Chris Hedges's Blog, page 596

#MeToo Hits the Books: Writer Junot Díaz Accused of Sexual Harassment

Junot Díaz has won both critical and commercial success with his lyrical prose, which often unflinchingly confronts subject matter such as intergenerational trauma, immigration, grief and complicated relationships. Now, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of “The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao” is back in the spotlight—not for his work, but for his alleged long history of .

On Thursday, writer tweeted: “As a grad student, I invited Junot Díaz to speak to a workshop on issues of representation in literature. I was an unknown wide-eyed 26 yo, and he used it as an opportunity to corner and forcibly kiss me. I’m far from the only one he’s done this 2, I refuse to be silent anymore.”

Díaz had recently published a widely lauded essay in The New Yorker, opening up in the April 16 piece about his own experiences with childhood trauma—specifically, episodes of sexual abuse—and how they impacted his relationships with women. Clemons and others have suggested it was an attempt to pre-empt accusations of sexual harassment against him.

Shortly after Clemons took to Twitter, another female writer, Carmen Maria Machado, tweeted about her experience with Diaz at a book signing at which she asked Diaz about his patterns of writing male characters who frequently cheat on, and otherwise abuse, their partners.

Machado noted: “He asked me to back up my claim with evidence. I cited several passages from the book in front of me. He raised his voice, paced, implied I was a prude who didn’t know how to read or draw reasonable conclusions from text.” She concluded, “Junot Díaz , utterly beloved misogynist.  . . . His books are regressive and sexist. He has treated women horrifically in every way possible. And the #MeToo stories are just starting.”

Monica Byrne, the third writer to accuse Diaz of harassment, felt inspired to compose her own Facebook post after seeing Clemons’ tweet. And she told New York magazine: “It’s always struck me how much the Establishment has protected him. … These stories are everywhere, it’s an open secret in the literary Establishment. And everybody is scared to talk about it.”

Díaz did not respond directly to Clemons, Machado or Byrne’s accusations, but he responded through his agent, Nicole Aragi, in a statement to The New York Times. “I take responsibility for my past,” Díaz said in the statement. “That is the reason I made the decision to tell the truth of my rape and its damaging aftermath. This conversation is important and must continue. I am listening to and learning from women’s stories in this essential and overdue cultural movement. We must continue to teach all men about consent and boundaries.”

Neither Díaz’s publisher, Riverhead Books, nor MIT, where he is a professor, responded to The Times’ requests for comment.

Bibi’s Information Warfare Operation Against America

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu understands the power of framing a story. On April 29, he gave a televised presentation and revealed, in dramatic fashion, the existence of an alleged archive of documents, drawings and photographs that proved Iran once had a program dedicated to the acquisition of a nuclear weapon, contrary to public claims that senior Iranian officials made in the past.

The relevance of Netanyahu’s message is up for debate. Most observers acknowledge the exposé may prove embarrassing to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Iran, which together certified in December 2015 that all issues pertaining to the so-called “possible military dimensions” of the Iranian nuclear program had been resolved. But there is unanimous agreement that nothing in Netanyahu’s presentation shows Iran is operating in violation of its commitments under the agreement reached with the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, Germany and the European Union regarding its ongoing nuclear activities (formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Program of Action, or JCPOA.)

While Netanyahu hailed the work of the Israeli intelligence service (Mossad) in acquiring the Iranian archive, the narrative Israel has promulgated about this archive and how it came into its possession is less than convincing. Upon closer scrutiny, what emerges is less about the covert collection of secret information and more about manipulating opinion. Netanyahu’s presentation could have been an episode of a Donald Trump reality television show, since the Israeli prime minister was performing for an audience of one—the American president.

On May 12, Trump will announce his decision on whether the United States will remain a party to the JCPOA. Was Netanyahu’s revelation a legitimate function of a sovereign state that, armed with alarming new information pertaining to international peace and security, opted to publicly expose this threat? Or were the motives more nefarious, with the Israeli prime minister intending to manufacture a case for which there was no substantive supporting documentation in order to manipulate the policies of another country?

Upon closer examination of the issue, the answer becomes clear: Netanyahu was conducting a classic information operation against the American president and, by extension, the American people.

The mission of any intelligence-driven psychological warfare/information operations effort is to manipulate public opinion to support controversial foreign policy and/or national security policies and decisions. Intelligence is either cherry-picked or manufactured and then selectively released to the public at a time most beneficial to the policy objective being supported.

I have considerable personal experience in this sort of operation. From 1994 through 1998, while serving as a weapons inspector with the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq, I had a front-row seat to the inner workings of the Israeli intelligence service when it came to the conduct of the full spectrum of intelligence operations against Iraq. During this time, I witnessed the good, the bad and the ugly of how Israel collects and analyzes intelligence information. I sat in on discussions with the head of Aman (the Israeli military intelligence service) as options regarding the proper utilization of this intelligence were discussed.

I can attest that as long as Israel viewed the work of U.N. inspectors as being useful in furthering its national security objectives—namely, when the U.N. was seen as a viable instrument of eliminating Iraqi weapons of mass destruction—its intelligence services engaged in classic intelligence work. They gathered information about Iraq using a wide range of intelligence collection capabilities and conducted analysis designed to produce intelligence assessments geared toward discovering the truth about Iraq’s proscribed capabilities. This information, and Israel’s role in producing it, was shrouded in secrecy, as is normally the case when a nation does legitimate intelligence work.

In the fall of 1997, the intelligence war between the U.N. inspectors and Iraq shifted away from the search for hidden weapons of mass destruction capabilities inside Iraq and moved to the corridors of the United Nations itself, where a public relations war was being waged between the supporters of the weapons inspection process and the supporters of Iraq.

Until this time, the U.N. weapons inspectors had operated in the shadows, the details of their work hidden from public scrutiny. However, once the Iraqis and their allies turned the tables on this shroud of secrecy, accusing the inspectors of being little more than a front for intelligence services hostile to Iraq (rightly so, it turned out), the mission of the inspectors shifted away from searching for the truth on the ground in Iraq to shaping public opinion around the world about the nature of their work. The CIA worked hand in glove with the U.N. inspectors and CNN to produce a program dedicated to Iraqi concealment and deception, while the British MI6, through a project known as “Operation Mass Appeal,” used intelligence information in the possession of the inspectors but deemed to be of insufficient quality to support an inspection, to seed stories to compliant journalists around the world for the purpose of shaping public opinion. This was classic information operations/psychological warfare, and I played a central role in its conduct.

