, but the danger is far from over.
JO BECKER: The military campaign ended up ousting Colonel Gaddafi, and Secretary Clinton was welcomed to Libya on a victory tour. A few days later, Colonel Gaddafi was killed by opposition fighters.
SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON: We came, we saw, he died.
JO BECKER: But the new Western-backed government proved incapable of uniting Libya. And in the end, the strongman’s death led to chaos. When four Americans were killed by terrorists in Benghazi in 2012, it revealed just how bad things had gotten. Colonel Gaddafi’s huge arsenal of weapons has shown up in the hands of terrorists in places like Gaza, Syria, Nigeria and Mali. Hundreds of thousands of migrants have fled through Libya on boats. Many have drowned. And the power vacuum has allowed ISIS to build its most dangerous outpost on the Libyan coast. Today, just 300 miles from Europe, Libya is a failed state. Meanwhile, back at home, Mrs. Clinton has struggled to defend the decision to intervene.
HILLARY CLINTON: But I’m not giving up on Libya, and I don’t think anybody should. We’ve been at this a couple of years.
MARTHA RADDATZ: But were mistakes made?
HILLARY CLINTON: Well, there’s always a retrospective to say what mistakes were made. But I know that we offered a lot of help, and I know it was difficult for the Libyans to accept help.
AMY GOODMAN: That video by The New York Times accompanies a major two-part series [part one, part two] on Hillary Clinton titled "The Libya Gamble," written by Jo Becker and Scott Shane. Scott Shane is joining us now from Baltimore. He’s also author of a new book called Objective Troy: A Terrorist, a President, and the Rise of the Drone, about the first American deliberately killed in a drone strike, Anwar al-Awlaki. The book just won the 2016 Lionel Gelber Prize.
Scott Shane, welcome to Democracy Now! Let’s start with this two-part series, "Clinton, 'Smart Power' and a Dictator’s Fall." Talk about Hillary Clinton as secretary of state and how she led the charge, or what she advised President Obama in Libya.
SCOTT SHANE: Well, five years ago, there were—there was a question about what to do as Gaddafi’s forces approached Benghazi. The Europeans and the Arab League were calling for action. No one really knew what the outcome would be, but there was certainly a very serious threat to a large number of civilians in Benghazi. But, you know, the U.S. was still involved in two big wars, and the sort of heavyweights in the Obama administration were against getting involved—Robert Gates, the defensive secretary; Joe Biden, the vice president; Tom Donilon, the national security adviser.
And Secretary Clinton had been meeting with representatives of Britain, France and the Arab countries. And she sort of essentially called in from Paris and then from Cairo, and she ended up tipping the balance and essentially convincing President Obama, who later described this as a 51-49 decision, to join the other countries in the coalition to bomb Gaddafi’s forces.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Hillary Clinton has argued, in her defense, that it’s still too early to tell what the effects of the intervention have been, and that perhaps accounts for why she’s pushing for more military involvement in Syria. But Obama, on the other hand, as you point out in your piece, says the Libya experience has made him question each military intervention by asking, "Should we intervene militarily? Do we have an answer for the day after?" So, Scott Shane, can you lay out what you explain happened in Libya the day after, as it were?
SCOTT SHANE: Well, you know, for a few months, it looked like things might go reasonably well. There was some attention to restoring Libya’s oil industry. And the optimism was based in part on the idea that this is a relatively small country population-wise, about 6 million people. It did not have the Sunni-Shia split that you see in many Muslim countries, and it had plenty of money from oil to rebuild. So, briefly, there was this sort of moment of optimism. And Secretary Clinton made her visit. And they were—you know, her people were actually thinking this would be perhaps a centerpiece of her record as secretary of state.
But what happened was the militias that had participated in the fight against Gaddafi, you know, essentially aligned with different tribes in different cities, and it proved impossible for these mostly Western-educated—in some cases, somewhat detached—opposition leaders to pull the country together, and eventually it sort of dissolved into civil war.
AMY GOODMAN: You say—in that piece we just heard, the tape that caught Hillary Clinton saying, "We came, we saw, he died." Explain.
