Governor's Race in Georgia Resurrects a History of Governmental Voter Suppression

The Georgia gubernatorial race is fast approaching and the ballot has drawn some dueling contenders. Georgia has been a topic of recent discussion, as efforts to increase Democratic turnout and shift the state into battleground territory appear to be making some leeway. Stacey Abrams, the former House Minority leader, is the prominent democratic candidate; she stands to become the first Democratic governor since Roy Barnes (R) was elected in 1998. On the other side of the aisle are a slew of Republican candidates, but one stands out in clear opposition to Abrams, especially when you examine their political history. Although she is known for working with Republicans to get bills passed in the house, Abrams has butted heads with one prominent Georgia republican: Secretary of State Brian Kemp.

The two clashed in 2014 over claims of voter suppression. Abrams founded The New Georgia Project, an organization with the goal of registering over 100,000 Georgia voters--minorities, women, and young people. The New Georgia project was making significant progress in voter registration, but Kemp’s office subpoenaed the group on suspension of registering fraudulent voter applications. The investigation revealed 51 fraudulent or suspect forms out the 85,000 investigated. Later that year, The New Georgia Project filed a lawsuit against Kemp on the accusation that his office had not processed over 40,000 applications from The New Georgia Project. The New Georgia Project’s claim of voter suppression stems from the fact that, statistically, the majority of those applicants would be Democrats, especially given the that the allegedly affected counties, Fulton, DeKalb, Chatham, Muscogee, and Clayton County, have all been overwhelmingly blue in recent presidential elections. The case against Kemp’s office was dismissed, but that is not the only lawsuit concerning voter suppression that has been filed against the Secretary.

Kemp was hit with three separate lawsuits concerning voter issues in 2016. The first was filed by Common Cause, a government watchdog group, and the Georgia NAACP under the assertion that Georgia use of “confirmation of address” notices were in violation of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). These notices are sent to voters who have not cast a ballot in three years and, if they do not respond, they are kicked off the voter rolls. The second lawsuit was filed by Project Vote, a nonpartisan voting rights group, in response to Kemp’s refusal to release voter registration records, specifically those relating to rejected applicants, which they assert is in violation of the NVRA. The third lawsuit brought against Kemp accused him of blocking minority vote via the state’s requirement for “strict matching” on voter information. These mismatches in information, which can be as small as misplacement of apostrophe, can cause individual’s applications to be rejected.

The groups who brought this third suit, including the Georgia NAACP and the Georgia Coalition for the People's’ Agenda, claim this rule disproportionately affects minority voters, with 76.3% of the 34,874 denied applicants identifying as minorities. Georgia temporarily halted the requirements while it tried to work towards a settlement. Additionally, the legal action against Kemp is not a new phenomenon. Karen Handel, the previous Secretary of State, was also bombarded with accusations of voter suppression during her time in office.

These lawsuits against Kemp affect Abrams and the Democratic party in a massive way. It is a corner-stone in democratic political strategy to “get out the vote” and Georgia is a prime example of that idea in practice. Georgia politicians on both sides of the aisle have asserted that Georgia elections are becoming a matter of who shows up to cast a ballot. However, if these allegations of governmental voter suppression are accurate, it could make the Democrats’ battle even more daunting than previously believed. A “get out the vote” strategy only works if registration is met with a swift and fair examination and decision. If Stacy Abrams’ widespread registration efforts are blocked by Kemp and his administration, her chances of winning the governorship become a quickly-receding dream.

- Ava Vecellio

A Local's Perspective on the GA-6 Special Election

If I were to have told you that a 30-year-old investigative filmmaker and former political aide who had never served in any elected legislative capacity would come within 2 percentage points of becoming a congressman in a field of 17 other candidates, would you have believed me? What if I also were to have told you that this young upstart is running as a Democrat in a district that has not been represented by a Democrat in almost forty years?

Only in the Trump era can a story like this not only be feasible, but also true. On April 18, Georgia’s Sixth Congressional District (GA-6), which constitutes the suburbs outside of Atlanta’s metropolitan sector, held a special election for the House of Representative position left open due to Tom Price’s appointment to as Secretary of Health and Human Services. In this nonpartisan blanket primary, during which all candidates, regardless of political party, vying for the same elected office run against each other at once, Jon Ossoff, the leading Democratic candidate, received 92,390 votes, constituting 48.1% of the district and falling short of the 50%+ margin to win the seat outright. In a June 20 runoff, Ossoff will face the next highest vote-getter, former Georgia Secretary of State and Republican frontrunner Karen Handel, who received 37,993 votes and 19.8% of the district. Whichever candidate breaks the 50% threshold in the runoff will win the vacant GA-6 seat.

As a resident of GA-6, this election, quite literally, hits home. After coincidentally going back to my hometown Atlanta suburbs the day after the special election, something felt different: people cared. Friends of mine, mostly between 18 and 22, told me about their experiences volunteering, canvassing, and feeling as if they had made a difference as a part of the Ossoff campaign. Although my passion for politics bloomed while going to school in New York, I fully understood the consequences that this special election carries on a local and national level.

GA-6 has voted overwhelmingly red since 1979 for three notable Republicans: former Speaker of the House and “Republican Revolution” leader Newt Gingrich (1979-1999), current Senior Georgia Senator Johnny Isakson (1999-2005), and Price (2005-2017). The 1990 GA-6 election, during which Gingrich held his seat by 0.6% against Democratic opponent David Worley, is the only exception to what has traditionally been Republican dominance. However, as evidenced by Ossoff’s wide support group beyond GA-6, the campaign to “flip the sixth” has threatened to upend precedent and take a seat away from the Republican-controlled House.

The unusually large amount of campaign yard signs I saw supporting Ossoff, let alone a Democratic candidate, demonstrate that the left-leaners of the GA-6 have pooled all their resources towards the up-and-comer. This unity for Ossoff threatens the district’s Republican stranglehold along with the fractured Republican support for its candidates in the primary. After witnessing the usual amount of yard signs promoting GOP candidates, I noticed the inconsistencies of whom the signs endorsed, mostly favoring Handel, Dan Moody, Bob Gray and Judson Hill. This perfectly reflected the reality of eleven Republican candidates vying for Price’s old seat in the primary. Though Republicans received 51% of the April 18 vote, with Handel leading the field, the massive coalition for Ossoff coupled with the Republicans’ failure to rally around one candidate in the primary nearly cost them their seat.

This turn of events may have been expected, however. While both Republican nominees John McCain and Mitt Romney outperformed Obama by a wide margin in GA-6 during the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, respectively, Trump squeaked past Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the district this past November. The McCain and Romney vote and its contrast with the Trump vote deduces that GA-6 prefers establishment conservatives, and Handel’s political ideology, which aligns with Price’s, fits the bill. Statistics back this up, as well: the candidates who identified the most with Trump performed worse in the primary; though she supported him for President, Handel shied away from mentioning the President during her campaign.

