The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: abbott
Texas Governor Bullies Parents Of Transgender Kids

Texas Governor Bullies Parents Of Transgender Kids

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is a staunch champion of parental rights. In January, he proposed amending the state constitution to incorporate a "Parental Bill of Rights." The goal, he said, "is to ensure that parents are put at the forefront, both of education of their children as well as the decision-making for their child's healthcare."

Abbott, a Republican, believes the government has no business interfering with the choices families make to protect the health and well-being of children. Yes, he does. And I'm Billie Eilish.

This is the very same governor who on Tuesday gave Texas parents a firm order to butt out. In a letter to the state Department of Family and Protective Services, he claimed that it is illegal for parents to allow "gender-transitioning" treatments for their children.

Abbott added, "Texas law imposes reporting requirements upon all licensed professionals who have direct contact with children who may be subject to such abuse, including doctors, nurses, and teachers, and provides criminal penalties for failure to report such child abuse."

It's not enough to terrorize parents coping with profound, intimate issues. He also wants to intimidate anyone who might have any role in, or even knowledge of, these treatments.

The governor was following the lead of Attorney General Ken Paxton, who said Monday that gender-transition therapy constitutes child abuse and "must be halted." The two are not deterred by the fact that, as Adri Perez, an official of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas noted, "there's no court in Texas or the entire country that has ever found that gender-affirming care can constitute child abuse."

It's fair to infer that Abbott and Paxton are motivated not by an abiding concern for transgender kids but by hostility toward the whole concept. Both endorsed a 2017 bill prohibiting transgender Texans from using the restrooms in public buildings that correspond to their gender identity. (It failed.)

Most medical experts don't see transition therapies as harmful, much less criminal. They regard puberty blockers, hormone treatments, and surgery as indispensable tools in caring for children coping with "gender dysphoria."

"Every major medical association in the United States recognizes the medical necessity of transition-related care for improving the physical and mental health of transgender people," says the American Medical Association. "It is inappropriate and harmful for any state to legislatively dictate that certain transition-related services are never appropriate and limit the range of options physicians and families may consider when making decisions for pediatric patients."

The choices facing parents of transgender children are complex, daunting and often painful. Paxton says gender-transition therapies must be banned because they can have irreversible physical consequences, including infertility. But forbidding these treatments can also cause irreversible harm.

A transgender girl or boy who is deprived of puberty blockers will never be able to alter some of the effects of the physical changes that naturally occur during adolescence. Either option has grave consequences — making it especially critical that the choice is made by those who are most affected by it.

But Abbott and Paxton would put parents who approve medical interventions in the same category as adults who beat, starve, molest or neglect their children. It's like saying that a mother who takes her child to the dentist for a tooth extraction is no better than a woman who knocks her kid's teeth out.

These politicians have a record of inserting themselves into decisions that are none of their business. Texas requires minors to get a parent's consent for an abortion. But last year, Abbott signed a law making the procedure illegal after about six weeks' gestation — which means that at a very early stage, parents and daughters no longer have the option of terminating a pregnancy.

This measure is another case of using state power to damage the health of children. Carrying a fetus to term, as any mother can tell you, has major, irreversible effects on a woman's body. Pregnancy and childbirth also carry serious hazards, particularly for teens.

"Complications during pregnancy and childbirth are the leading cause of death for 15-19-year-old girls globally," reports the World Health Organization. But Abbott and the Texas legislature have chosen to force the vast majority of minors who get pregnant to give birth.

Abbott and Paxton are staunchly in favor of protecting the rights of parents to make choices for their kids only if those choices are agreeable to Abbott and Paxton. If not, they have a message for parents: Get out of our way.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.com

Here’s How Trump’s Wall Would Create A Diplomatic Crisis

Here’s How Trump’s Wall Would Create A Diplomatic Crisis

Since announcing his candidacy for president last summer, Donald Trump has said that Mexican leaders have manipulated the United States, using crime and illegal immigration to further their agenda. He claims that the Mexican government disseminated pamphlets about successful illegal immigration, and that the Mexican and the U.S. government’s supposed inaction on illegal immigration has cost the U.S. billions of dollars in healthcare, housing, and education expenditures in addition to its effect on crime and jobs.

He has also advocated for building a giant, uninterrupted wall along the U.S.-Mexico Border.

However, although “build that wall!” has become a Trump campaign catchphrase, Trump hasn’t offered a substantial policy proposals on the project, nor has he elaborated on the different tactics he would use to “build a great, great wall. . . [that] Mexico will pay for.”

Trump can talk all he wants, but the question remains: Why would Mexico pay anything for this disaster of an infrastructure project? And what would happen if they refuse?