SCOTT SHANE: Well, you know, in some ways, I think she would see that as unfair. She was giving a series of TV interviews, and that was in a break between interviews. The reporter for the next take was just sitting down in the chair, and an aide handed her a Blackberry with the news that Gaddafi—you know, first reports that Gaddafi might be dead. And that was her sort of, I think she would say, you know, exaggerated, humorous reaction. But, you know—but it did capture, I think, the fact that she had become very involved in this effort that first—that sort of began as protecting civilians and sort of evolved into overthrowing Gaddafi. And she was eager to see an end to what had become a surprisingly drawn-out affair, given the fact that this very large alliance of NATO and Arab countries were on the rebels’ side. So I think she was relieved and pleased that Gaddafi’s rule was over and that he was no longer around to make trouble.
AMY GOODMAN: During the Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire last year, ABC News host Martha Raddatz questioned Hillary Clinton about her support for the 2011 invasion of Libya, which toppled Muammar Gaddafi.
MARTHA RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton, I want to circle back to something that your opponents here have brought up. Libya is falling apart. The country is a haven for ISIS and jihadists, with an estimated 2,000 ISIS fighters there today. You advocated for that 2011 intervention and called it "smart power at its best." And yet, even President Obama said the U.S. should have done more to fill the leadership vacuum left behind. How much responsibility do you bear for the chaos that followed elections?
HILLARY CLINTON: Well, first, let’s remember why we became part of a coalition to stop Gaddafi from committing massacres against his people. The United States was asked to support the Europeans and the Arab partners that we had. And we did a lot of due diligence about whether we should or not, and eventually, yes, I recommended, and the president decided, that we would support the action to protect civilians on the ground. And that led to the overthrow of Gaddafi.
I think that what Libya then did by having a full free election, which elected moderates, was an indication of their crying need and desire to get on the right path. Now, the whole region has been rendered unstable, in part because of the aftermath of the Arab Spring, in part because of the very effective outreach and propagandizing that ISIS and other terrorist groups do.
MARTHA RADDATZ: Senator Sanders?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: The truth is, it is relatively easy for a powerful nation like America to overthrow a dictator, but it is very hard to predict the unintended consequences and the turmoil and the instability that follows after you overthrow that dictator. So, I think Secretary Clinton and I have a fundamental disagreement: I’m not quite the fan of regime change that I believe she is.
AMY GOODMAN: "I’m not quite the fan of regime change that ... she is," says Bernie Sanders in that debate with Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire. Scott Shane, from Iraq and her vote for the war with Iraq, which of course did lead to regime change, to Libya, talk about the goal of Hillary Clinton and whether that was even different from the goal of President Obama, who she does wrap herself around now in all of her presidential campaigning.
SCOTT SHANE: I think what we found is that there is a subtle but distinct difference between President Obama and Secretary Clinton on the question of sort of activism and interventionism abroad. And, you know, in a situation like Libya, there are no good choices. It’s certainly conceivable that if she had tipped the other way, and the U.S. and the Europeans and others had not gotten involved, that perhaps Gaddafi would have slaughtered a whole lot of civilians, and we would be, you know, posing different questions to her today.
But, you know, what we found was that President Obama is, not surprisingly, very shaped by the Iraq experience, which he’s had to cope with the still ongoing aftermath of the decision to invade in 2003 all these years later. She, of course, has been in government longer, and I think she—you know, her aides say that she was also influenced by genocide in Rwanda, which taught her the cost of inaction in a situation like that, and by the experience in the Balkans, which sort of cut both ways. But, you know, I think she drew the lesson that intervention could prevent even larger massacres and do some good, as imperfect as the outcome was there. So they kind of look back to these different historical experiences and draw different conclusions.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, you report in your piece in the Times that shortly after the air campaign began in 2011, there was the possibility of a 72-hour ceasefire, potentially leading to a negotiated exit for Gaddafi. Why was that offer not taken seriously by the American military?