Per the inevitable, the Republican Party has coalesced around Handel since she secured the nomination. The President himself has vocalized his support for the GOP nominee by attacking Ossoff both on Twitter and more fiercely in an April speech to the National Rifle Association in Atlanta, and he will likely continue to do so leading up to the June 20th runoff. Handel has followed suit by graciously asking for and accepting Trump’s endorsement. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan will even make a trip to the district next week to stump for Handel and raise money for what has already become the most expensive House race in history, with nearly $30 million spent on TV ads alone at time of writing. 

President Trump investing in Handel begs an important question for Democrats: is this election pro-Ossoff or anti-Trump? The answer may be two-fold. Many 1990 GA-6 voters, particularly organized labor groups, resented Gingrich for standing against government intervention of the now defunct Eastern Air Lines, and Worley, a 32-year-old lawyer whom Gingrich had defeated twice before, represented the alternative, almost ‘flipping the sixth’ himself. In 2017, Trump’s low approval ratings, particularly that by the Democrats and left-leaners, parallel the circumstances that almost cost Gingrich his seat twenty seven years ago. Furthermore, many major news outlets have presented this election as a referendum against Trump, citing it as a test against the GOP.

Because of these circumstances, this election has transformed into a pro-Ossoff campaign. GA-6 resident desperate to turn the district blue in spite of the 45th President jumped on the bandwagon for a young, charismatic, scandal-free candidate who possesses “...a deliberative, professorial style somewhat similar to Barack Obama’s.” Ossoff has not only been endorsed by current Georgia Congressmen, Hank Johnson (GA-4) and John Lewis (GA-5), former Georgia Governor Roy Barnes, Bernie Sanders, the Daily Kos, and many celebrities, but he has also received millions of dollars in support. Although Ossoff lacks political experience and does not even live in GA-6 (though he previously lived there and currently lives just outside the district), he represents the anti-Trump coalition, kick starting his campaign with the slogan “Make Trump Furious.” Thus, a vote for Ossoff is assuredly a vote against Trump.

With the expectation that the Republican Party unites around Handel, Ossoff has an uphill battle despite his strong primary showing. The district has not sent a Democrat to Washington since 1974, and though Ossoff represents the best chance to “flip the sixth,” a Republican candidate with a high degree of support has historically maintained a winning edge in this district. Ossoff can very well win this election, but even if he loses, his campaign and the recent Kansas special election has put a scare into Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress on notice. If the 2010 House Elections are any historical indication, the GA-6 special election foreshadows the Democratic Party rising in 2018.

Just as interestingly, however, we should ask ourselves whether the competitiveness of the district is actually sustainable, to which I would answer: almost certainly. While there is merit to the notion that GA-6 would not have been in play had a more establishment GOP presidential candidate been on the ballot last November (i.e. Mitt Romney won the district by 72,000 votes in 2012), it can be argued that the demographic shifts within both the district itself and Georgia as a whole would have become too powerful to keep GA-6 an uncompetitive Republican seat for much longer. As more companies have relocated and/or expanded to the district over the last twenty years, GA-6 has experienced a notable influx of new residents, many of whom are non-white and college-educated. In Sandy Springs, a city located in the southernmost part of the district and home to the likes of UPS, Cox Enterprises, and Mercedes-Benz USA, the population of Asian persons increased 66.74% in the period 2000-2010. Likewise, the population of persons Hispanic or Latino origin grew 57.01% over the same period of time, all while the population of Caucasian persons fell 8.26%. I expect to see this trend reinforced in the 2020 census, with a strong likelihood of even higher growth among non-white people.

Most telling for the future, the Ossoff campaign has employed and motivated an upbeat and young base that has entered politics, many of whom I know personally. After getting a taste of participating in an election, these Ossoff supporters have demonstrated an eagerness to further their political activist efforts, especially in spite of President Trump.

Update: On June 20, 2017, Karen Handel defeated Jon Ossoff by a 51.9%-48.1% margin, surpassing the pre-election polling projections that predicted a deadlock the entire way. While Ossoff won early voting by nearly 10,000 votes, Handel greatly outperformed her opponent by 20,000 votes on election day voting. While Handel's victory extends the Republican grasp over GA-6 and leaves Democrats continuing to look for answers after their party's fifth special election loss in 2017, Democrats have continually outperformed their benchmarks in special elections and, as was the case with Republicans and Obama, the words "President Trump" have shown no signs of slowing down an impassioned Democratic base. This will make many House seats in the Trump era more competitive, let alone in Georgia's Sixth District. 

- Jake Steel & Jay Edlin (Guest Contributor from GA Tech)

Holding Trump Accountable to the Stock Market

President Trump has made a habit of touting the stock market’s success in the few months following his election. Back three weeks or so, when the Dow Jones was consistently in the green and soaring past 20,000 ‒ and later 21,000 ‒ for the first time ever, he tweeted about its rise on five separate occasions. His market rhetoric often carries conspicuous meaning; one Christmas Eve tweet reads,

“The world was gloomy before I won - there was no hope. Now the market is up nearly 10% and Christmas spending is over a trillion dollars!”

By claiming that his election victory increased investor confidence, he almost embodies Atlas ‒ the ancient Greek titan condemned by Zeus to hold up the sky’s weight ‒ as if he physically lifted the tickers himself.

Setting analogies aside, does Trump have authority to claim sole responsibility for the market’s rally? Yes and no. Yes, investors generally view Republicans and their pro-business plan for tax cuts and deregulation favorably, but that view isn’t exclusive to Trump or his policies. What matters more, most analysts agree, is the boom-and-bust economic cycle during a president’s four years ‒ which hinges more on the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy than any presidential policy. The Trump rally, therefore, likely has more to do with the Fed’s 7-year strategy of setting near-zero interest rates than anything else. Such low rates have artificially propped up asset prices to spur cheap borrowing and business investment. While this has helped stocks recover from the 2008 Great Recession, some investors are beginning to view prolonged low rates as a sign that we’re heading towards another market bubble.

The bubble theory could become reality if investors continue to downplay the policy risks associated with a Trump presidency; erratic behavior, a potential trade war with China, and reckless border wall spending are just beginning to factor into daily market movements. These (and other gaffes) will surely creep into investor’s minds at some point, clouding Trump’s ability to take responsibility for any future rallies.

Still, some market analysts credit Trump for roughly half of the post-election market gains. The monthly uptick in consumer confidence and increase in investors’ trading bonds for stocks are both signs of optimism towards Trump’s pro-business platform and its ability to spur economic growth. He also gets credit for using Twitter as a bully pulpit to convince auto companies like General Motors and Ford to invest at home (although there’s no conclusive evidence that his tweets actually move stock prices).

