North Korea reportedly executes officials for failed Trump-Kim summit

HuffPost US            NICK VISSER
North Korea has executed the country’s special envoy to the United States over February’s failed summit between Kim Jong Un and President Donald Trump, South Korea’s Chosun Ilbo newspaper reported Friday.

Kim Hyok Chol, the chief negotiator who led the working-level negotiations with the U.S., was executed in March alongside several other officials in punishment for the outcome of the event, the newspaper reported. Trump and Kim met in Hanoi, Vietnam, for their second official summit to discuss Pyongyang’s nuclear program, but the talks abruptly collapsed after the pair failed to come to a deal. Tensions with the North have only increased in recent months after a period of relative calm.

“Kim Hyok Chol was investigated and executed at Mirim Airport with four foreign ministry officials in March,” an unnamed North Korean officials told the Chosun Ilbo, according to a translation from Reuters.

Another official, Kim Yong Chol, who worked with Vice President Mike Pence in the lead-up to the Hanoi summit, has also been punished, reportedly with forced labor and “ideological education,” according to the South Korean paper.

Some experts on North Korea expressed hesitation over the reports, noting that Pyongyang’s reclusive nature makes it hard to pin down who may or may not have been punished by the Kim regime. Several senior officials have been reported to be executed or disappeared only to reappear in public several months later.

Joshua H. Pollack
So... did Kim Jong Un really have a whole bunch of diplomats executed after the Hanoi summit? 
North Korea's Kim Jong Un carrying out purge after Hanoi summit...
North Korea executed Kim Hyok Chol, its special envoy to the United States, and foreign ministry officials who carried out working-level negotiations for the second U.S.-North Korea summit in...
Jeffrey Lewis
✔
@ArmsControlWonk
 These rumors have been floating around for a while.  I am still not sure I believe them, but they are getting awfully specific.

@Joshua_Pollack
So... did Kim Jong Un really have a whole bunch of diplomats executed after the Hanoi summit? 


Kim Jong Un's top aide, thought to have been executed, reappears on TV
A North Korean official thought to have been executed by the regime's death squad shockingly reappeared in TV footage released Thursday after a mysterious months long absence.

Relations with North Korea have declined since the summit in Hanoi, although Trump has continued to tout his relationship with Kim, praising the leader earlier this month as a “very smart man.” Trump also denied that Pyongyang had fired any ballistic missiles in violation of United Nations resolutions, even though his own national security adviser, John Bolton, said last weekend there was “no doubt” North Korea had done just that.

“My people think it could have been a violation,” Trump said earlier this week during a state visit to Japan. “I view it differently.”

The North has grown openly antagonistic toward several Trump officials who have urged the president to take a harder line against Kim, including Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. In April, the North’s state-run news agency quoted several senior officials who said they would no longer speak with Pompeo and preferred that he be replaced with someone more “mature.”
Stay tune :  As The  Stomach Turns
Let's hear from Witchy

These are the kinds of people Trump wants in his corner. Turn your back on your allies and cozy up to dictators. The POTUS is a joke. He is unfit to run a McDonalds, let alone the leader of the free world. 2020 can't come soon enough so we can start to reverse this garbage before any permanent damage is done.

Trump will praise Kim.  Didn't Trump say that Kim showed "leadership at a young age" when he murdered his uncle? Trump is himself a wannabe tyrant. Trump's "Friend" back executing his own people. Impeachment may be the only way to save our country before it's too late.
Trump's "Friend" back executing his own people. Impeachment may be the only way to save our country before it's too late.If Trump is friends with Kim, then Trump IS the enemy of Americans !
If this is true and not so sure why it wouldn't be. It is pretty scary that our so called president is supporting him. We should all be very worried.
Joe Biden is bold to call Kim the garbage that he is and someone who can't be trusted. Trump considers Kim his good friend and defended him for continuing to test missiles.  If this story is correct, then Trump looks like a FOOL sending LOVE LETTERS to a murderous Dictator.  He has failed as a Negotiator, implementing Tariffs, building a Wall that Mexico would pay for, and failed to address Russian meddling in Elections.  Simply a FAILURE!
Twice Delusional  rump  Didn't Get A Peace Prize For Meeting With North Korea
Have To Wonder How Many Americans He Wants Executed
Look at How Long He's Going After Dead Man
John McCain - Even Attacked A Warship Named After Him
Take About Hate And Venom 
Nuff sez            HeHe

I am not pro abortion. I am pro choice.

