In the end , President Obama was forced to listen to his generals — not his political instincts — on Afghanistan troop levels , and he decided to split the difference .\nMr. Obama is keeping 5,500 troops in Afghanistan beyond his presidency , about half the strength recommended by his top general in-country . It marks the sixth time he has rejected the advice of a ground commander on the force size in the long Iraq and Afghanistan wars . Military experts call that streak unprecedented for a commander in chief .\nLike the current 9,800 U.S. troops there , the drawdown force of 5,500 will maintain a noncombat stance in training Afghan forces and hunting al Qaeda terrorists , Mr. Obama said Thursday . Administration officials said the U.S. will spend about $ 14.6 billion a year to house the troops at a total of four bases in Kabul , Kandahar , Jalalabad and Bagram — an increase over the estimated $ 10 billion annual cost of keeping a force at the U.S. Embassy in the Afghan capital .\nThe president had wanted to deliver a speech saying that all American troops were out of Afghanistan at the end of next year , as he did in 2011 for the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq . But he was swayed by the dark picture of the Afghan conflict that the top brass has been drawing for him , and now Mr. Obama will pass the war onto the next president in 2017 .\nThe battlefield facts delivered to the White House by Army Gen. John Campbell , the top NATO commander in Afghanistan , and other generals :\n• The Taliban mounted a ferocious offensive in the 2015 “ fighting season ” that took a heavy casualty toll on the shaky Afghan National Security Forces .\n• Those forces still lack competent leaders to win decisive battles without American troops to guide them .\n• A new enemy has emerged , the ultraviolent Islamic State ( also known as ISIL or ISIS ) in a province next door to Kabul , the Afghan capital . This confronted the elected government with new security threats , especially the terrorist army ’ s trademark vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices .\n“ The security situation in Afghanistan is so far from stable that to pull out all the troops , even for this president , doesn ’ t make any sense , ” said retired Army Gen. John Keane , who devised the 2007 Iraq troop surge and has advised Afghan commanders in the past .\nMr. Keane , whose guidance is sought by Congress , said Gen. Campbell wanted to retain the current force of 9,800 , but Mr. Obama “ cut that in half . ”\n“ He still does not listen to his combat field general , who wanted the current force to remain as is , ” Mr. Keane said . “ Quite unprecedented , this is the sixth time President Obama has not listened to a field commander recommendation on force levels for troops in combat . ”\nThe six times : Mr. Obama rejected a recommendation from Army Gen. Lloyd Austin , chief of U.S. Central Command , to keep about 20,000 troops in Iraq ; at five transition points in Afghanistan , he approved troop numbers below those urged by commanders .\nStill , Mr. Obama did compromise on troops and infrastructure instead of ordering the complete withdrawal he had wanted .\n“ The goodness in this decision are the four bases , ” Mr. Keane said . “ If he had reduced it to one base , which they were thinking of doing , that would be a disaster .\n“ The four bases permits the military to conduct counterterrorism operations in the east , south and in vicinity of the capital , which is absolutely critical , one of the crucial capabilities we lost when we pulled all troops out of Iraq , ” he said . “ Also , the four bases permits the next president to expand the troop presence rapidly based on the security situation 15 months from now .\n“ What suffers as a result of this decision is the train-and-assist mission , because we won ’ t have sufficient troops to do it properly , ” the retired general said .\nTrain-and-assist is one of three major missions now carried out by American forces . The other two : advise and accompany Afghan forces on counterterrorism operations and provide force protection .\nOn Thursday , the administration defended the president against criticism that he ignored the advice of his top military advisers , with White House press secretary Josh Earnest saying that Mr. Obama ’ s decision is “ consistent with ” Gen. Campbell ’ s recommendation .\nIt is likely that Gen. Campbell ’ s communications with the White House in recent months mirrored the somber report he delivered Oct. 6 to the Senate Armed Services Committee .\nThere he spoke of a “ struggling ” Afghan force that faced its longest fighting season as the Taliban began early — in February . In the east , the Islamic State “ further complicated the theater landscape and potentially expanded the conflict , ” Gen. Campbell said .\nAll the while , he said , the Afghans lacked the robust U.S. air power they had come to rely on to arrive on the scene in minutes and deliver precision fire . Such air support “ is no longer the norm but the exception , ” he said .\nThe commander ’ s report card on the Afghan force : “ They must improve their intelligence fusion , command and control utilization of their forces . They don ’ t possess the necessary combat power and numbers to protect every part of the country . This makes it very difficult for the Afghan security forces to counter the Taliban ’ s ability to temporarily seize an objective and then blend back into the population . ”\nMarine Corps General Joseph Dunford , the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , is now Mr. Obama ’ s chief military adviser .\nDuring his July confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee , Gen. Dunford all but broke with the president ’ s then-desire to pull all troops out by the end of 2016 . One could extrapolate from his answers to questions from committee Chairman John McCain , Arizona Republican , that he would attempt to talk the president out of that plan .\n“ Is this a wise decision on your part to have a calendar-based withdrawal of American troops rather than a condition-based withdrawal given your background and experience there ? ” Mr. McCain asked Gen. Dunford , a former Afghan NATO commander .\n“ I ’ m aware of the consequences of our mission and importance of our mission in Afghanistan , ” the general answered . “ I can assure you , if I ’ m confirmed , I ’ ll provide advice to the president that will allow us to meet our desired end state . And I think that that will be based on the conditions on the ground , as you ’ ve articulated . ”\nMr. McCain said Thursday “ it makes no military sense to withdraw U.S. forces ” below the current 9,800 .\n“ Once again , President Obama is putting our mission in Afghanistan , as well as our men and women serving there , at greater risk , and he is doing so for the sake of a troop reduction that has no political benefit but could have significant military implications , ” he said .


Iran , Israel , Defense Cuts To Be Key Topics At Hagel Hearing\nWhat 's shaping up to be one of the more contentious nomination hearings for one of President Obama 's cabinet choices is set to open at 9:30 a.m . ET when members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services get their chance to publicly grill former Sen. Chuck Hagel , R-Neb. , who has been tapped for the post of defense secretary .\nAs Ari Shapiro reported on Morning Edition , Obama 's choices of Hagel , Sen. John Kerry , D-Mass. , for secretary of state , and counterterrorism adviser John Brennan for CIA director , `` represent a shift in the way the U.S. wages war . It 's a shift from big to small , from the Pentagon to the CIA . ''\nBut today 's Hagel hearing , as Defense News writes , is expected to be dominated by the issues of Israel , Iran and looming defense budget cuts and sharp questions about the nominees views :\n`` Since Hagel 's name was floated for the post in early December , Hagel has been sharply criticized by his former fellow-GOP senators and pro-Israel groups for his past comments on the U.S.-Israel alliance , whether the Pentagon budget can and should be trimmed , how to confront Iran over its nuclear arms program , gay rights and the proper size of the U.S. nuclear arms fleet . Expect questions on all those topics . ''\nAccording to the Los Angeles Times , Hagel `` will stress at his confirmation hearing Thursday that he opposes letting Iran acquire nuclear weapons and will focus on developing military options to set back Tehran 's program , according to a U.S. official familiar with his planned testimony . ''\nThe conventional wisdom in Washington seems to be that after some initial doubts , it 's now likely Hagel will be confirmed . The Washington Post 's The Fix blog this morning suggests there are `` 5 senators to watch '' during the hearing : Sen. Ted Cruz , R-Texas ; Sen. Kirstin Gillibrand , D-N.Y. ; Sen. Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. ; Sen. Jim Inhofe , R-Okla. ; and Sen. John McCain , R-Ariz .\nWe 'll monitor the hearing and post highlights later . C-SPAN.org will be streaming here .\nUpdate at 10:45 a.m . ET . Early News From The Hearing :\nHagel : 'No One Individual Vote , Quote Or Statement Defines Me '


