Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

“Nobody has been better to Puerto Rico”: Trump lashes out at Dems for making “big deal” of MSG joke

Donald Trump is still trying to answer for a racist joke made by a speaker at his Madison Square Garden rally last weekend, this time blaming Democrats for making it “a big deal.”

Comedian Tony Hinchcliffe called Puerto Rico a “floating island of garbage” during a set to kick-off Trump's New York rally. The statement caused uproar inside the Puerto Rican community and was seized upon by the former president's political opponents.

In the days since his rally, Puerto Rican celebrities Bad Bunny, Jennifer Lopez and Ricky Martin disavowed the comments, while rapper Nicky Jam un-endorsed the former President over them.

Trump told the hosts of “Fox and Friends” on Saturday morning that the remark distracted from the rally’s core message.

“They made this – one little comedian telling a little joke, early in the show, when nobody had even started going in to the arena, practically – they’ve made this comedian, and they’ve made the whole weekend, and they took out this gorgeous, unbelievable, patriotic evening, and they sort of stained it a little bit,” Trump complained.

Trump referred to Hinchcliffe as a “filler in all fairness” and added that he had “no idea who [Hinchcliffe] is. He’s a man that was put there by very good people and well-meaning people.”

But Trump charges Democrats, not the comedian who tossed the racist barb or the campaign staff who seemingly failed to vet him, with destroying his support amongst Puerto Ricans.

“All of the sudden, the Democrats, and they are good at this stuff, by the way,” Trump said, “he mentioned Puerto Rico and they made it like a big deal.”

The ex-president defended his record on Puerto Rico, despite widespread criticism of his administration’s botched response to Hurricane Maria.

“Nobody’s been better to Puerto Rico than me,” Trump claimed. “Puerto Ricans will tell you that – nobody’s done more for Puerto Rico than me.” 

Trump’s previous attempts to downplay the remarks didn’t help much quell the backlash from Puerto Ricans, who make up a massive voting bloc in swing states like Florida and Pennsylvania.

Can a $10 billion climate bond address California’s water contamination problem?

When Cynthia Ruiz turns on her kitchen faucet, she hears a slight squeak before cloudy fluid bursts out of the spout. The water in her Central Valley town of East Orosi is clean enough most of the time to wash dishes, flush toilets, and take showers, but it’s not safe to swallow. Drinking water is trucked in twice a month.

“There are times where the water is so bad you can’t even wash dishes,” said Ruiz, who is advised not to drink the tap water, which is laden with nitrates — runoff from orange and nectarine fields surrounding the town of roughly 400. “We need help to fix our water problem.”

Tucked in a $10 billion climate bond on the November ballot is an earmark to improve drinking water quality for communities such as East Orosi. Proposition 4 would allocate $610 million for clean, safe, and reliable drinking water and require at least 40% be spent on projects that benefit vulnerable populations or disadvantaged communities. But it’s a fraction of what the state says is needed.

While most Californians have access to safe water, roughly 750,000 people as of late October are served by 383 failing water systems, many clustered in remote and sparsely populated areas. A June assessment by the California State Water Resources Control Board pegged the cost of repairing failing and at-risk public water systems at about $11.5 billion.

“We have communities in California that are served drinking water that has been out of compliance with regulatory standards for potent toxins like arsenic for years,” said Lara Cushing, an associate professor in UCLA’s Department of Environmental Health Sciences.

And climate change is eroding people’s access to clean water, she said. “There is kind of a perfect storm, if you will, of compounding hazards.”

Supporters say Proposition 4, to enact the Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and Clean Air Bond Act of 2024, would jump-start upgrades by authorizing grants and loans for local governments to repair water systems contaminated with lead, arsenic, nitrates, or other chemicals tied to cancer, liver and kidney problems, and other serious health issues.

Water priorities vary by region, and the bond would give communities flexibility to address their needs, said MJ Kushner, a policy advocate at the Community Water Center, a statewide nonprofit. “It isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution,” Kushner said.

A taxpayer group opposing the bond says the state will go further into debt on piecemeal projects. It says the state is increasingly addressing its climate-related programs with bonds, which it calls the most expensive way for government to pay for things, rather than within the state budget.

Lawmakers in July added Proposition 4 to the ballot after Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, facing a $47 billion deficit, cut $6.6 billion in climate spending from the state budget, according to Department of Finance spokesperson H.D. Palmer. The reductions followed $3.1 billion in climate cuts Newsom and lawmakers enacted in 2023.

Susan Shelley, a spokesperson for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said the state has already borrowed billions and that now isn’t the time to add more debt given the deficit.

“If the legislature chose to cut these from the budget, they should not go on the credit card,” Shelley said. “It’s irresponsible.”

According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, the state has routinely allocated state funds for climate-related programs, with about 15% coming from bonds. The office estimates it would cost taxpayers $400 million a year for the next 40 years to repay the bond — a total of $16 billion.

Since 2000, California voters have approved eight water bonds totaling $27 billion, for projects involving flood management, habitat restoration, drought preparation, and drinking water improvement, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

Scientists say climate change has led to more severe weather, including devastating floods and droughts; the spread of infectious diseases such as West Nile virus; and earlier deaths from respiratory illnesses. Public health experts add that as climate change worsens, its impact on people’s health will grow more severe and could cost the state more in the long run.

“If we quantify the damages associated with the do-nothing policy, you’ll see that typically, at the end of the day, the bill plus the interest costs are going to be less than the cost if we do nothing,” said Kurt Schwabe, an environmental economics and policy professor at the University of California-Riverside.

If approved, Ruiz hopes Proposition 4 can help East Orosi, a predominantly Latino and low-income community. Though she receives 25 gallons of drinking water twice a month, she sometimes runs out. The last time the 47-year-old drank tap water at home was when she was in high school.

“I don’t think any community anywhere in California should have to wait this long to get clean water,” Ruiz said.

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News' free Morning Briefing.

Crypto voters: “This election is pivotal”

As The Black Keys prepared to rock their hometown of Akron, Ohio, in the final stop of the America Loves Crypto Tour on Oct. 25, the grassroots campaign to mobilize cryptocurrency holders as a voting bloc reached its crescendo. 

The concert series, which rolled through five swing states in a distinctive purple bus, aimed to galvanize an estimated 4 million crypto owners into a unified political force before the 2024 election.

This year, cryptocurrency has emerged as a surprisingly potent force in American politics, with crypto voters wielding significant influence in battleground states from Ohio to Nevada. While some crypto holders are drawn to candidates promising regulatory clarity, others prioritize innovation-friendly policies or oppose what they see as government overreach — creating a diverse but increasingly vocal constituency that both political parties have courted.

“This election is pivotal because it's not just the fact that you now have two presidential candidates who are looking at this whole web3/DeFi conversation from a U.S. competitiveness space, so we're going to have a reset regardless of who wins the presidency,” said Cleve Mesidor, founder of the National Policy Network of Women of Color in Blockchain and executive director of the Blockchain Foundation. “We also have down ballot races, where you have a lot of candidates running for Congress, even running statewide, that have included cryptocurrency and blockchain in their campaign platforms.”

A divided, but engaged, electorate

Recent research shows Bitcoin ownership in America transcends political divisions and suggests crypto policy has become a significant factor in voters' decisions. 

According to a September Consensys Crypto Voter study, nearly half (49%) consider it important for their candidate to support pro-crypto policies. The study reveals a relatively even split in voter trust between Republicans (35%) and Democrats (32%) when it comes to crypto policy-making.