In 1973, Roe v Wade changed the history of women’s rights forever. A single, pregnant woman (Roe) challenged the constitutionality of the law that criminalized abortion, unless it was done for medical reasons (where the life of the mother is put at risk). The decision of three judges in Texas, in favor of Roe’s petition, made it possible for women to choose to terminate pregnancies, without the consent of a medical doctor.  Controversy hasn’t stopped ever since; many states have done their part in trying to limit this right, but what resulted out of these deliberations was the beginning of an era where women could actually choose whether they wanted to become mothers or not, rather than finding themselves with the obligation to do so.

Forty-three years later, abortion remains a taboo. A debate persists on whether respecting women’s right to choose translates into diminishing an unborn child's life. The issue depends on an individual's view, as science has long-settled on the terms of what life means. In theory, the cells that make conception possible are already alive. All cells are alive, so under this simple, factual definition, cancer is also alive. However, a fetus isoutside the womb until the third trimester of pregnancy, therefore, an abortion within legal terms is not the murder of a child, but rather the hindering of the possible viability of a fetus.
The first thing that hit me about this issue was the fact that we condemn abortion, yet U.S. national laws are pro guns, pro wars, pro death penalty, and pro everything else that by nature goes against preserving human life. Isn't it convenient, the definition of 'respecting human life'? But the double standard goes beyond. We sex-shame women by referring to their unwanted pregnancies as a sign of irresponsibility (as if a woman could get pregnant on her own), yet vote against any efforts to improve sexual education at school or to help teenagers with access to contraceptive methods.

Here are some possible scenarios to consider: What about women who are brutally raped and get pregnant, should we punish them by forcing them to give birth to the child of their rapist?  What about victims of incest? What about the children who are known to have been ill or deformed since before they were born and are condemned to die within days or weeks after birth? Shouldn’t we spare them the pain? What if, simply, you want to give your child the best life possible and you are unable to do so when you get pregnant? Does that make you selfish?
Having a child is the most important decision of your entire life. It is a legacy you leave to the world, a piece of yourself that remains after you are gone. Being a parent is the most important job you will ever have. A child is a sacred trust and that bond that will unite you for life. A child is by far, the most beautiful masterpiece you will ever create. Shouldn’t it have every opportunity in the world to become the best it could possibly be? Shouldn't it be wanted and loved and have two caring parents?

I have concluded that, being pro choice, doesn’t mean I am pro abortion. It simply means understanding how important a child really is. Bringing a life into the world shouldn’t be taken lightly and I believe that nobody is more capable of determining that than the woman carrying the life.

In an ideal world, every child that is brought into the foster system would find a loving home. Also, every women who finds herself unable to raise a child would find enough support to do so. Women would not be raped by strangers or relatives and get pregnant. Babies would not be born with incurable, painful diseases. But the world is not perfect. Sometimes, you have to make hard choices for the right reasons.
If we really want to help the issue, let’s promote a healthy, early sexual education. Let’s make contraceptive care for women a right, rather than a luxury that not everyone can afford. If we really believe in human rights, let’s educate against misogyny, against rape, let’s raise our boys to treat women with respect, to understand that 'no' means 'no,' and that being a parent is also their responsibility. Until we live in an ideal world, until generations change, and begin to think of women as humans rather than incubators, abortion will still be an issue to address.

I am not pro abortion. I am pro choice.

​Robert Mueller said he did not clear Donald Trump of obstruction issue



 

Special Counsel Robert Mueller said Wednesday that he couldn’t reach a conclusion on whether Donald Trump obstructed justice, as he stopped short of delivering a full exoneration of the president.

“If we had had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so,” Mueller said in his first public remarks in the two years since he was named special counsel. He defended his investigation, as he announced that he was closing his office and stepping down.