Hagel ’ s nomination now proceeds to the Senate floor . | John Shinkle/███ Hagel nomination clears Senate committee\nSplitting along party lines , the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 14-11 on Tuesday to advance Chuck Hagel ’ s nomination after a tense two-hour meeting that closed the latest chapter in a weeks-long political saga .\nThe nomination heads to the full Senate , where Republicans may demand a 60-vote threshold in a vote expected later this week .\nDemocrats and Republicans broke sharply over whether the former Republican senator from Nebraska is the right man to run the Pentagon . Supporters cited Hagel ’ s experience as an enlisted soldier in Vietnam and his service in the Senate and elsewhere as reasons he should succeed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta while opponents stuck with their criticisms about Hagel ’ s past positions on Iran , Israel and the defense budget .\nA few Republicans kept up their bid to stop Hagel ’ s nomination from moving ahead , arguing he has kept some information from the committee , but Democrats insisted that he has satisfied its disclosure requirements and accused Republicans of tarring Hagel unfairly .\nSen. Bill Nelson ( D-Fla. ) said Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-Texas ) had `` gone over the line '' and `` basically ... impugned the patriotism of the nominee ” by pointing out that the Iranian Foreign Ministry had praised Hagel .\nThe top Republican on the committee , Sen. Jim Inhofe ( R-Okla. ) , shot back later in defense of Cruz , `` You do n't get any cozier than that . ''\nFormer ranking member Sen. John McCain ( R-Ariz. ) interjected soon thereafter with a message for his colleagues : `` Sen. Hagel is an honorable man who has served his country , and no one on this committee at any time should impugn his character , '' McCain said .\nBut for most of the meeting , senators referred to Hagel ’ s late January confirmation hearing . McCain slammed Hagel ’ s performance as “ the worst I have seen of any nomination for office ” and said it was “ disturbing ” that Hagel would not directly respond to his question about whether the Iraq surge was a success . Democrats said the criticism of Hagel ’ s day in the spotlight was unfair , and they defended his description of a policy of “ containment ” for a nuclear Iran — which the White House does not support – as a simple slip of the tongue .\nApart from the politics involved with Hagel himself , Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin ( D-Mich. ) had warned senators that rejecting him would endanger the Pentagon at a time it could ill afford another complication .\n“ If there ’ s a risk here , it is that the defeat of this nomination would leave the Department of Defense leaderless at a time when we face immense budgetary challenges and our military is engaged in combat operations overseas , '' Levin said .\nWhile he acknowledged that many senators oppose President Barack Obama 's foreign policy , `` our vote on Sen. Hagel 's nomination will not change those policies . ''\nThe meeting ultimately proved civil compared with what might have been — Republican aides had suggested earlier that some GOP senators were considering walking out to protest what they called Hagel ’ s insufficient financial disclosures . Inhofe and Cruz later ruled that out .\n“ I don ’ t think anything is gained by theatrics , ” Cruz told ███ .\nJust the same , Republicans continued to try to put on the brakes . Louisiana Sen. David Vitter quarreled with Levin over what Vitter said was an incomplete disclosure from Hagel of past speeches , and Cruz renewed the GOP line of questioning about whether Hagel had taken payments from “ foreign sources . ”\nHagel ’ s nomination now proceeds to the Senate floor , where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ( D-Nev. ) has said he hopes the chamber could vote on it Wednesday or Thursday .\nSome Republicans said they might continue to oppose Hagel before the full Senate , but Reid responded with a single word on Tuesday when asked whether he ’ d honor an attempt at a hold : “ No . ”\nWith 55 Democrats controlling the Senate and two Republicans — Mike Johanns of Nebraska and Thad Cochran of Mississippi — already publicly supporting Hagel , only three more Republicans would need to support him for confirmation under a request from Republicans for a 60-vote threshold .\nInhofe said Monday night that he would not use his privilege to delay Hagel ’ s confirmation into the weekend or early next week , so long as Democrats produced 60 votes upfront to support Hagel .\nThis article first appeared on ███ Pro at 5:05 p.m. on February 12 , 2013 .


A federal appeals court Thursday ruled in favor of faith-based nonprofits who fought Obamacare ’ s birth control rules , dealing an elusive victory to religious employers who now have a stronger hand in urging the Supreme Court to shield them from the administration ’ s “ contraception mandate . ”\nIn a pair of opinions , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit sided with religious universities and ministries that object to insuring contraceptives they equate with abortion and feel that opt-out routes provided by the Department of Health and Human Services keep them complicit in sin .\nThe rulings upheld a lower court ’ s finding and marked a significant break from other circuit rulings that said HHS ’ s efforts to accommodate the groups were sufficient .\nUnder HHS rules , religious employers who object to covering birth control must notify an insurer , plan administrator or the government in writing so that a third party can manage and pay for the coverage .\n“ If one equates the self-certification process with , say , that of obtaining a parade permit , then indeed the burden might well be considered light . But if one sincerely believes that completing [ the opt-out form ] or HHS Notice will result in conscience-violating consequences , what some might consider an otherwise neutral act is a burden too heavy to bear , ” wrote Judge Roger L. Wollman , an appointee of President Ronald Reagan , joined by judges William D. Benton and Steven M. Colloton , both appointees of President George W. Bush .\nThe contraception mandate is an outgrowth of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 that requires employers to cover 20 types of FDA-approved drugs and services as part of their health plans or else pay hefty fines . Pitched as a boon for women ’ s health , the rules quickly spawned controversy , with dozens of religious nonprofits and devout business owners filing suit .\nMany Catholic employers object to all forms of contraception , while evangelical groups and others say they ’ re only opposed to morning-after pills they equate with abortion .\nFamily owned for-profits were victorious before the Supreme Court last year , forcing HHS to draft an accommodation for them . The same rules that HHS drafted for religious nonprofits now apply to the closely held companies , although they must meet certain standards .\nPlaintiffs on the nonprofit side are not satisfied though . They want the same blanket exemption from the mandate that houses of worship enjoy .\nSeveral faith-based nonprofits have asked the justices to take up their case in the coming term .\nWith a circuit split in hand , they ’ ve got a much better shot at grabbing the court ’ s attention .\n“ The government keeps telling the Supreme Court ‘ Move along , nothing important here ’ in hopes that the court will ignore this crucial issue . But with today ’ s decisions , the court will have great reason to decide this issue in the next term , ” said Lori Windham , senior counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty .\nThe Eighth Circuit cited the justices ’ holding in the for-profit case , known as “ Hobby Lobby , ” that enforcing the mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act — a bipartisan 1993 law that says the government had to have a compelling interest in carrying out a law that substantially burdens a person ’ s religious beliefs , and must do so in the least restrictive way possible .\nUnlike other circuits , Thursday ’ s panel said the HHS accommodation presented a substantial burden on faith-based nonprofits .\nCiting the 2014 decision , the panel said “ it is not our role to second-guess [ the plaintiffs ’ ] honest assessment of a ‘ difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy , namely , the circumstances under which it is wrong for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another . ’ ”\nBrigitte Amiri , a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union ’ s Reproductive Freedom Project , said she disagreed with the decision but acknowledged that it increases the likelihood that the justices will take up one of the faith group ’ s cases .\n“ Although we all have the right to our religious beliefs , those beliefs can not be used to harm or discriminate against others , ” she said . “ Today ’ s decision is also an outlier — all of the other seven courts of appeals to consider the issue have found that the accommodation available for nonprofit organizations does not substantially burden the employers ’ religious beliefs . ”\nThursday ’ s ruling addressed lawsuits from Dordt College in Iowa , Heartland Christian College in Missouri and CNS International Ministries , Inc. ( CNS ) , a Missouri nonprofit that helps people with substance abuse and behavioral problems .\nThe groups said intrauterine devices ( IUDs ) and emergency contraceptives covered by the mandate are the same as “ abortion on demand . ”


Despite barely beating a midnight deadline , hundreds of jeering protesters helped stop Texas lawmakers from passing one of the toughest abortion measures in the country .\nAs the protesters raised the noise to deafening levels in the Texas Senate chamber late Tuesday , Republicans scrambled to gather their colleagues at the podium for a stroke-of-midnight vote .\n`` Get them out ! '' Sen. Donna Campbell shouted to a security guard , pointing to the thundering crowd in the gallery overhead that had already been screaming for more than 10 minutes .\n`` Time is running out , '' Campbell pleaded . `` I want them out of here ! ''\nIt did n't work . The noise never stopped and despite barely beating the midnight end-of-session deadline with a vote to pass the bill , Lt. Gov . David Dewhurst said the chaos in the chamber prevented him from formally signing it before the deadline passed , effectively killing it .\nDewhurst denounced the protesters as an `` unruly mob . '' Democrats who urged them on called the outburst democracy in action .\nIn either point of view , a raucous crowd of chanting , singing , shouting demonstrators effectively took over the Texas Capitol and blocked a bill that abortion rights groups warned would close most abortion clinics in the state .\n`` They were asking for their voices to be heard , '' said Sen. Wendy Davis of Fort Worth , who spent nearly 11 hours trying to filibuster the bill before the outburst . `` The results speak for themselves . ''\nInitially , Republicans insisted the vote started before the midnight deadline and passed the bill that Democrats spent the day trying to kill . But after official computer records and printouts of the voting record showed the vote took place Wednesday , and then were changed to read Tuesday , senators retreated into a private meeting to reach a conclusion .\nAt 3 a.m. , Dewhurst emerged from the meeting still insisting the 19-10 vote was in time , but said , `` with all the ruckus and noise going on , I could n't sign the bill '' and declared it dead .\nHe denounced the more than 400 protesters who staged what they called `` a people 's filibuster '' from 11:45 p.m. to well past midnight . He denied mishandling the debate .\n`` I did n't lose control ( of the chamber ) . We had an unruly mob , '' Dewhurst said . He even hinted that Gov . Rick Perry may immediately call another 30-day special session , adding : `` It 's over . It 's been fun . But see you soon . ''\nMany of the protesters had flocked to the normally quiet Capitol to support Davis , who gained national attention and a mention from President Barack Obama 's campaign Twitter account . Her Twitter following went from 1,200 in the morning to more than 20,000 by Tuesday night .\n`` My back hurts . I do n't have a lot of words left , '' Davis said when it was over and she was showered with cheers by activists who stayed at the Capitol to see her . `` It shows the determination and spirit of Texas women . ''\nDavis ' mission was cut short . Lt. Gov . David Dewhurst halted the filibuster after determining Davis had strayed off the topic when she talked about a sonogram bill passed in 2011 and how the new abortion restrictions only compounded the anti-abortion laws in Texas . Democrats immediately appealed the decision and set off a heated debate over rules . At one point , Austin Democratic Sen. Kirk Watson appeared to be positioning himself to launch a new filibuster on Dewhurst 's decision .\nBut Davis ' effort ultimately helped Democrats earn a rare victory in a Legislature dominated by Republicans for more than a decade .\n`` It 's a bad bill , '' said Sen. Watson , leader of the Senate Democrats .\nThe bill would ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy and force many clinics that perform the procedure to upgrade their facilities and be classified as ambulatory surgical centers . Also , doctors would be required to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles — a tall order in rural communities .\nIf signed into law , the measures would have closed almost every abortion clinic in Texas , a state 773 miles wide and 790 miles long with 26 million people . A woman living along the Mexico border or in West Texas would have to drive hundreds of miles to obtain an abortion if the law passed . The law 's provision that abortions be performed at surgical centers means only five of Texas ' 42 abortion clinics are currently designated to remain in operation .\nRepublicans and anti-abortion groups insisted their goal was to improve women 's health care , but also acknowledged wanting clinics to close .\n`` If this passes , abortion would be virtually banned in the state of Texas , and many women could be forced to resort to dangerous and unsafe measures , '' said Cecile Richards , president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund and daughter of the late former Texas governor Ann Richards .\nThe showdown came after Davis had slogged her way through about 11 hours of speaking while Senate Republicans — and several House members — watched and listened for any slipup that would allow them to end the filibuster and call a vote .\nDemocrats chose Davis , of Fort Worth , to lead the effort because of her background ; she had her first child as a teenager and went on to graduate from Harvard Law School .\nRules stipulated she remain standing , not lean on her desk or take any breaks — even for meals or to use the bathroom . But she also was required to stay on topic , and Republicans pointed out a mistake and later protested again when another lawmaker helped her with a back brace .\nLawmakers can vote to end a filibuster after three sustained points of order . As tension mounted over Davis ' speech and the dwindling clock , Campbell , a first-term lawmaker from New Braunfels , made the call on the third violation , sparking nearly two hours of debate on how to handle it .\nAfter much back and forth and senators shouting over each other , the Republican majority forced a vote to end the filibuster minutes before midnight , sparking the raucous response from protesters .\nSenate security and several Department of Public Safety state troopers tried to quiet the crowd but were simply outnumbered and had no hope of stopping the outburst .\nSen. Dan Patrick , R-Houston , blamed the confusion surrounding the final vote on the demonstrators and Democratic senators who urged them on .\n`` Had that not happened , everyone would have known , '' what was happening , Patrick said .\nStanding next to him was Sen. Juan `` Chuy '' Hinojosa , a Democrat .\n`` This is democracy , '' Hinojosa said . `` They have a right to speak . ''\nGet the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy


It ’ s not that Democrats support infanticide : They just aren ’ t against it . What other conclusion can one reach when 44 out of 47 Senate Democrats blocked the Senate from voting on a bill requiring that any baby who survives an abortion — in other words , a baby who was born — must be brought to a hospital for care and treated with “ the same degree of professional skill , care , and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age . ”\nWhoever intentionally performs or attempts to perform an overt act that kills a child born alive described under subsection ( a ) , shall be punished… for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being .\nGood grief , who could object to that ? At least six want-to-be presidents — Kamala Harris , Bernie Sanders , Kirsten Gillibrand , Amy Klobuchar , Cory Booker , and Elizabeth Warren — did . That ’ s stunning .\nWe have been here before . During the height of the eugenics movement in the 1920s and 30s , activists sought to “ improve ” the human herd by preventing the so-called “ unfit ” from being born — generally through involuntary sterilization of those considered eugenically incorrect . Appallingly , some 60,000 people were involuntarily sterilized under color of law in the United States during the first half of the 20th century .\nSome famous advocates wanted to go even further , advocating the killing of babies who did not pass eugenics muster . For example , in his splendid history of the eugenics movement , War Against the Weak , Edwin Black reports that birth control advocate and social Darwinist Margaret Sanger , proudly spouted “ the extreme eugenic view that human ‘ weeds ’ should be ‘ exterminated. ’ ” Bizarrely , so did Helen Keller — as if the fact that her disabilities weren ’ t congenital would have protected her once the slaughter of the “ defectives ” began .\nSystematic infanticide was never legalized in the United States . But in Germany , doctors killed tens of thousands of disabled babies between 1939-1945 . It is important to note that Hitler did not force medical personnel to kill disabled babies ( although doctors and midwives were required legally to report their births ) . Rather , doctors who committed infanticide did so willingly , believing that their killing was a “ healing treatment ” for the child , the family , and the Reich .\nAfter the war , infanticide was scorned universally as evil . But now , that moral consensus has frayed . Indeed , one could say that infanticide is making a comeback .\nOne need only look at the world ’ s foremost medical and bioethics journals to see the trendline . Princeton University ’ s bioethics professor Peter Singer became famous by claiming that newborn babies are killable because they have not yet developed the cognitive capacities to be considered a “ person. ” He wrote in Rethinking Life and Death , “ Since neither a newborn infant nor a fish is a person the wrongness of killing such beings is not as great as the wrongness of killing a person. ” In other words , to Singer , a newborn infant is the moral equivalent of a mackerel .\nIn a 2010 Harvard symposium on abortion and infanticide , Singer tied infanticide to the legality of abortion : “ The position that allows abortion also allows infanticide under some circumstances.… If we accept abortion , we do need to rethink some of those more fundamental attitudes about human life . ”\nIn another world and time , Singer ’ s advocacy would make him an intellectual outcast . Instead , far from being a fringe character , Singer is invited to present at seminars , symposia , and philosophy association conventions throughout the world . He is often quoted respectfully in the mainstream media , including frequently in New York Times , where he is also a recurring contributor .\nSinger is far from alone . A few years ago , the Journal of Medical Ethics published an advocacy article entitled , “ After-Birth Abortion : Why Should the Baby Live ? ” Consider the following quotes that the editors of one of the world ’ s most prestigious bioethics journals considered worthy of respectful dissemination :\n“ The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus , that is , neither can be considered a ‘ person ’ in a morally relevant sense . ”\n“ In spite of the oxymoron in the expression , we propose to call this practice ‘ after-birth ’ abortion , ’ rather than ‘ infanticide , ’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus… rather than that of a child . ”\n“ We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all circumstances where abortion would be . ”\n“ Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life . ”\nThe authors also claim that killing healthy and able-bodied babies should be allowable because , “ we also need to consider the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving up her child for adoption. ” The mind boggles .\nAlas , infanticide has gone beyond mere advocacy in the modern world . For decades , China turned a blind eye to chronic female infanticide that resulted from its odious “ one child policy , ” recently abandoned because it led to a catastrophic demographic imbalance between males and females . India has also seen a problem with sex-selection “ after-birth abortions . ”\nThe Netherlands has embraced wartime Germany ’ s scorned policy of allowing babies born with terminal illnesses and serious disabilities to be subjected to homicide by doctors . And , it is done under color of law under a bureaucratic checklist known as “ The Groningen Protocol , ” which permits doctors to lethally inject infants under three scenarios :\nThe baby has no chance of survival ( a circumstance that is sometimes misdiagnosed ) ; The baby “ may survive after a period of intensive treatment but expectations for their future are very grim ” ; The baby does “ not depend on technology for physiologic stability ” but has “ suffering [ that ] is severe , sustained , and can not be alleviated . ”\nThus , Dutch doctors not only speed up dying babies ’ deaths , but also kill those with serious disabilities who do not need intensive care . Showing the dark currents that are flowing in favor of infanticide , the Groningen Protocol was published with all due respect in the New England Journal of Medicine .\nSome politicians and advocates are slightly less blatant , arguing in support of what could be called infanticide-by-neglect . The most well-known recent example was Virginia Governor Ralph Northam ( D-VA ) , who falsely ( according to a study published by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute ) claimed that late-term abortions are restricted to “ cases where there may be severe deformities , there may be a fetus that ’ s non-viable. ” And if such babies are born alive , Northam was asked in a radio interview . He stated coldly :\nSo , in this particular example , if a mother is in labor , I can tell you exactly what would happen . The infant would be delivered . The infant would be kept comfortable . The infant would be resuscitated if that ’ s what the mother and the family desired , and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother .\nThink about this . The Governor of Virginia endorsed the moral equivalent of the Roman Empire ’ s ancient practice of exposing disabled infants on hills — except that instead of leaving the baby in the weeds to be consumed by animals , the child would be left to die unattended in a bassinette . Awful .\nThe recent open and notorious support for infanticide by society ’ s most powerful voices forces us to support , reject , or be openly indifferent to the sanctity of human life . If there is moral accountability in creation , we had better be very careful about what we do next . History will judge us most harshly if we turn a blind eye to the killing of the most weak , defenseless , and innocent among us .\nAward winning author Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute ’ s Center on Human Exceptionalism and a consultant to the Patients Rights Council . His most recent book is Culture of Death : The Age of “ Do Harm ” Medicine .