SCOTT SHANE: Well, you know, there were—there was a whole array of attempts to come up with some sort of soft exit for Gaddafi. Perhaps he would stay in Libya, perhaps he would go elsewhere. But I think the bottom line was that the Americans and the Europeans and the other Arab—and the Arab countries that were involved in this, all basically felt that Gaddafi, who was basically a megalomaniac, who had been in office for 40 years and sort of saw him as the savior of his country, just would not, when push came to shove, be willing to cede power. And they felt that any kind of ceasefire, he would use just to kind of regroup his forces and extend the fighting. Whether that was true or not, you know, history will judge.
AMY GOODMAN: And the issue of this being a failed state right now and Hillary Clinton’s responsibility here—of course, as is President Obama, but she was the secretary of state who was advising him, meeting with people on the ground, making her suggestions on pushing forward with war?
SCOTT SHANE: Yeah, I mean, you know, one reason we did that series is that it appears that intervention—when, how and whether to intervene in other countries, particularly Muslim countries—remains sort of a pressing question for American presidents. And since she’s running for the presidency, this is, you know, perhaps a revealing case study of how she comes out in these situations.
But, you know, there are—there is no good example of intervention or non-intervention in these countries since the Arab Spring and before that. I mean, you have Iraq, where we spent years occupying, a very tragic outcome. You have Libya, where we intervened but did not occupy and pretty much, you know, stayed out of it afterwards—not a good outcome. And you have Syria, where we have really not intervened, have not occupied, and you’ve had this terrible civil war with huge casualties. So, you know, some people in Washington are questioning whether there is any right answer in these extremely complicated countries in the Middle East.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, given the spread of ISIS in Libya, you report that some of Obama’s top national security aides are now pushing for a second American military intervention in Libya.
SCOTT SHANE: Yeah, I mean, one of the ironies here is that, you know, you’ve almost come full circle, but instead of targeting Gaddafi and Gaddafi’s forces, the U.S. is now targeting ISIS. And the—you know, in that debate, Martha Raddatz uses the number 2,000 ISIS fighters; now it’s up to 5,000 or 6,000. You know, on the coast of Libya, they have formed the most important outpost for the Islamic State outside Syria and Iraq, and the Europeans and the Americans are very worried about it. So, there was actually an airstrike on an ISIS camp in western Libya, where there were Tunisians responsible for some attacks in Tunisia, and now they’re looking at possible attacks on the major ISIS stronghold in Libya, which is in Sirte on the coast.
AMY GOODMAN: In your piece, you talk about the memo afterwards that highlights Hillary Rodham Clinton—HRC, as it’s put—role, talking about her leadership, ownership, stewardship of this country’s Libya policy from start to finish, with an eye to the presidential campaign. Can you talk about this, as you put it, this brag sheet?
SCOTT SHANE: Well, that memo was written in 2011, when Gaddafi had fallen. And, you know, it looked like—you know, they were holding this up as sort of an alternative to the George W. Bush invasion of Iraq, a coalition in which the U.S. was not even the leader and organizer, really, and it was a very broad coalition of nations that had intervened. They saw this as what she referred to as "smart power." And they really thought this might be something they would hold up as a very successful part of her record as she ran for president. As we’ve seen, that did not happen, and, you know, you don’t hear them raise the subject of Libya on the campaign trail at all.
AMY GOODMAN: Scott Shane, we have to end the show, but we’re going to do Part 2 of our conversation after the show about your new book, Objective Troy: A Terrorist, a President, and the Rise of the Drone. Scott Shane, national security reporter for The New York Times. And we’ll link to this major exposé [part one, part two] you did on Hillary Clinton’s role in "The Libya Gamble."
That does it for the show. We have this late, breaking news: Honduras—the Honduran indigenous and environmental organizer Berta Cáceres has been assassinated. She was one of the leading organizers for indigenous land rights in Honduras, winner of the Goldman Environmental Prize. ... Read More →
Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan Blast Texas Anti-Choice Law, But Will Their Male Colleagues Follow Suit?