Mueller sent a clear signal to House Democrats who have demanded his testimony that he won’t provide any information that hasn’t already been made public. “Any testimony from this office would not go beyond this report,” he said.

The special counsel also said he found “insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy” on election interference.

Soon after, Trump tweeted: “Nothing changes from the Mueller Report. There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed! Thank you.” White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders added in a statement, “After two years, the special counsel is moving on with his life, and everyone else should do the same.”

House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, who has been negotiating with Mueller on testifying to his

panel, said that “the Constitution points to Congress to take action to hold the president accountable."

“Given that Special Counsel Mueller was unable to pursue criminal charges against the president, it falls to Congress to respond to the crimes, lies and other wrongdoing of President Trump -- and we will do so," Nadler said in a statement.

Mueller’s remarks came amid fierce partisan disputes over the 448-page report he completed two months ago on Russian interference in the 2016 election, any links to the Trump campaign and whether Trump sought to obstruct justice. Mueller underscored that Justice Department policy prevented him from considering criminal charges against Trump.

“Under long-standing department policy a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional,” he said. “Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.”

That appears to contradict what Attorney General William Barr said publicly, when he disputed that Mueller’s decision not to charge Trump was based on the Justice Department policy, written by its Office of Legal Counsel.

Barr told reporters on April 18 that Mueller “made it very clear several times that that was not his position.," he added. "He made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime."

Mueller’s report, with some redactions, was released by Barr on April 18 -- but only after he issued summaries that Democrats said were tilted to favor Trump. Barr said Mueller reached no conclusion on obstruction of justice by Trump so he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein made their own finding that there wasn’t evidence to make a criminal case against the president. The summaries led to Trump’s frequent tweets that Mueller found “NO COLLUSION and NO OBSTRUCTION!”

Mueller complained about Barr’s summaries in a letter to the attorney general in March that later was made public.

“The summary letter the department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller wrote. Barr dismissed the complaint as “a bit snitty” in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Mueller has been in negotiations with the Democratic-controlled House Judiciary Committee, which wants to question him over his findings. The veteran prosecutor and former FBI director has balked at testifying in public, saying he doesn’t want to be dragged into a political fight, according to people who asked not to be identified discussing the continuing negotiations. Among the options Mueller has raised is making a public statement before taking questions from lawmakers behind closed doors.

While the special counsel’s probe has been closed, he had remained in his post as a Justice Department employee. His final report included notice that he referred 14 investigations to various U.S. attorneys, most of which still remain secret.

Democrats have said they want to know more about Mueller’s findings concerning Trump, particularly whether he tried to obstruct the investigation. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has resisted calls from some members of her party to open impeachment proceedings against the president.

 

 

Several Democrats seeking the presidency in 2020 have called for impeachment, and Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, a member of the Senate Judiciary panel, joined that group Wednesday. “Robert Mueller’s statement makes it clear: Congress has a legal and moral obligation to begin impeachment proceedings immediately,” he said on Twitter.
Republicans have their own set of questions, mostly related to the origins of the Russia probe that they say was tainted by anti-Trump bias among some FBI agents and Justice Department officials. Barr has opened his own review into the origins of the Russia investigation.

Mueller took the opportunity to defend his investigation in the face of heightened attacks by Trump and his allies to discredit a probe Trump regularly calls a partisan “witch hunt.” The special counsel said the efforts by Russia to interfere in the 2016 election deserved the Justice Department’s attention, were of “paramount importance” and “deserve the attention of every American.”

He also defended the investigation into whether Trump obstructed justice, saying, " When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrong doers accountable."
Mueller’s investigation exposed a "sweeping and systematic" operation by the Russian government to interfere in the election, including making multiple contacts with officials associated with Trump’s presidential campaign. Barr released a redacted version of the report on April 18.

“The investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts," the report said.

Mueller also chronicled at least 10 instances in which Trump acted to obstruct the investigation, only to be stymied in some efforts by the refusal of his aides to carry out his orders.

“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” according to the report. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.”