We need your help to stay independent

This report also highlights strong voter engagement with candidates' positions. Most voters (56%) support former President Donald Trump's pro-crypto stance, with a third saying it makes them more likely to vote for him. Meanwhile, 54% believe it's important for Vice President Kamala Harris to take a clear position on crypto, though opinions are mixed on how her stance opposing restrictive SEC rules will influence votes.

Other reports support the trend of growing bipartisan support and challenge the common narrative that Bitcoin is primarily a right-wing or libertarian phenomenon, according to the 2024 American Bitcoin Survey report from Nakamoto Project. 

While owners skew slightly liberal (45% liberal vs 41% conservative), the study found that the 14% of Americans who own Bitcoin are united more by their understanding of and trust in the technology than by demographic or ideological factors.

For many crypto voters, the central issue is regulatory uncertainty

For many crypto voters, the central issue is regulatory uncertainty. 

"I think making it a place where there's less questions and not fear of retaliation without clear regulation is extremely important," said Alicia Cepeda Maule, co-founder and CEO of Givepact, a crypto-focused philanthropy platform. 

Her co-founder, Steven Aguiar, said a common thread among crypto voters is the need for more regulatory guidance.

“Voters want to see regulation that obviously prevents bad actors and frauds, but also protects the good actors and the strong assets as well," he said.

Industry experts emphasize that crypto voters aren't solely focused on blockchain policy.

"As a crypto voter and the crypto voters that I do know, we do want candidates, members of Congress, a president that is open to emerging technologies," said Mesidor, who served in the Obama administration. "For us, it is a priority to have candidates who actually want the industry to grow, but it is not the only issue we care about."

Advocacy groups like Stand With Crypto are rating politicians’ crypto policies on their website. Trump gets an ‘A’ as a strongly supportive candidate, while Harris is listed as having “not enough information,” according to the group's database.

Ant Mathis, president of the Georgia chapter of the Stand with Crypto organization and business development manager of Atlanta Blockchain Center, said Georgia has the most crypto voters among all the swing states: 40,000, according to the organization. 

Stand with Crypto’s mandate is neutral, with the goal of informing crypto-curious voters about the candidates' stances and track record on digital assets. Mathis said he hasn’t made a commitment to either ticket and is still “analyzing all candidates.”

The path forward

The election comes at a time of profound changes for the crypto industry, with a lack of regulatory guidelines and market uncertainty impacting some of the biggest players. ConsenSys, creator of the widely-used MetaMask crypto wallet and a leading Ethereum software company, said Tuesday it would lay off 20% of its workforce, citing regulatory uncertainty amid mainstream web3 technology adoption.

“The lack of clear regulatory frameworks in some markets has made navigating our evolving space unnecessarily complex for innovators, builders, investors, and businesses,” CEO Joe Lubin said in a blog post.

That’s a sentiment shared widely by crypto voters across the party lines, with many saying a proactive government position is overdue.

The future of crypto policy extends beyond the presidential race. Rahilla Zafar, co-founder of Focal DAO, emphasizes the need for bipartisan cooperation. 

"Crypto needs bipartisan legislation to succeed"

"Ultimately, it's not about which party wins — crypto needs bipartisan legislation to succeed," she said.

Zafar, who has donated to the "Crypto for Harris" campaign, points to international competition as a pressing concern. 

"The United States is admired worldwide for our banking laws, and we would be the global hub in emerging technologies like crypto and open source AI if it weren't for the current regulatory environment,” she said. “Today you're seeing Europe and other countries have much better emerging tech regulation than the United States, which is absurd."

As the election approaches, both major parties continue to engage with the crypto community, and their growing influence is likely to last beyond the election.

“We're just hoping there will be more eyes on the topic,” said Mathis of Atlanta Blockchain Center, which hosts weekly networking and educational events for the community. “We are also hoping that there are more individuals who have open ears on being educated on the topic, and also onboarding themselves and their communities and their constituents into the field of blockchain, so that their constituents can start seeing that impact and the positivity of the technology within their own regions.”

“Deeply troubling”: Arizona AG investigating Trump over possible Cheney death threat

Donald Trump has spent years getting away with saying just about anything on a stage. His recent comments about former congresswoman Liz Cheney facing "nine barrels shooting at her" may have broken out of that familiar pattern, however. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes is investigating whether Trump's statements at a Phoenix rally violated state laws against death threats.  

The Democrat AG said Trump's remarks were "deeply troubling" in an interview with local outlet 12News

“I have already asked my criminal division chief to start looking at that statement, analyzing it for whether it qualifies as a death threat under Arizona’s laws,” Mayes said.

Trump was criticizing Cheney's reputation as a "war hawk" during his Thursday chat with Sean Hannity. 

“The reason she couldn’t stand me is that she always wanted to go to war with people. If it were up to her we’d be in 50 different countries,” Trump said. "Let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face.”

That comment has been denounced by Vice President Kamala Harris on Friday, who said it was another example of extreme rhetoric from the former president and an addition to his growing "enemies list."

In Arizona, Mayes said Trump's violent speech could only exacerbate the tensions in his swing state.

“It is the kind of thing that riles people up, and that makes our situation in Arizona and other states more dangerous,” he said.

“Don’t listen to a word”: Graham calls Cheney’s claims “bulls**t” as she pushes for Bush endorsement

Liz Cheney has been one of the election season's strongest and most surprising boosters, stumping heavily for Kamala Harris in the closing weeks of the election.

The former Republican representative has been a vocal opponent of Donald Trump for years, but her outright campaigning for Harris has put a target on her back for Republican leaders and Trump himself. 

Cheney advocated for former president George W. Bush to throw in behind Harris on Friday, after Trump wondered how Cheney would act with "nine barrels shooting at her." 

"I can’t explain why George W. Bush hasn’t spoken out, but I think it’s time, and I wish that he would,” she shared with the New Yorker Radio Hour.

This was a bridge too far for South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham. In an interview with Sean Hannity on Friday, he accused Cheney of throwing her beliefs under the bus in a bid to remain in the public eye.

"She is selling out conservatism to stay relevant,” he said. "Don’t listen to her. . . . She no longer has a voice.”

After criticizing Harris' views on reproductive rights and pinning the blame for the withdrawal from Afghanistan on Cheney, Graham urged viewers to disregard anything the former congresswoman says.

“We’re gonna push through all this bulls**t, and I’m not gonna listen to anything she has to say,” he said. “She endorsed the Democrats to help Democrats take back the Senate. Don’t listen to a word she says."

Watch the interview below: 

Donald Trump was never qualified to be president — or anything else

Let’s get one thing straight before Election Day — and before nearly half the electorate votes for him: Donald Trump was never remotely qualified to run for president of the United States of America, let alone to hold that office.

Likewise, although he still pathetically boasts about being “like, really smart” and attending a great business school, Trump never had the brain power, seriousness or attention to detail necessary to become a legit businessman.

That judgment doesn't come from me; it’s what people closest to him have said for decades, from the journalist who first warned us about Trump to the ghostwriter who regrets working on “The Art of the Deal” to the people who worked most closely with him during his four years degrading the presidency, shredding political norms and tearing our country apart. 

And let’s not forget that professor at the Wharton School of Business who privately told friends that Trump was the dumbest student he’d ever encountered during his lengthy teaching career.

Protected by a fortune from his father while playing the part of a canny real estate developer, Trump repeatedly bankrupted himself upward. The “King of Debt” learned early on how to profit from public money and make the public pay for his mistakes. Wayne Barrett, the journalist who saw Trump’s grifting ways from the get-go, wrote: “Like his father, Donald Trump has pushed each deal to the limit, taking from it whatever he can get, turning political connections into private profits at public expense."