FILE - In this Jan. 19 , 2018 file photo , President Donald Trump speaks to participants of the annual March for Life event , in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington . The Trump administration will resurrect a Reagan-era rule that would ban federally-funded family planning clinics from discussing abortion with women , or sharing space with abortion providers , a senior White House official said Thursday , May 17 , 2018 . The Department of Health and Human Services will be announcing its proposal Friday , the official said on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to confirm the plans before the announcement . ( AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta , File )\nFILE - In this Jan. 19 , 2018 file photo , President Donald Trump speaks to participants of the annual March for Life event , in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington . The Trump administration will resurrect a Reagan-era rule that would ban federally-funded family planning clinics from discussing abortion with women , or sharing space with abortion providers , a senior White House official said Thursday , May 17 , 2018 . The Department of Health and Human Services will be announcing its proposal Friday , the official said on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to confirm the plans before the announcement . ( AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta , File )\nWASHINGTON ( AP ) — The Trump administration acted Friday to bar taxpayer-funded family planning clinics from referring women for abortions , energizing its conservative political base ahead of crucial midterm elections while setting the stage for new legal battles .\nThe Health and Human Services Department sent its proposal to rewrite the rules to the White House , setting in motion a regulatory process that could take months . Scant on details , an administration overview of the plan said it would echo a Reagan-era rule by banning abortion referrals by federally funded clinics and forbidding them from locating in facilities that also provide abortions .\nPlanned Parenthood , a principal provider of family planning , abortion services and basic preventive care for women , said the plan appears designed to target the organization . “ The end result would make it impossible for women to come to Planned Parenthood , who are counting on us every day , ” said executive vice president Dawn Laguens .\nBut presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway told Fox News that the administration is simply recognizing “ that abortion is not family planning . This is family planning money . ”\nThe policy was derided as a “ gag rule ” by abortion rights supporters , a point challenged by the administration , which said counseling about abortion would be OK , but not referrals . It ’ s likely to trigger lawsuits from opponents , and certain to galvanize activists on both sides of the abortion debate going into November ’ s congressional elections .\nThe policy “ would ensure that taxpayers do not indirectly fund abortions , ” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement .\nSocial and religious conservatives have remained steadfastly loyal to President Donald Trump despite issues like his reimbursements to attorney Michael Cohen , who paid hush money to a porn star alleging an affair , and Trump ’ s past boasts of sexually aggressive behavior . Trump has not wavered from advancing the agenda of the religious right .\nTuesday night , Trump is scheduled to speak at the Susan B. Anthony List ’ s “ campaign for life ” gala . The group works to elect candidates who want to reduce and ultimately end abortion . It says it spent more than $ 18 million in the 2016 election cycle to defeat Hillary Rodham Clinton and promote a “ pro-life Senate . ”\nThe original Reagan-era family planning rule barred clinics from discussing abortion with women . It never went into effect as written , although the Supreme Court ruled it was an appropriate use of executive power . The policy was rescinded under President Bill Clinton , and a new rule took effect requiring “ nondirective ” counseling to include a full range of options for women .\nThe Trump administration said its proposal will roll back the Clinton requirement that abortion be discussed as an option along with prenatal care and adoption .\nKnown as Title X , the family-planning program serves about 4 million women a year through clinics , costing taxpayers about $ 260 million .\nAlthough abortion is politically divisive , the U.S. abortion rate has dropped significantly , from about 29 per 1,000 women of reproductive age in 1980 to about 15 in 2014 . Better contraception , fewer unintended pregnancies and state restrictions may have played a role , according to a recent scientific report .\nAbortion remains legal , but federal family planning funds can not be used to pay for the procedure . Planned Parenthood clinics now qualify for Title X family planning grants , but they keep that money separate from funds that pay for abortions .\nAbortion opponents say a taxpayer-funded program should have no connection to abortion . Doctors ’ groups and abortion rights supporters say a ban on counseling women trespasses on the doctor-patient relationship .\nThe American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said the administration action amounts to an “ egregious intrusion ” in the doctor-patient relationship and could force doctors to omit “ essential , medically accurate information ” from counseling sessions with patients .\nPlanned Parenthood ’ s Laguens hinted at legal action , saying , “ we will not stand by while our basic health care and rights are stripped away . ”\nJessica Marcella of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association , which represents clinics , said requiring physical separation from abortion facilities is impractical and would disrupt services for women .\n“ I can not imagine a scenario in which public health groups would allow this effort to go unchallenged , ” Marcella said .\nBut abortion opponents said Trump is merely reaffirming the core mission of the family planning program .\n“ The new regulations will draw a bright line between abortion centers and family planning programs , just as ... federal law requires and the Supreme Court has upheld , ” said Tony Perkins , president of the Family Research Council , a key voice for religious conservatives .\nKristan Hawkins of Students for Life of America said , “ Abortion is not health care or birth control and many women want natural health care choices , rather than hormone-induced changes . ”\nAbortion opponents allege the federal family planning program in effect cross-subsidizes abortions provided by Planned Parenthood , whose clinics are also major recipients of grants for family planning and basic preventive care . Hawkins ’ group is circulating a petition to urge lawmakers to support the Trump administration ’ s proposal .\nAbortion opponents say the administration plan is not a “ gag rule. ” It “ will not prohibit counseling for clients about abortion ... but neither will it include the current mandate that ( clinics ) must counsel and refer for abortion , ” said the administration ’ s own summary .


VATICAN CITY — Just when you think Pope Francis has nothing left up the sleeve of his cassock , he does it again . This time , the popular pontiff has announced that during the Holy Jubilee year beginning this December 8 , priests will have the discretion to forgive penitent Catholic women for having abortions—one of the biggest sins of the Catholic Church .\nIn what has become classic Francis style , he apparently doesn ’ t care about the political ramifications of offering limited forgiveness for an act on which entire political campaigns are made and unraveled . Instead , he wrote in a letter to the president of the Pontifical Council of New Evangelization that priests ought to look deep to understand what leads a woman to abort her unborn child .\n“ The tragedy of abortion is experienced by some with a superficial awareness , as if not realizing the extreme harm that such an act entails , ” said the pope ’ s letter . “ Many others , on the other hand , although experiencing this moment as a defeat , believe that they have no other option . ”\n“ I think in particular of all the women who have resorted to abortion , ” Francis said . “ I am well aware of the pressure that has led them to this decision . I know that it is an existential and moral ordeal . I have met so many women who bear in their heart the scar of this agonizing and painful decision . ”\nBy no means , of course , is the pope or the Catholic Church actually endorsing , condoning or somehow approving the ending of a pregnancy at any point after conception . That will never happen . On the contrary , by allowing Catholic women to be absolved from the sin , rather than automatically excommunicating them , as has been the practice , he ensures that they retain their faith . Or , more to the point , return to the pews .\nAt a time when more Catholics are leaving the Church than joining , keeping the faithful on the roster is vital . As we have seen time and time again , on issues like divorced and remarried Catholics , unwed parents , those who use birth control , those living in same-sex unions , Francis seems to be sending the same message that Catholics are welcome no matter how flawed they are or , it would seem , what sins they have committed . That mercy , above all , has been the key to the pope ’ s popularity .\nPrior to this decree , the only way a woman could be forgiven for having an abortion was to go directly to the chief confessor in her diocese or the equivalent in certain situations . Now , instead of petitioning a higher prelate , any priest anywhere in the world can do this .\n“ The forgiveness of God can not be denied to one who has repented , especially when that person approaches the Sacrament of Confession with a sincere heart in order to obtain reconciliation with the Father , ” Francis wrote . “ For this reason too , I have decided , notwithstanding anything to the contrary , to concede to all priests for the Jubilee Year the discretion to absolve of the sin of abortion those who have procured it and who , with contrite heart , seek forgiveness for it . ”\nWriting in Crux Now , Vatican expert John Allen points out that the move will no doubt be twisted to suit both the pro-life and pro-choice movements . “ Some anti-abortion activists may wince at any step , however well-intentioned , which could be seen as reducing the level of moral seriousness the Church attaches to the act , ” he writes , adding , “ On the other hand , some may be grateful for the reminder that abortion actually triggers excommunication. ” The takeaway likely will be that Francis ’ s talk about mercy “ isn ’ t mere rhetoric . ”\nWhile there is no statute of limitations on when the forgiven abortion took place , there is a catch . The offer of forgiveness is for a limited time only , starting when the Holy Jubilee kicks off on December 8 , 2015 and ending November 20 , 2016 .