At first, Israel stood on the sidelines, working with U.N. inspectors to finish the job on the ground inside Iraq. But as the U.N. disarmament effort in Iraq became more about the political and economic isolation of the regime of Saddam Hussein (in preparation for eventual regime change in Baghdad) and less about bringing closure to the disarmament of Iraq’s WMD capability, Israel saw the light. Realizing the Security Council was no longer going to permit U.N. weapons inspectors to carry out aggressive inspections inside Iraq, Israel pulled its support from the inspection process, and aligned itself with those in the business of preparing public opinion for a war with Iraq. This required Israel to do a 180-degree turnaround regarding its intelligence-driven assessment of Iraqi WMD capabilities.

In the spring of 1998, when I met with Amos Gilad, the new head of Aman’s research division (responsible for the production of Israel’s national intelligence estimates), he indicated that, thanks to the work of U.N. inspectors, Israel assessed that Iraq’s WMD programs had been eliminated. Four years later, on the eve of the American-led invasion of Iraq, Gilad changed his mind, claiming that Iraq had both chemical and biological weapons, long-range missiles to deliver them and a nuclear weapons program in the first stages of development.

This wasn’t Gilad’s first experience with manipulating intelligence for political objectives. During the time of the Camp David accords in 2000, Gilad led a campaign to undermine the credibility of PLO leader Yasser Arafat by painting him as a proponent of Palestinian unrest designed to harm Israel. The intelligence information Israel gathered showed the exact opposite to be the case. Gilad, however, was operating not in support of the truth, but rather the political ambition of then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak, whose campaign slogan at the time was, “There is no partner for peace.” Gilad, later investigations showed, had doctored the intelligence in order to paint a false and misleading picture of on-the-ground truth.

Amos Gilad spent 45 years in the service of Israeli intelligence, retiring in 2017. According to Gilad, his proudest achievement during his career was the role he played in getting Iran identified as the main threat to Israel, back in 1996. (I can verify this, since I was told personally by the then-head of Aman, Moshe Ya’alon, that, thanks in large part to the work done by U.N. inspectors, Iraq had dropped to number five on the list of threats to Israeli security, behind Iran, Hezbollah, Palestine and Israel’s ultraconservative Orthodox Jews.)

When Benjamin Netanyahu was first elected prime minister of Israel, in 1996, Amos Gilad briefed him on the intelligence assessment that placed Iran as Israel’s main threat. Netanyahu went on to speak before the U.S. Congress in July 1996, telling American lawmakers that the fundamental problem in the Middle East was “unreconstructed dictatorships whose governmental creed is based on tyranny and intimidation,” adding that “[the] most dangerous of these regimes is Iran, that has wed a cruel despotism to a fanatic militancy. If this regime, or its despotic neighbor Iraq, were to acquire nuclear weapons, this could presage catastrophic consequences, not only for my country, and not only for the Middle East, but for all mankind.”

Netanyahu’s speech, when combined with Israeli intelligence reports Gilad carefully manipulated and selectively released to the press, played an important role in getting Congress and the administration of then-President Bill Clinton to sanction Iran in September 1996.

Netanyahu has been the mouthpiece of Israeli information operations/psychological warfare for more than 20 years. In the summer of 2002, after being voted out of office, private citizen Netanyahu—drawing upon the credibility he would be given as a person who had, only recently, been privy to Israeli intelligence information Gilad provided—testified before Congress that “every indication is that he [Saddam Hussein] is pursuing, pursuing with abandon, pursuing with every ounce of effort, the establishment of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.” History proved Netanyahu, and the information he was relying on, to be 100 percent wrong.

The thing about intelligence-driven information operations, however, isn’t the need to get the information right. The goal is to get the policy right, and in this case, Israel’s policy objective of getting the United States to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power was achieved.

Netanyahu has been at the forefront of Israeli information operations targeting Iran. For years, he lectured the world about the danger Iran’s nuclear program posed, culminating in a bizarre show-and-tell before the United Nations in 2012 where he used a crude drawing of a bomb to illustrate his case. The takeaway from Netanyahu’s speech, however, did not rest with any spectacular expose of Iranian nuclear ambition, but the fact that Netanyahu was freelancing—the Israeli intelligence service did not agree with the case the Israeli prime minister was making. Since that time, Netanyahu has doubled down on crying wolf about the Iranian nuclear threat, opposing at every step the Obama administration’s efforts to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran, and supporting Donald Trump’s calls to “rip up” that same agreement.

Given both Israel’s past role in exaggerating the Iraqi WMD threat and Netanyahu’s track record on the issue of Iran and its nuclear program, a responsible observer would be loath to take the Israeli prime minister’s warnings at face value. Instead, one would insist on a process of verification to be conducted on the documents and data the Israeli prime minister relied upon to make his case.

I have considerable experience in conducting searches for documentary evidence involving weapons of mass destruction. I was in the U.N. operations center when U.N. inspectors seized the Iraqi nuclear files in September 1991 and headed up the inspections that cornered a covert Iraqi WMD archive in the summer of 1992. Between 1995 and 1996, I led the investigation into the so-called “chicken farm” archive Iraq turned over to inspectors following the defection of Hussein Kamal in August 1995. I am intimately familiar with the logistics of covertly gathering, collating, archiving and securing a massive number of documents and associated materials. The “chicken farm” archive itself was more than a million pages—more than 10 times larger than the document cache alleged to have been stolen by the Mossad. I spent months debriefing the Iraqi security personnel involved with transporting and securing this archive, as well as physically inspecting the locations involved, and have gained some insight into the realities associated with such operations.

According to Israeli sources, operatives of the Mossad discovered the location of the Iranian nuclear archive sometime in 2016, after it had been moved into a ramshackle warehouse in southern Tehran. In early 2017, Israeli operatives were able to gain access to the building, access the material in question and remove it from Iran the same day. These same sources state that a special unit of the Iranian Intelligence Service guarded the archive. If the Israeli story is true, then the Israelis exposed an entire operational network for the purpose of bringing this information to public attention, an act that, given the time and difficulty of putting such a network in place, borders on the criminally irresponsible.

I do not doubt that the Israelis would be able to gather information about the existence and location of a secret archive in Iran. In my time as an inspector, I received numerous reports of this nature, which proved to be both timely and accurate. The issue is access. In Iraq, we had a full-time inspection apparatus mandated to carry out document searches and, as such, could operate openly. In my debriefs of the Special Republican Guard officers who had been given the task of safeguarding the “chicken farm” archive, they indicated that they had a 24-hour armed presence, and that they would have shot and killed anyone—even U.N. inspectors—who tried to gain access to these documents. If the Iranian archive is as sensitive and important as Netanyahu claims, and indeed a special unit of the Revolutionary Guard was assigned the task of securing this archive, there is no doubt that the same “shoot to kill” orders would have been in place, along with a 24-hour armed guard. The thought that Mossad operatives could gain access to the archive and extricate tens of thousands documents and scores of CDs flies in the face of the notion that the archive was sensitive and guarded by elite guards.