 

 



The Roving Reporter : 1,000 Years After This Dark Age Anglo-Saxon Queen Died, Archaeologists Made An Astounding Discovery

By Ken Macdonald           April 16, 2019
Archaeologists in Magdeburg, Germany are about to open a stone tomb in the city’s cathedral that’s lain undisturbed for 500 years. It’s said that this monument contains the remains of Edith of England, Queen of Germany, 1,000 years ago. The researchers know, though, that the strong likelihood is that this ancient grave will be empty. But what they find when they open the lead coffin astonishes them.

We’ll find out what the archaeologists discovered in that ancient tomb in magnificent Magdeburg Cathedral shortly. But first let’s learn something about this Englishwoman who became the Queen of Germany in 936. In fact, Edith is a modernizing of her name. In Old English, it was the tongue-twisting Eadgyth. But we’ll stick with Edith.

Born into the House of Wessex in the year 910, Edith could hardly have had a more illustrious genealogy. Her father was Edward the Elder, the English king. Her mother, Ælfflæd, was Edward’s second wife. And her grandfather, Ælfflæd’s father, was King Alfred the Great, certainly one of the best-known of all the English monarchs.

Edith was actually one of eight children that Edward and Ælfflæd had together. Notable among her siblings were Eadgifu, who wed the King of West Francia, Charles the Simple, and Eadhild, who married Duke of the Franks, Hugh the Great. Edith’s parents sadly divorced when she was aged just nine or ten. She then joined her mother, who was sent to a monastery, perhaps in the cities of Salisbury or Winchester.

The princess’s royal pedigree, in fact, went back through the mists of time to the fifth century. Indeed, her royal lineage was said to be the oldest in Europe, stretching back to one Cerdic of Wessex. Cerdic is said to have been among those who led the Anglo-Saxon conquest of England. And Britain’s current monarch, Elizabeth II can also apparently trace her line back to that same ancient ruler.

Alfred the Great, born around 848, ruled the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of Wessex from about 871 to 886. This territory stretched across the south and west of England before it became a unified land. In fact, Alfred started the process of creating the modern nation of England by expanding the influence of the Wessex kingdom across the country.

Strangely, Alfred is famous, not for his expansion of the Wessex kingdom, but for a culinary mishap. The surely apocryphal story is set early in his reign when Wessex was under severe pressure from Viking attacks. The King, it’s said, escaped a deadly Viking assault on the town of Chippenham in January of 828 by the skin of his teeth. The Danes then put most of the townsfolk to the sword.

Alfred made good his escape to the Levels in Somerset, marshy lands in western England. There, a country woman, ignorant of the fleeing King’s identity, gave him shelter. At one point, she left the monarch in charge of some wheat cakes cooking on an open fire. Distracted by the cares of the world, he allowed them to burn.

When the woman returned and discovered Alfred’s mistake, the ruler felt the sharp edge of her tongue. This is a story that British schoolchildren have heard for generations. And they all take delight in the idea of a commoner scolding a king. But truly, the monarch’s real place in history comes from his success in fighting off the Vikings and expanding his kingdom, a precursor of a fully united England.

By the time Edith was born in 910, though, her father, Edward, had been on the throne for 11 years following the death of Alfred. Meanwhile, the creation of a united nation was an ongoing project. During the princess’s childhood, Edward succeeded in seizing control of most of England, with only the northern territory of Northumbria still under the sway of the Vikings.




To be continued:                            
The Roving  Reporter

The Roving Reporter : 1,000 Years After This Dark Age Anglo-Saxon Queen Died, Archaeologists Made An Astounding Discovery

In 924, Edith’s half-brother, Athelstan, succeeded to the English throne after Edward the Elder’s death. His mother was Edward’s first wife, Ecgwynn, one of the more obscure figures in English royal history. And after Athelstan took the crown of England, European affairs began to impinge on the young woman’s life.

This happened when Henry the Fowler, King of the East Franks, decided it would be a good idea to unite with the English crown. East Francia occupied territory which now lies in modern Germany. According to legend, the monarch was named “the Fowler” because he was engaged in snaring birds when he heard he was to be ruler.