( CNN ) Donald Trump 's election , and a presumption that he 'll appoint conservative Supreme Court justices , spurred Ohio Republicans to pass what would effectively be the nation 's strictest time-based abortion law , a legislator said .\nOhio lawmakers on Tuesday passed a `` Heartbeat Bill '' that would ban abortions in that state from the moment the heartbeat of a fetus can be detected -- which usually occurs about six weeks into a pregnancy .\nThe state 's current law generally bans abortions after a fetus has begun its 20th week of gestation , unless a doctor determines that the fetus is n't viable outside the womb . Exceptions are made if the pregnancy puts the woman 's health at serious risk .\nWhat happens next for the bill , which would prohibit post-heartbeat abortions even in cases of rape or incest , depends on Republican Gov . John Kasich , who , after he receives the legislation , has 10 days to decide whether to veto it .\nState legislators had considered the bill in previous years but it never passed the Senate . So what made the legislature 's Republican majority move now ?\n`` One , a new President , new Supreme Court justice appointees change the dynamic , and that there was a consensus in our caucus to move forward , '' Ohio Senate President Keith Faber , a Republican from Celina , told reporters after the final vote .\nAsked if he thought the bill would survive a legal challenge , he said : `` I think it has a better chance than it did before . ''\nIf Kasich signs the bill , or if he does nothing within 10 days , the measure would become law early next year . A veto would stop the bill unless three-fifths of the state House and Senate vote for an override .\nShould the bill become law , a court battle likely would ensue . The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio already has said it would press a legal challenge .\nOn Tuesday , the Ohio Legislature sent the bill to Kasich 's desk after a day filled with legislative maneuvering .\nJUST WATCHED Ohio considers Down syndrome abortion ban Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Ohio considers Down syndrome abortion ban 01:43\nEarlier in the day , state Sen. Kris Jordan , a Republican from Ostrander , called for an amendment that added provisions from the House-sponsored `` Heartbeat Bill '' to another measure , House Bill 493 , that sought to streamline the process in which medical professionals report child abuse situations .\n`` We are a pro-life caucus ... , '' Jordan said in a statement . `` The passage of this legislation in the Ohio Senate demonstrates our commitment to protecting the children of Ohio at every stage of life . ''\nThe Senate voted twice : First , they approved 20-11 the decision to tack on the `` Heartbeat Bill '' language onto House Bill 493 . After the amendment passed , the state senators passed the bill with a 21-10 vote that largely went along party lines .\nOhio state Sen. Charleta Tavares , a Columbus Democrat , had planned on voting for the child abuse bill as originally presented , but ultimately voted against it because she opposed the `` Heartbeat Bill '' amendment and change in language .\n`` I believe everyone has a right to their own body , '' Tavares told CNN . `` We allowed a good bill that protects the health and safety of our children to be bastardized into a government takeover of women 's wombs . ''\nAfter the bill went back the House , state representatives easily approved the revised bill 56-39 on Tuesday night . It now goes to Kasich for his signature .\nForty-three states currently restrict abortions , with some exceptions , by time or phase of fetal development .\nSome of those states prohibit abortions after a doctor determines the fetus is viable . There 's no fixed time period in such laws , but the nonprofit American Pregnancy Association says that viability generally can begin as soon as 24 weeks .\nOther states prohibit abortion after a certain time following conception -- as soon as 20 weeks in some states .\nBecause heartbeats develop at around six weeks , Ohio 's bill appears to offer what would be the country 's shortest window for abortions .\nAt least two other states -- Arkansas and North Dakota -- passed fetal heartbeat abortion laws . But those measures were found to be unconstitutional in federal court .\nEmmalee Kalmbach , a former Ohio Right to Life staffer who is now Kasich 's press secretary , said the governor does not typically comment on pending legislation .\nEarlier this year , Kasich told CNN that he was `` pro-life with the exceptions of rape , incest and the life of the mother . ''\nAnd earlier this year Kasich signed a bill to ban the state from contracting for health services with any organization that performs or promotes abortions -- a measure widely seen as a way to defund Planned Parenthood .\nThe Columbus Dispatch and the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that Kasich expressed concerns about previous attempts to pass a `` Heartbeat Bill , '' including that it may not withstand legal challenges .\nMike Gonidakis , president of Ohio Right to Life , said his group is neutral on the bill because it does n't believe the measure would hold up in federal court .\n`` We believe in an incremental approach , '' Gonidakis said . `` When you overreach , sometimes the courts get the last say . There 's a reason why no state has a 'Heartbeat Bill ' yet . ''\nThis might not be the only abortion restriction law to reach Kasich 's desk this month .\nSenate Bill 127 would prohibit abortions at the 20th week of gestation , except those necessary to prevent serious health problems for the woman . The Senate already has passed it , and the House may vote on it this week .\nGonidakis said he believes that bill has a greater chance of surviving court challenges , in part because other states have such a restriction .\nTavares said she hopes Kasich would line-item veto the `` Heartbeat Bill '' language .\nThe Heartbeat Bill has been called `` unconstitutional '' by members of both parties in the past , Tavares said . Though it passed the state House over a year ago , it previously met opposition in the Senate . On the heels of Donald Trump 's election , momentum for the bill 's approval resurfaced .\nThe ACLU of Ohio tweeted , `` Just a reminder , if the unconstitutional # HeartBeatBill passes and becomes law , we will challenge it in court . ''\nOhio state Sen. Joe Schiavoni , a Democrat from Boardman , said the bill would lead to `` expensive lawsuits '' that would divert resources away from more pressing issues like the opioid crisis .\n`` To the taxpayers of Ohio , I am sorry that your money will have to be used to defend this bill in the court system . ''\nJohn Fortney , a spokesman for the Senate 's Republican caucus , said that `` as far as the threat of abortion advocates suing , we do n't base our decisions on protecting the lives of babies on the threat of someone threatening to file a lawsuit . ''\nPresident-elect Trump has expressed interest in reversing the 1973 Roe v. Wade landmark decision that made abortion legal nationwide .\nTrump will get to nominate at least one justice during his term to fill the seat vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia , who died in February . Scalia was known for dissenting opinions on abortion rights .\nIn an interview with `` 60 Minutes '' last month , Trump said opposition to abortion would be a criteria for nominating justices .\nBut replacing Scalia with someone of the same mold alone may not change the status quo . In June , the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 against a Texas abortion access law that opponents argued would have shut down all but a handful of clinics , with perennial swing-vote Justice Anthony Kennedy joining the court 's four liberal justices .\nCORRECTION : An earlier version of this story incorrectly described current Ohio abortion law . The current law prohibits most abortions of viable fetuses . Doctors are required to test for viability beginning at 20 weeks ' gestation .


When the economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton first published their research on “ deaths of despair ” five years ago , they focused on middle-aged whites . So many white working-class Americans in their 40s and 50s were dying of suicide , alcoholism and drug abuse that the overall mortality rate for the age group was no longer falling – a rare and shocking pattern in a modern society .\nBut as Case and Deaton continued digging into the data , it became clear that the grim trends didn ’ t apply only to middle-aged whites . Up and down the age spectrum , deaths of despair have been surging for people without a four-year college degree :\nDeaths from alcohol , drugs and suicide 5 per 100K 147 per 100K\nIn the early 1990s , the number of white adults without a college education who were dying from a drug overdose , alcoholism or suicide was fairly low — and the death rates for younger adults were lower than for older adults . But over the past three decades , deaths of despair among whites without a college degree — especially those under age 50 — have soared . The death rate for whites with a college degree , by contrast , has risen only modestly across all age groups and remains lower for the young than the old .\nCase and Deaton — a married couple who are both economists at Princeton — try to explain the causes in a new book , “ Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. ” Their basic answer is that working-class life in the United States is more difficult than it is in any other high-income country . “ European countries have faced the same kind of technological change we have , and they ’ re not seeing the people killing themselves with guns or drugs or alcohol , ” Case says . “ There is something unique about the way the U.S. is handling this . ”\nMore people are dying Number of “ deaths of despair ” per 100,000 non-Hispanic whites aged 45-54 Non- college 100 50 College grads 0 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 Non- college 100 50 College grads 0 1992 ‘ 96 ‘ 00 ‘ 04 ‘ 08 ‘ 12 ‘ 16\nInequality has risen more in the United States — and middle-class incomes have stagnated more severely — than in France , Germany , Japan or elsewhere . Large corporations have increased their market share , and labor unions have shriveled , leaving workers with little bargaining power . Outsourcing has become the norm , which means that executives often see low-wage workers not as colleagues but as expenses .\nAnd the United States suffers from by far the world ’ s most expensive health-care system . It acts as a tax on workers and drains resources that could otherwise be spent on schools , day care , roads , public transit and more . Despite its unparalleled spending , the American medical system also fails to keep many people healthy .\n[ Make sense of the news with David ’ s commentary and reading suggestions every weekday morning . Sign up for his newsletter . ]\nThe two economists initially focused on non-Hispanic whites because the mortality trends were worst for them . Deaths rates from suicide , alcoholism and drug abuse among whites surpassed the rates for blacks shortly after 2000 , for example . But the black working class is hardly thriving -- and deaths of despair have surged among them in the last few years . Overall life expectancy remains significantly higher for whites than blacks . So , of course , do incomes and wealth .\nMany of the problems afflicting the working class span racial groups , and Case and Deaton emphasize that these problems aren ’ t merely financial . Life for many middle- and low-income Americans can lack structure , status and meaning . People don ’ t always know what days or hours they will be working the following week . They often don ’ t officially work for the company where they spend their days , which robs them of the pride that comes from being part of a shared enterprise .\n“ Many people used to associate the meaning of their life with what their corporation or institution was doing , ” says Deaton , a Nobel laureate in economics . Miners and factory workers identified themselves as such . Warehouse workers , especially those whose paycheck is signed by a staffing company , rarely feel the same connection .\nThe result of these trends has been a “ coming apart , ” as Case and Deaton put it , of day-to-day life for whites without a college degree versus those with a college degree :\nMarriage rates have diverged Share of non-Hispanic whites aged 45-54 currently married 80 % College grads 70 Non- college 60 50 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 80 % College grads 70 Non- college 60 50 1980 ‘ 90 ‘ 00 ‘ 10\nPeople without college degrees are also less likely to attend church Share of non-Hispanic whites aged 45-54 attending church weekly 30 % College grads 25 Non- college 20 15 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 30 % College grads 25 Non- college 20 15 1975 ‘ 85 ‘ 95 ‘ 05 ‘ 15\nSurveys show that a growing number of working-class Americans find it difficult to do basic things , like climb a flight of stairs or socialize , partly because of chronic problems with their mental or physical health :\nChronic pain is more widespread Share of non-Hispanic whites aged 45-54 experiencing neck , back or joint pain 60 % Non- college 50 College grads 40 30 20 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 60 % Non- college 50 College grads 40 30 20 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014\nMany people are also drinking more Average number of drinks ( on days when drinking ) among non-Hispanic whites aged 45-54 Non- college 2.5 2.0 College grads 1.5 1.0 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Non- college 2.5 2.0 College grads 1.5 1.0 1994 ‘ 98 ‘ 02 ‘ 06 ‘ 10 ‘ 14\nAnd they are unhappier Share of non-Hispanic whites aged 45-54 who say they are “ not too happy these days ” Non- college 15 % 10 College grads 5 0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Non- college 15 % 10 College grads 5 0 1975 ‘ 85 ‘ 95 ‘ 05 ‘ 15\nGiven all of these alarming social indicators , it ’ s not surprising that some other causes of death — in addition to suicide , alcoholism and drug overdose — have also started rising for Americans without a college degree . Heart disease is the most significant , exacerbated by obesity , drinking and drug use .\nThe combined result is a divergence in the life expectancy of white college graduates and non-graduates . Overall mortality for whites between the ages of 45 and 54 has held roughly steady in the last 25 years . But that average hides a big increase in death rates for non-graduates and a big decline for graduates .\nWhat can be done about all of this ? Many of the solutions are obvious , if difficult to accomplish . The medical system should be overhauled to put a higher priority on health than on wealth for people who work in the industry , Case and Deaton argue . ( And that doesn ’ t necessarily mean a mandatory version of Medicare , they add . )\nThe federal government should do a better job of keeping big business from maximizing profits at the expense of their workers , by enforcing antitrust laws and encouraging new kinds of labor unions . Governments at all levels should help more people earn college degrees , both four-year degrees ( like B.A. ’ s ) and meaningful vocational degrees .\nOther economic research has found that a college degree isn ’ t simply a marker . Students who attend and graduate from college do better in life than otherwise similar students who didn ’ t get the same opportunities . Graduates are more likely to be employed , earn more , marry and stay married , be satisfied with their lives , be healthy and live longer . These findings suggest that college itself — both the classroom learning and the experience of successfully navigating college — brings long-term benefits .\nThe focus of Case and Deaton ’ s book isn ’ t education , but it lingers as the backdrop to all of their findings . “ This B.A./non-B.A . divide , ” Deaton says , “ just comes up again and again and again . ”