That means the documents were forgeries. Who forged them is unknown, but the point is, Israel knows they are not the real deal.

The issue of document verification is critical when addressing the veracity of the information contained in the documents in question. This is another area where I possess some relevant experience. By way of example, in 1992 U.N. weapons inspectors compelled the Iraqi government to admit that it had lied about the numbers of missiles it had declared. Nearly 100 missiles had been hidden from inspectors, and the accounting used to underpin the original deceptive figures was doctored to make up for the missing missiles. To clear up this discrepancy, the Iraqis provided the inspectors with detailed log books from the Iraqi Army that recorded the disposition of every missile received from the Soviet Union. To verify that these were original logbooks, and not forgeries produced to deceive the inspectors, the inspectors turned over one of the original logbooks to the FBI so that a forensic assessment could be made.

The FBI was able to determine the type of paper used in the logs, trace the paper back to its source and confirm that this paper had been provided to Iraq during the time period involved, Similarly, the FBI conducted a forensic analysis of the ink used in typing up the documents, identifying specific typewriters involved, as well as the inks used for the various stamps and signatures that had been affixed to the documents in question. The conclusion reached by the FBI was that the documents were most likely originals.

Likewise, when U.N. inspectors came upon computerized files, the files were subjected to detailed forensic analysis to ascertain whether they were originals, or copies planted to deceive the inspectors. This analysis—which included determining the date a file was created, on which machine it was created, who created it, and any modifications made to the file—was essential in determining the origin of the files (whether they were original) and the veracity of their content. This kind of detailed forensic inspection of documentary evidence was a prerequisite action before any consideration could be made about the validity and credibility of the data. And because of this kind of attention to detail, U.N. inspectors were able to present their document-based findings with confidence.

Netanyahu claimed the documents the Mossad allegedly stole had been shared with the United States and that the United States could vouch for their authenticity, but this claim is, on its face, unbelievable. The Mossad already had accessed many of these documents and found them wanting. Sometime in 2004, the Mossad had gained access to some of the same documents that Netanyahu had used in his April 2018 presentation. These documents were collated into electronic form and turned over to an Iranian opposition group, the MEK (People’s Mujahedeen of Iran), which turned the laptop containing the documents over to the German intelligence service.

That the Israelis went to such lengths to distance themselves from the laptop material raises several issues about the documents themselves. Israel had a long history of providing intelligence directly to the IAEA. I was present on several occasions when Israeli intelligence officers handed over intelligence on Iraq to IAEA inspectors in Vienna, and I ran an intelligence-sharing relationship between the U.N. and Israel that lasted four years. Israel also had an active intelligence-sharing relationship with many IAEA member states, including the United States, Germany and others. The need to disguise the source of the laptop material for operational security reasons is not believable in this regard.

If Israel had identified itself as the source of the information contained in the laptop, then questions would have arisen concerning the source and authenticity of the documents that Israel was not prepared or willing to answer. By using the MEK as a front for the documents, the Israelis avoided having to be held accountable for the inconvenient details and inconsistencies in the documents that eventually exposed them as forgeries, while at the same time being able to plant a seed of doubt within the IAEA that could be leveraged to the detriment of Iran. This was the sole purpose of the laptop documents—to conduct an information operation against Iran.

The documents contained in the laptop played a central role in shaping the IAEA’s so-called “possible military dimension” investigation that was used to push the Iranian nuclear issue out of the IAEA and into the U.N. Security Council, where economic sanctions could be brought into play. It was only in October 2015, after the IAEA and Iran consulted extensively about the information contained in these and other documents, that the issue was dropped.

Many of the key documents Netanyahu used in his presentation were familiar to former IAEA officials, including Olli Heinonen (who ran inspections in Iran and had been the point man on getting the laptop documents injected into the IAEA case against Iran). These documents were also familiar to American officials, including Thomas Countryman, the former State Department official responsible for international security and nonproliferation. Both Heinonen and Countryman link these documents to the document trove contained on the 2004 laptop, which contained demonstrable forgeries. Void of any forensic report on the size, shape, format, markings, signatures, paper and ink that comprise each individual document (the kind of details that exposed several of the laptop documents as crude forgeries), or a similarly detailed digital forensic report on the electronic media, there simply is no vouching for the authenticity of the documents in question. At best, the United States can say that these documents come from the same source that produced the forged documents that appeared on the 2004 laptop.

It is here that the logic underpinning Netanyahu’s briefing collapses: Why would the Iranians maintain an archive of forged documents? Why would Netanyahu orchestrate a briefing whose content is so readily dismissed?

The answer is clear, once one strips away the pretense of an actual intelligence collection operation. These were not documents stolen away from a deceitful Iran. These documents were already in the possession of Israel (which ostensibly oversaw their creation), for which Netanyahu concocted an elaborate cover story so that they could be shared publicly as part of a classic information operation designed, best case, to sway American public opinion and, at a minimum, the opinion of one man—President Trump, who on May 12 will make a final decision on whether to stay in the Iran nuclear agreement. Netanyahu’s gambit was designed to apply pressure on President Trump to offset counsel from France, Germany, Britain and other allies to keep the agreement alive.

It was a classic psychological warfare operation—all smoke and mirrors—designed not for durability, but maximum short-term impact. Given the limited attention span of the intended audience, the move has a good chance at succeeding.

Hawaii Volcano Sends More Lava, Sulfur Gas Into Communities

PAHOA, Hawaii — The Kilauea volcano sent more lava into Hawaii communities Friday, a day after forcing more than 1,500 people to flee from their mountainside homes, and authorities detected high levels of sulfur gas that could threaten the elderly and people with breathing problems.

The eruption that began with lava flying into the sky from a crack in a road continued with reports of molten rock spurting from several volcanic vents. Neighborhoods downhill from the vents were at risk of being covered up. At least two homes were destroyed, officials said.

Julie Woolsey lives on a street where a vent opened up and channeled lava to within 1,000 yards (914 meters) of her house. When it appeared, she freed her chickens, loaded her dogs into her truck and evacuated with her daughter and grandson.

“We knew we were building on an active volcano,” she said, recalling how she purchased the lot on the Big Island for $35,000 more than a decade ago after living on Maui became too expensive. But she thought the danger from lava was a remote possibility.

“You can’t really predict what Pele is going to do,” she said, referring to the Hawaiian volcano goddess. “It’s hard to keep up. We’re hoping our house doesn’t burn down.”