Occupying the White House allowed him to amp up his shameless grifting and shady dealing, from profiting on his office via Washington’s Trump International Hotel (which has since been sold and rebranded) to selling Trump superhero NFTs and golden sneakers and hawking Bibles that encourage people to laugh off all that nonsense about the separation of church and state.

So as we at last (and yet somehow too soon) come to Election Day 2024 and hear from ever more prominent people that Trump is unfit and unqualified to be president — often from the highest level people who worked with him during his first term of occasionally occupying the Oval Office — we should not forget that he was never fit, or qualified, to be president. 

Indeed, one could easily argue, as people have for years, that he is not qualified or fit to serve in any job in any capacity. 

It’s difficult to imagine a compulsive liar with dozens of sexual assault allegations against him being hired by any legitimate business. He may have recently play-acted working at McDonald’s, and for whatever weird psychological reasons may insist that Kamala Harris never worked there in college (as she evidently did). But the larger truth is that his beloved purveyor of “hamberders” would never have hired him, given his lengthy record of accusations, indictments and now felony convictions. 

Would you hire a guy who sees most of your customers as “the enemy within”?

It may seem a small point in a moment where we appear on the brink of losing our democracy and seeing Trump’s critics face retribution, but any history not written by the MAGA faithful will note that Trump had no business running for president in the first place. He had no public service experience and knew next to nothing about governance or foreign affairs or, it seemed, much of anything else — except of course how New York political bosses and the New York mob operated, along with all the lessons in bullying and fighting back he absorbed from his father and his later mentor, the ruthless Roy Cohn.

Even when he ran for a second term in 2020, after being impeached twice, Trump — in his singularly lazy and incurious fashion — managed to remain utterly unqualified. His handlers tried to trick him into paying attention to national security briefings. His infamous “executive time” spent watching Fox News every morning and his frequent golf outings kept him away from the Oval Office. He was a part-time president but, as throughout his career, a full-time liar and grifter. 

We need your help to stay independent

He has no interest in serving anyone but himself, not even his most loyal followers. Despite what Trump may claim at his 2024 campaign rallies, many of the most senior members of his administration, including his vice president, have refused to support his candidacy this time around. Many prominent former military leaders also oppose him, some going so far as to call him a dangerous authoritarian. 

In every way one can imagine — and even in ways no one could ever have imagined — Trump has proved himself, as Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell told an aide after the 2020 election, “a despicable human being.” According to journalist Michael Tackett's account in his new McConnell biography “The Price of Power,” the legendary Kentucky senator also described Trump as “stupid” and “ill-tempered.”

Trump appears to be a sad physical specimen, likely due to his atrocious fast-food diet, but as bad as his body looks (driving all those childish superhero fantasy posts, laughable claims and compulsive comments about male genitalia), the condition of his mind is more concerning: Hundreds of mental health experts have signed statements warning Americans of his narcissism, sadism and sociopathy — all now made worse by what is widely perceived as obvious cognitive decline, although the corporate media avoids the subject as much as possible.

If "sane-washing" isn’t the Oxford Dictionary’s word of the year, I’ll be gobsmacked.

Trump kicked off his 2016 run for president by saying of Mexican immigrants, “They’re bringing crime. They’re bringing drugs. They’re rapists.” We would soon understand that he was talking about himself.

But, again, none of this is new. Nearly any New Yorker could have told you that “The Donald” was a grasping, self-serving dude as far back as the 1980s. For years, publisher Graydon Carter referred to Trump as a "short-fingered vulgarian" in Spy magazine. New York icons like actor Robert De Niro and author and humorist Fran Lebowitz know precisely who he is and are disgusted by what they see — and don’t consider him a real New Yorker. Despite his ego-fluffing rally at Madison Square Garden — during which he displayed his fascist tendencies before the entire world — the New Yorkers he still longs to impress most remain, to put it mildly, unimpressed.

Any American who was halfway paying attention to the news could have concluded that Trump was a race-baiting nutcase when he lied about Muslims celebrating the 9/11 attacks and pushed his crackpot "birther" theory that Barack Obama hadn't been born in Hawaii. Back in 1989, Trump paid for full-page ads in The New York Times and other city papers saying that the young men known as the Central Park Five were guilty and implied they should face the death penalty. (Those five men spent years in prison before being fully exonerated.)


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


Perhaps the ultimate irony at the end of that tale of Trump race-baiting is that those young men were falsely convicted of rape and demonized by a man who, many years later, would be found liable by a civil jury for a sexual assault committed around the same time — an assault that the judge described as rape, "as many people commonly understand the word."

Trump kicked off his 2016 run for president by saying of Mexican immigrants, “They’re bringing crime. They’re bringing drugs. They’re rapists.” We would soon come to understand that he was, as always, talking about himself.

In my career as a medical editor, I once managed a journal on geriatric nursing. I was struck by an editorial that pointed out that as we age we tend not to change but to become more concentrated versions of ourselves. Trump was never fit for anything (he even cheats at golf) and was never qualified to hold any public office. For nearly a decade, we have been witnessing all of his bad traits worsening and degrading into a tainted, bitter sludge. 

Yes, I know that's exactly what his cult followers like most about him: In their fantasy universe, this rich scoundrel is the political outsider they need to blow up the system that has let them down. In fact, this coddled man-child has sold those people on the age-old idea of blaming others for their lot in life and encouraged them, with the help of Fox News and far worse forms of right-wing media, to swallow the lies they want to hear all day long. 

Perhaps Trump’s greatest con of all, abetted by the enablers and grifters of the so-called manosphere, has been to sell young men on the idea that he is a manly guy, someone to emulate. Unlike Trump, actual men don’t degrade women and possess both humility and the capacity for normal human emotions, such as empathy and sorrow.

Perhaps Trump’s greatest con of all, abetted by the enablers and grifters of the "manosphere," has been to sell young men on the idea that he is a manly guy, someone to emulate.

None of his so-called plans or policies will improve any American lives except for those who are already doing very well. He’s not going to bring back manufacturing or support unions, or increase the minimum wage or steer us, as Obama and Joe Biden have largely done, toward a better economic future. (Again, don’t listen to little old me; listen to more than 80 Nobel Prize laureates, including 23 economists.) He will destroy our relations with our historic NATO allies, destroy public education, tear apart our already thin social safety net and end our chance to fight climate change

This fake Christian will “stand back and stand by” as the Supreme Court allows religious zealots to tell the rest of us how we can live our lives. Unlike during in his first term, there will be no serious adults with any expertise on hand to stop him. 

Given that this country was founded by members of many different religious sects whose members were too devout and, arguably, too unhinged to fit comfortably in the Old World, Trump's right-wing radical Supreme Court justices apparently believe that our republic should go out that way too.

Last week, my wife and I found ourselves in a restaurant in the neighborhood of Cleveland known as Ohio City. We were sitting next to a group of diners, one of them a young woman decked out with inflatable versions of the Statue of Liberty’s crown and torch. My wife asked why and she told us, smiling broadly, that she had become a U.S. citizen that day. We congratulated her, and I joked that she now knows more about American history and civics than most of us.

When we left the restaurant, we were forced to wonder what version of America this brand-new citizen has signed up for. Will it be the innovative, diverse, prosperous one we thought we knew, where facts are facts, expertise is valued and our neighbors keep their religious beliefs out of politics? Or will she find herself in a plutocratic theocracy ruled by ignorance and led by weak men who claim to be strong? 