With the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia less than three weeks ago, the Supreme Court has only eight justices opening the way for a 4-4 tie in what many see as the biggest abortion case in a generation. Such a tie could leave in place a lower court ruling largely upholding the Texas law, potentially impacting other states in the same appeals court circuit—Mississippi, which has just one abortion clinic, and Louisiana, where a similar admitting privileges law threatens to close all but one clinic in the state. During the arguments, the three women on the Supreme Court led the criticism of the Texas abortion restrictions. Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned Texas’ argument that the restrictions don’t create an undue burden because women can travel to a clinic across state lines in New Mexico, where the same restrictions are not in place. "That’s odd that you point to the New Mexico facility," Ginsburg said. "If your argument is right, then New Mexico is not an available way out for Texas, because Texas says: To protect our women, we need these things. But send them off to New Mexico … and that’s perfectly all right." We speak to Jessica Mason Pieklo, senior legal analyst and vice president of Law and the Courts at RH Reality Check.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: During Wednesday’s arguments, the three women on the Supreme Court led the criticism of the Texas’s abortion restrictions. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned Texas’s argument that the restrictions don’t create an undue burden because some women can travel to a clinic across state lines in New Mexico, where the same restrictions are not in place. Quote, "That’s odd that you point to the New Mexico facility," Ginsburg said. "If your argument is right, then New Mexico is not an available way out for Texas, because Texas says: To protect our women, we need these things. But send them off to New Mexico … and that’s perfectly all right."
AMY GOODMAN: Joining us now is Jessica Mason Pieklo. She is senior legal analyst and vice president of Law and the Courts at RH Reality Check, co-author of Crow After Roe: How "Separate But Equal" Has Become the New Standard in Women’s Health and How We Can Change That.
Welcome to Democracy Now! The significance of what took place yesterday in the Supreme Court and these arguments, the questioning by the Supreme Court justices, Jessica?
JESSICA MASON PIEKLO: Yes, the questions are very significant. I think we see that the presidential elections matter. The female justices were all over the attorneys from Texas in terms of their purported reasons for supporting the law as a health and safety regulation, when it clearly, from those justices’ perspective at least, was not rising to that level.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Jessica, could you explain what the potential outcomes are, given the eight-member Supreme Court at the moment?
JESSICA MASON PIEKLO: Sure. So, we have a couple of different options. As you mentioned in your introduction, one is the possibility of a 4-4 tie. And should the justices split four to four, what that would do is likely leave in place the Fifth Circuit decision that has allowed most of these regulations to go—to take effect. Should the court tie 4-4, there is a probable—there is a good chance that they will probably try to rehear the case in the following term, when they have, hopefully, all nine justices. So that’s one—so that’s one option.
Of course, Justice Kennedy could decide to side with the liberal justices, and there were some questions in the argument that suggested he was at least considering that, in which case the Fifth Circuit decision would be overturned. Or there’s the possibility of them kicking it back down to the Fifth Circuit with some specific questions and saying, you know, "We would like some more evidentiary fact finding with regard to, say, the ambulatory surgical center provisions." If that happens, I would suspect that the Supreme Court leaves in place the order that is currently preventing the law from taking effect as widely as it would, should they decide to uphold the Fifth Circuit completely.
AMY GOODMAN: And, Jessica, how will this case affect other cases before the Supreme Court, on Mississippi and Louisiana? Louisiana has a case before the court that could close all but one clinic.
JESSICA MASON PIEKLO: Yeah, so the state of Louisiana’s response to the Supreme Court was due yesterday. And there’s an emergency petition, because, similar to Texas, the Fifth Circuit decided to overturn a district court order blocking these provisions in Louisiana and say that they should take effect while the appeals process takes place. And that’s an important thing because, as we’ve seen an Texas, it is very difficult to reopen clinics once they close, which is exactly the point of these kinds of laws. So the Supreme Court has to decide what it’s going to do with Louisiana.
Meanwhile, you mentioned Mississippi, also which is part of the Fifth Circuit. The Supreme Court is still sitting on a case, Jackson v. Currier, which is challenging similar restrictions and, if they go into effect, would close the state’s only clinic. In that case, the Fifth Circuit ruled that the Mississippi law should not take effect, because of that very fact that it was designed to close the only clinic.
So, the Fifth Circuit has made a mess of the law in its own area. Meanwhile, other circuits have refused to let these laws take effect. The Seventh Circuit blocked a similar measure in Wisconsin. And so, one of the reasons that the Supreme Court is going to have to eventually—if not in this case, in the next one—decide this issue is because we have in this country right now a patchwork of laws and access for women. Some women can access abortion clinics and care when they need it, and many, many cannot.