More than a third of opioid-related deaths in the United States link back to long-acting drugs like OxyContin that are approved for prescription by the US Food and Drug Administration . But lax oversight at the agency is hampering efforts to ensure doctors don ’ t overprescribe these medications , according to a new study .\nThe FDA has failed to adequately track whether one of its key strategies for addressing opioid misuse has been effective .\nResearchers from Johns Hopkins University scoured thousands of pages of internal FDA documents , obtained through public records requests , and found that the agency has failed to adequately track whether one of its key strategies for addressing opioid misuse has been effective . The study , published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine , looks at a federal program that teaches doctors about the risks of prescribing addictive opioids .\nStarting in 2012 , the FDA ’ s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy Program required opioid makers to pay for this training for doctors prescribing long-acting opioids , and to monitor whether it had an impact on overdoses and deaths . But according to the internal documents surfaced by the Johns Hopkins researchers , it appears the FDA has not been able to show that its training program worked : Opioid makers did not collect the right data to track how the training was going , and even after the FDA discovered this , according to the Johns Hopkins researchers , the agency did not correct the problem .\n“ What ’ s surprising here is the design of the program was deficient from the start , ” Caleb Alexander , an author on the study , told the New York Times . As early as 2013 , the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services warned that the FDA was “ not receiving crucial information from pharmaceutical manufactures ” about the training . “ It ’ s unclear why the FDA didn ’ t insist upon a more scientifically rigorous evaluation of this safety program . ”\nSome of the data that was collected isn ’ t encouraging . The goal was for 60 percent of doctors who prescribe long-acting opioids to enroll in a training class , but only 27 percent of them did between 2012 and 2016 , the Johns Hopkins study found . Manufacturers also surveyed physicians who participated in the training , and concluded they had “ modestly greater ” knowledge of safe prescribing practices , but these surveys came at a time when opioid prescribing rates were dropping overall in the United States , and they were not designed to prove the classes were responsible for the change .\nNearly 50,000 people around the country died from opioid overdoses in 2017 .\nResponding to the study , an FDA spokesperson told ███ that the issue of opioid misuse was a top priority for the Trump administration , and that assessing the impact of the training program while accounting for other opioid interventions at the municipal , state , and federal levels could be be challenging . He said that after learning about difficulties with the data assessment , the agency talked with drug manufacturers about how to better study the effect of the training on prescriber behavior and patient outcomes , and that it continues to work with these companies to evaluate the impact of the program . He noted that the agency has also taken other steps to curb the epidemic , like going after illegal imports and sales of opioids and supporting more treatment for people struggling with addiction .\nAfter reaching a peak in 2012 , opioid prescription rates fell in 2017—to 58.7 prescriptions per 100 people nationally , compared with 81.3 prescriptions per 100 people in 2012 . But rates are still high in certain parts of the country , the researchers warned . And while deaths are now starting to drop , nearly 50,000 people around the country died from opioid overdoses in 2017 , a record high .


In 2019 , The Legal Fight Over Opioids Unraveled Into Confusion And Infighting\nLegal experts expected this to be the year we answered big questions about the liability that drug companies face for the deadly opioid epidemic and for their role in marketing high-risk prescription pain medications .\nInstead , the legal fight over who will pay to clean up the addiction crisis dissolved into confusion and infighting .\n`` I do n't know if there 's a clear road map , '' said Adam Zimmerman , a professor at Loyola Law School and an expert in opioid litigation .\nAll sides agree the stakes are high . Every day , 130 Americans die from opioid overdoses , according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . Without some kind of national settlement with Big Pharma , communities wo n't get serious money to help with the crisis any time soon . Speaking this fall with reporters , Pennsylvania state Attorney General Josh Shapiro warned that there could be legal chaos .\n`` We will randomly and haphazardly litigate these cases , with no particular rhyme or reason , '' Shapiro said . `` The needs of people across this country will not be met . ''\nFor much of 2019 , a deal seemed close . Federal Judge Dan Polster in Ohio was holding high-level settlement talks while at the same time channeling thousands of civil lawsuits against the drug industry into a tidy legal pipeline .\nThen came a big federal case in Polster 's court in October that was expected to test the liability of drugmakers and distributors . At the very last minute , however , companies reached a local settlement with a couple of Ohio counties . The trial was abruptly called off .\nGreg McNeil , an activist whose son died from an opioid overdose in 2015 , told NPR outside the courthouse in Cleveland that he was flattened .\n`` We have no admission of wrongdoing , '' McNeil said . `` It seems as if nothing is changing . ''\nEven attorneys involved in the case acknowledged that the outcome left big questions unanswered .\n`` We do n't have a chance to test the legal theories that are being used here , if they are being properly used , what there limits are , '' said Mark Lanier who represents communities suing Big Pharma .\nSettlement talks aimed at reaching a deal with the pharmaceutical industry comparable to the tobacco settlement of the 1990s also splintered , with Polster still leading negotiations in Ohio while state attorneys general across the country pushed for a separate deal . Neither set of talks produced a `` global '' resolution .\nAdam Zimmerman at Loyola thinks it made sense for Polster and others to push for a big settlement this year , but it just did n't pay off .\n`` The opioid crisis has just presented such an emergency and it 's called for quick action , '' Zimmerman said . `` To the extent that it has n't worked , I do n't think that 's necessarily the fault of Judge Polster as much as just the extremely complicated nature of this litigation . ''\nThousands of states , local governments , school districts and Native American tribes have sued drug companies for aggressively marketing prescription opioid medications while allegedly downplaying the risks of addiction and overdose . More than 400,000 Americans have died during the epidemic that began in the 1990s .\nThe legal muddle that remains is scary for those cash-strapped towns and cities . It also leaves a big cloud over the pharmaceutical industry . In August , a state judge in Oklahoma found Johnson & Johnson liable for hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties for `` misleading '' marketing of prescription opioids . Johnson & Johnson is appealing that decision , but it was a shot across the bow for drug companies , a sign that courts across the U.S. might rule in favor of communities\nA month later , in September , the avalanche of lawsuits pushed Purdue Pharma , another big opioid-maker over the edge . The company filed for structured bankruptcy , with the company 's owners , the Sackler family , offering to pay roughly $ 3 billion of their personal cash to help communities and giving up control of the firm to settle all opioid-related claims .\nBut here again , there 's a fight underway . Some states agreed to the deal , while others sued members of the Sackler family directly , accusing them of pulling more than $ 12 billion out of Purdue Pharma and hiding much of it in offshore accounts .\n`` I do n't see how states can basically sign on to a settlement without knowing the valuation of how much resources the Sacklers have in their position , how much they 're worth and or the worth of Purdue , '' said Attorney General Letitia James of New York .\nWhat this all adds up to is more uncertainty and more opioid trials next year , including another federal case scheduled for Polster 's court in Cleveland that will test the liability of big pharmacy chains CVS , Walgreens and Rite Aid , which sold opioids in huge quantities to their customers .\nMeanwhile , thousands of cities and small towns will keep scrambling to pay for the overdose medications , rehab and supportive housing programs that keep people alive .