Henry then proposed to Athelstan that his eldest son, Otto, marry one of the English King’s half-sisters. This was one way of strengthening ties between the two kingdoms. The King, in fact, chose two half-sisters for a potential royal wedding: Edith and her sibling Edgiva. The pair then travelled to East Francia to meet their potential husband. Once there, Henry’s heir simply picked the woman he found most pleasing as his future wife.

In those days, royal marriages tended to be matters of high politics rather than romance. Otto evidently preferred Edith, as it was she he chose to marry. And well he might have done. A 2010 article about her in The Guardian quoted the words of tenth century German nun and poet, Hrotsvitha of Gandersheim.

Describing Edith, Hrotsvitha wrote, “In fact, she was so very highly regarded in her own country that public opinion unanimously rated her the best woman who existed at that time in England.” A glowing tribute indeed… Even though no one was likely to utter an unkind word about a princess in tenth century Germany.

So Edith and Otto duly married in 930. In 936, a stroke killed Henry the Fowler, which may well have been welcome news for Germany’s bird population. For Otto, though, it meant that he now became the King of the Franks. And the tidings propelled Edith into the position of Otto’s queen at around 25 years old. The Wessex girl was now the Queen of Germany, or at any rate, East Francia.

Otto I went on to become known as Otto the Great. This accolade came about because of his success continuing Henry’s work in uniting the disparate tribes of Germany under his rule. He also took control of the Roman Catholic Church in Germany. And he would go on to become Holy Roman Emperor from 962.

But by the time Otto became Holy Roman Emperor, Edith had already been dead for some 16 years. Her unexpected death came when she was only in her middle thirties, in January 946. We don’t know a great deal about how the queen occupied her time on the German throne. It’s said, though, that she was active in charitable works involving gifts to various religious institutions.

During Edith’s reign, she also gave Otto two children, a son and a daughter. Liudolf was born in 930, the very year the royal couple married. He died of a fever aged only 27 while invading Italy. The daughter, born in 932, was Liutgarde. She married Conrad the Red and died in 953 when she was only 22. Early death, it seems, was an occupational hazard of being born in the Middle Ages.

Edith was originally interred in the Benedictine Monastery of St Maurice. This was an institution that she and Otto had founded in Magdeburg in 937. St Maurice is believed to have been an Egyptian Christian who served in the Roman Army in the third century, rising to the rank of commander of 1,000 legionaries. He later died as a martyr for refusing to attack fellow Christians.

But the St Maurice monastery was not to be Edith’s final resting place. Her remains were, in fact, moved three times or more over the years until their re-interrment in 1510 at Magdeburg Cathedral. And there they remained, as far as anyone knew, for the next 500 years. Then, in 2008, German archaeologists prepared to open her tomb.

To be continued : 
The Roving Reporter

The Roving Reporter : 1,000 Years After This Dark Age Anglo-Saxon Queen Died, Archaeologists Made An Astounding Discovery

As we saw earlier, the strong assumption was that her tomb would actually be empty. Researchers thought it was likely to be a cenotaph, a memorial with no actual remains inside. The scientists first opened the stone sarcophagus. Inside that was a lead coffin. And the coffin had a Latin inscription on its lid.

The inscription read “Edit Regine Cineres Hic Sarcophagvs Habet…” which translates as “The remains of Queen Eadgyth are in this sarcophagus…” And once the archaeologists opened the lead coffin, much to their amazement, they did indeed find human remains. A remarkably well-preserved shroud of fine silk covered the ancient bones.

In the 2010 Guardian piece, historian and author Michael Wood described what the researchers found in the coffin. “Under the crumpled folds was a small, slim frame, slightly bent at the knees, like a child asleep,” he wrote. But this was not enough to convince scientists that the remains were definitely those of Edith.

A 2010 article on the University of Bristol website quoted Professor Harald Meller, project director from the German Saxony-Anhalt Heritage Management and Archaeology state office. He described the uncertainties that surround archaeological finds such as this. The professor also pointed out the difficulty of being sure of a particular identity for the bones.

Medieval bones were moved frequently and often mixed up. So it required some exceptional science to prove that they are indeed those of [Edith],” the professor said. That meant the next step in matching these bones to the historical figure required some high-tech scientific analysis. First stop for the remains was Germany’s University of Mainz.