AMY GOODMAN: Jessica Mason Pieklo, we want to thank you for being with us, senior legal analyst and vice president of Law and the Courts at RH Reality Check, co-author of Crow After Roe: How "Separate But Equal" Has Become the New Standard in Women’s Health and How We Can Change That.
Coming up, "The Libyan Gamble." The New York Times has just published a major two-part exposé on how Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state, pushed President Obama to begin bombing Libya five years ago this week. We’ll speak with the reporter Scott Shane. Stay with us. ... Read More →
Headlines:GOP Establishment Seeks to Avert Donald Trump Nomination
In the latest attempt by the Republican establishment to derail Donald Trump’s presidential run, former Massachusetts governor and one-time Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is giving a speech today at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City in which he is calling Trump a "phony" and a "fraud." In Romney’s prepared remarks, he writes about Trump: "His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He’s playing the American public for suckers." Donald Trump has won 319 delegates so far—nearly 100 more delegates than any other candidate.
TOPICS:
Republican Party
2016 Election
Ben Carson Skips Debate, Sees No "Political Path Forward"
This comes as four Republican presidential candidates will face off at a debate in Detroit, Michigan, tonight—after neurosurgeon Ben Carson said he would not participate in tonight’s debate and that he does not "see a political path forward." Carson has failed to win a single state’s primary or caucus. Speaking Tuesday in Baltimore, Dr. Carson gave his diagnosis of the political system: rotten to the core.
Dr. Ben Carson: "As I’ve had an opportunity to really study our system, it has become a little bit discouraging seeing all the relationships that exist there. It is rotten. It is rotten to the core on both sides, Democrats and Republicans. ... The political class and their minions, which includes much of the media, you know, they don’t like it when someone challenges their authority."
TOPICS:
2016 Election
Detroit
Clinton Staffer Receives Immunity in Email Server Investigation
Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders are slated to debate in Flint, Michigan, on Sunday night. This comes as the Justice Department has granted immunity to the former State Department staffer who set up Clinton’s private email server, amid an ongoing criminal investigation into Clinton’s possible mishandling of classified information.
TOPICS:
Hillary Clinton
2016 Election
Flint: State Loan Blocked City from Returning to Detroit Water
Meanwhile, in Flint, new details have emerged about the ongoing water contamination crisis. Newly obtained documents show that when the state of Michigan loaned Flint $7 million in April 2015 in order to ease the city’s deficit so it could exit emergency management, a condition of the loan prohibited the city from returning to the Detroit system without state approval. This condition was imposed despite the fact that Governor Rick Snyder’s office was, by this time, well aware of the problems with the quality of Flint’s drinking water, which among other things was contaminated with lead. On Wednesday, Michigan House Minority Leader Tim Greimel and the Toledo Blade newspaper both called on Snyder to resign. Many Flint activists have also called for his arrest. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus are traveling to Flint, Michigan, and will host a "speak-out" on Friday for residents affected by the ongoing crisis.
TOPICS:
Environment
European Union Proposes $700 Million in Aid to Address Refugee Needs
The European Union has proposed a plan to distribute more than $700 million of humanitarian aid within its own borders as the continent attempts to respond to the needs of refugees fleeing wars in North Africa and the Middle East. This comes as 30,000 refugees are stranded in Greece because countries further along the Balkan route have closed their borders.
TOPICS:
Refugees
France: Refugees Launch Hunger Strike to Protest Calais Eviction
Meanwhile, in Calais, France, police have continued to dismantle parts of the country’s largest refugee camp, known as The Jungle. Refugees say the police have been destroying people’s homes and are threatening to destroy community centers, such as distribution centers and kitchens, even though a court ruling last week prohibits authorities from dismantling public spaces. At least a dozen refugees have launched a hunger strike to protest the ongoing eviction. Five of them have sewn their lips shut in protest. An Iraqi refugee named Sarwar spoke out.