“ You might say one of the essential functions the courts can play is where one party can hold another to account , ” says Adam Zimmerman , an associate professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles . “ To not have some kind of adjudication about what happened and who did what and who ’ s responsible , it feels like something ’ s lost there . ”\nIn a crisis that has killed about 400,000 Americans and cost the country an estimated $ 504 billion in 2015 alone , settlements help ease the financial burdens on cities and states . But some say accountability is key .\nLast week , a Boston jury convicted five executives of opioid manufacturer Insys of racketeering charges , including bribing doctors to prescribe its opioid medication to patients who didn ’ t need it . West Virginia and Oklahoma have settled lawsuits with McKesson and Purdue Pharma , for $ 37 million and $ 270 million respectively . Both companies denied wrongdoing .\nWhat does justice look like in the opioid crisis ? Three recent decisions in bellwether lawsuits offer different models of how best to move forward and help individuals and communities rebuild as more than 1,600 lawsuits chug through America ’ s legal system .\nAs hundreds of lawsuits against opioid manufacturers , distributors , and retailers chug through the U.S. legal system , a trio of recent decisions gives a hint of what may be coming .\nOn May 2 , a Boston jury convicted the onetime billionaire CEO of Insys Therapeutics and four former executives on racketeering charges , in connection with bribing doctors to prescribe opioid medication to patients who didn ’ t need it and deceiving insurers into paying for it .\n“ Today ’ s convictions mark the first successful prosecution of top pharmaceutical executives for crimes related to the illicit marketing and prescribing of opioids , ” said United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling in a statement . “ Just as we would street-level drug dealers , we will hold pharmaceutical executives responsible for fueling the opioid epidemic by recklessly and illegally distributing these drugs , especially while conspiring to commit racketeering along the way . ”\nThe same day , West Virginia settled for $ 37 million with McKesson Corp. , the country ’ s largest pharmaceutical distributor . And in March , Oklahoma settled with manufacturer Purdue Pharma , for $ 270 million . These settlements could provide a blueprint for more than 1,600 opioid lawsuits pending in courts around the country , most of which have been consolidated under a federal judge in Cleveland .\nWhile the substantial payouts will help states fund treatment and other services , the drug companies involved in both settlements have denied any wrongdoing , and experts say the settlement amounts are not large enough to change corporate behavior . That underscores a key question : What does justice look like ? Is it most important that drug companies are held accountable , or compelled to change ? That the public understands where the blame lies , and why ? Or is it more important that resources to combat the problem are mobilized so the suffering can end ?\n“ You might say one of the essential functions the courts can play is where one party can hold another to account , ” says Adam Zimmerman , an associate professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and an expert in the type of multidistrict litigation ( MDL ) being used in Cleveland . “ To not have some kind of adjudication about what happened and who did what and who ’ s responsible , it feels like something ’ s lost there . ”\nBut for communities struggling to cover the tremendous public costs of the opioid crisis , from staffing for 911 calls to overdose-reversal drugs to treatment facilities , settlement payouts provide urgently needed funds .\nSteven Senne/AP Insys Therapeutics founder John Kapoor leaves federal court in Boston on Jan. 30 , 2019 . He and four other former company executives were found guilty in May of bribing doctors to prescribing a powerful fentanyl painkiller to patients who did not need it .\nAt the first hearing in the opioid MDL , Judge Dan Polster in Cleveland declared that his objective was “ to do something meaningful to abate this crisis , and to do so in 2018. ” While he has missed his self-imposed deadline , he has sought a global settlement that would enable communities to rebuild – rather than getting bogged down in years of litigation .\nWest Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey also sought to settle quickly rather than await the uncertainty and likely delays of a trial . His office says that the McKesson payout is the largest won from any pharmaceutical distributor in the country , and tops the state ’ s previous settlements with Cardinal Health ( $ 20 million ) and Amerisource Bergen ( $ 16 million ) . In total , the attorney general has now won $ 84 million from more than a dozen distributors , bolstering his efforts to reduce the supply and demand of opioids .\nBut for some in West Virginia , the McKesson settlement amount pales in comparison to the devastating impact of the opioid epidemic .\n“ I thought it was a joke , ” says Justin Marcum , a former state legislator and lawyer involved in the MDL . “ Big Pharma has basically just ruined America and targeted the innocent , working people . ”\nThose people include the 400 or so residents of Kermit , a coal town in Mingo County that Mr. Marcum represented in the statehouse until last year .\nIn 2006 and 2007 , McKesson supplied nearly 5 million doses of hydrocodone to a single pharmacy in Kermit . The attorney general ’ s complaint against McKesson calculates that its supply of hydrocodone and other prescription opioids to Mingo County in 2007 was enough to provide every patient with a dose every hour and 15 minutes . Physicians can not prescribe more than one dose every four hours .\nThe complaint charges that the state “ has been damaged by the Defendant ’ s intentional and reckless actions in failing to investigate , report , and cease fulfilling suspicious orders ” across the state . McKesson denied it was liable , and the settlement says the deal is not to be construed as an admission by the company of any “ wrongdoing , negligence , or failure to comply with any law or regulation . ”\nDemocratic Sen. Joe Manchin , who served as governor from 2005 to 2010 , called the settlement a “ sweetheart deal ” that sells out the state and prevents it from recouping billions of dollars in damages .\nAttorney General Morrisey ’ s press secretary , Curtis Johnson , dismisses that as political hypocrisy .\n“ While Attorney General Morrisey and subsequent governors have fought to realize historic recoveries from drug distributors , it seems [ Mr. ] Manchin ’ s most significant impact in the opioid epidemic was the record breaking numbers of pills he allowed to proliferate throughout the state during his watch , ” said Mr. Johnson .\nMr. Morrisey has fashioned himself as a fighter who is cleaning up West Virginia , bringing more accountability and record settlement amounts . He launched the lawsuit against McKesson and sued the Drug Enforcement Administration over quotas on opioid pill production .\nBut before coming to office , Mr. Morrisey earned $ 250,000 for lobbying Congress on behalf of an association of drug distributors , though not on opioid issues . His wife , meanwhile , is listed on disclosure forms for lobbying on legislation to tighten restrictions around the prescription opioid hydrocodone , dubbed America ’ s No . 1 most abused drug . The bill failed , but the federal government enacted the change the following year .\nUnder Mr. Morrisey , the flow of opioid pills into West Virginia has dropped 35 percent . But overdose deaths have risen to more than 800 per year as addicts have turned to heroin and fentanyl .\nSOURCE : Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) , National Center for Health Statistics | Jacob Turcotte/Staff\nChelsea Carter , who was addicted to opioids as a teenager but turned her life around and now serves as lead therapist at Ohio Valley Health in Logan County , says drug companies should acknowledge that they pushed drugs into West Virginia and provide money for treatment . But , she adds , it would be wrong to pin the blame on drug companies alone .\n“ Everybody has to take responsibility , from the drug companies to the pharmacies to the doctors to the people who take the drugs and get addicted , ” she says . “ The only difference is they [ the drug companies ] have the money to try to help the problem instead of making the problem worse . ”\nMcKesson is one of the wealthiest corporations in the world and is ranked sixth on the Fortune 500 list , ahead of Amazon . Its annual revenue in 2018 was $ 198 billion .\n“ McKesson is committed to working with others to end this national crisis , however , and is pleased that the settlement provides funding toward initiatives intended to address the opioid epidemic , ” the company said in a statement last week , noting that the funds it is paying to West Virginia are aimed at rehabilitation , job training , and mental health , among other areas .\nSettlements can have an avalanche effect , providing a framework and baseline that leads to more settlements , which can boost subsequent efforts – or limit them , if early settlements set too low a bar .\n“ We see this movement [ of settlements ] as helpful , certainly , but we haven ’ t even begun to see the types of settlements that are necessary to start to impact this epidemic and to change the practices ” of drug manufacturers , distributors , and chain pharmacies , says Jayne Conroy , a partner at Simmons Hanly Conroy , a firm representing plaintiffs in the MDL .\nA study from the American Enterprise Institute in Washington estimates the opioid crisis ’ s annual cost to West Virginia ’ s economy at more than $ 8 billion , including lost productivity of those who have died . Nationwide , the crisis has killed 399,202 people from 1999 to 2017 , taking an economic toll of more than $ 500 billion on the country .\n“ It seems to me even if the drug companies pay a large amount of money , $ 20 to 30 billion , that ’ s chicken feed compared to the social costs of the addiction problem , ” says Richard Ausness , a professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law who has been following opioid lawsuits across the country .\nThe Oklahoma case comes closest to what most experts and lawyers consider the ideal outcome in a settlement of this nature : a large payout that not only compensates plaintiffs but also makes a significant investment toward stemming the crisis that prompted the lawsuit in the first place .\nThat the case involved Purdue Pharma , maker of the prescription painkiller OxyContin , could be significant . The manufacturer – and its owners , the Sackler family – have emerged as the “ the poster child for really bad corporate behavior , ” according to Professor Ausness , while distributors like McKesson have had a lower profile .\nPart of that is due to their different roles in the supply chain , with Purdue manufacturing opioids and McKesson distributing them . The claims being made against them , and the standards of proof and possible penalties , are thus different as well .\nAs allegations of Purdue ’ s role in fueling the opioid epidemic have emerged , there have been protests outside the company ’ s Connecticut headquarters , museums have begun turning down Sackler family donations , and mothers of victims have asked Harvard University to remove the Sackler family name from campus buildings . Oklahoma had initially sought billions of dollars in damages in its case against Purdue and the other defendants .\nFor Purdue , Professor Ausness says , the Oklahoma settlement “ is a small step , maybe , to rehabilitating their reputation . ”\nWhile not a party to the Oklahoma lawsuit against Purdue , the Sackler family voluntarily pledged $ 75 million toward the addiction research and treatment center being established through the settlement .\n“ We have profound compassion for those who are affected by addiction and are committed to playing a constructive role in the coordinated effort to save lives , ” the family said in a statement after the settlement .\nThat kind of long-term approach to healing root causes of the crisis did not happen in the $ 200 billion Big Tobacco settlement in 1998 , says Professor Ausness – though funds from the 1998 settlement do fund an anti-smoking advocacy group .\nBut other states don ’ t seem as willing to settle . “ We will continue to aggressively pursue our case against Purdue and the Sackler family , ” said Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey in a statement to the Monitor . “ Families in Massachusetts and across the country deserve answers and accountability from this company and its executives and directors . ”\nOn May 28 , Oklahoma is slated to become the first state to go to trial against opioid companies , confronting remaining defendants Johnson & Johnson , Allergan , and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA .\nTrials and convictions can bring that sense of accountability , especially when , as is the case with the convictions of the five former Insys executives this month , it could involve prison time . Having to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is such a high standard , however , that criminal charges have been rare in opioid litigation so far .\n“ I ’ m hopeful that we ’ ll see more criminal convictions of executives for opioid manufacturers in the future , ” says Andrew Kolodny , an M.D . at Brandeis University who is involved in the Oklahoma case . “ If you want to deter corporations from killing people in their pursuit of profit , I believe criminal prosecutions are required . I don ’ t think fines and civil litigations are adequate . They can be seen as the cost of doing business . ”