The community of Leilani Estates near the town of Pahoa appeared to be in the greatest danger. Authorities also ordered an evacuation of Lanipuna Gardens, a smaller, more rural subdivision directly to the east. But scientists said new vents could form, and it was impossible to know where.

Civil defense officials cautioned the public about high levels of sulfur dioxide near the volcano and urged vulnerable people to leave immediately. Exposure to the gas can cause irritation or burns, sore throats, runny noses, burning eyes and coughing.

Maija Stenback began to get nervous when she noticed cracks in the streets near her home. On Thursday, she shot video of the lava as it bubbled and splattered across a street about six blocks from her house.

“You can feel it all the way into the core of your being,” she said. “It’s just that roaring and unbelievable power of the lava bubbling up and spitting up into the air.”

Stenback, her daughter and grandchildren packed as much as they could into their car. The two kids were each allowed to select three toys to take before the family left for a friend’s home about a 30-minute drive away.

“I have lived through a lot of lava flows here, but never this close before,” Stenback said.

There were no immediate reports of injuries. At least 100 people were staying in shelters Friday, with many more evacuees believed to be with relatives and friends.

The Hawaii governor activated the National Guard to help with evacuations and provide security for properties that were abandoned when residents fled to safety.

Kilauea has erupted periodically for decades, and scientists said they have no way of predicting how long the eruption will continue.

A key factor will be whether a magma reservoir at the summit starts to drain in response to the eruption, which has not happened yet, said Asta Miklius, a geophysicist with the U.S. Geological Survey’s Hawaiian Volcano Observatory.

“There is quite a bit of magma in the system. It won’t be just an hours-long eruption probably, but how long it will last will depend on whether the summit magma reservoir gets involved. And so we are watching that very, very closely,” Miklius said.

After a week of earthquakes, authorities had warned residents to be prepared to evacuate because an eruption would give little warning.

Henry Calio said the first sign that something might be wrong happened when cracks emerged in the driveway of his home in Leilani Estates. His wife, Stella, then received a call from an official who told them to get out immediately. They feared they might lose the house.

“This is our retirement dream,” Henry Calio said.

Kilauea’s Puu Oo crater floor began to collapse Monday, triggering the earthquakes and pushing the lava into new underground chambers. The collapse caused magma to push more than 10 miles (16 kilometers) downslope toward the populated southeast coastline of the island.

The magma later crossed under Highway 130, which leads to a popular volcano access point. Authorities closed the area to visitors and ordered private tour companies to stop taking people into the region.

Over the decades, most of Kilauea’s activity has been nonexplosive, but a 1924 eruption spewed ash and 10-ton (9-metric ton) rocks into the sky and killed one person.

A 1983 eruption resulted in lava fountains soaring over 1,500 feet (457 meters) into the sky. Since then, the lava flow has buried dozens of square miles of land and destroyed many homes.

___

Jones reported from Honolulu. Associated Press writers Audrey McAvoy in Honolulu, Mark Thiessen in Anchorage, Alaska, and Alina Hartounian in Phoenix contributed to this report.

Iowa Governor Signs Strictest Abortion Regulation in U.S.

DES MOINES, Iowa — Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds on Friday signed a law banning most abortions if a fetal heartbeat can be detected, or at around six weeks of pregnancy, marking the strictest abortion regulation in the nation — but setting the state up for a lengthy court fight.

The Republican governor signed the legislation in her formal office at the state Capitol as protesters gathered outside chanting, “My body, my choice!” Reynolds acknowledged that the new law would likely face litigation, but said: “This is bigger than just a law, this is about life, and I’m not going to back down.” Reynolds has previously said she was “proud to be pro-life.”

The ban, set to take effect on July 1, has propelled Iowa to the front of a push among conservative statehouses jockeying to enact restrictive regulations on the medical procedure. Mississippi passed a law earlier this year banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, but it’s on hold after a court challenge.

The Iowa law provides for some exemptions that allow abortions during a later pregnancy stage to save a pregnant woman’s life or in some cases of rape and incest.

Maggie DeWitte, who leads the group Iowans for Life, called Reynolds’ move “historic.”

“We couldn’t be more pleased,” DeWitte said Friday. “She is following through on her pledge to the people of Iowa that she is 100 percent pro-life.”

The bill signing came shortly after the Iowa affiliates of Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union warned that they would sue the governor if she signed the bill, which the Republican-controlled Legislature quickly approved in after-hours votes earlier in the week.

“We will challenge this law with absolutely everything we have on behalf of our patients because Iowa will not go back,” Suzanna de Baca, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said in a statement.

Backers of the so-called heartbeat bill — which didn’t get a single Democratic vote in the Legislature during final passage — expressed hope it could challenge Roe vs. Wade, the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that established women have a right to terminate pregnancies until a fetus is viable. Conservatives say an influx of right-leaning judicial appointments under President Donald Trump could make it a possibility.

Critics argued the bill would ban abortions before some women even know they’re pregnant. That likely sets the state up for a legal challenge, including from the same federal appeals court that three years ago struck down similar legislation approved in Arkansas and North Dakota.

In Iowa, the same Republican-majority Legislature passed a 20-week abortion ban last year. It’s now in effect, though a provision requiring a three-day waiting period to get an abortion is tied up in a lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. Still, Republican lawmakers indicated they would push for more restrictions this session.

Outside of Reynolds’ office earlier Friday, critics of the bill began leaving coat hangers by her staff’s desks. The protests followed the morning rally outside of the Capitol where more than 100 people showed up to oppose the legislation. One of them was Georgia Jecklin, a retired teacher who drove in from Davenport.

“As a 66-year-old woman, I feel very strongly that women have a right to their own body decisions,” she said.

Judge Poses Pointed Questions on Manafort Charges at Hearing

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A federal judge on Friday asked pointed questions about special counsel Robert Mueller’s authority to bring charges against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and suggested that prosecutors’ true motive is getting Manafort to “sing” against the president.

Manafort’s lawyers argued at a hearing in Alexandria that the tax and bank fraud charges are far afield from Mueller’s mandate to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election and whether any coordination with Trump associates occurred.

“I don’t see what relationship this indictment has with what the special counsel is investigating,” U.S. Senior Judge T.S. Ellis III, a Reagan appointee, told government lawyers at Friday’s hearing.

The Virginia indictment alleges Manafort hid tens of millions of dollars he earned advising pro-Russia politicians in Ukraine from the Internal Revenue Service, money earned from 2006 through 2015. The indictment accuses Manafort of fraudulently obtaining millions in loans from financial institutions later, after his Ukrainian work dwindled. Prosecutors say that part of the conspiracy stretched from 2015 through January 2017, including the months while he was working on the Trump campaign.