One thing is certain: Donald Trump lacks any understanding of what has made American democracy, flawed and imperfect as it has always been, a beacon of hope for the world. We can only hope that enough of that understanding, and enough faith in that promise, can be found in the rest of us. 

How Kamala Harris’ economic plan would protect children from harm

Imagine a stranger pounding on the door, threatening to take away your children if you don’t let them search your home for evidence that your children are unsafe. Traumatic scenarios like this one are inflicted on some 3.5 million children in the U.S. each year by child protective services, as reported by ProPublica and NBC News in a 2022 investigation. More than 37 percent of children in the U.S. are estimated to experience such a search during their childhoods, according to a 2017 study, including 53 percent of African American children.

Contrary to what these statistics would suggest, abuse is not rampant in U.S. families. Only around 5 percent of CPS investigations see findings of physical or sexual abuse. In fact, the vast majority of the reports triggering these searches were not related to suspected abuse at all but stemmed from alleged neglect. This is a broad category consisting of lack of healthy food, clothing, hygiene, shelter, supervision, or medical care — in other words, the impact of poverty.

Indeed, a 2022 report by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch found “circumstances related to poverty, including housing instability and inadequate resources, were used as evidence of parental unfitness — either to support neglect allegations or justify family separation or termination of parental rights."

Punishing poverty and conflating it with abuse or neglect has serious consequences. Both parents and children are traumatized when children are removed, and placement in foster care can permanently damage children’s ability to trust, form prosocial bonds, and believe that society is there to help instead of harm.

These harrowing separations are all too frequent — a child is taken from their home and placed in foster care on average every three minutes, adding up to nearly 200,000 new foster placements in 2022. Even the initial investigations (which far more families are subjected to), can leave indelible scars, as both parents and children subsequently live in fear of being arbitrarily ripped apart. An unexpected knock at the door can become terrifying.

The vast majority of the reports triggering these searches were not related to suspected abuse at all but stemmed from alleged neglect.

This human cost is accompanied by a towering financial bill. In 2020, the U.S. spent more than $31.4 billion to support a child welfare system that, despite its name and good intentions, often causes irreparable damage to children and families. Less than a quarter of that amount directly supports foster children. The rest funds investigators, caseworkers, and other professionals who police families. It is fueled by a system of mandatory reporting that the work of law and sociology professor Dorothy Roberts and others has shown to harm more children than it helps.

Research shows that there are far more effective ways of protecting children and families. Providing a monthly stipend to needy families not only reduces the direct effects of poverty that can trigger investigations, but it improves other outcomes. The Baby’s First Years study found that giving parents $333 a month led to improved brain activity in infants in a way that may protect later brain development, and also allowed mothers to spend more time with their children.

Since poverty is the leading cause of child welfare investigations and removals, reducing child poverty should also reduce these interventions. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued recommendations including various forms of financial assistance in its report "A Roadmap to Reducing Child Poverty." If implemented, these could lead to as many as 1.2 million fewer investigations per year, and decrease investigations for Black children by up to almost 43 percent.

Poverty puts parents under constant duress, as they fear eviction; hunger; having the lights, telephone or heat shut off; or losing income or their job if they stay home with a sick child. It causes so much stress that poverty is one of the adverse childhood experiences that predict poor outcomes for children. Economic stress can also interfere with parent-child bonds, causing long-term deficits in cognition, social skills, and emotion regulation. Strong evidence shows that poverty increases parental stress and the risk of child abuse and neglect.

The Covid-19 lockdowns in New York City dramatically demonstrated this effect. During that time, families were given a one-time cash payment of $500 per child, a monthly cash subsidy of up to $300 per child (via a federal tax credit), and eviction protection. As a result, child poverty was cut by more than half, and child fatalities and reports of neglect and abuse fell dramatically. Increasing family income and stability directly increased the well-being of children.

Unfortunately efforts to renew the tax credits failed in December 2021 amid strong Republican opposition. The current child tax credit, which former president Donald Trump proposes to make permanent, reverted to its former levels in January 2022. Because it excludes those without income and reduces payouts to many low-income families (and has a maximum benefit of a $2,000 tax reduction in 2024), this caused child poverty to more than double, surpassing pre-pandemic levels.

In contrast, Vice President Kamala Harris’ economic plan proposes restoring the Biden pandemic policy of providing a $300 per month payment per child directly to all low-, middle-, and no-income families. Though called a tax credit, it is effectively an income guarantee, paid monthly regardless of whether a family has earned any taxable income. Her plan would raise the yearly payment to $6,000 for parents of newborns. It has been estimated that a tax credit plan like Harris has proposed would reduce child poverty by nearly 50 percent and lift 5.6 million children out of poverty. These payments should significantly reduce known stressors that contribute to child abuse.

Increasing family income and stability directly increased the well-being of children.

Though financial support to families may raise government spending in the short term, according to a 2024 analysis, a $1,000 increase in household income from cash transfers or benefits like food stamps creates $8,342 in social benefits, and a child allowance policy that costs $97 billion per year would generate social benefits of $1.5 trillion per year. Over a lifetime, such policies result in savings of welfare and unemployment benefits, medical expenses, and criminal justice costs. They also increase government revenues from increased earnings and taxes paid by parents, and later by children who go on to become wage earners or entrepreneurs.

The key to truly protecting children is straightforward: provide struggling families with adequate funds. In addition to restoring the expanded child tax credit as Vice President Harris has proposed, we should also redirect the monthly payments provided to foster parents (which are around $1,300 per child in high cost-of-living cities like New York) to support the financially struggling biological parents of reported children.

Of course, the small minority of children who do suffer serious neglect or abuse need protection, not just funding. Child abuse is a crime and should be reported to the police (who are obligated to respect parents’ constitutional rights), rather than to protective service agencies that routinely disregard parents’ rights.

The key to truly protecting children is straightforward: provide struggling families with adequate funds.

Substantiated abuse cases should then uniformly be handled in collaborative family treatment courts, or FTCs, which focus on keeping families together safely. FTCs include judges, career counselors, mental health professionals, and social workers who are trained to provide family members with appropriate assistance by bringing together many different community resources. These services include substance abuse and mental health treatment, housing and financial assistance, parent education, vocational training, and job placement. FTCs are more effective than adversarial family courts in preventing abuse, and they save costs.

Instead of paying billions to harass and separate families, we can better protect poor, neglected, and abused children through direct financial support for parents. We cannot create a society that holds itself together instead of ripping itself apart, unless and until we first protect loving bonds — even unfamiliar-seeming or imperfect ones — in America’s families. 


Ruth Bettelheim, Ph.D., is a life coach and a child, marriage, and family psychotherapist whose writing has appeared in The New York Times, Psychology Today, The Huffington Post, USA Today, and other publications.

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

“It will take time to realize you’re not a jerk”: Deep canvassing can bridge our gaps as citizens

It was about an hour into a late-October Zoom call with six strangers that I looked from face to face—all of us smiling, some with tears in our eyes—and asked myself, is this truly the point of it all?

As part of training for a West Philadelphia group called Changing the Conversation for Progress, we’d been asked to share stories of people we loved. One woman described being in such a state that her child, age 4, reached up to her to offer a tissue. “That’s when I knew I needed to get over the death of my mother and be there for her.” Prompted by her recollection, I reminisced about the tenderness of listening from the doorway as my father read "Goodnight, Moon" to my sons, and how I missed the reassurance of his presence, this Navy officer who passed away five years ago. 