Sarwar: "I’m planning to go to U.K. But how? The border is closed. I cannot live in The Jungle anymore, because CRS [French riot police] don’t leave me alone, destroyed my shelter. And I don’t know where my life is going."
TOPICS:
France
Refugees
Hunger Strike
NYC: Haitians Seek to Hold U.N. Responsible for Cholera Epidemic
In New York City, arguments have begun in a federal appeals case in which Haitian victims are seeking to hold the United Nations responsible for a cholera epidemic that killed more than 9,000 people. The U.N. peacekeepers are accused of negligently bringing cholera to the island during their deployment following the 2010 Haitian earthquake. But the United Nations is arguing it has immunity under a 1946 convention, and its lawyers did not attend Wednesday’s hearing.
TOPICS:
Haiti
Haiti Earthquake
United Nations
London: Nigerians Sue Shell over Spills in Niger Delta
Meanwhile, in a London courtroom, Nigerian communities from the Niger Delta have brought a lawsuit against energy giant Royal Dutch Shell over repeated spills from Shell’s oil pipelines. The spills have devastated the local farming and fishing industries and have contaminated the drinking water. The Nigerian communities are seeking to force Shell to pay cleanup costs. It’s the second time in five years Shell has been sued in London over oil spills in the Niger Delta.
TOPICS:
Nigeria
Natural Gas & Oil Drilling
Environment
White House Considering Judge Jane Kelly as Supreme Court Pick
The White House is reportedly vetting federal appellate judge Jane Kelly as a potential nomination for the Supreme Court, following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Kelly was a longtime public defender in Iowa before being appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. If confirmed, Kelly would become the first public defender on the Supreme Court. Republicans have said they will not consider any Supreme Court nominations by President Obama. But Democrats believe Kelly’s nomination could pressure Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley to reconsider this position, because Kelly is a prominent Iowa jurist. Grassley is up for re-election in Iowa this year.
TOPICS:
Supreme Court
Alabama: White Officer Charged in Murder of Unarmed Black Man
In Montgomery, Alabama, white police officer Aaron Smith has been arrested for the killing of unarmed African-American man Gregory Gunn. On February 25, Gregory Gunn, a 58-year-old grocer, was walking home when the 23-year-old white officer shot him several times, killing him. Following the shooting, Montgomery Police Chief Ernest Finley told local newspapers that Gregory Gunn had been holding some form of a weapon. It was later identified as a retractable painter’s stick. The shooting sparked days of protests and accusations of racial profiling. On Wednesday, officer Aaron Smith was arrested and charged with murder.
TOPICS:
Alabama
Police Brutality
Oklahoma Fracking Billionaire Dies, One Day After His Indictment
In Oklahoma, the former CEO of Chesapeake Energy has died, only one day after he was indicted on charges of conspiring to fix bids for oil and gas leases. Aubrey McClendon died Wednesday morning after his car crashed into an overpass wall at top speed and burst into flames. Paco Balderrama of the Oklahoma City Police Department says McClendon "pretty much drove straight into the wall." The formerCEO had made billions off the controversial gas extraction process hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking. He was accused of violating antitrust laws by orchestrating a scheme between two oil and gas companies not to bid against each other for leases in Oklahoma.
TOPICS:
Fracking
India: Student Leader Imprisoned for Sedition to Be Released on Bail
And in India, celebrations broke out on university campuses in Delhi after a court granted bail to a student leader imprisoned under a colonial-era sedition law. Student union president Kanhaiya Kumar was arrested on February 12 after a student group held an event marking the anniversary of the 2013 execution of Afzal Guru, who was convicted of a 2001 attack on the Parliament. Kumar’s arrest has sparked freedom of speech protests across India. On Wednesday, a public prosecutor announced Kumar would be released on bail.
Shailendra Babbar: "Today, the honorable court has finally announced the order, thereby saying that six months’ interim bail has been granted to the accused, and, subject to surety bonds, he will be released."