No matter how bullish your current market outlook is, it’s worth exploring diversification options to hedge against a future downturn. Even with an impressive post-election rally, investors shouldn’t expect it to continue forever. If a market bubble becomes clearer during his presidency, expect outlandish reactions from Trump. If he can take credit for the market’s success, he should own up to its failures too.

Holding Trump accountable for an imminent market downturn will be a tough albeit necessary challenge for Democrats moving forward. His thin-skinned nature makes him an easy target, as he’s shown a willingness to retaliate on Twitter against Democratic foes. On April 27, for example, he tweeted six different times blaming Democrats for their ineptitude. By continually riling up Democrats, he’s almost begging for them to berate him if the market performs poorly.

Their task will be made even easier, however, if a market downturn precedes a larger economic one. They can then claim, as some previously did when bubbles occurred during George W. Bush’s presidency, that they foresaw a rocky economic road ahead before the president has a chance to publicly indicate anything himself. If you believe that the stock market is in a bubble, then an economic downturn might be imminent. Plenty of historical research backs this assertion up, highlighting how Republican bull markets are usually a negative sign for the economy. Each major Republican tax cut ‒ Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover’s in 1924 and 1928, Ronald Reagan’s in 1981, and George W. Bush’s in 2001 and 2003 ‒ all led to huge economic crises, including the Great Depression in 1929, the 1987 Stock Market Crash, and the Great Recession in 2007-08.

Will the Trumped-up trickle-down tax cuts be next? We’ll have to wait and see. But if you believe the stock market is headed for darker days, then there’s good reason to brace for economic malaise. Oddly enough, Democratic opponents could politically benefit if such events were to occur. By claiming that Trump is fully responsible for the stock market’s highs and lows, they’re in good position to criticize his boastfulness and hypocritical statements, holding him accountable when he likely refuses to acknowledge future market slumps.

-Jordan Wolken

Trump's Electronics Ban

On March 21st, The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a factsheet unveiling an electronics ban affecting 8 predominantly-Muslim countries and 9 airlines with American-bound routes. Effective until October 14th, any US-bound flights from Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, must store all electronics larger than a smartphone in the cargo-hold. Subsequent DHS statements cited this policy was in response to new intelligence that Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) was making progress hiding bombs within computer batteries, along with previous incidents such as Russia’s Metrojet 9268’s explosion over Sinai (2015) and the attempted downing of Somali Daallo Airlines 159 with a laptop bomb (2016). Whether this policy will be effective in preventing such attacks in the United States remains to be seen. 

Bruce Schneier, security technologist and lecturer at Harvard University believes the electronics ban can help prevent attacks, such as the Daallo Airlines laptop explosion, noting “Forcing it (the bomb) in the plane’s hold would make it much harder to detonate, since the terrorist has to design an automatic mechanism rather than doing it manually.” However, the Metrojet explosion in Egypt is believed to have been taken down by a bomb in the cargo hold. And if this policy is truly designed to stop terrorists from detonating laptop bombs on US routes, then why is it so easy to circumvent? Terrorism is stateless, and with ISIS worth nearly $2 billion and Al-Qaeda worth $150 million, one would think these organizations could afford to fly their laptop bombs from countries not included in the ban, like war-torn Yemen. So if this policy doesn’t prevent terrorist attacks and is easily circumvented, then what exactly does it do? 

A Bit of Background:  Open Skies Dispute

The big three US carriers (American, Delta, and United) have taken issue with state-owned Gulf carriers Emirates, Qatar Airways, and Etihad for receiving subsidies from their governments.  According to the Partnership for Open & Fair Skies, the fact that Gulf carriers are receiving approximately $52 Billion in a variety of subsidies violates the Open Skies agreement that allows Emirates, Qatar Airways, and Etihad to fly into American Airspace. The three American companies have lobbied both the Obama Administration and now the Trump Administration to take action to “level the playing field.” But why are American, Delta, and United targeting the Gulf Carriers in particular?  Italy’s Alitalia makes perennial losses, only surviving because of heavy subsidies from the Italian government. Delta partly owns China Eastern which received $865 million in subsidies, and United partners with Air China which received $162 million from the Chinese government.  Even Delta is lobbying to receive fuel subsidies from the taxpayers of Georgia. It appears that American carriers are pro-subsidization until it holds them back from more profit, and this is illustrated by looking at the ever-increasing market share of the Gulf airlines. 

Looking at the market shares on each of those routes, it becomes clear that a large portion of the Gulf carriers’ growth can be seen in international departures from America. As the Gulf three begin to capture a larger share of the international market, they’ve dramatically increased the number of seats flown into America, as shown below. And they continue to grow, as Emirates gained its 12th American stop earlier this year, and Qatar Airways will reach its 11th American stop in 2018 when they begin flying to Las Vegas. According to the American big three, this presents problems as the Gulf airlines are able to flood the American market drastically increasing supply and dropping prices as a result. Good for customers, bad for corporate profits.  

Moving back to the electronics ban, the Trump Administration’s roll out of an electronic ban was followed by the United Kingdom rolling out their own ban. A couple specifics about the UK ban were slightly different, however.  First, the United Kingdom’s ban affects UK airlines, while the American ban does not directly affect any American airlines. Secondly, and very interestingly, the United Kingdom ban doesn’t include Qatar or UAE, the epicenter of the airline subsidy debate. The two administrations shared intelligence and collaborated in crafting the policy, yet they still rolled out their bans to include different countries. The disconnect is very disconcerting because if these policies are truly based on security then it would behoove both administrations to be on the same page and communicate effectively about their reasoning for why each nation was on the list. The fact that allies such as the United States and the United Kingdom cannot agree on a single list either points to incompetency or different motives from each administration. As the UK ban affects UK based airlines, their ban is less likely to be an economic chess move and more likely to be a security policy. With the US ban, their nation choice with the background of the Open Skies dispute, the Trump administration’s ban is much more likely to be an economic move over the UK’s. So, if this is a chess move, what is it designed to do and how is it effective?   

How Does This Hurt Gulf Carriers?