“How do you feel?” the session facilitator asked us.

Connected, I thought. 

In just a handful of minutes, our stories had established an intimacy and trust I would have sworn Zoom was incapable of supporting.  

Now we would see if the same magic could work in the swing state of Pennsylvania. That is the power of political canvassing.

Both campaigns — all campaigns — present canvassing as a way to get out the vote. It becomes a bragging point when Harris has an extensive door-knocking operation, and a break-out-the-Elon-Musk-millions emergency for Trump when he doesn’t. Evidence for canvassing’s efficacy is vexed, however: social scientists have shown the practice of going door to door to have near-zero persuasive power, and, unless the message is highly personalized, an uncertain effect on turnout. Biden won 2020 despite the pandemic shutting down Democratic (but not Republican) in-person efforts.

We need your help to stay independent

 I’ll confess, too, that as many elections as I’ve lived through, as many issues as I’ve been passionate about over the years, I’ve mostly avoided canvassing. The few times I’ve tried it I’ve felt somewhere between useless to misused, treading the empty road between households where no one is home and no one talks. With the stakes so incredibly high for democracy this election, though, sitting on the sidelines felt untenable. My girlfriend and I sent messages to everyone we knew connected to politics, asking, how do we help. We kept hoping there would be a different suggestion, but the answer kept coming back: canvass in Pennsylvania, the swing state nearest to our home in Massachusetts. Imagine the difference a few more volunteers might have made for Hillary Clinton in 2016, one friend said: she lost Pennsylvania by only 44,000 votes. 

I’d begun this process anxious about democracy, and I ended up feeling grateful to be practicing it, and far more connected to my fellow citizens.

Then a chance conversation led us to Changing the Conversation for Progress, whose work feels genuinely hopeful. Active in western Philadelphia since the 2020 election, the nonprofit practices a new approach, “deep canvassing,” and claims an incredibly impressive record on voter outreach. In 2020 and 2022, in the predominantly Black, heavily Democratic neighborhoods where it was active, canvassed voter turnout shot up from 70% to 87%.  Even more impressively, turnout among ‘low-propensity’ voters who have sat out multiple elections rose 29%. Those gains amounted to thousands of votes, putting a tailwind behind the election of not just Biden, but Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and Democratic Senator John Fetterman.

The Saturday after the training Zoom call, my girlfriend and I showed up at St George St Barnabas Episcopal Church in Cobbs Creek, a neighborhood marking the western boundary of Philadelphia. According to the most recent Census, Cobbs Creek is 95% Black and mixed-race, less than 2% white. On any worship Sunday, I’m sure the church would reflect those demographics. On this day, though, it’s the reverse; we took our place in pews that were now 95% white, and as non-Pennsylvanian. The dialogue coach later assigned to me turned out to be a neighbor from Massachusetts. 

And the speaker at the front of the room, to my surprise, was none other than Dave Fleischer, one of the founders of deep canvassing. I’d read a profile in the New York Times of his work in California changing minds about LGBTQ and transgender issues. Bald, with jacked arms even at what must be nearly 70 years of age, he moved back and forth through the room like a cross between a wrestling coach and a monk, offering what amounted to spiritual guidance in profane language. “The heart of this,” he’d say, “is to listen. Leave space. Be vulnerable. They’ve dealt with a lot of a**holes, and let’s be honest, many of them have looked like us. It will take time to realize you’re not a jerk.” Two experienced coaches modeled a dialogue for us, how the sharing of stories allows a connection to form. 

Then we were put in small groups, us newbies paired with experienced returners, and we practiced our dialogues, and it was incredibly awkward-feeling. I kept looking down at the script. 

“On a scale of 1 to 10, how likely are you to vote.”

 “Voting is not just political to me, it’s personal. I think of someone I love…” I couldn’t bring myself to ask the question on the script, “Who’s someone you love?”  It felt intrusive.

“You’ll see how it works,” my coach stressed. “And by the way: names are important. Use your Dad’s name. Ask the names of the people in their stories.”

Only connect

The block we were assigned was just three minutes away, still in Cobbs Creek. The mid-day sun felt summer hot, and there was little movement despite a dense line of town houses that were either glaring white or oddly dark; the effect was like a mouth with missing teeth. Many seemed scrupulously cared for, but in others a rotted half-sprung mattress would block an upper floor window, with trash strewn in the yard.

We’ve been told not to mistake our list of addresses for a to-do list. “The best form of outreach is talking to the people you encounter,” Fleischer explained.   

I felt as conspicuously white and out of place as I’ve ever felt in my life. I’d walked through neighborhoods like this in Boston—but never with the intent of disturbing anyone’s private affairs. Maybe just the opposite. I would have given wide berth to the man we spotted across the street, who was swaying slightly and holding onto a corner fence post as if for support. He looked to be in his early 50s, in baggy clothes and loosely laced sneakers, eyes squeezed mostly closed, expression slack. 

We introduced ourselves, learned his name — Tim, I’ll call him here — and in face of his confusion, my girlfriend rushed past the preambles (“If you had two minutes to tell Trump anything, what would you say?”) and got to her story, which had to do with a deacon who comforted her one day in church when she really needed it. “And you?” she asked. Too quickly, too nervously, I thought — the opposite of the way Fleischer seemed to take his time over words, to maintain direct eye contact. It was a lot harder than it looked, to be that present with a stranger. Or anyone. 

 “Can you think of someone you love,” she insisted, “Someone where you have that bond of care?”

He blinked — a long pause. Every instinct told me this couldn’t produce a real conversation. Who were we, to interrupt this man’s reverie?

But then his face softened. “My mother,” he said. “She died when I was four. I had foster families after that. I remember her putting me to bed. It was the warmest, happiest feeling in my entire life.” Tears welled up in his eyes — and to my surprise, in mine, too. It seemed like the most natural thing in the world to share about my father. For that to lead to an agreement that voting was a protection, a gift, for loved ones — and to a further agreement to make a plan to get to the polls. We exchanged names, phone numbers; this was Tim’s house. He was registered. Later, we’d smile at each other as we passed back this way. 

It shifted things, this conversational magic. We’d go on to have the conventional canvassing experience of knocking on unanswering doors — but we also shared stories with an 80-year-old Air Force veteran who’d proudly voted in every election since Nixon, a mother who was eager to share political views with us even as her kids, dressed in matching Halloween sweatshirts, pulled at her to go. I interrupted a man I’ll call Andre as he and two women unloaded groceries from a car, spoke with him for half an hour while he sat on his stoop, holding a noticeably sturdy leash on a pitbull whose gray head and golden eyes never stopped tracking me. Andre told me about the time in 1985 when the Philadelphia police bombed Cobbs Creek, burning two whole city blocks and killing people, in an effort to drive out a Black rights group. “Bombed their own city,” he said with wonder. “Felt the ground shake from where I live.”

“Here, you mean?” I asked. 

“Nah,” Andre said. “This isn’t my house.”

“Wait, then…” I was confused; there was an Andre on my list. “Can I get your full name?” He grinned without answering on that. Nor did he want to give his phone number. I settled for his promise to vote. 


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


My girlfriend and I wrapped up at a corner bodega, where we recovered from the 70-something-degree weather with cold drinks, and spoke to people coming in. A man and woman, clearly high, who pulled up on scooters and proceeded to complain about Trump while rolling what looked like cigars. A Spanish-speaking father getting ice cream with his son. 