Under questioning from Ellis, government lawyers admitted that Manafort had been under investigation for years in the Eastern District of Virginia before Mueller was ever appointed special counsel. And Ellis said it was implausible to think that the charges against Manafort, which primarily concern his business dealings and tax returns from about 2005 through 2015, could have a real connection to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Ellis suggested the real reason Mueller is pursuing Manafort is to pressure him to “sing” against Trump, though he also noted that such a strategy is a “time-honored practice” for prosecutors and not necessarily illegal. Ellis went on to say that defense lawyers are naturally concerned that defendants in that situation will not only sing but “compose” — meaning that they’ll make up facts.

“You really care about wanting information you could get from Mr. Manafort that would relate to Mr. Trump and lead to his prosecution, or impeachment, or whatever,” Ellis said.

Later Friday, President Trump praised Ellis during a speech to the National Rifle Association and called him a “highly respected judge.” Trump read news articles highlighting Ellis’ quotes about the case and his suggestion that the special counsel’s goal is to squeeze Manfort. “I’ve been saying that for a long time,” Trump said.

At the hearing, government lawyer Michael Dreeben responded to Ellis that the special counsel’s mandate is broad, and that Manafort fits within that jurisdiction because of his connections to both the Trump campaign and to Ukrainian and Russian officials.

“We needed to understand and explore those relationships and follow the money where it led,” Dreeben said.

Dreeben also argued that the Justice Department has broad discretion to set its own rules for what should be designated to the special counsel’s jurisdiction, and that a judge has no role trying to regulate it.

“We are the Justice Department,” Dreeben said of the special counsel’s office. “We are not separate from the Justice Department.”

That argument provoked Ellis’ ire to an extent and prompted him to question the wisdom of granting unfettered power to a special counsel with a $10 million budget.

“I’m sure you’re sensitive to the fact that the American people feel pretty strongly about no one having unfettered power,” Ellis said.

He asked Dreeben whether the special counsel had already blown through its $10 million budget; Dreeben declined to answer.

Manafort’s lawyer, Kevin Downing, has argued that a special counsel should be tightly constrained in how it operates. He noted that the law authorizing the special counsel was passed to replace the old independent counsel law, which was derided for allowing overbroad, yearslong investigations during the Reagan and Clinton administrations.

Downing has argued that the charges should be dismissed if Mueller lacked authority to bring them. Ellis, though, suggested another remedy would be to simply hand the case back to regular federal prosecutors.

Ellis withheld ruling on the motion and will issue a written ruling at a later date.

Manafort is also facing a separate indictment in the District of Columbia, where the special counsel has brought the bulk of charges. Prosecutors also wanted to bring the Virginia charges in the District of Columbia, arguing it would be more efficient. But Manafort had the right to have the case heard in Virginia, because that is where the alleged misconduct in the Virginia indictment occurred. Manafort declined to waive his right to have the charges adjudicated in Virginia.

Manafort’s lawyers made similar arguments seeking dismissal to the judge overseeing the District case. She has also not yet ruled on the motion.

___

Associated Press writer Anne Flaherty contributed to this report from Washington.

Trump Sets North Korea Summit, Keeps Details Secret

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump offered his latest teaser Friday for a historic U.S. summit with North Korea: The time and place have been set but he’s not saying when and where.

Trump also pushed back on a report that he’s considering the withdrawal of U.S. forces from South Korea.

Earlier this week, Trump expressed a preference for holding the “big event” with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in the demilitarized zone or DMZ between the two Koreas. He also said Singapore was in contention to host what will be the first summit of between a U.S. and a North Korean leader.

“We now have a date and we have a location. We’ll be announcing it soon,” Trump told reporters Friday from the White House South Lawn before departing for Dallas. He’s previously said the summit was planned for May or early June.

A meeting with Kim Jong Un seemed an outlandish possibility just a few months ago when the two leaders were trading threats and insults over North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons. But momentum for diplomacy has built this year as the rival Koreas have patched up ties. In March, Trump unexpectedly accepted an offer of talks from Kim after the North Korean dictator agreed to suspend nuclear and ballistic missile tests and discuss “denuclearization.”

According to South Korea, Kim has said he’d be willing to give up his nukes if the United States commits to a formal end to the Korean War and pledges not to attack the North. But his exact demands for relinquishing weapons that his nation spent decades building remains unclear.

Trump said that withdrawing U.S. forces from South Korea is “not on the table.” Some 28,500 U.S. forces are based in the allied nation, a military presence that has been preserved to deter North Korea since the war ended in 1953 without a peace treaty.

“Now I have to tell you, at some point into the future, I would like to save the money,” Trump said later as he prepared to board Air Force One. “You know we have 32,000 troops there but I think a lot of great things will happen but troops are not on the table. Absolutely.”

The New York Times reported that Trump has asked the Pentagon to prepare options plans for drawing down American troops. It cited unnamed officials as saying that wasn’t intended to be a bargaining chip with Kim, but did reflect that a prospective peace treaty between the Koreas could diminish the need for U.S. forces in South Korea.

At the inter-Korean summit last Friday, held on the southern side of the DMZ, South Korean President Moon Jae-in and Kim pledged to rid the peninsula of nuclear weapons and seek a formal end this year to the Korean conflict where the opposing sides remain technically at war more than six decades after fighting halted with an armistice.

But for Trump to contemplate withdrawing troops now would be a quixotic move as he enters into negotiations with Kim whose demands and intentions are uncertain. Two weeks ago, shortly before the inter-Korean summit, Moon said that Kim actually wasn’t insisting on a longstanding demand for the withdrawal of U.S. troops as a precondition for abandoning his nukes.

National security adviser John Bolton, who was due to meet his South Korean counterpart Chung Eui-yong in Washington on Friday, called the Times report “utter nonsense.”

During his presidential campaign, Trump complained that South Korea does not do enough to financially support the American military commitment. In March, Washington and Seoul began negotiations on how much South Korea should offset the costs of the deployment in the coming years. Under the current agreement that expires at the end of 2018, the South provides about $830 million per year.

Before Trump meets Kim, Washington is looking for North Korea to address another persistent source of tension between the adversaries: the detention of three Korean-Americans accused of anti-state of activities in the North.

Trump hinted that the release of Kim Dong Chul, Kim Hak Song and Tony Kim was in the offing, but again was sparing on the details.

“We’re having very substantive talks with North Korea and a lot of things have already happened with respect to the hostages, and I think you’re going to see very good things. As I said yesterday, stay tuned,” Trump said, referring to an earlier tweet on the issue.

___

Associated Press writer Ken Thomas contributed to this report.

Arizona Students Back in Class After Six-Day Teacher Strike

PHOENIX — Hundreds of thousands of Arizona schoolchildren returned to classes Friday a day after state lawmakers approved 20 percent raises for teachers and they ended a six-day walkout that shuttered most classrooms around the state.

Teachers at a high school in the Phoenix suburb of Mesa lined up to greet students with cheers and handshakes. An elementary school principal greeted students with high-fives on the other side of metro Phoenix.

Educators returning to work at San Marcos Elementary in the suburb of Chandler traded in their red protest T-shirts for shirts with their black and blue school colors and its bear mascot. Wearing sunglasses and smiles, they hugged and wrapped their arms around each other’s shoulders to start the day.

At Oakwood Elementary School in the Phoenix suburb of Peoria, Principal Shawn Duguid was dressed in a purple shirt in the spirit of one of the school’s colors. As he does every day, Duguid was in front of the campus gates before they opened to welcome the roughly 1,000 students between kindergarten and eighth-grade. Some parents came with boxes of doughnuts and other goodies for the faculty after the six-day absence.

Other parents, however, were still upset about the impact of teacher walkouts.

Charlene Schafer, who was dropping off her two sons, said she is “pretty ticked off.”

“They should have been in school. They were by themselves at home,” she said.

Terri Kiley, who was walking her daughter in, said she sympathizes with the teachers but wishes they could use other strategies.

“I understand what they’re trying to do. But I didn’t like that they shut down the school. Trying to get (the kids) re-motivated is a little rough.”

For 14-year-old Sariah Stone, finding motivation to get out of bed after six days off and no homework wasn’t the easiest.

“I thought I was on summer vacation,” the eighth-grader said.

Still, she is happy to be back. She missed “just being here, the daily routine. It just felt weird not coming back.”

Fifth-grade teacher Mechelle Kester was elated to be back on morning duty in the school’s drop-off zone.

“We missed our kids… They look like they’re still asleep but that’s OK,” Kester said with a laugh. “We’ll get them back on track.”

In Cindy Cordts’ third-grade class, children immediately sat down with a worksheet. Cordts warmly welcomed them back, briefly acknowledging the hiatus as “kind of like we had an extra spring break.”

“It’s very hard to put into words how excited I am to be back with my kiddoes,” said Cordts, who has been teaching for 33 years. “I have missed them absolutely greatly and we’re ready to finish the year strong.”

Strike organizers called for an end to the walkout Thursday after an all-night legislative session resulted in a 20 percent pay raise by 2020. Most districts planned to reopen Friday but Tucson’s largest district said it would resume classes next week.

“We will return to our schools, classrooms, and students knowing that we have achieved something truly historic,” said a joint statement issued by Arizona Education Association President Joe Thomas and National Education Association President Lily Eskelsen Garcia. “We should take pride in what we have accomplished, and in the movement that we have created together.”

The education funding plan approved by lawmakers shortly before dawn was immediately signed by Gov. Doug Ducey, awarding teachers a 9 percent raise in the fall and 5 percent in each of the next two years. Those increases, which are in addition to a 1 percent raise granted last year, will cost about $300 million for the coming year alone.

Ducey praised the legislation as “a real win” for both teachers and students.

The Arizona walkout was part of a bubbling national uprising over low teacher pay and funding. The movement started in West Virginia, where a strike resulted in a raise, and spread to Oklahoma, Kentucky and, most recently, Colorado.

Thomas said educators should now focus on a campaign for a November ballot measure that would seek more education funding from an income tax increase on the wealthiest taxpayers.

“The budget is a significant investment, but it falls far short” of what the movement demanded, he said.

Helen Hoffman, a counselor in the Phoenix Union High School District, said she was “excited” about the end of the strike.

“I’m worried about my students. I’m ready to go back,” she said.

Education cuts over the past decade have sliced deeply into Arizona’s public schools. Teachers wanted a return to pre-recession funding levels, regular raises, competitive pay for support staff and a pledge not to adopt any tax cuts until per-pupil funding reaches the national average.

The new funding package provides schools with a partial restoration of nearly $400 million in recession-era cuts, with a promise to restore the rest in five years. Other cuts remain in place.

Minority Democrats mainly voted against the budget plan, drawing criticism from Republicans.

“You know, talk is pretty cheap — it’s your vote that counts,” Republican Rep. Anthony Kern said. “If Republicans voted with Democrats tonight, you would be walking away with zero.”

Democratic Rep. Reginald Bolding urged lawmakers not to congratulate themselves for easing the same crisis they created.

“You can’t set a house on fire, call 911 and claim to be a hero. And that’s what this body has done,” Bolding said.

___

Associated Press writers Anita Snow, Paul Davenport and Bob Christie contributed to this report.

Dozens of Palestinians Hurt in Protest on Gaza-Israel Border

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip — Thousands of Palestinians staged a sixth weekly protest Friday near Gaza’s border with Israel, some burning tires and throwing stones as Israeli soldiers fired live bullets and volleys of tear gas, injuring dozens of Palestinians.

In a new aerial twist, small Israeli drones faced off against Gaza kites with burning rags attached to them, according to witnesses. In recent weeks, Gaza protesters had sent some of these kites across the border as part of a new tactic of setting dry wheat fields on the Israeli side on fire.

On Friday, Israeli drones took down two kites in one location, while stone-throwers with slingshots sent two low-flying drones crashing in another area, witnesses said. The Israeli military said two small surveillance drones fell into Gaza, but did not elaborate.

The military said that in one area, protesters tried to damage the fence and enter Israel, but withdrew when soldiers arrived at the scene. In another location, soldiers warned over loudspeakers that those burning tires would be targeted.

By late Friday afternoon, 148 Palestinians had been wounded, including 42 by live bullets and 20 by rubber-coated steel pellets, Gaza health officials said. Since late March, 39 protesters have been killed and more than 1,700 wounded by Israeli fire.

Gaza’s Hamas rulers have said the protests might culminate in a mass breach of the border fence by May 15. The Islamic militant Hamas has organized the Friday protests at the border as part of a weeks-long campaign against a decade-old blockade of the territory.

The protests are also driven by widespread desperation over the blockade-linked hardships of life in Gaza, where two thirds of young people are unemployed and electricity runs for only a few hours a day.

On Friday, Palestinians assembled after Muslim noon prayers at five protest camps set up several hundred meters from the fence. Some moved closer to the fence, throwing stones with slingshots and burning tires. Israeli soldiers fired live rounds and tear gas. The Israeli military put the turnout at about 7,000.