It remains to be seen as to how large the economic impact will be on the Gulf carriers. However, this could consolidate the losses that the Gulf airlines sustained after the Muslim travel ban. Although the previous ban is being held up in American courts, Emirates alone experienced a 35% drop in American-bound bookings. This electronic ban does more than just consolidate those losses, however. Costs could rise because of added security measures and possible delays in the event that passengers mistakenly take their electronics to the cabin.  More substantially, the Gulf three are likely see a drop in business passengers who would typically travel through the Gulf to reach their American destinations. A key component of the Gulf big three’s growth is their central location, long range aircraft, and luxurious business and first class cabins, which can earn loyal business travelers. But these flights can often be too long for business travelers to be offline and unproductive. Furthermore, business travelers with sensitive information on their electronic devices fear checking laptops into cargo-holds could lead to stolen information. In fact, some corporations have policies prohibiting the checking of electronics, and as such, they are changing to unaffected carriers, which can be less direct, but much more safe and productive. And although this policy won’t unflood the US aviation market with seats, it hits the Gulf three right with their key constituency of business flyers. 

American Protectionism

The electronics ban is clearly ineffective in fighting terrorism, but quite effective at targeting the pockets of Gulf airlines. From top to bottom, this seems like a protectionist policy that was designed with the consultation of big airline industry leaders when they met with Trump just a month prior to the ban’s rollout. Although this may not create lasting financial uncertainty, it is hitting at the Gulf airlines’ highest paying passengers while increasing security costs for them in Qatar and the UAE. As the rollout was scrutinized by security personnel, it was a popular narrative to think the administration missed their target. However when we look into alternative options for the administration to protect United, Delta, and American, none are an improvement on this policy. Blocking the Gulf big three from American airspace would cause a rise in prices on the American consumer and it’s unlikely that UAE and Qatar would stop subsidizing their airlines. This policy is as discreet as it gets for an administration seeking protection for their airlines. So even when the Trump administration cites security when questioned about their policy, it’s useful to investigate what its policy truly accomplishes, because more so than most administrations, its actions speak much louder than its words.    

-Omar Naguib

The Shortcomings of Satire in the Trump Era

Comedians capitalized on political satire this election cycle, and it was hilarious. Alec Baldwin’s impersonation of Donald Trump put Saturday Night Live in the spotlight. Stephen Colbert found his niche on the Late Show with his coverage of the election, and countless other comedians like Samantha Bee, Trevor Noah, and Seth Meyers satirized politics. The intersection of comedy and satire lends itself perfectly to the current political climate as scandal after scandal comes out of Washington. It continues to sustain post-election TV ratings, and the number of comedians covering current events is still growing. These shows entertain audiences, but they don’t necessarily provoke critical thought about policies or make compelling critiques of politicians. That’s not necessarily a problem. Some networks simply goof on politics for comedic material and are not trying to make political statements, but the popularization of Trump impersonations raises questions about the role of satire in the Trump era.

Comedians tend to focus on personality traits and mannerisms rather than issues. Traditional satire relies on the exaggeration of personalities or ideas to reveal absurdities. The issue, unfortunately, is that Trump’s entire campaign and his presidency is already the epitome of absurd. Take Baldwin’s impersonation of Trump. It’s funny to watch him mock Trump’s strange speech patterns and unusual hand gestures, but Baldwin does not successfully satirize Trump. His impersonation is so similar to the real thing that a newspaper in the Dominican Republic mistook a picture of Baldwin’s impersonation for Trump. It is difficult to find a way to exaggerate his personality to the point of real satire. The audience is entertained, but impersonations of Trump don’t have the element of absurdity that reveals new contradictions or insights into Trump. Impersonations and mockery of Trump’s personality cannot say more than he has already tweeted. It is great comedy, but it is not real satire, because it does not challenge the viewer to think beyond his or her preconceptions.

Critiques of politician’s personalities are safe, because it is easy to tap into viewers’ previous knowledge of politicians to make a joke. Comedy is saturated with jokes about news and politicians, but little of it makes a lasting impact. The more comedians focus on personality, the less they talk about real issues and policies. It is harder to make clever impactful critiques about Trump’s tax plan, than it is to laugh at his bizarre hair or orange skin. Highlighting Trump’s buffoonery is valuable, but it falls short of providing a real critique of issues. Comedians also need to satirize his policies if they intend to make a compelling argument against Trump’s presidency.

Popular political satire does not provide a successful critique of Donald Trump because comedians are not willing to make viewers uncomfortable. Comedians miss the element of dark humor that makes satire affective. A great example of good satire is Tom Lehrer’s satirical song “Send the Marines”1. Written in ‘65 during the Vietnam War, “Send the Marines” critiques US military intervention abroad:

For might makes right, until they see the light,

They’ve got to be protected, all their rights respected,

‘Till someone we like can be elected.

Members of the corps, all hate the thought of war

They’d rather kill them off by peaceful means.

He perfectly described the US government’s hypocrisy of supporting regimes for political expediency rather than actual concern for human rights. Lehrer did not hold back. There is no leniency for politicians who send armed troops abroad in the name of protecting the status quo. Most importantly, he wrote this song at a time when the Vietnam was still very popular. In 1965, only 24% of Americans  believed the US made a mistake by sending troops to Vietnam. In writing this song, he took a risk by confronting Americans with their own hypocrisy. It is easy to critique something that is widely unpopular, but Lehrer was willing to take a meaningful and controversial stance on a popular war. This satire is also successful because it is not focused on one actor. Lehrer briefly mentions President Lyndon B. Johnson in the introduction to the song, but the song is not about Johnson. This is not for lack of material because Johnson was notoriously crass. The result of this is an unforgiving critique of anyone involved in hawkish military intervention. There is no room for a scapegoat because the song satirizes anyone who supports the armed military intervention in a meaningless war. It implicates the people who support the war, the key figures in policy making, and the main stage politicians like Johnson.

Current comedians provide comic relief to Americans, which also affords citizens a certain amount of complacency by reconfirming our preconceptions. Political satire needs to move away from impersonations of politicians and criticisms of mannerisms. A lot of shows do this already, but there needs to be a significant shift in the ratio of Trump impersonations to actual critiques of policies. Satire needs fewer hair jokes and more criticism of issues that affect people. Our judgement of the quality of policy making should not rely on who is making the policy. Focusing on the personalities of people like Trump and Spicer sets the bar for “doing a good” very low. We cannot reward politicians for abstaining from crazy tweeting for a week. Doing the bare minimum is exactly that: the bare minimum.

Furthermore, exaggeration of personalities is not a convincing argument for supporters to change their minds. Trump’s personality attracted many voters, or, conversely, many voters voted for him in spite of his personality. A slightly dramatized version of Trump is not an effective argument for people who supported him. Satire needs to present a more compelling argument that is based on critiques of policies and resist the temptation of mocking politicians’ mannerisms.