The Sackler family , which owns Purdue Pharma , used Swiss and other hidden bank accounts to transfer around $ 1 billion from the company to themselves , the New York attorney general ’ s office claimed Friday .\nThe family stands to lose billions after a litany of lawsuits claiming that their company marketed the painkiller OxyContin as nonaddictive despite knowing otherwise .\nThe transfers support allegations by New York and other states that the Sacklers have worked to shield their wealth in the face of mounting legal threats .\nThose transfers include $ 20 million from a Purdue parent company to former board member Mortimer D.A . Sackler , who then redirected the money to shell companies that own homes in Manhattan and the Hamptons , prosecutors said . Another $ 64 million came to Sackler from a previously unknown family trust , by way of a Swiss account .\nThe New York attorney general 's office has already rejected a tentative settlement with the Sackler family and Purdue Pharma , arguing it does not do enough to make amends for the company ’ s and the Sackler ’ s supposed roles in kick-starting the prescription opioid crisis that has killed 400,000 Americans over the past two decades , according to the CDC .\nGAMER SENTENCED TO 15 MONTHS IN FEDERAL PRISON IN DEADLY 'SWATTING ' CASE\n`` While the Sacklers continue to lowball victims and skirt a responsible settlement , we refuse to allow the family to misuse the courts in an effort to shield their financial misconduct . The limited number of documents provided to us so far underscore the necessity for compliance with every subpoena , '' said New York Attorney General Letitia James in a statement .\nAs part of the settlement , Purdue is likely to file for bankruptcy protection . But New York and other states have promised they will continue to pursue the Sacklers , alleging that family members drained more than $ 4 billion from the company over the past dozen years . The Sacklers have used a complex chain of companies and trusts to control their holdings , some located in offshore tax havens .\nThe Sacklers had an estimated net worth of $ 13 billion as of 2016 , making them America 's 19th-richest family , according to Forbes magazine .\nThis does not include the amount many believe is hidden away .\nIn its filing Friday , New York told a state judge that the only way it can determine the full extent of those transfers is if all those it has subpoenaed are forced to provide documents detailing their interactions with the Sackler family . James has issued subpoenas to 33 financial institutions and investment advisers with ties to the Sacklers .


For the first time in more than a half century , life expectancy declined for two consecutive years in the United States .\nThe CDC reports that “ accidental injuries ” rising to third on the list of killer categories helped account for the shortening of American lives . Neither a spike in banana-peel misadventures nor a spate of missing manhole covers led to this epidemic of misfortune . The use of opioids , which the medical profession prescribes to relieve pain , dramatically increased . Overdoses constitute a massive portion of “ accidental injuries . ”\nThe Barack Obama presidency coincided with Americans using large amounts of dangerous narcotics ( people coped in their own ways ) and the suicide rate ( alas , some could not cope ) ballooning to its highest level in three decades .\nAmericans , apparently , felt more pain in recent years and took drastic measures to relieve such feelings that unfortunately resulted in many deaths , which , of course , caused even more pain , which resulted in people seeking relief from that pain , and so on .\nOstensibly a medical problem , the drug boom really stems from a spiritual decay . People reach for heroin and oxycontin and the rest after a hollowing out . Before one attempts to fill a void , emptiness must occur .\nMaterial hopelessness appears as one , and just one , likely contributing factor to the spiritual rot . Americans suffered through economic growth under Obama more anemic than for any postwar president . Whereas postwar GDP growth averaged 2.9 percent annually , no year under Obama even approached that mediocre number . And to achieve this paltry growth , the government compiled massive debts . The debt-to-GDP ratio reached the highest point in Obama ’ s lifetime under Obama . The national debt doubled in eight years .\nPolitical leaders during this era dubbed their policies as “ progressive. ” This strikes as a cruel irony . Is it progress that more Americans kill themselves , voluntarily via a rope and rickety stool and involuntarily through needles and pills , than they did in the past ? I once heard Joe Sobran say that if the termites eating your house could speak , and you asked them the question “ What are you doing ? ” they would exclaim : “ Progress ! ” From the perspective of the termites , devouring a house stands as momentous progress . Likewise , many decidedly non-termite humans regard the Obama years as progressive , even if too often the economy , the deficit , our medical bills , and even our lifespans went in the wrong direction .\nWhen Ronald Reagan dubbed , “ I ’ m from the government and I ’ m here to help , ” the most terrifying words in the English language , he spoke from experience and observation . But he also spoke as a prophet .\nEven before President Obama tried to help you with your hospital bills through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — an unintentionally hilarious moniker — George W. Bush imagined it the government ’ s duty to buy people drugs through the Medicare Part D entitlement .\nA study published last year in Health Affairs notes , “ Consumer out-of-pocket spending on opioids per 100 morphine milligram equivalents ( a standard reference measure of strength for various opioids ) declined from $ 4.40 to $ 0.90 between 2001 and 2012 . Since the implementation of Medicare Part D in 2006 , Medicare has been the largest payer for opioid pain relievers , covering about 20–30 percent of the cost . Medicare spends considerably more on these drugs for enrollees younger than age sixty-five than it does for any other age group or than Medicaid or private insurance does for any age group . ”\nSo , Americans pay for one government program to buy opioids for addicts and pay for another government program to tell us that the rise in opioid addiction led to a decline in lifespans . This is the progressive state in action , managers deciding who and what gets subsidized and experts studying , if unconsciously so , the effects . And neither group lifts their noses from their narrow task to make sense of the big picture .\n“ If you are on the wrong road , progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road , ” C.S . Lewis famously wrote in Mere Christianity , “ and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man . ”\nAmerica requires reorientation , not “ progress ” — particularly not progress of an ideological sort divorced from the word ’ s meaning . Sometimes progress requires , as Dorothy taught us , going home .\nIt is perhaps too much to expect perhaps the most abnormal man ever to sit in the Oval Office to engineer a “ return to normalcy , ” as did the last Republican tasked with putting America ’ s house in order after the wreckage left by progressive termites . But Trump ’ s instincts , as his tax bill indicates , favor more individual control than administrative control over lives . People taking responsibility for their own lives , in contrast to government meddling and intrusiveness , goes a long way toward solving problems , drug problems and otherwise .\nAlas , even material improvements will not wean Americans off opioids . If you doubt this , give each addict you meet a $ 100 bill and see where he or she spends it . They need goals , spiritual direction , will , and much else the state can not provide .\nGovernment exacerbated this problem . It can help alleviate it . It can not solve it .


A US lawmaker investigating alleged Russian election meddling says an ex-Trump aide should testify on wild claims he has made about the president .\nMr Nunberg said Mr Trump was aware of a 2016 meeting between his aides and a Russian lawyer , and may have `` done something '' during the campaign .\nDemocrat Adam Schiff responded by saying his congressional panel `` needs to explore '' Mr Nunberg 's allegation .\nMr Nunberg is the latest figure to become embroiled in the Russia inquiry .\n`` Certainly if Mr Nunberg has light to shed about what the president knew about the Trump Tower meeting , we would like to find out , '' Mr Schiff said , referring to his House Intelligence Committee 's investigation on Monday night .\nUS President Donald Trump has denied any knowledge of that meeting , which has become a central focus of a separate inquiry by special counsel Robert Mueller into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election and whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin .\nCongressman Mike Conway , who serves as leading chairman of the House Intelligence Committee , dismissed the idea of calling Mr Nunberg to testify , saying of the Trump Tower meeting : `` I think we 've pretty much explored that to death . ''\nMr Nunberg told the New York Daily News on Tuesday he is contemplating seeking treatment for alcohol abuse , a day after his extraordinary series of interviews on live television .\nHe complained to US media on Monday about being asked to share his email conversations with a long list of ex-campaign aides in response to a subpoena from Mr Mueller 's team .\nThe political operative , who helped launch Donald Trump 's presidential campaign before losing his job in 2015 , said in a round of media interviews at first he would not comply with Mr Mueller 's demand to testify before a grand jury .\nBut he later told the Associated Press he would probably end up complying .\n`` I think it would be really , really funny if they wanted to arrest me because I do n't want to spend 80 hours going over emails , '' he told MSNBC .\nWhile he thought investigators believed they had something on Mr Trump , he argued that the subpoena was unfair and added he would like Robert Mueller 's team to narrow its scope of inquiry .\nWhite House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders would not be drawn on Mr Nunberg 's remarks , saying : `` I 'm not going to weigh in on somebody that does n't work at the White House . ''\nSam Nunberg worked on the Trump campaign in 2015 until he was fired in August that year over racially charged Facebook posts .\nHe was later sued by Mr Trump for $ 10m ( £7.2m ) for breach of confidentiality .\nThe lawsuit was `` amicably settled '' out of court , a lawyer for the Trump Organization said at the time .\nMr Nunberg said Mr Trump was aware at the time of a June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower when a group of Russians offered his campaign staff damaging information about Hillary Clinton .\n`` You know he knew about it , '' Mr Nunberg told CNN . `` He was talking about it a week before . I do n't know why he went around trying to hide it . ''\nThe White House has repeatedly denied Mr Trump knew anything about that meeting .\nDuring Monday 's interviews with US media , Mr Nunberg said he had met Mr Mueller 's team for five-and-a-half hours over the weekend .\nHe said he would not appear before a grand jury to testify on Friday .\n`` I 'm not co-operating . Arrest me , '' Mr Nunberg said on live television . `` You want to arrest me ? Arrest me . ''\nAt times during the interviews , Mr Nunberg appeared to contradict himself .\nHe said : `` Trump may very well have done something during the election with the Russians . If he did that , I do n't know . ''\nBut Mr Nunberg also told CNN 's Jake Tapper : `` It 's the biggest joke to ever think Donald Trump colluded with the Russians . ''