A 40-something-year-old man — call him Mike — told us he didn’t know if he could vote for Harris, given that on TV he’d seen “she’ll open the borders.” 

Instead of getting into the matter of deceptive advertisements, which is what I might have done before the training, Mike and the two of us connected first over how much he loved his nephews, and how his vote could help the next generation thrive. Once there was a bit of relationship there, and we had each other’s names, he seemed to take seriously our suggestion to look up the border bill that Harris championed, and Trump blocked. He made a voting plan.

Did every conversation work magic? I became a believer in the approach because the magic worked on me. Exhausted, dripping with perspiration, my girlfriend and I came to the end of our shift. Two hours had transformed me from feeling like a stranger on a strange block into someone waving at people whose homes and families I recognized — more people, with names more known to me, it suddenly struck me, than back on my home street in Massachusetts where I’d lived for more than a decade. 

Deep canvassing ended with a debrief — people sharing conversations and conundrums. We tallied numbers: in one day, nearly 800 full conversations, voting plans and agreements for follow-up phone calls. Sixty people had called a hotline that offered to give people a free ride to the polls to vote early.

Add the numbers up from all the days of canvassing, with the volunteer numbers growing — and you can start to see the boost this represents. “They won’t remember what you tell them,” Fleischer said. “They’ll remember that you were kind, and they’ll remember what they talked to you about — the person they love. It will remind them of their values, and why they’re voting.”

 As for me, I’d begun this process anxious about democracy, and I ended up feeling grateful to be practicing it, and far more connected to my fellow citizens. I don’t know which way the vote will go on Tuesday, of course — but I’ve filled many days this October doing as Fleischer recommended. Showing vulnerability. Listening to others

In fact, it made me long for excuses to do this not only in elections, and not with so pressing an agenda. Talking to fellow citizens across differences because we really want to know each other, and want to be comfortable across this country we share.  Wouldn’t that be something?

“Democrats are in a stronger position”: Election forecasters give Dems an edge in swing House races

With much of the attention on the House gravitating towards the battleground states of New York and California, where Democrats are trying to push back GOP gains from 2022, a handful of races scattered around the country heading into Election Day could ultimately be the difference in which party holds the majority.

Logan Phillips, the founder of Race to the WH, has his eyes on a handful of races that he sees as potential flips, including the race in Maine’s Second District, Washington’s Third District and two swing districts the Pennsylvania, where he thinks might serve a bellwhethers.

In Maine’s Second District, Rep. Jared Golden, a Democrat, is defending his seat from the Republican challenger Austin Theriault. The race is closely watched because Golden has held onto the seat since defeating the incumbent Republican in 2018, even though former President Donald Trump carried the rural Second District in both 2016 and 2020. In 2022, Golden won by six points. Golden currently leads in FiveThirtyEight’s average by 1.9 points.

Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez is in a similar situation in Washington’s Third, as the freshman representative is attempting to hold onto her seat a district that also supported Trump in both 2016 and 2020. Gluesenkamp Pérez won in 2022 by less than a point. In FiveThirtyEight’s polling average, the GOP challenger, Joe Kent, leads by a point.

In general, Phillips gives Democrats a better chance of winning the chamber than other prognosticators. He currently gives Democrats a 70% chance of winning control of the chamber while most forecasters see it as a coin flip. While he cautions that he doesn’t see them as the overwhelming favorite to win, he was also among the most accurate forecasters in 2022, projecting that Republicans would win 223 seats. The GOP ended up winning 222.

“There are plenty of strong incumbents on both sides of the aisle. The reason I view Democrats as favored is that Democrats have recruited stronger challengers,” Phillips said. “Democrats are in a stronger position to take on those incumbents.”

In Pennsylvania’s Seventh District, which stretches through the presidential battleground around Allentown, Democratic Rep. Susan Wild is defending her seat against Republican Ryan Mackenzie. In FiveThirtyEight’s polling average, Wild leads by 3.9 points. However, her fortunes could swing with the presidential turnout in the state, especially in the district that has a slight partisan tilt toward Republicans. 

Democratic Rep. Matt Cartwright is in a similar position in Pennsylvania’s Eight District around Scranton. Trump carried the district in 2020 before it swung in favor of Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro and Senator John Fetterman in 2022. Republican Rob Bresnahan is hoping the seat will swing back in 2024, though Cartwright currently leads by 2.7 points in FiveThirtyEight’s average of polls. 

We need your help to stay independent

Pennsylvania's 10th is another race to watch, according to Miles Coleman, the associate editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. While the district leans towards Republicans, Democrats have been pushing to unseat House Freedom Caucus Chairman Scott Perry. If Democrat Janelle Stelson is successful in the race, it could bode well for Democrats in both the House and the presidential race.

Coleman is also watching Virginia’s Second and Seventh Districts as potential battlegrounds 

In the Second, Democrat Missy Cotter Smasal is pushing to unseat Republican Rep. Jennifer Kiggans, who won narrowly in the urban coastal Virginia district in 2022. In the Seventh, between Richmond and Alexandria, Democrat Eugene Vindman is facing off against Republican Derrick Anderson in a seat Rep. Abigail Spanberger is leaving to run for governor.

“I'm expecting the parties to split them—we have VA-2 as Leans R and VA-7 as Leans D—but if either party sweeps both, that would probably bode well for their odds of taking the chamber,” Coleman told Salon. “In 2022, Abigail Spanberger's numbers in VA-7 being closer to Biden's than Terry McAuliffe's was a sign that the election wasn't going to be the red wave that Republicans had hoped for.”

Alongside Golden’s race in Maine, Coleman is also watching Rep. Don Bacon’s race in Nebraska’s Second. While Golden has been holding on in a district Trump carried, Bacon has been holding on as a Republican in a district Biden carried, which has also become an important source of a single electoral vote for Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign.


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


“From the Democratic perspective, NE-2 has gone from sort of a fluke win (Obama in 2008) to now a must-win district for Harris, which probably hurts Bacon,” Coleman said. “Meanwhile, ME-2 is demographically quite Trumpy, and Golden has a better opponent now than in past cycles.”

The last bellwether district Coleman is looking at is North Carolina’s First, where Democratic Rep. Don Davis is fending off Republican Laurie Buckhout in the northeastern North Carolina District. According to Coleman, Davis “was given a tougher district this year, but seems to be doing everything right.”

“We should know the result of this seat relatively early in the night. If he holds on, that would be a promising sign for Dems,” Coleman said. “The district is also just over 40% Black by composition, so if he loses, it may be a sign that Democrats could be dogged by poor minority turnout across NC and possibly other states.

Kamala Harris claims to speak for the middle class — but what does that even mean?

Since replacing her boss atop the 2024 Democratic ticket, Kamala Harris has cast herself as an agent of generational change who would open "a new way forward" for the American people. But even if a younger and undeniably more sprightly figure is now bearing the party's message, political observers and voters may feel that message is oddly familiar, reviving an old conception that's been stored in the political attic for the last eight years.

In Joe Biden's acceptance speech at the 2020 Democratic National Convention, he uttered the phrase "middle class" just once. When it was Harris' turn to accept the nomination this August, she used it nine times.

"We are charting a new way forward. Forward — to a future with a strong and growing middle class," she declared halfway through her address, later promising that expanding that vaguely-defined group in the socioeconomic center ground would be the "defining goal" of her presidency.