Networks that air political satire may have polarized viewers, but there is still an opportunity to reach a wider audience. The people who watch Trump impersonations are mostly liberal, and they probably do not need to be persuaded. For these viewers, political satire provides relief from the anxieties of a Trump presidency. Skits are tailored to a liberal audience, but late shows and comedians have the potential to reach non-liberal viewers as well. If SNL focused more energy on mocking horrible policies that affect Trump supporters, they would retain their liberal audience while also convincing voters. Political satire has the potential to be an effective critic of a Trump presidency and a source of entertainment and relief for liberals. As the market for political satire expands, there is a lot of room for experimentation, so please, stop with the Trump impersonations, and let’s see some real satire.

-Jessica Steele

 1. Lehrer, Tom(1965). Send the Marines. That Was the Year That Was [Live Album]. (1965). San Francisco: Reprise/Warner Bros. Records.

Further reading:

Donald Trump Is a Conundrum for Political Comedy (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/17/arts/television/donald-trump-is-a-conundrum-for-political-comedy.html?_r=0)

Saturday Night Live and the Limits of Trump Mockery (http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/saturday-night-live-and-the-limits-of-trump-mockery)

Sinking Giggling into the Sea (https://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n14/jonathan-coe/sinking-giggling-into-the-sea)

Did Karl Marx Foresee Trump's Rise?

Most mainstream American and European economists stopped studying Karl Marx when the Cold War ended in 1991. His denunciation of capitalism and proposed communist uprising proved too impractical for the Soviet Union and its Eastern Bloc to effectively execute. Even China’s economy shifted away from its communist tendencies over three decades ago, operating as more of a state-run capitalist system today. Yet with many of his ideas discredited decades ago, Marx’s Communist Manifesto is still the third most frequently assigned text at American universities, trumping household names like Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations and Milton Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom. As I’ll explain, this may not be such a bad thing: despite most career economists and politicians disregarding Marxist theory, one of his ideas maintains significant relevance in today’s political climate.

In his 19th century heyday, Marx gained notoriety for his radical ideas about shifting labor and capital. Although disproved by others, his labor theory of value (LTV) ‒ the idea that a good’s value is contingent upon the number of human labor hours needed to produce it ‒ is still included in many economics textbooks. Despite its conceptual errors, understanding LTV is a requirement for foreseeing Marx’s five steps that lead to a capitalist system’s downfall. In Das Kapital, Marx proclaims that many companies begin to exchange human labor for machinery as they compete to increase their production capacity. Marx predicates this substitution on the LTV ‒ as a company’s production capacity increases, so too does the amount of labor needed to produce their goods. Eventually, with companies incentivized to minimize their costs and earn higher profits than their competitors, many begin exploiting workers by halting any wage increases, stretching their hours and speeding up their work pace. Yet because the supply of human labor is both limited (Marx channels his inner Malthus here) and less productive than machines, wealthy companies begin firing workers and automating their production process. With unemployment rising and the macroeconomy expanding its output, unsold goods are left toiling on store shelves and an endless cycle of poverty ensues. According to Marx, the unemployed now band together and form a ‘reserve army of labor’ to uproot the entire capitalist system in favor of a worker-led communist one. He excitingly describes this further in his infamous Communist Manifesto: 

 “The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!” (Section 4 Paragraph 11)

Before totally disregarding Marx’s communist revolution as an idyllic fantasy, let’s take a step back and note the remarkable similarities between Marx’s reserve army and the United States’s own white working class. America, and much of the developed economy, is now in a peculiar and unfamiliar place. Emerging technology and factory automation threaten millions of low-wage unskilled workers across the country. Much of the Rust Belt, which once reflected a booming American manufacturing sector, now looks like an abandoned shell of itself. One Ball State University study estimates that 87% of the manufacturing job losses are a result of automation, rather than “bad” trade deals shifting jobs to lower-wage countries like Mexico or China. Yet despite thousands of recent factory closures and worker layoffs, aggregate manufacturing output is at a record high. Marx preempted this dichotomy. He recognized that increasingly efficient machines (or robots, in this case) would concentrate capital into a wealthy few, raise unemployment and expand total production. This economic scenario sets the stage for those unemployed workers to revolt, or in today’s context, demand political change.

Although I don’t believe the American capitalist system will be overtaken by angry unemployed workers, which is the inevitable next step in Marxist theory, I do believe that our political system has been temporarily hijacked by Donald Trump’s own minion of Marx’s reserve army. Trump, like Geert Wilders, Boris Johnson, Marine Le Pen and other European right-wing populists, owes his political support to newly unemployed working class citizens. He edged Hillary Clinton by 39% amongst white voters without college degrees, serving as further testament to his intentional courting of formerly employed factory workers. As the Washington Post points out, many of those voters helped him win Rust Belt states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin ‒ three states that hadn’t gone red since either 1984 or 1988. Is it a coincidence that Marx-esque unemployed factory workers are demanding a complete shift in Washington? Unhinged by job loss, political gridlock, and allegiance to big business (or capitalists, as Marx would argue), this reserve army undoubtedly helped fuel Trump’s November victory. What’s more, Marx may have brilliantly foreseen America’s current economic and political firestorm without even knowing it, nearly 150 years before anyone else.

So what’s next? In Marxist theory, the same group that elected Trump would eventually topple the entire political system and run it themselves. With Trump reneging on many of his campaign promises that wooed those voters in the first place, it’s not impossible to imagine a disgruntled reserve army rallying against Trump during the next four years. His favorability ratings are at historically low levels during only his first few months in office, and unless he can curb the emerging technology behind factory automation and job loss, his doomsday might be near. In other words, continuing the steamy rhetoric against bad trade deals might only get him so far.

- Jordan Wolken

Other Resources to Read:

 https://monthlyreview.org/2011/11/01/the-global-reserve-army-of-labor-and-the-new-imperialism

 http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/25/us/education-the-mainstreaming-of-marxism-in-us-colleges.html

https://www.wired.com/2016/12/trump-cant-deliver-rust-belt-jobs-work-changed/

The Growing U.S. Partisanship on Israel

In 1948, United States President Harry. S Truman recognized the existence of the State of Israel as the Jewish State following Israel’s declaration of independence. Truman’s decision set a precedent for American support for Israel, positioning Israel to become the United States’ greatest ally in the Middle East. However, the significant and enduring relationship between the U.S and Israel is entering a new phase in the face of controversial politics and policies surrounding the Israeli government, as well as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Recent events and trends, including the Iran nuclear deal, President Donald Trump and his administration’s hardline pro-Israel stance, and the U.S. generational gap in relation to Israeli support, has undermined what once was close and supportive bipartisan support for Israel in American governmental affairs. As the American political left-wing has become less pro-Israel and the right-wing has assumed a stronger pro-Israel stance, views toward the Jewish State in the United States have transformed into a polarizing issue, one that has the potential for considerable global repercussions.