According to Adam K. Webb, Resident Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in Nanjing,  “Mexico simply will not agree to build a wall, no matter how much noise Trump makes about it.  It would be an immensely unpopular expense when a large chunk of Mexico’s population lives in poverty.  No Mexican president would last in office if he budged on this.”

But Donald Trump is the greatest negotiator in the world, author of The Art of the Deal and other gems. Surely, he must have a strategy.

On his website Trump states that until Mexico pays for the wall, his administration would impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards – of which we issue about one million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options].  

In other words, Trump will confiscate any payments that undocumented workers send back to their families and friends in Mexico as a form of economic sanctions.

The World Bank reports that remittance payments comprise only 2 percent of Mexican GDP; however, as the National Review explains, Trump’s remittance ban would have a profound effect on poorer local economies in Mexico, where 19 percent of income comes from remittances. To complicate things further, Trump would increase the fees of diplomatic visas, as a political statement, and on the visas of Mexican nationals working in the U.S. under NAFTA.

Trump claims that, after a while, it would be more expensive and parlous for the Mexican government to allow the United States to institute these policies than it would be for them to construct the wall.

That’s ridiculous.

Though Trump proposes to “impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages,” it would be incredibly difficult for the government to effectively calculate and monitor illegal wages, especially as many undocumented workers use social security numbers voluntarily shared with them by family members.

He also wants to “increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them)” as a form of diplomatic sanction, but that action would do little more than further disincentivize the Mexican government from cooperating with an already antagonistic Trump administration.

The proposal would create incredible amounts of diplomatic tension with Mexico, which would jeopardize our security and diplomatic standing, and, more importantly for Trump, would make the Mexican government even more hostile to paying for any kind of border wall.

And though Trump promises to “increase fees on all border crossing cards — including those one million cards issued to Mexican nationals, NAFTA worker visas, and port of entry fees — as a lever of pressure on the Mexican government to build a wall, that could just as easily lead to more illegal immigration by Mexicans who can’t afford to cross the border legally.

If Trump increased the fees for visas while crippling the local economies through remittance bans, he would be dis-incentivizing legal immigration. He would be making it more expensive to come to America through a legal route. And if Mexicans really want to come to America in the wake of local economic chaos, they will do whatever it takes — even if it means coming through the previously-excavated tunnels, or simply crossing at the parts of the border where Trump’s fantasy wall won’t be able to reach.

Should Donald Trump plow ahead with his plan, however, the American people, the Mexican government, and other nations will be forced to respond. Let’s consider the global political ramifications of a Trump presidency.

According to Professor Webb, “there are very few ways that [Trump] could try twisting Mexico’s arm harder, without incurring consequences that would far outweigh whatever supposed advantage he might gain by playing to the worst segments of American public opinion.”

Although the United States has been largely unafraid of imposing sanctions to achieve political objectives in the past, Mexico’s fate is so closely tied to the U.S. economy that sanctions in the form of tariffs, limited visas, and customs delays, and asset freezing could be equally detrimental for the U.S. economy — especially since the North American Free Trade Agreement has largely guided continental trade and cross-border investment over the past 2 decades.

World Policy Institute Fellow and former Bard College Professor Jonathan Cristol agreed that Trump’s potential sanctions would lead to unprecedented consequences for Mexico, as the United States imports 81.2 percent of Mexican exports.

And if Trump managed to force Mexico to pay for the wall, it wouldn’t be “without destroying America’s reputation and provoking worldwide counterbalancing against the U.S.” Cristol noted in an email.

Trump would have to strong-arm the Mexican government, possibly by instituting extremely high tariffs on Mexican goods — the costs of which would be passed on to consumers.

“I assume Trump thinks that the cost of building the wall would be less than the damage to Mexican business when U.S. consumers stop purchasing goods produced in Mexico,” Cristol said, “But this ignores two important factors: first, many of these goods are produced by American owned firms, so it would have a rebound effect on the U.S. economy; and second, most importantly, it would be a major violation of World Trade Organization trading rules.”

Both scholars agreed that the sanctions could lead to a variety of responses, from diplomatic measures or brute force.

Professor Cristol said that he was confident that Mexico could win the lawsuit against the U.S. government, predicting that “retaliatory measures would be taken against the U.S. economy to the point at which the damage was equivalent to the damage caused to Mexico.”

And what if Trump responded to Mexican recalcitrance with the threat of force? That in turn could potentially lead to the potential cessation of close diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom, Canada, and France, after those nations were forced to re-evaluate their alliances in light of the United States’ aggressive treatment of Mexico.

Dr. Cristol suggested that, in addition to reconsidering ties with the U.S., Trump’s rhetoric could cause other nations to expand their military industries in order to address their fear of what the United States had become.

Professor Webb agreed, and added that Trump’s actions would affect other nations’ perception of the United States, pushing traditional allies into the Russian and Chinese orbits. Under these circumstances, Mexico would be seen as a victim, evoking sympathy among many other nations.