TOPICS:
India
Student Protests
Donate today:
Follow:
WEB EXCLUSIVE
Breaking: Honduran Indigenous Leader Berta Cáceres Assassinated, Won Goldman Environmental Prize
COLUMN
"Race and the Crime of Felony Disenfranchisement" by Amy Goodman & Denis Moynihan
Now that Super Tuesday is behind us and the field of presidential candidates is narrowing with the suspension of Dr. Ben Carson’s campaign, a potentially paradigm-shattering general election looms ever closer. "The stakes in this election have never been higher," Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton said in her speech after she had been declared the victor over Sen. Bernie Sanders in seven of 11 Super Tuesday states. As Donald Trump, piling victory upon victory on top of insult upon insult, edges closer to clinching the Republican nomination, the GOP is in chaos, with some predicting a historic split in the party. The presidential race to date has been well-characterized by a line of closed captioning text from a recent Republican debate: "unintelligible yelling." The circuslike atmosphere masks deeply troubling statements made by several candidates that fan the flames of racism, white supremacy and xenophobia. It also deflects attention from a critical, and worsening, deficit in our democracy: the attack on the right to vote, and in particular, the wholesale disenfranchisement of close to 5 million Americans, mostly people of color.
Race has been a defining issue in the 2016 election season. On the Republican side, there are overtly racist statements by front-runner Donald Trump, railing against Mexicans as "rapists" and refusing to denounce the former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke after Duke endorsed him. Trump said of an African-American protester who was attacked by Trump supporters at one of his rallies, "Maybe he should have been roughed up." Trump also is a proud retweeter of the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. When asked by NBC’s Chuck Todd if he wanted to be associated with a fascist, Trump replied, "I want to be associated with interesting quotes."
Republicans fear that a Donald Trump candidacy will cost their party not only a shot at the White House, but also control of the Senate and House of Representatives. That is where the torrent of restrictive voting laws comes in. The American Civil Liberties Union has noted that 10 states will be implementing new restrictive voting laws that will impact up to 80 million voters, and could decide the assignment of 129 electoral votes out of the 270 needed to win the election. Dale Ho of the ACLU writes, "These laws range from new hurdles to registration to cutbacks on early voting to strict voter identification requirements."
Denial of the right to vote for those who have been convicted of felonies is another way that voter participation is suppressed on a massive scale. With only 5 percent of the world’s population, the United States holds 25 percent of the world’s prisoners. Laws vary from state to state. Maine and Vermont actually allow prisoners to vote, but, as of 2014, according to The Sentencing Project, every other state and the District of Columbia have some form of disenfranchisement as a consequence of a felony. In 12 states, the right to vote is stripped permanently. That means even when people have served their sentence and paid their debt to society, they can never vote again. These states are Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, Tennessee, Virginia and Wyoming.
According to a 2002 study by sociologists Christopher Uggen and Jeff Manza, "If disenfranchised felons in Florida had been permitted to vote, Democrat Gore would certainly have carried the state, and the election." The Sentencing Project, in a 2014 report, summarized, "Nationwide, one in every 13 black adults cannot vote as the result of a felony conviction, and in three states—Florida, Kentucky, and Virginia—more than one in five black adults is disenfranchised."
Ari Berman, author of "Give Us the Ballot: The Modern Struggle for Voting Rights in America," said on the "Democracy Now!" news hour: "More than 5 million Americans can’t vote because of felon disenfranchisement laws. Voter disenfranchisement is another legacy of Jim Crow that we are still wrestling with today."
This is just one of the many devastating impacts of mass incarceration in the United States. And Republicans aren’t the only ones responsible. That is why Black Lives Matter activists have been interrupting Democratic presidential campaign events. During a recent private fundraiser for Hillary Clinton in Charleston, South Carolina, Ashley Williams held up a banner reading "We have to bring them to heel," a reference to controversial statements Hillary Clinton made in 1996 about some youth, whom she called "superpredators." Williams confronted Clinton, saying, "I am not a superpredator." She was quickly whisked away. On Super Tuesday, a young Somali-American woman confronted Clinton in Minneapolis about those same comments.
The struggle for racial justice and voting rights are inextricably linked. In this year’s race for the White House, race is indeed central.
WORK WITH DN!
Broadcast Engineer
Director of Finance and Operations
Director of Development
---------------------
207 West 25th Street, 11th Floor
New York, New York 10001, United States
---------------------
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment