Republican Kat Cammack's Pregnancy Care Issues Blamed On The Left
Yes, you read that correctly. In a new interview with the Wall Street Journal, Kat recalled experiencing an ectopic pregnancy last year, shortly after Florida's six-week abortion ban went into effect.
She was about five weeks pregnant, the embryo had no heartbeat, and a doctor told her she could die. Even so, Kat says the hospital staff hesitated to expel the pregnancy as they were afraid of prosecution. She argued for hours and even tried calling Governor Ron DeSantis's office; in the end, they agreed to give her the shot of methotrexate she needed.
In a remarkable display of cognitive dissonance, the lawmaker blamed liberal "fearmongering" for her issues at the hospital, suggesting the left's messaging around abortion bans ultimately made doctors paranoid (but apparently not the heavy consequences that come with breaking the abortion bans).
The fall of Roe v. Wade paved the way for abortion bans and restrictions in states throughout the US, with disastrous consequences. According to the Center of Reproductive Rights, people are experiencing delayed or denied care because providers fear severe penalties. In Florida, doctors can face felony charges, five years in prison, and up to a $5K fine for performing the procedure. In Texas, it's even harsher, with doctors facing felony charges, life in prison, and a $100K fine. In both states, they can also lose their medical licenses.
Amber Thurman. Josseli Barnica. Nevaeh Crain. These are the names of some of the women who've died in red states due to delayed care under abortion bans in recent years. I'm obviously not a doctor, but it seems like their deaths might've been prevented if not for the criminalization of abortion care. Amber's doctors waited 19 hours. Josseli's waited 40. Nevaeh visited the emergency room three times. To think that we had the knowledge and technology to save these women, but the doctors felt their hands were tied by the state.
As a woman who lives in Texas, I'm always heartbroken by the news of any person dying due to the draconian abortion laws here. According to the Gender Equity Policy Institute, Texas has the highest number of maternal deaths in the US (and the rates are significantly worse for Black women). Before any conservatives ask if that's simply because Texas is the second-most populated state, California has the largest population but the lowest maternal mortality rate in the country. I wonder why.
In addition to horrific loss of life, abortion bans have impacted healthcare in myriad other ways. Some OB-GYNs have left red states altogether. The number of med school graduates applying for OB-GYN residencies in states with abortion bans has decreased. Abortion bans are also worsening maternity care deserts.
So, I struggle to sympathize with Kat Cammack. Instead of empathizing with all people who might want or need abortions, she remains a co-chair of the House Pro-Life Caucus. "How can that be?" you might ask. Well, in true Republican fashion, she decided that her situation was special. Kat told the Wall Street Journal, "There will be some comments like, 'Well, thank God we have abortion services,' even though what I went through wasn't an abortion."
I don't care if she insists on calling the procedure any other name. The fact of the matter is Kat needed to end her pregnancy — just like so many other people do in this country, for any number of reasons — and an abortion ban interfered with her care. It's astounding to me that she's chosen to fight only for people "experiencing a miscarriage and an ectopic" like she did rather than criticizing the abortion bans themselves.
Until she decides to fight for all people's abortion rights, I find her words as outrageous and reprehensible as this administration. Do better, Kat.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Most US adults think the GOP tax bill will help the wealthy and harm the poor, AP-NORC poll finds
AP Poll Tax Bill WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican elected officials are promoting their recently passed tax and spending bill as a win for working Americans, but a new survey shows that Americans broadly see it as a win for the wealthy. About two-thirds of U.S. adults expect the new tax law will help the rich, according to the poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Most — about 6 in 10 — think it will do more to hurt than help low-income people. About half say it will do more harm than good for middle-class people and people like them. Republicans have already begun airing advertisements framing the legislation as a tax cut for all Americans, highlighting new deductions on tips and overtime income. But Democrats have been making the case that the wealthiest Americans will benefit from the legislation, citing cuts to Medicaid and food assistance programs. The new poll indicates that Republicans still have persuading to do. The high price tag may also be turning off some Americans. Trump's approval rating on government spending has fallen since the spring, according to the new survey, and about 6 in 10 U.S. adults across the political spectrum think the government is spending 'too much.' Americans see little benefit for low-income or middle-class people Most people have heard at least something about the new law, according to the poll, which found that about two-thirds of U.S. adults have heard or read 'a lot' or 'some' about it. Those who know something about the legislation are more likely to believe it favors the wealthy, compared with people who have heard 'only a little' or 'nothing at all." Anaiah Barrow, a 25-year-old single mom from North Carolina who doesn't identify with a political party, said she's concerned that the new law will hurt caregivers like her. Barrow -- who's juggling a job, taking care of two young children and pursuing a degree -- is concerned about losing access to day care and food stamps. 'It has a really big effect,' Barrow said of the recently passed legislation, which she has learned about on TikTok. 'It may not be as a big now, but in the long run it's going to have that effect -- it's going to hit bad.' Even many Republicans agree that the wealthy are likely to benefit from the tax and spending law. About half say the law will do more to help the wealthy. A similar percentage say this about middle-class people, while about 4 in 10 Republicans think it will do more to help than hurt low-income people. Lori Nichols, a 51-year-old caregiver for her elderly mother in Illinois, said the legislation has 'very little for the older people and people that are on disability.' Although Nichols is a Republican, she said she didn't vote in the 2024 presidential election and voted for Democrat Joe Biden in 2020. 'As far as the tax part goes, it seems to me like (Trump's) just making the rich richer,' Nichols said. Republicans are less likely to think they'll be harmed Despite the overall sense that wealthy people will be the primary beneficiaries, Democrats and independents are much likelier than Republicans to think the law could harm them personally. Nathan Hay, a shift service manager at an international dealership that repairs trucks, said he thinks lower-income people might see a 'slight increase' in taxes but still supports the bill. 'Personally, it's not helping me a ton,' Hay said, but he believes it will help small businesses, which have been a staple in his own life and his family's. About half of Republicans expect the legislation to do more to help 'people like you,' compared with about 2 in 10 independents and just 6% of Democrats. 'I'm not a tax accountant, but it sounds as if it would be more beneficial to (people) in the higher tax level,' said Republican Geraldine Putnam, 87, a Trump voter who lives in the rural south. 'It's not that I would want to take away the incentive to become more wealthy — that's the American dream,' Putnam said. But she also thinks she'll end up paying more in taxes. 'What he's doing I'm sure he thinks is correct," she said of Trump. "It's just the extreme method that he's using.' Trump approval on government spending The law's hefty price tag may be factoring into some Americans' assessments of the law. The poll found they are less likely to approve of how Trump is handling government spending since the spring. Just 38% of Americans approve of how Donald Trump is handling government spending, compared with 46% in an AP-NORC poll conducted in March. Republicans are less likely to say the government is spending 'too much' than they were in March 2023, when Joe Biden was president, but about 6 in 10 still think the government is overspending. A similar share of Democrats say the same thing. Putnam, now a retiree, took issue with Trump's cuts in federal workers, even though she says she approves of being able to 'trim off people who aren't really doing their jobs.' The way she sees it, Trump drew attention to people abusing social services, then 'fires the people in the office' that are investigating that very fraud and abuse. 'What's the sense in that?' she asked. ___ The AP-NORC poll of 1,437 adults was conducted July 10-14, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.6 percentage points.
Washington Post
20 minutes ago
- Washington Post
For Sale: Trump is leveraging power of his office to reap profits for family businesses
WASHINGTON — If one theme has emerged in President Donald Trump's second term, it's this: He's leveraged the power of his office for personal gain unlike anyone before in history. From crypto coins to bibles, overseas development deals to an upcoming line of cellphones, Trump family businesses have raked in hundreds of millions of dollars since his election, an unprecedented flood of often shadowy money from billionaires, foreign governments and cryptocurrency tycoons with interests before the federal government. 'He is president and is supposed to be working in the public's interest,' said James Thurber, an emeritus professor at American University, who has researched lobbying, campaign finance and political corruption for decades. 'Instead, he is helping his own personal interest to grow his wealth. It's totally not normal.' The sums amassed by the Trump Organization, the collection of companies controlled by the president's children, are far greater than those collected by the family during the president's first term, when patronage of his hotels, resorts and golf courses was de rigueur to curry favor with the famously transactional commander-in-chief. The second time around, the Trump family's ambitions are far grander, stretching from cyberspace to far-flung regions across the globe. One of Trump's cryptocurrencies is conservatively estimated to have pulled in at least $320 million since January, while another received a $2 billion investment from a foreign government wealth fund. A third has sold at least $550 million in tokens. His sons have jetted across the Middle East to line up new development deals, while his daughter and son-in-law are working with the Albanian government to build a Mediterranean island resort. Even first lady Melania Trump has inked a $40 million documentary deal with Amazon, whose founder, Jeff Bezos, was a frequent target of Trump during his first presidency and whose companies contract extensively with the federal government. The dealmaking is a rejection of Trump's first-term pledge to 'drain the swamp' in Washington and dwarfs the influence peddling efforts of former President Joe Biden's family, whom Trump and his allies attacked as the 'Biden Crime Family.' While Democrats have condemned Trump for his overlapping roles as a beneficiary and president, he is not likely to face any immediate repercussions for such extensive conflicts-of-interest. Congress is controlled by fellow Republicans, and his administration is stocked with loyalists who have dismantled many guardrails of oversight. Last summer, the Supreme Court, with a conservative majority cemented by Trump, ruled that presidents have broad immunity from prosecution. Even in the rare cases where Trump's allies have urged caution, the president has ignored them. That's what happened when he accepted a $400 million 'beautiful, big, magnificent, free airplane' from the Qatari government. Trump said the Boeing 747 'would go directly' to his presidential library upon leaving office. 'It's the Mount Everest of corruption' said Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat. Since Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace, presidents have gone to great lengths to avoid the appearance of such conflicts. Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan kept assets in a 'blind trust,' while George H.W. Bush used a 'diversified trust,' which blocked him from knowing what was in his portfolio. His son, George W. Bush, used a similar arrangement. Barack Obama was an exception, but his investments were mostly a bland mix of index funds and U.S. treasuries. During his first term, Trump even gave a nod toward ethics. He issued a moratorium on foreign deals. But instead of placing his assets in a blind trust like many of his predecessors, he handed the reins of the Trump Organization to his children, which kept his financial holdings close. This time, he has made no such gesture. His sons, Eric and Donald Jr., are again running the business while Trump is in office. And though the White House says he is not involved in its day-to-day decisions, the trust he has established continues to profit. He promotes his resorts, merchandise and the family's crypto ventures while residing in the White House, often from his account on Truth Social, the social media company he and his allies launched. He's also touted a line of Trump shoes, a Bible, which is made in China, and Trump guitars, one of which is a $1,500 Gibson Les Paul knockoff, featuring 'Make America Great Again' fret inlays. Conservative groups and Republican committees have spent at least $25 million at Trump properties since 2015, with most of it coming from Trump's own political organization, campaign finance disclosures show. Yet, those ventures pale in comparison to his exploits in cryptocurrency, which offers perhaps the clearest example of the conflicts of interest that have come to dominate Trump's second term. Trump was once a crypto skeptic who declared that cryptocurrencies were 'not money,' were based on 'thin air' and seemed 'like a scam.' By the time he was running again for president, however, he'd become a proponent of the industry. 'The difference now is he has realized that it can be his scam,' said Hilary Allen, a law professor at American University who specializes in banking and cryptocurrencies. Trump has pledged to turn the U.S. into the 'crypto capital of the world' and promised to roll back oversight of the industry. Deregulation, of course, will help his own businesses. At the height of the campaign, Trump announced the launch of his own crypto coin and World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency firm that would be run by his sons and several business associates. Among those partners was Steve Witkoff, now one of Trump's top diplomatic envoys. The Trump Organization and World Liberty Financial declined to comment. But it was also rooted in his 2024 campaign. At a crypto event at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida in May 2024, he received assurances that industry figures would spend lavishly to get him reelected, The Associated Press previously reported. Asked recently at the White House if he'd consider having his family business step back from its crypto investments to avoid questions about conflicts of interest, Trump said: 'We've created a very powerful industry. That's much more important than anything that we invest in.' 'I don't care about investing. You know, I have kids and they invest in it, because they do believe in it,' Trump added of crypto. 'But I'm president, and what I did do there was build an industry that's very important. And, if we didn't have it, China would.' Harrison Fields, a White House spokesman, reiterated that Trump's crypto boosterism isn't driven by self-interest. He 'is taking decisive action to establish regulatory clarity for digital financial technology and to secure America's position as the world's leader in the digital asset economy,' Fields said. 'The Trump administration,' Fields added, 'is fulfilling the president's promise to make the United States the crypto capital of the planet by driving innovation and economic opportunity for all Americans.' Trump is soon expected to sign cryptocurrency legislation approved by Congress on Thursday. Among the provisions is a ban on members of Congress issuing their own brand of a particular type of cryptocurrency. The prohibition does not extend to the president. Fields said it was unfair to equate critics' charges of conflicts of interest against Trump with the president's own suggestions that Biden's family benefited financially while he was in office. He said Trump's policies haven't benefited the president personally and have nothing to do with his family's financial concerns — and said Trump entered the White House an already successful businessman who didn't need a political career to become rich. Even so, Trump's family is poised to benefit financially from the crypto industry's growing clout. It holds a majority ownership stake that entitles them to 75% of earnings from their first coin, released last September, according to World Liberty Financial's website. The coin, $WLFI, was not an immediate success. Then, after the president's election, sales took off. Days before his inauguration, Trump announced a new meme coin, $Trump, during the 'Crypto Ball,' a Washington gala intended to showcase a regulatory sea change he vowed to usher in. 'Time to celebrate everything we stand for: WINNING!' Trump posted to his X account. 'Join my very special Trump Community. GET YOUR $TRUMP NOW.' Often created as a joke with no real utility, meme coins are prone to wild price swings that often enrich a small group of insiders at the expense of less sophisticated investors. $Trump soared to over $70, but its price soon collapsed, losing money for many. It has hovered around $10 since March. Trump did well, though. By the end of April, the coin had earned over $320 million in fees, according to an analysis by the crypto tracking firm Chainalysis. A third cryptocurrency, a 'stablecoin' called USD1, launched in April. There appear to be upsides for Trump's cryptocurrency investors and associates. Justin Sun, a Chinese-born crypto billionaire, has disclosed investing nearly $200 million in the Trumps' various crypto ventures. Amid this spree, the Trump administration announced it had paused a securities fraud case against him. In June, Sun announced he was taking his crypto company, Tron, public after securing financing through a deal brokered by Eric Trump. Last week, Sun posted on Twitter that he was purchasing an additional $100 million worth of Trump's meme coin. Sun is not the only one. Changpen Zhao, a convicted felon who founded the crypto exchange Binance, was part of a megadeal in which a United Arab Emirates-controlled wealth fund invested $2 billion in the Trump stablecoin, USD1, which it used to purchase a stake in Zhao's Binance. The deal gave outsized publicity to World Liberty Financial and instantly made the stablecoin one of the top in the market. It will also allow the Trump family and their business partners to reinvest the $2 billion and collect interest, estimated to be worth as much as $80 million a year. Soon after the purchase was announced, Trump granted the UAE greater access to U.S. artificial intelligence chips, which it had long sought. Binance and Zhao benefited, too. Binance is restricted in the U.S. and entered a settlement with the Biden administration that sent Zhao to jail in 2024 after he pleaded guilty to failing to maintain an anti-money-laundering program. Prosecutors said he looked the other way as criminals used his platform to move money connected to child sex abuse, drug trafficking and terrorism. In May, Trump's Securities and Exchange Commission dropped the final federal enforcement action against Binance. Zhao, who goes by CZ, is now seeking a pardon. The White House says no decision has been made on issuing such a grant of clemency. Trump announced several months ago a new promotion that would trade on his presidency: He was hosting a dinner at his Virginia golf club for the top 220 investors in his meme coin, $Trump, with a special White House tour for the top 25. That fueled a temporary rise in the coin's value. It also helped enrich the Trump Organization, which is entitled to collect fees when the coin is traded. A month later, Trump addressed attendees of the dinner, standing before a lectern with the presidential seal. The White House said at the time that it had nothing to do with the meme coin. For decades, campaign contributions and lobbying have been governed by laws that place limits on how much donors can give, require a degree of transparency and limit how politicians can spend the money they raise. Trump's venture into cryptocurrency effectively sidesteps these laws, legal and finance experts say. 'It's a lot like the Trump Hotel from the first term, but what crypto has done is dispensed with the need for the hotel,' said Allen, the law professor. 'Because crypto assets can be made out of thin air, he has found a way of creating an unlimited supply of assets to offer to people who want to give.' ___ Associated Press writer Aaron Kessler contributed from Washington.
Chicago Tribune
21 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
House gives final approval to Trump's $9 billion cut to public broadcasting and foreign aid
WASHINGTON — The House gave final approval to President Donald Trump's request to claw back about $9 billion for public broadcasting and foreign aid early Friday as Republicans intensified their efforts to target institutions and programs they view as bloated or out of step with their agenda. The vote marked the first time in decades that a president has successfully submitted such a rescissions request to Congress, and the White House suggested it won't be the last. Some Republicans were uncomfortable with the cuts, yet supported them anyway, wary of crossing Trump or upsetting his agenda. The House passed the bill by a vote of 216-213. It now goes to Trump for his signature. 'We need to get back to fiscal sanity and this is an important step,' said House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. Opponents voiced concerns not only about the programs targeted, but about Congress ceding its spending powers to the executive branch as investments approved on a bipartisan basis were being subsequently canceled on party-line votes. They said previous rescission efforts had at least some bipartisan buy-in and described the Republican package as unprecedented. No Democrats supported the measure when it passed the Senate, 51-48, in the early morning hours Thursday. Final passage in the House was delayed for several hours as Republicans wrestled with their response to Democrats' push for a vote on the release of Jeffrey Epstein files. The package cancels about $1.1 billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and nearly $8 billion for a variety of foreign aid programs, many designed to help countries where drought, disease and political unrest endure. The effort to claw back a sliver of federal spending came just weeks after Republicans also muscled through Trump's tax and spending cut bill without any Democratic support. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that measure will increase the U.S. debt by about $3.3 trillion over the coming decade. 'No one is buying the the notion that Republicans are actually trying to improve wasteful spending,' said Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries. The cancellation of $1.1 billion for the CPB represents the full amount it is due to receive during the next two budget years. The White House says the public media system is politically biased and an unnecessary expense. The corporation distributes more than two-thirds of the money to more than 1,500 locally operated public television and radio stations, with much of the remainder assigned to National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service to support national programming. Democrats were unsuccessful in restoring the funding in the Senate. Lawmakers with large rural constituencies voiced particular concern about what the cuts to public broadcasting could mean for some local public stations in their state. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said the stations are 'not just your news — it is your tsunami alert, it is your landslide alert, it is your volcano alert.' As the Senate debated the bill Tuesday, a 7.3 magnitude earthquake struck off the remote Alaska Peninsula, triggering tsunami warnings on local public broadcasting stations that advised people to get to higher ground. Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said he secured a deal from the White House that some money administered by the Interior Department would be repurposed to subsidize Native American public radio stations in about a dozen states. But Kate Riley, president and CEO of America's Public Television Stations, a network of locally owned and operated stations, said that deal was 'at best a short-term, half-measure that will still result in cuts and reduced service at the stations it purports to save.' Among the foreign aid cuts are $800 million for a program that provides emergency shelter, water and family reunification for refugees and $496 million to provide food, water and health care for countries hit by natural disasters and conflicts. There also is a $4.15 billion cut for programs that aim to boost economies and democratic institutions in developing nations. Democrats argued that the Republican administration's animus toward foreign aid programs would hurt America's standing in the world and create a vacuum for China to fill. 'This is not an America first bill. It's a China first bill because of the void that's being created all across the world,' Jeffries said. The White House argued that many of the cuts would incentivize other nations to step up and do more to respond to humanitarian crises and that the rescissions best served the American taxpayer. 'The money that we're clawing back in this rescissions package is the people's money. We ought not to forget that,' said Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., chair of the House Rules Committee. After objections from several Republicans, Senate GOP leaders took out a $400 million cut to PEPFAR, a politically popular program to combat HIV/AIDS that is credited with saving millions of lives since its creation under Republican President George W. Bush. Democrats say the bill upends a legislative process that typically requires lawmakers from both parties to work together to fund the nation's priorities. Triggered by the official rescissions request from the White House, the legislation only needed a simple majority vote to advance in the Senate instead of the 60 votes usually required to break a filibuster. That meant Republicans could use their 53-47 majority to pass it along party lines. Two Republican senators, Murkowski and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, joined with Democrats in voting against the bill, though a few other Republicans also raised concerns about the process. 'Let's not make a habit of this,' said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker of Mississippi, who voted for the bill but said he was wary that the White House wasn't providing enough information on what exactly will be cut. Russ Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the imminent successful passage of the rescissions shows 'enthusiasm' for getting the nation's fiscal situation under control. 'We're happy to go to great lengths to get this thing done,' he said during a breakfast with reporters hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. In response to questions about the relatively small size of the cuts — $9 billion — Vought said that was because 'I knew it would be hard' to pass in Congress. Vought said another rescissions package is 'likely to come soon.'