The Rightward Israeli Political Shift

The change in American political attitudes towards Israel directly coincides with the transfer of power from a left-wing to a right-wing Israeli party (For more background on the Israeli political process, please refer to this resource, and for more information on Israeli political parties, please refer to this resource). This shift in political ideology in Israel’s democracy began on November 4, 1995 with the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by Yigal Amir, a right-wing Israeli extremist. Since then, the right-wing factions of Israel, dissatisfied with Rabin for his “land-for-peace” stance towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, rose to prominence in the Knesset, the Israeli government. Israeli public opinion has also swayed from Rabin’s ideology because of several key events.

From 2000-2005, the Second Intifada, which consisted of intensified violence between Israelis and Palestinians, especially the former’s military intervention and the latter’s many suicide bombings targeting Israeli citizens, reinforced the Israeli right’s protectionist beliefs, and the 2007 takeover of Gaza by the terrorist organization Hamas following Israel’s withdrawal from the territory two years prior was viewed similarly. Continued failed peace conversations, including the Camp David Summit in 2000, the Taba Summit in 2001, and the 2010 and 2013-2014 U.S.-sponsored direct talks also energized the political right in Israel. More recently, the Middle East’s ongoing instability, marked by the Arab Spring, Syrian Civil War, and the rise of ISIS, and the divided Palestinian leadership, which features the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinian Leadership Organization, and Hamas, have strengthened the political stature of the Israeli right.

These events, all of which occurred during a time in which there was no bona fide leader to fill Rabin’s place on the Israeli left, have spurned a political environment that has enabled Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing Likud Party to rise to power, serve three consecutive terms, and follow through with a conservative political agenda, headlined by the expansion of settlements into territories internationally recognized as Palestinian. Global liberal leaders, especially former U.S. President Barack Obama, have been angered by the Likud Party’s policies.

The Iran Nuclear Deal

In the face of a strong Israeli right, the build-up to the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), better known as the Iran nuclear deal, marks another crucial occurrence that sharply divided U.S. political parties and the American pro-Israel populace. On March 3, 2015, Netanyahu, the International leader to most staunchly oppose the Iran nuclear deal, caused an uproar in American Jewish communities when he addressed a joint session of U.S. Congress, during which he claimed to speak for the global Jewish population as he chastised the proposed deal with Iran. Furthermore, Netanyahu’s visit was not orchestrated by the Obama administration, the entity responsible for engineering the Iran nuclear deal. In response, many elected Democratic officials boycotted the Israeli Prime Minister’s address, drawing more partisan lines between America’s two dominant political parties.

Following Netanyahu’s address, a Gallup poll showed Netanyahu’s favorability rating among all Americans dropped while those who disapproved of him increased. This trend was mostly buoyed by registered Democrats or left-leaning Americans, whose favorable views towards Netanyahu plummeted while unfavorable views featured an increase. Registered Republicans and right-leaning Americans’ attitudes toward Netanyahu mostly remained stable, with a slight increase in favorability and a slight decrease in animosity towards the Israeli Prime Minister.

American pro-Israel advocacy groups, particularly the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and J Street, also expressed differences in opinion over the deal. AIPAC stood with Netanyahu who was joined by the American right-wing in opposition the agreement; lobbyists for AIPAC frequently met with representatives and staffers from congressional offices--400 times in the span of one week, in fact--and spent tens of millions of dollars to create a campaign called Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran, which launched attack ads against the deal. Contrarily, J Street firmly supported the deal, which was lauded by the American left-wing. J Street lobbying efforts were targeted atdifferent congressional offices 125 times and they spent $5 million towards advertising promoting the deal. Although J Street’s efforts paled in comparison to those of AIPAC’s, J Street and the American left-wing emerged victorious. Congress approved the JCPOA and the deal was adopted on October 18, 2015 and implemented on January 16, 2016 after an historic political battle. Currently, the agreement and the hostilities that arose from it continue to generate condemnation and create political partisanship, both of which have only been amplified since the election ofRepublican U.S. President Donald Trump.

Donald Trump and his Administration

Netanyahu and former President Obama experienced a turbulent relationship during the entirety of their terms, a key reason for Obama’s Democratic Party’s disinclination with Netanyahu. Netanyahu’s strained relationship with Obama, which has been replaced with a seemingly cordial one with Trump, has only added fuel to the partisan fire. Trump has praised Netanyahu’s premiership, has vowed to rip the Iran Nuclear deal to shreds, and has sharply criticized his predecessor for “disdain” and “disrespect” towards the United States’ greatest ally in the Middle East. Also, Trump’s appointment of David Friedman, an outspoken hardline Israel supporter, as his administration’s Ambassador to Israel has split the American pro-Israel community into political factions.

Who supports whom?

Analyzing the results of Gallup Poll taken in the weeks before Netanyahu’s March 2015 speech to Congress in which he pleaded with the United States Congress not to ratify the Iran nuclear deal and a Pew Research Report conducted in April 2016, during the recent divisive U.S. presidential election season, the partisan gap could not be more apparent. The data shows that the more right-leaning you are, the more likely you are to support Israel, and vice-versa. An overwhelming percentage of Republicans and conservative or moderate Democrats sympathize more with Israel than the Palestinians. Liberal Democrats have increased their support of Palestinians during the sustained decline in their support of Israel, a considerable change in attitude since the turn of the century.

Moreover, a post-U.S. presidential election Pew Research Poll depicts a majority of Republicans siding more with Israel while modern day Democrats have sympathized less with Israel and more with the Palestinians. Each of these polls showcase how partisan differences have arisen regarding support of Israel since 2000. Both polls also assert that white evangelical Republicans maintain the highest likelihood to stand with Israel. This sounds counter-intuitive when considering that Israel was created to the be the Jewish State, but the sizable, left-leaning Millennial populace, a part of which a great amount young American Jews make up, has steadily sympathized less with Israel and more with the Palestinians since the turn of the century for a variety of reasons.

The Consequences of Partisanship

The growing American political partisan gap in attitudes towards Israel has the potential to alter or even undermine the strong U.S.-Israel relationship grounded in history. As demonstrated by the Trump Administration’s alliance and outspoken accordance with Netanyahu and his Likud Party, the overwhelming American right-wing support of Israel reigns supreme, and unless the Israeli left can produce a Rabin doppelganger in opposition to the current Israeli government, Netanyahu’s premiership and his right-wing policies may be secure. However, the increase of Millennial sympathies with the Palestinians and their decrease of support towards Israel exhibits a trend that the Administration of the 45th President will only augment with its hardline stance towards the United States’ greatest ally in the Middle East, not to mention a democratic state.

If the trend continues, then there may be significant global consequences in the future. The U.S.-Israel relationship notably includes billions of dollars in military aid and economic support. This alliance has spurned Israel’s high scientific and technological achievements, for which Israel received a top-10 ranking in the 2017 Bloomberg Innovation Index of the world’s most innovative economies. However, Israel’s settlements controversy has angered much of the international community, particularly in the United Nations, though the U.N. treatment of Israel maintains a controversy of its own.