In short: Though Donald Trump plays the embattled victim of bad trade deals and generous immigration laws, his attitude toward the Mexican government and the Mexican people would isolate the United States on the world stage — as indeed it already has.


Rory Mondshein received her B.A. in Political Studies and Social Policy from Bard College in 2014. In addition to working as a freelance writer, she serves as Oxford Global’s Education Ambassador. In September, Rory will be pursuing her MSc in Human Rights at the London School of Economics. 

Photo: A man walks near the border bridge connecting El Paso with Ciudad Juarez, in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, February 24, 2016.  REUTERS/Jose Luis Gonzalez

Putin Resists Western Offensive As Testy G20 Closes

Putin Resists Western Offensive As Testy G20 Closes

Brisbane (Australia) — A weary Russian President Vladimir Putin on Sunday shrugged off a new barrage of Western fire over Ukraine at a G20 summit where the world’s most powerful leaders vowed to heat up the cooling global economy.

Host Tony Abbott insisted that everyone including Putin — who left the Brisbane summit early — was on board the G20 campaign to enact reforms that could infuse more than two trillion dollars into the world economy.

“I’m happy to be on a unity ticket with Vladimir Putin on that subject,” the Australian prime minister told a news conference after the two-day talks, during which the two leaders put aside days of sniping to share a photograph with cuddly koalas.

Nevertheless, Abbott insisted that he had had “very robust” discussions with Putin in recent days and described the July downing of a Malaysia Airlines plane over Ukraine as “one of the most terrible atrocities of recent times”.

Putin flew out of Brisbane shortly before the summit formally ended but denied any snub to Abbott, saying it would take 18 hours to fly home via Vladivostok in Russia’s far east.

“Then we need to get home and return to work on Monday. There’s a need to sleep at least four to five hours,” said Putin, a judo black belt who prides himself on his stamina.

And the Russian strongman played down the testy exchanges seen in Brisbane, when at one point Canada’s leader expressed reluctance to shake his hand.

In general at the G20, Putin said, “some of our views do not coincide, but the discussions were complete, constructive and very helpful”.

– Going after tax cheats –

The G20 leaders backed efforts to close loopholes between different tax regimes that allow some multinationals to get away with paying only a pittance on their profits.

Luxembourg is accused of having connived with such companies to the detriment of their home countries’ treasuries for years when Jean-Claude Juncker, now the European Commission president, was its prime minister.

The G20 endorsed a “common reporting standard” so that companies cannot arbitrage differences between tax regimes, stressing: “Profits should be taxed where economic activities deriving the profits are performed and where value is created.”

The Financial Transparency Coalition, a campaign group, welcomed the G20’s emphasis on “the ravaging effects tax evasion, avoidance, and money laundering have on our economies”.

But it urged tougher rules to make public who owns companies and where they are based — a stipulation that has stirred discomfort in China, where the issue of communist leaders’ personal wealth is a political livewire.

The G20 countries, which represent 85 percent of global economic output, committed to structural reforms that would lift their combined economic growth by at least 2.1 percent by 2018.

That amounts to more than two trillion dollars, although economists are skeptical that many of the G20 members have the stomach for such reforms when growth is already slipping in some key countries, including China and Germany.

– ‘Trench warfare’ –

International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde welcomed Sunday’s pledge while stressing: “Implementation is now critical, with a strong accountability framework to monitor progress, supported by the IMF.”

Oxfam said the focus on growth should be allied with a focus on reducing yawning levels of inequality around the world, “to ensure the bottom 40 percent benefit more than the top 10 percent”.

The G20 declaration also endorsed “strong and effective action” on climate change despite attempts to prevent its mention by Abbott, who wanted the focus to remain on the economy.

One European diplomat likened the G20 negotiations with Abbott to “trench warfare”, but the pro-climate lobby was confident of victory after Obama breathed new life into global discussions on greenhouse emissions with a surprise pact with China last week.

Real warfare remains the fear in Ukraine, where the West alleges that Russia is aiding and abetting rebels in the former Soviet satellite’s east.

In Brisbane, Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron hammered home the West’s determination to curb Russian meddling in Ukraine, which the U.S. president said violated international principles.

“One of those principles is that you don’t invade other countries or finance proxies and support them in ways that break up a country that has mechanisms for democratic elections,” he said.

Cameron said the West would maintain its campaign of sanctions for years if need be, because the alternative was allowing the Ukraine crisis to develop into “some permanent frozen conflict on the continent of Europe”.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who held lengthy talks with Putin far into the night in Brisbane, said after the G20 that it was “important to take advantage of every opportunity to talk”.

But she stressed: “There is a close agreement among Europeans about Ukraine and Russia.”

AFP Photo/Steve Holland

Want more political news and analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!