In Mainz, Professor Kurt Alt examined the bones and was able to state categorically that they belonged to one female for whom death had come between the ages of 30 and 40. Alt was even able to say that one of the thigh bones offered strong evidence that she often rode horses. That meant the woman was more than likely from the upper echelon of her society. Just like Edith.

It’s worth noting that the skeleton of the woman from the Magdeburg lead coffin was far from complete. The feet, hands and a large portion of the skull were not present. Scientists think the bones perhaps fell foul to a common practise in medieval times ‒ removal and use as relics.

But further analysis of the bones required that the remains travel to England. If the skeleton did indeed belong to Edith, it would be her first visit to the country of her birth for more than 1,000 years. The remains from the coffin in the Magdeburg Cathedral then made their way to the University of Bristol.

Bristol University was the place where staff had the necessary expertise and equipment to perform an in-depth analysis of the ancient remains. Initial investigations, though, were not encouraging. Carbon dating produced a result that was two centuries older than the cathedral remains should be. But the fabrics in the coffin did exhibit the correct dates. This was puzzling.

Sadly, attempts to extract DNA from the bones failed, due to their lack of preservation. But the scientists persevered, now turning to a different technique. And that involved advanced analysis of the teeth found in the coffin. In fact, one of the only parts of the skull found in the tomb was the upper jaw, along with some teeth.

This particular technique involved analyzing the chemical compositions, or isotopes, of oxygen and strontium that all teeth contain. These chemical fingerprints build up as the dental structures develop over time. And the isotopes vary according to the environment and geological make-up of where an individual has lived.

The Roving Reporter

UN stands up for pro-choice and the right to safe abortions

 

The United Nations human rights office called on U.S. authorities Tuesday to ensure that women have access to safe abortions, saying bans lead to risky underground abortions that can endanger a woman’s life.
“We are very concerned that several U.S. states have passed laws severely restricting access to safe abortion for women, including by imposing criminal penalties on the women themselves and on abortion service providers,” U.N. human rights spokeswoman Ravina Shamdasani told Reuters Television in Geneva.
Evidence and experience have shown that complete bans on abortions do not reduce their number, but drive them underground “jeopardizing the life, health and safety of the women concerned,” she said.
Such bans are also “inherently discriminatory,” affecting women who are poor, from minority backgrounds or other marginalized communities, Shamdasani added.
“So we are calling on the United States and all other countries to ensure that women have access to safe abortions. At an absolute minimum, in cases of rape, incest and fetal anomaly, there needs to be safe access to abortions,” she said.
The UN call came as hundreds of abortion-rights campaigners, including Democrats seeking their party’s 2020 presidential nomination, rallied in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday to protest new restrictions on abortion passed by Republican-dominated legislatures in eight states.
Many of the restrictions are intended to draw legal challenges, which religious conservatives hope will lead the nation’s top court to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that established a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy.
“We are not going to allow them to move our country backward,” U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar, one of the two dozen Democrats running for president, told the crowd through a megaphone.
The rally is one of scores scheduled for Tuesday around the country by the American Civil Liberties Union, NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood Action Fund and otherabortion rights group. The protests are a response to laws passed recently by Republican state legislatures that amount to the tightest restrictions on abortion seen in the United States in decades.

Missouri is one of eight states where Republican-controlled legislatures this year have passed new restrictions on abortion. It is part of a coordinated campaign aimed at prompting the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court to cut back or overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide and recognized a right under the U.S. Constitution for women to terminate pregnancies.
The most restrictive of those bills was signed into law in Alabama last week. It bans abortion at all times and in almost all cases, including when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, but allows exceptions when the mother’s life is in danger.
Anti-abortion advocates are aware that any laws they pass are certain to be challenged. But supporters of the Alabama ban said the right to life of the fetus transcended other rights, an idea they would like tested at the Supreme Court.
Alabama passed an outright ban last week, including for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, unless the woman’s life is in danger, while other states, including Ohio and Georgia, have banned abortions absent a medical emergency after six weeks of pregnancy or after the fetus’s heartbeat can be detected, which can occur before a woman even realizes she is pregnant.