If a hard-line Trump presidency continues to endorse, albeit tacitly, the current Israeli Knesset’s right-wing policies, then the relationship may weaken once the 45th President leaves office. Trump’s historically low approval ratings and Netanyahu’s unyielding conservative positions continue to polarize the American public, and if the Democratic Party continues shifting its preference towards far-left candidates such as Bernie Sanders, who broke historical precedent towards Israel during his campaign, then the next Democratic President, possibly Trump’s successor, and even the next Democratic controlled Congress, which could come as early as 2018, may assume an alternative stance that distances the U.S. from the Jewish State. This is a stance that could grow steadily over time because of decreasing American Millennial sympathies towards Israel.

The future of the U.S.-Israel relationship remains an important issue on the ever changing global political landscape and only time will dictate what ultimately happens. However, with delegitimization efforts against the State of Israel and world leaders, organizations, and countries that wish to destroy it, Israel needs the United States’ loyalty and backing to protect itself. The U.S. has all the leverage in its alliance with Israel because of the latter’s heavy dependence on American aid. Thus, when American Millennials, who are supporting Israel less and less, begin serving as U.S. lawmakers and shaping the U.S. political agenda, the Israeli Knesset may be forced to shift to the left and change its policies in order to save its country’s coalition with America. Even though that circumstance has yet to occur, the growing U.S. partisanship regarding Israel has set the stage for an impending situation that may very likely test the U.S.-Israel relationship and alter the modern world.

-Jake Steel

When Lady Liberty Wasn't For Immigrants

Anti-immigration policies are not new to the American political scene, and the ‘Muslim ban’ is just another policy in a long tradition of isolationist and xenophobic political practices. Critics of the ban often cite America’s strong tradition of immigration as a defense of liberal immigration policies, but the United States is not just a country with a tradition of openness–it is also a country plagued by history of rampant xenophobia and nativism. The simplistic narrative of America as a “nation of immigrants” ignores its past with religious persecution, immigration quotas, and the rejection of Jewish refugees during the holocaust. So when criticizing the travel ban for discriminating against immigrants based on religion or race, is it effective to use the narrative, or the cliché, that America has a proud history of immigration? Ignoring the history of xenophobia in the United States leads to watered-down rhetoric that denies immigrants and refugees the defense they deserve against a ban based on nationality or religion. It is imperative that Americans understand our history of nativism starting with the modern-day symbol of immigration to the United States: the Statue of Liberty

The Statue of Liberty, which we associate with immigration to the United States, was not always a symbol of openness and acceptance. In 1865, Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi conceived the idea of giving America a gift to honor 100 years of an independent United States. Bartholdi also intended for it to celebrate Lincoln and abolition, but by the time he gathered enough support to build the statue, the country was mired in the Jim Crow Era, and the statue largely lost its identity as a celebration of abolitionism1. When it finally opened, the Statue of Liberty was a symbol of Franco-American relations and freedom from tyranny, while also acting as the gatekeeper of the United States.

Nativism and xenophobia grew with the wave of German and Irish immigrants during the 1880s, and Americans became concerned about the number of people coming into the country. Historically Catholic and poor, Irish immigrants were seen as a huge threat to Protestant New Yorkers. Thomas Nast, a political cartoonist from the era, illustrated many anti-Irish images which reflected the political climate of the time. His cartoons compared Catholic immigrants to nefarious crocodiles and portrayed Irish people as drunken fools. Political art at the time, like the Judge Magazine cover titled “Proposed Emigrant Dumping Site,” depicted American xenophobia rather vividly. The illustration on the front shows the Statue of Liberty holding up her skirt in disgust as immigrants land on Liberty Island around her feet. This cover highlights Americans’ opinions about immigrants taking refuge in the US. Many feared that Europe was sending its worst people to America and that immigrants would contaminate the country. The United States’ history of immigration is deeply rooted in religious discrimination. A Muslim ban hardly seems farfetched in the context of America’s history with religious persecution and immigration quotas.

The idea of controlling immigration into the United States based on nationality or ethnicity is also an essential part of American history. Historically, the US government only supported immigration that conformed to “American Ideals.” In 1882, President Charles Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act into law, which was the first U.S. federal law that restricted immigration based on nationality. America’s approval of immigration was limited to traditional western immigration, and did not welcome Asian immigrants. This ban tore families apart and created a huge people-smuggling industry. It also shaped modern-day cities. Chinatowns resulted from violence and racism that prevented Chinese Americans from assimilating into the United States, as property laws made it extremely difficult for them to move outside Chinatowns. Later in 1924, President Calvin Coolidge expanded the ban to include most Asian countries with the National Origins Act and set quotas for the number of Southern and Eastern European immigrants, specifically Eastern European Jews.

In 1939, the US government infamously turned away a ship of Jewish families who fled Nazi Germany. The SS St. Louis carried more than 900 Jews who escaped on a German luxury liner, but they were sent back to Europe for not having the proper paperwork. As a result, 254 passengers died. Anti-Semitism and nativism overruled American’s compassion for refugees, and in that moment the United States of America threw away everything Bartholdi had admired and praised it for. This tradition of immigration is not a defense against a travel ban that denies refugees safety–it is one that condemns them to the mercy of a long history of racism, religious persecution, and xenophobia.

The US government did not repeal the National Origins Act until 1943, when it decided it was hypocritical to ban immigrants from US allied nations in World War II. Fascism showed the dangers of trying to create a racially-pure state, and America attempted to distance itself from racial purity. Emma Lazarus’ sonnet, “The New Colossus” popularized the Statue of Liberty’s connection to immigration with its famous line: “Give me your tired, your poor.” In her poem, Lazarus characterized the Statue of Liberty as welcoming weary immigrants to the United States. To this day, the Statue of Liberty is immortalized an icon of welcoming people of all ethnicities and backgrounds into America.

Falling back on American tradition is not an effective way of condemning discrimination or racism. America is a nation of immigrants, and it is important to remember that. However, we are also a nation that let fear override our compassion for others with disastrous results. Refugees and immigrants trying to come to the United States deserve a better defense. Clichéd arguments do not add to the conversation about immigration, in fact, they impede the possibility of reform and progress. If liberals are going to use history as a talking point, they need to talk about the historical consequences of xenophobia. The debate has to move away from an argument about tradition and become a nuanced discussion about human rights and current policies.