Harris has continued to use that refrain on the campaign trail: The middle class is "one of America's greatest strengths," she says. As president, she will be "laser-focused on creating opportunities for the middle class." According to her own autobiographical narrative, she knows what she's talking about: "I come from the middle class." (It's debatable whether other Americans would define the child of two Berkeley academics that way, but never mind.) 

It's as if her speeches were pulled from the days of flip-phones and jeans under dresses and Chuck Schumer's 2006 book "Positively American: Winning Back the Middle-Class Majority One Family at a Time." In his dissertation about how to position Democrats for long-lasting majority rule, the current Senate majority leader urged the adoption of policies that would purportedly strengthen the middle class, and in so doing cement a bond between them and the Democratic Party. At the time, Schumer cautioned that he was not proposing a "focus on the middle class exclusively," but rather a winning coalition that already included union labor, college-educated liberals and minorities of all socioeconomic backgrounds.

Barack Obama took the middle-class approach to heart, using the term "middle-class economics" to define his domestic agenda. But by 2016, many public intellectuals were criticizing the Democratic Party for abandoning its traditional coalition for the single-minded pursuit of middle-class voters, thereby giving Donald Trump an opening to seize the White House with a surge of white working-class support. Worse yet, some observers accused leading Democrats of cynically using the "middle class" as a palatable cover for neoliberal, corporate-friendly politics that worsened inequality and aimed to preserve the status quo rather than challenge it. 

"The Democratic Party once represented the working class," wrote former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, one of the more progressive figures of Bill Clinton's administration, in a Guardian op-ed. "But over the last three decades the party has been taken over by Washington-based fundraisers, bundlers, analysts, and pollsters who have focused instead on raising campaign money from corporate and Wall Street executives and getting votes from upper middle-class households in 'swing' suburbs."

It's as if Harris' campaign speeches were pulled from the days of flip-phones and jeans under dresses and Chuck Schumer's 2006 book "Positively American: Winning Back the Middle-Class Majority One Family at a Time."

The "upper middle-class" label invoked by Reich is an effort to crawl out of the conceptual and terminological morass: Who or what is the middle class, exactly, and how useful is it to split that up into the "upper" or "lower" or "Black" or "suburban" middle classes to suit a particular point? One common definition is based on wealth, especially income. The Social Services Administration does not provide an official definition, but a 2014 analysis on its website suggested that the middle class encompasses the three middle quintiles of national income distribution. In 2022, the Pew Research Center released a calculator that allowed users to determine whether they were part of the middle class, based on income and local cost of living. According to the center's analysis, middle-income households encompassed half of U.S. adults and had incomes ranging from $56,600 to $169,800.

But income is not the only possible entrance exam for middle-class status. The Brookings Institution compiled an exhaustive list of ways in which studies have defined that group, including direct wealth indicators such as distance from poverty and purchasing power, as well as other markers like education level and occupation. Experts generally agree that the occupations held by middle-class earners center on salaried office professions like K-12 teachers and human resources specialists or high-skill technical labor. At the same time, they're not quite sure how to account for such complications as households with two different wage earners or jobs that may have high prestige value relative to their compensation (or the other way around).

Furthermore, the wealth-centric model fails to account for a given occupation's power over workers, or for possession of capital. While high incomes often correspond to power in a workplace, that's not universally true: A small business owner might earn less than a data engineer, but the engineer's salary and working conditions are in the hands of his supervisors, while the business owner, like a mini-CEO, controls the fates of his workers. In this sense, the engineer has more in common with employees at the small business, who are selling their labor for a wage. 

A mid-level manager, the kind of job often considered emblematic of a middle-class career, stands between those two roles, answering to a CEO but also holding delegated authority over who to promote, fire, praise or abuse.

"By looking only at income or lifestyle, we see the results of class, but not the origins of class," writes economist Michael Zweig in his 2011 book "The Working Class Majority." "We see how we are different in our possessions, but not how we are related and connected, and made different, in the process of making what we possess." In other words, the power to create wealth and impose poverty determines class, not those values themselves. By that definition, Zweig says, more than 63% of Americans can be considered working class while only 35% are middle class.

Other analyses point to the nature of compensation, differentiating middle-class salary earners who receive regular paychecks from working-class laborers who are paid by the hour and may experience long stretches of unemployment. To further complicate matters, a report issued by the Department of Commerce in 2010 for then-Vice President Joe Biden's "Middle Class Taskforce," defined the middle class by its collective "aspirations" above all else:

Middle class families and those who wish to be middle class have certain common aspirations for themselves and their children. They strive for economic stability and therefore desire to own a home and to save for retirement. They want economic opportunities for their children and therefore want to provide them with a college education. Middle class families want to protect their own and their children’s health. And they want enough income for each adult to have a car and for a family vacation each year. Middle class families are forward-looking, and they know that to achieve these goals, they must work hard, plan ahead and save for the future. Indeed, being middle class may be as much about setting goals and working to achieve them as it is about their attainment.

Taken together, all these attitudes, numbers and contexts offer a blurry explanation as to why the middle class is an ideal to which politicians believe most Americans aspire. Middle-class status is associated with material stability, an especially appealing prospect when medical bills, groceries, gas and other necessities are not affordable for many working-class Americans. It can clearly be gratifying for a successful earner to achieve economic security, knowing or believing that it was the result of their ambition and work ethic. In modern capitalist societies, an occupation associated with high income and the symbols that money can buy, like a suburban single-family home or an annual summer vacation, creates an aura of respectability and even virtue. In the slightly outdated parlance of our country, that's the American Dream.

Indeed, the middle class as a concept has become deeply ingrained into what it means to be American. The revolution of 1776 emerged in part from a rejection of the feudal class divisions that existed in Europe, and European thinkers like Alexis de Tocqueville, seeing a place where such divisions had vanished, wrote that people in America were "seen to be more equal in fortune and intelligence — more equally strong, in other words — than they were in any other country, or were at any other time in recorded history."

In modern capitalist societies, an occupation associated with high income and the symbols that money can buy, like a suburban single-family home or an annual summer vacation, creates an aura of respectability and even virtue. In our slightly outdated parlance, the American Dream.

Although a middle class already existed throughout most of Europe by that time, in the form of urban bourgeoisie or yeoman-farmers or some other grouping, the concept gained special significance in a new country whose Constitution eliminated the aristocratic privileges enjoyed by European nobility. In America, the middle class, not the aristocracy, exemplified the national spirit, though the phrase "middle class" was not widely used until the later 19th century. That attitude is still carried today by politicians like Bill Clinton, who described middle-class Americans as people who "work hard and play by the rules," and Harris, who bestowed them with a flattering honorific: "the engine of America's prosperity."

But if most legal distinctions between classes in America were officially banished in 1789 — among white people, that is — considerable inequality of wealth and capital not only remained, but increased and hardened in place. Class consciousness has largely remained dormant in America, in large part because most people consider themselves to belong to the same amorphous socioeconomic class. The powerful desire of most Americans to claim membership in the "respectable" class — and the corresponding desire among the rich Americans to underestimate their wealth and privilege — has meant that the boundaries of middle-class-ness have been stretched ever further in both directions. In recent decades, experts have sought to define the "lower-middle" and "upper-middle" class, underscoring the reality of socioeconomic divisions while maintaining the illusion that the American middle class can somehow be considered a coherent group.

In a 2013 Atlantic article, communications expert Anat Shenker-Osorio explains "middle class" as a sort of universal negative category: "Not finding popular depictions of wealth and poverty similar to our own lived experiences, we determine we must be whatever’s left over."