Yehiyeh Amarin, an 18-year-old protester, was among nearly two dozen activists rolling tires toward the fence to set them ablaze. His face partially covered with a black-and-white “keffiyeh” scarf, he’s part of a group of young protesters called the “tires.” They are responsible for collecting and burning old tires along the border.

“If no solution happens by May 15 we will continue the protests or we die,” said Amarin, as another protester behind him brandished a yellow wire cutter. “We will cut through the fence.”

He said he and his friends spend their weekdays collecting tires for the weekly protests.

“We want a dignified life and a return to our lands,” he said.

The mounting casualty toll has led to growing criticism of Israel. Rights groups say Israeli open-fire regulations are unlawful because they permit troops to use potentially lethal force against unarmed protesters. Israel’s Supreme Court is currently weighing a petition by six rights groups to restrict or ban the use of live fire on the border.

The European Union and the United Nations have also criticized the use of lethal force against the protesters.

Israel says it’s defending its sovereign border, including nearby communities, and that soldiers only target instigators. It accuses Hamas, sworn to Israel’s destruction, of trying to carry out attacks under the guise of the mass protests. It has said that some of those protesting at the border over the past few weeks tried to damage the border fence or plant explosives along it.

The marches are part of what organizers say is an escalating showdown with Israel, to culminate in a mass march on May 15 — the day Palestinians commemorate their mass uprooting in the 1948 war over Israel’s creation. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled or were driven from homes in what is now Israel. Two-thirds of Gaza’s two million residents are descendants of refugees.

Hamas says the protests are aimed at breaking the border blockade and pressing for the “right of return” of displaced Palestinians and their descendants. The blockade was imposed by Israel and Egypt after Hamas seized Gaza in 2007, a year after winning Palestinian parliament elections.

Hamas officials have given conflicting statements about a possible mass border breach on May 15.

Israel has warned that it will prevent such a breach at any cost.

Sleeping Giant Stirs in the Lone Star State

“God Save Texas: A Journey into the Soul of the Lone Star State”
Purchase in the Truthdig Bazaar

“God Save Texas: A Journey into the Soul of the Lone Star State”

A book by Lawrence Wright

No matter how confounding the politics or embarrassing the legislature, Texas will always be home. That recognition—familiar to Texans the world over—runs through Lawrence Wright’s homage to the state. Wright, a Pulitzer Prize winner, screenwriter, playwright and staff writer for The New Yorker, has long been one of the Lone Star State’s most compelling storytellers. “God Save Texas” picks up where Wright’s past chronicling of all things Texas leaves off, pulling back the curtain on the inexplicable contradictions of my birthplace. But for anyone hoping that Wright will solve the mystery of how such a populist, neighborly state became the test bed for the most racist, homophobic and anti-women’s-rights laws and policies in the country, we will have to wait for Volume 2. “God Save Texas” is more of a plea than a prophecy.

Wright’s book is particularly timely given Texas’ status as the canary in the coal mine for what America would look like with divisive, retrograde politicians at the helm. As Evan Smith, co-founder of The Texas Tribune, sagely notes in the book: “White people are scared of change, believing that what they have is being taken away from them. … In 2004 the Anglo population in Texas became a minority.” It’s no coincidence that the social conservatives who have ruled the state for two decades have continued to look backward “to a time when homosexuals were unseen, minorities were powerless, [and] abortion was taboo.” Economically and demographically, there is little doubt that, as Wright has written, “America’s future is Texas.” Whether that declaration is hopeful or ominous depends on whether Texas itself will embrace the future, including a growing, young, multicultural population that would be the envy of so many other states.

Click here to read long excerpts from “God Save Texas” at Google Books.

“God Save Texas” starts at the very beginning, with the founding of Texas. Wright illustrates how, even then, this land of plenty—plenty of land, plenty of oil, plenty of natural resources—was a land of wealth for some and deprivation for many. In recent years, Texas has been a cautionary tale of the disastrous consequences of single-party rule. There hasn’t been a Democrat elected statewide in 20 years, which has allowed the legislature and governor to draw congressional and state maps that have ensured lopsided representation. Austin, reliably the most progressive city in the state, has been carved into six congressional districts—a feat that redefines gerrymandering. The legislative districts are equally unrepresentative, and only House Speaker Joe Straus, a moderate Republican from San Antonio, has occasionally kept the Capitol from completely going off the rails. His decision to retire this year portends even worse political days ahead. Wright describes meeting with Straus, who laments the obsession of the legislature with passing “bathroom bills,” chipping away at the right to abortion and doing little else. “And just think,” Straus opines about his colleagues, “these are the people responsible for spending $218 billion.”

Building the Texas of the future requires investments the legislature has so far refused to address, including in public education and health care. Because the state doesn’t spend enough money on education, Texas ranks near the bottom in educational achievement. One in four children lives in poverty. In addition, the state has repeatedly refused to expand Medicaid, and after it shut down the Women’s Health Program in an attempt to end access to health care at Planned Parenthood, maternal mortality rates have increased, as have incidences of breast and cervical cancer diagnosed too late. Recently, as Wright recounts, progressive state Rep. Jessica Farrar became so disgusted she introduced the Man’s Right to Know Act, which would require a sonogram and rectal exam before a man could get a Viagra prescription. It didn’t get too far, but it made plenty of news.

“God Save Texas” also shines a light on the rise to power of some of the most dangerous political figures in the country—from talk radio host Alex Jones to the state’s singularly worst elected official, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who served as Donald Trump’s campaign manager for Texas. You have to read the book to fully appreciate just how extreme Patrick is, but consider his obsession with his hallmark priority: allowing licensed gun owners to openly carry them anywhere and everywhere, including groceries and retail stores. Gun enthusiasts fully exploited this newly won right by carrying long guns into Target, frightening families shopping with their kids. Some of us can still recall a time when Patrick would have been seen as too extreme for the reliably Republican Texas business community. A recent full-page ad featuring prominent captains of industry endorsing his re-election is evidence to the contrary: For anyone who thought business would step in to keep the Republican Party from running the state off the cliff, those days are past.

But, as Wright points out, there are signs of life across the state. Today, Texas is witnessing renewed grass-roots activism and the election of progressive leaders. The new mayor of Houston, former state representative Sylvester Turner, is one example. Only the second African-American ever to lead the state’s most populous city, Turner explains that “Houston is now the single most ethnically diverse city in the country.” The city is also young, with 40 percent of the population under the age of 24, and nearly 70 percent of them are young people of color. As Houston pollster Richard Murray has pointed out, “Texas isn’t a red state or a blue state—it’s a non-voting state.” He’s right: During the last presidential election, turnout was an anemic 43 percent among Texas registered voters, compared with the national average of 60 percent. And yet, the gap between Hillary Clinton and Trump was a mere nine percentage points in Texas. Additionally, the current U.S. Senate race between Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and Democratic Rep. Beto O’Rourke has suddenly become competitive. There is a sleeping giant in Texas, and Wright captures the frustration and the hope that reverberate across the state each time it stirs.