- Jessica Steele

1. Berenson, E. (2012). Statue of Liberty. Yale University Press.        

What We Talk About When We Talk About Penal Labor

Minimum wage has been a popular topic this election season. Some candidates are promising to raise the federal minimum wage to as high $15 an hour-- a living wage. This might be a great step towards closing the increasingly large wealth gap in the United States, but what many forget is that many US citizens don’t even get minimum wage in the first place. We’re talking about prisoners, who make an average of $0.92 an hour, and don’t have the right to unionize.

The United States has a history of convict leasing which dates back to the Civil War. The Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished “slavery and involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime”, explicitly allows for penal labor. After the Civil War, many Southern landowners would lease plots of land and tools to newly freed slaves at exorbitant prices. This was called sharecropping, and it usually led to African Americans falling into debt and essentially continued the cycle of slavery in the US. With the Southern economy in shambles after the war, industries needed a cheap source of labor, and so, governments created convict leasing. As African Americans were imprisoned for not being able to payback landowners, private industries would rent them as laborers at low prices. The loophole in the Thirteenth Amendment, which allows for penal labor, essentially afforded people the opportunity to, in many ways, re-enslave African Americans. Share cropping combined with Black Codes and Jim Crow Laws led to the beginning of the mass incarceration of African Americans in the United States. White supremacists designed these laws to enforce social and economic norms, which prevented newly free slaves from rising up in society, and together Black Codes and Jim Crow Laws created a racial caste system during the Reconstruction era, which we still see in our prison structures today. Although we’d like to think that Jim Crow Laws are just an embarrassing stumble in America’s great history, we have to face the reality that these laws still shape our society. California just desegregated its prisons in 2014. Just to put this in perspective, the Brown v. Board of Education ruling that abolished segregation with “separate but equal is inherently unequal” happened in 1954.

When we talk about penal labor, we are talking about the legacy of slavery. Today, US prisons are overwhelming populated by African Americans, who are forced to labor in horrible conditions for abysmal pay. Some might argue that prisoners should not be paid and that labor is part of the punishment; however, prisoners are not the only victims. The real victims of low prison wages are minority communities.

Refusing to pay prisoners re-enforces the poverty in minority communities, starting with children. Not only do most inmates have a child, but about half of parents in state prison provide the primary financial support for their minor children. Poor wages directly affect inmates’ families and continue the cycle of poverty. On a larger scale, this causes stagnation in the economy as poor communities don’t have the means to buy goods and stimulate market growth. It might save taxpayer dollars in the short run, but it is not a sustainable solution in the long run.

So when we talk about penal labor, what we really need to talk about is institutionalized racism.

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt: Women’s Undue Burden

Women’s health clinics are the new battleground for abortion rights. Forty-three years after abortions were legalized in the case of Roe v. Wade (1973), states cannot make abortions illegal, but they are doing their best to stop women from having access to medical information about abortions and abortions clinics. “Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers” (TRAP) laws attempt to dissuade women from getting abortions by requiring women to make multiple visits to clinics, view an ultrasound of the fetus before making a decision, or receive medically incorrect information from a physician, such as the fact that abortions can cause breast cancer.

For the sake of women’s health, TRAP laws need to be eradicated immediately. As a result of these laws, there has already been a rise of unsafe self-induced abortions. These thinly veiled attempts at preventing women from having access to health care providers, which offer abortion services, are already having a devastating effect on the community. Not only are women resorting to unsafe methods of aborting unwanted pregnancies, they are also losing access to cervical cancer screenings, STD and STI testing, pregnancy tests, and other services provided by organizations like Planned Parenthood.

This is bigger than just abortion. Legislators implement laws like the Texas House Bill 2, also known as the HB2 , under the pretense of protecting women’s health, when they are doing nothing more than trying to undermine a woman’s right to choose. HB2 made it to the Supreme Court in the Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt case, in which Whole Woman’s Health, a women’s healthcare provider, is disputing the claims of  John Hellerstedt, the Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services. Hellerstedt claims that HB2 protects women from unsafe clinics. Whole Women’s Health argues that HB2 is actually just another way to prevent women from having access to abortion services.

Let’s take a look at the bill.

The HB2 law requires abortion clinics to meet the same specific requirements that ambulatory surgical centers do; for example, clinics need to construct hallways wide enough for two gurneys to pass each other, have a minimum number of janitorial closets, and be within a 30 miles of a hospital.

On the surface, the bill looks like a concerted effort to ensure that women who have complications with an abortion can get appropriate medical care. That is, it looks sincere until you realize that these requirements shutdown 18 of the 41 Texas abortion clinics in 2013, and, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Hellerstedt, there will only be 12 abortion clinics left in Texas. How is this protecting women’s health if it prevents women from getting health care in the first place? This directly contradicts the “undue burden” standard of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which prevents states from placing an undue burden on women who seek abortions by restricting their access to clinics. States can promote a pro-life stance, but ultimately they must offer abortion services; the HB2 law restricts thousands of women’s access to abortion by forcing women who live in rural areas-- and are often lower income than those in cities-- to travel hundreds of miles to the nearest clinic.

Supporters of the HB2 law argue that the laws protect women from unsafe procedures and bring up the case of Kermit Gosnell, a Pennsylvania physician who ran an unclean clinic and performed illegal late-term abortions for low income and minority women. What HB2 supporters fail to mention is that Gosnell’s clinic had not been inspected in almost 16 years. His grotesque clinic is not representative of abortion clinics, and shutting down safe clinics will actually lead to women seeking unsafe abortions from people like Gosnell out of desperation. 

It is true, all surgeries have complication risks, but not all surgeries have the same levels of risk. The HB2 law relies on people believing the myth that abortions are high-risk or dangerous, but in reality, abortions are extremely safe procedures; in fact, abortions are safer than colonoscopies or the procedure for removing wisdom teeth. It is nine times safer for a woman to get an abortion, whether it is a medical abortion or a surgical abortion, than to carry a pregnancy to term. Furthermore, nearly 90% of all abortions happen within the first 16 weeks of the pregnancy, and over half of all abortions take place during the first eight weeks, where there is no need for a surgical procedure. Justice Ginsburg questioned the necessity of having a surgical center at the abortion clinic: “[W]hat is the benefit of having an ambulatory surgical center to take two pills when there's no-- no surgical procedure at all involved?” The answer: there isn’t one. As she later pointed out, complications with a medical abortion do not happen in the actual clinics; women would experience complications later in the home. There are no advantages in requiring that clinics be within 30 miles of a hospital.

This case sets a precedent for the other 44 states, which are also implementing TRAP laws. If the court decides that the HB2 law is constitutional, more states will follow Texas’ example and impose these strict regulations. As a result, we will see the return of self-induced abortions and a decline in access to women’s health care in general. No matter how you look at it, it is clear that the HB2 law and all other TRAP laws need to go for the sake of women’s health.

- Jessica Steele