Protesters outside the Supreme Court waved signs saying “We won’t be punished” and “Protect Safe, Legal Abortion” and were joined by Pete Buttigieg, the South Bend, Indiana, mayor who also is vying for the 2020 nomination.
“My entire campaign is about freedom,” he said in a brief interview.
U.S. Representative Ayanna Pressley also was a featured speaker, telling the crowd: “This nation was built on the backs and grown in the wombs of women, and our rights are not up for debate.” 
U.S. President Donald Trump, a Republican who opposes abortion, has seized on the issue as one likely to fire up his core supporters.
The restrictive new laws are contrary to the Roe v. Wade ruling, which affords a woman the right to an abortion up to the moment the fetus would be viable outside the womb, which is usually placed at about seven months, or 28 weeks, but may occur earlier.
The bans have been championed by conservatives, many of them Christian, who say fetuses should have rights comparable to those of infants and view abortion as tantamount to murder. The Supreme Court now has a 5-4 conservative majority following two judicial appointments by Trump.
A federal judge in Mississippi on Tuesday heard arguments in a lawsuit challenging the state’s new fetal-heartbeart abortion law. District Judge Carlton Reeves asked questions suggesting he thought the new law to be even more unconstitutional than the state’s 15-week abortion ban he struck down last year.
And so the arguments go on and on. The one hundred and sixty two million women of the United States should vote as a body on this issue.... The one hundred and fifty seven million men should butt out.



United Nations Report claims one million species on verge of extinction

 

In a sweeping, first-of-its-kind report, the United Nations on Monday said that more species now are threatened with extinction than at any time in human history, and that the exploding human population has severely altered the Earth's land, ocean and freshwater regions.  

 “While the planetary garden still exists,” Thomas Lovejoy of George Mason University said about the report, “it is in deep disrepair, frayed and fragmented almost beyond recognition."

The report said 1 million of the planet's 8 million species of plants and animals are at risk of going extinct in the near future. Scientists blame human activities that have led to loss of habitat, climate change, overfishing, pollution and invasive species.

The pace of species loss “is already tens to hundreds of times higher than it has been, on average, over the last 10 million years," according to the report.  

 

For the past week, about 450 scientists met in Paris to come up with the 1,500-page report. The summary from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPEBS) was unanimously approved by more than 130 nations, including the United States

"The overwhelming evidence of the IPBES Global Assessment, from a wide range of different fields of knowledge, presents an ominous picture," IPBES Chair Sir Robert Watson said. "The health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever. We are eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide."  Killing off animals and plants can threaten humanity's own future as the food chain and eco-systems collapse

The report says humans are ravaging the planet by: 

• Turning forests, grasslands and other areas into farms, cities and other developments. The habitat loss leaves plants and animals homeless.
• Overfishing the world’s oceans. A third of the world’s fish stocks are overfished.
• Permitting climate change from the burning of fossil fuels to make it too hot, wet or dry for some species to survive. 
• Polluting land and water.
• Allowing invasive species to crowd out native plants and animals. 

Habitats of Rain Forest Orangutans are being destroyed and cleared for human use. Their numbers

are dwindling rapidly

“Humanity, unwittingly, is attempting to throttle the living planet and humanity’s own future,” said Lovejoy, who has been called the godfather of biodiversity for his research

The report isn't all doom and gloom, however, as it offers a solution, radical and challenging though it may be: "The report also tells us that it is not too late to make a difference, but only if we start now at every level from local to global," Watson said.

"Through 'transformative change', nature can still be conserved, restored and used sustainably – this is also key to meeting most other global goals," Watson said. By transformative change, we mean a fundamental, system-wide reorganization across technological, economic and social factors, including paradigms, goals and values." 

Many of the worst effects can be prevented by changing the way we grow food, produce energy, deal with climate change and dispose of waste, the report said. That involves concerted action by governments, companies and people.

Lovejoy added that "the biological diversity of this planet has been really hammered, and this is really our last chance to address all of that,” he said.

The group is modeled after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has met every few years since the 1990s to confront the effects of global warming. 

Contributing: The Associated Press