Increasingly, the politics of the legislature and the politics of the populace are diverging. Every recent far-right initiative has resulted in an unprecedented outpouring of activism, starting with the abortion restrictions proposed in 2013. For days on end, the Capitol was full to capacity with citizens waiting to testify against them, culminating with a 13-hour filibuster by state Sen. Wendy Davis. Although then-Gov. Rick Perry suspended all rules in order to jam the bills through, the result was that thousands of young people got their first taste of political activism. Then-Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst called them “the unruly mob,” perhaps because it had been so long since he’d seen democracy in action.

The attacks on women’s health helped develop a new generation of activists; the women’s march in Austin in January 2018 was even larger than the one the year before, which was the largest since the inauguration of my mother, Ann Richards, as governor back in 1990. And this past legislative session, as the legislature prioritized a bathroom bill to discriminate against transgender people, additional abortion restrictions and a prohibition against sanctuary city protections for immigrant communities, their actions ignited unprecedented mobilization of Texans.

The essays in “God Save Texas,” written with Wright’s trademark wit and wry humor, celebrate what makes Texas unique and wonderful: free-flowing rivers, the canyons of Big Bend National Park, Lubbock musicians (plus Abbott-born Willie Nelson)—though he somehow omits the enchilada special at Matt’s El Rancho in Austin. At the same time, Wright doesn’t shy away from the fact that, for many Texans, it is hard to square up the state we grew up in with the intolerance that has become our national reputation.

Wright’s ambivalence about his state is threaded throughout the book. His concern about the lack of compassion manifested by the disregard for schools and prisons and mental health and the environment weighs heavy. As he says, “Part of me had always wanted to leave Texas, but I had never actually gone.” For those of us who care about our home state, and those who want to understand it, we are fortunate he stayed. Despite it all, I’m hopeful for the future of the state we love, and the humility and irreverence that keep us sane in the meantime—the same humility and irreverence on display in the Austin restaurant that posted a sign on its restrooms during the bathroom bill fight: “Whatever, just wash your hands.” (And for all the dispiriting news, the legislature did address some important matters this year. Even with the rancor and partisan division, it passed a bill allowing the hunting of wild pigs from hot air balloons. I’m only sorry Molly Ivins wasn’t still around to cover it.) In the end, perhaps the most important message of the book is the one Wright doesn’t say: Let’s not count on God to save Texas. Instead, let’s do it ourselves.

Cecile Richards, born and raised in Texas, has been a lifelong activist for women’s rights and social justice, including more than a decade as president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Planned Parenthood Action Fund. She is the author of “Make Trouble: Standing Up, Speaking Out, and Finding the Courage to Lead – My Life Story.”

©2018 Washington Post Book World

Setback for LGBT Adoptions in Oklahoma

TOPEKA, Kan.—Oklahoma legislators approved a measure Thursday to grant legal protections to faith-based adoption agencies that cite their religious beliefs for not placing children in LGBT homes and lawmakers in Kansas were close to passing a similar measure.

The Oklahoma House’s 56-21 vote sent its measure to Republican Gov. Mary Fallin, who has not said whether she would sign it. It’s similar to laws in at least five other states.

In Kansas, the GOP-controlled House approved a bill, 63-58, that would prevent faith-based agencies from being barred from providing foster care or adoption services for the state if they refuse to place children in homes violating their “sincerely held” religious beliefs. The Republican-dominated Senate had to approve it also, but that was expected because it passed an earlier version in March.

Supporters of such measures argue that the core issue is protecting a group’s right to live out its religious faith, while critics see them as attacks on LGBT rights. In Kansas, the measure split majority Republicans.

Kansas GOP Gov. Jeff Colyer supported his state’s legislation, with his administration arguing that it would encourage faith-based groups to place more abused and neglected children in state custody.

Backers of the Kansas bill acknowledged that faith-based agencies have been operating in Kansas for decades without issue. But they fear that lawsuits or turnover among state officials could result in an environment hostile to some religious groups’ views.

“This is a matter of activist groups who don’t like certain religious beliefs and they want to use the power of the government to crush people that operate according to those religious beliefs,” said Kansas Catholic Conference director Michael Schuttloffel said.

LGBT-rights advocates argue that enacting such a law would sanction discrimination and support it with taxpayer dollars.

TechNet, representing some of the biggest names in tech, including Apple and Google, sent a letter to lawmakers in both states opposing their measures. Critics in Kansas worried that it would make the state look backward and even suggested it could hurt the economy.

“If you care about jobs, vote no on this,” said Rep. Brandon Whipple, a Wichita Democrat.

The Oklahoma bill cleared the GOP-controlled Legislature over the boisterous objections of Democrats. At one point, the chamber’s presiding officer threatened to have a member forcibly removed.

Texas, Alabama, South Dakota, Virginia and Michigan already have such laws in place. Michigan’s ACLU chapter took the state to court last year over its adoption law, and the case is still ongoing.

In 2011, Illinois declined to renew its state contract with Catholic Charities adoption services due to its policy of refusing child placement to same-sex couples. Catholic Charities has also stopped handling adoptions in Washington D.C., Massachusetts and San Francisco over concerns they would be required to act against their religious beliefs.

In Kansas, both sides of the debate agree that the state’s foster care system is overloaded. The number of kids in need of homes has grown every year since 2008, from 5,711 to 7,540 as of March, according to the Department of Children and Families.

Supporters said that passing the measure could encourage groups providing limited services for the state or doing only private adoptions to work more with the state. Colyer’s administration has said some out-of-state agencies could be attracted to Kansas.

In Oklahoma, sponsoring state Sen. Greg Treat, an Oklahoma City Republican, said he believes his measure will help get more children into loving homes.

“I believe this bill aids and gets more people involved in the system,” he said.

But critics like Lori Ross, president of Foster Adopt Connect, a child placement agency operating in Kansas and Missouri, contend the real problem is a lack of available families.

Ross said for LGBT families looking to adopt, it isn’t always obvious which agencies will work with them and which won’t, she said. If they make that first phone call and get denied, they may never try and adopt again.

“If you’re a single person, or a gay person, or a divorced person, or you’re Jewish, then you better think twice before you call,” Ross said.

___

Also contributing were Sean Murphy in Oklahoma City, and John Hanna in Topeka, Kansas.