This lack of precision or definition makes for a great muddle of a category, but also an opportunity for politicians to appeal to a group of voters that may include somewhere between one-half to three-quarters of all Americans. Rhetoric and policies supposedly targeting the middle class tends to crowd out discussions about poverty, wealth redistribution, racism or the exploitation of workers — issues that risk exposing schisms or fractures within the middle class itself and are often dismissed as risky and divisive. Bernie Sanders' presidential campaigns were so notable — and so threatening to the Democratic Party establishment — precisely because he spoke directly to those issues. (To be fair to both Biden and Obama, they have also done so, although less consistently.) 

When Gallup first asked Americans to identify their social class in a 2000 survey, 63 percent identified as upper-middle or middle class ("lower-middle" was not included). Then came the economic crisis of the late 2000s and its aftermath, when experts raised alarms about worsening inequality and the disappearance of the middle class. Home ownership, the traditional emblem of middle-class prosperity, collapsed on a grand scale, and some Americans began to realize that maybe they weren't middle class after all. In a 2024 Gallup poll, just over half of respondents identified themselves as such.


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


"These readings are generally in line with those since the Great Recession," read the Gallup analysis. "Before then, Americans were typically more likely to self-identify as members of the middle or upper-middle class and less likely to say they belonged to the working or lower class."

Class issues that reached beyond this nebulous framework began to seep into political discourse. When Obama proposed increasing taxes on the richest Americans, Republicans decried his plans as "class warfare" against virtuous high-earners, although that argument didn't seem to pay off and was soon abandoned. Then came a surge of Occupy Wall Street protests denouncing corporate greed and inequality from the left, while on the right, the Tea Party movement held the "welfare state" and "big government" responsible for the country's economic woes.

Out of this angry ferment came two very different expressions of anti-establishment politics. On the left, Sanders' out-of-nowhere 2016 campaign spoke directly for the emancipation of working-class Americans from corporate exploitation. On the right came a wealthy real estate baron who blamed immigrants, the "deep state" and other insidious actors for America's decline.

Donald Trump promised to improve the lives of working-class Americans while rarely, if ever, using the term. Unsurprisingly, that didn't happen; he appointed union-busters to the National Labor Relations Board and signed a tax cut that primarily benefited the country's wealthiest earners. Sanders never became president but urged Biden, with some success, to assemble one of the more pro-worker administrations in modern American history. Working-class voters have, without question, rallied to the GOP in increasing numbers over the last decade-plus, but Democrats hold out eternal hope that the trend can be reversed.  

Out of the Great Recession came two very different expressions of anti-establishment politics. On the left, Bernie Sanders spoke directly against corporate exploitation. On the right came a real estate baron who blamed immigrants, the "deep state" and other insidious actors.

Harris and Biden are highly similar in their political messaging about Trump, characterizing the GOP nominee as a dangerous and unhinged fascist. But while Biden often seems to draw from economic populism and pro-union rhetoric as well as more "moderate" Democratic talking points at the same time, Harris has pivoted firmly back toward middle-class politics, framing her policy plans as prescriptions to control the cost of living, improve health care access and enable first-time homebuyers. Her goal, she has repeatedly declared, is not just to stabilize the middle class but expand it, giving Americans who are living on the margins the opportunity to share in the prosperity.

Harris has sometimes echoed the Biden administration's more aggressive (and highly popular) attacks on corporate power, but a certain calculus seems involved: She has criticized price gouging and other practices that affect consumers directly, but has shied away, for instance, from broader antitrust actions that don't fit as easily within her middle-of-the-road message. With the presidential campaign in its last days and Harris locked in a dead heat with Trump, progressives may wonder whether she is dramatically misreading which voters she needs to win, and what they really want. 

Silent wounds of a generation: The toll of gun violence on youth mental health and a call for change

After every school shooting, a painful and familiar cycle repeats itself. Just last month, it was Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia. The month before, Irondequoit, New York. In the aftermath, students and staff go back to school and try to reestablish some semblance of normalcy — attending classes, focusing on their studies, and hanging out with their friends. But beneath the surface, the reality is that life will never be “normal” again. Grief, survivor's guilt, PTSD, anxiety and depression will follow them from their classrooms to their homes and everywhere in between.

Gun violence significantly affects the mental health of survivors, while also affecting the nation as a whole. We grieve with the devastated neighbors and people of our community whenever we learn of another gun-related tragedy, but too often, we fail to acknowledge the trauma that comes with it.

In ways we do not yet fully comprehend, this public health crisis is affecting a whole generation of students who are growing up in the wake of lockdown drills and school shootings. Since Columbine, over 383,000 students have experienced gun violence in school, and that number is only growing. My entire generation is traumatized. What will the consequences be? 

I and so many other young people like me have suffered the toll, and we’ve taken to the streets to demand action. But I’m left wondering: at what point will we say enough is enough, and mean it? It’s a trite question, but a deadly one. Until our lawmakers pass bold, meaningful action, more children will cower behind desks, texting their family “I love you” as shots ring out just beyond the classroom door. And even more children will come home from school, haunted by the memory of crouching in silence, pressed against the corner of a dimly lit room during “active-shooter drills.”

Why do we jeopardize the mental health of our children to gain speculative, but unproven, advantages from active-shooter drills?

Research shows that lockdown drills are now a common practice in schools across the U.S., with many institutions conducting them regularly to prepare for potential threats. However, studies indicate that these drills can adversely affect student mental health, leading to increased anxiety and fear, and there is little evidence that they actually improve safety in real crisis situations. Why do we jeopardize the mental health of our children to gain speculative, but unproven, advantages from active-shooter drills?

Perhaps even more painfully, teachers and students now discuss — if not openly then amongst themselves — who would risk their lives to try to defend their class from a shooter. It’s a thought that has crossed far too many children’s minds, and it’s a striking indictment of our failure as the only wealthy country where firearms are the leading cause of death for children.


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes.


In short, we are raising a generation of children who will carry the weight of fear throughout their lives, their innocence slowly eroded by the constant threat of violence. That is if they survive into adulthood. Unfortunately, it seems that some of us have already become numb to it.

While the students and staff at Apalachee High School are mourning and beginning the long road to healing, other students of our generation are left to grapple with their own silent wounds. Some of us may be wondering if we’ll be next. Some of us will be next. We have to do everything in our power to provide our youth and families with the resources they need to process their fears and traumas before we harden the scars that will last a lifetime.

We need your help to stay independent

There is ample evidence to support the effectiveness of strategies such as providing more mental health resources and social support. Look carefully at the politicians who offer empty platitudes talking about “mental health,” but who fail to support increased funding for it. And we know for a fact that tighter gun laws save lives.

In times like these, we cannot afford to sit on the sidelines and wait for change to happen; we must be the catalyst for that change. The heartbreaking reality of children fearing for their lives in schools—the very places meant to inspire dreams and foster growth—should be more than enough to spur us into action.

On November 5th, let your voice be a force for those who can no longer speak, for the communities shattered by gun violence, and for the children who deserve to feel safe in their classrooms. Vote for leaders who prioritize the safety and mental health of our youth. Together, we can create a future where children grow up with hope, not fear, and where schools are once again sanctuaries of learning, not places of dread. Your vote is their lifeline—use it wisely, because tragically, far too many no longer have that chance.

Your favorite spatula could kill you

A new peer-reviewed study in Chemosphere has found that a variety of household products made with black plastics, including food serviceware and utensils, contain high levels of cancer-causing, hormone-disrupting chemicals. Researchers examined 203 consumer products for bromine, a key indicator of the use of flame retardants.

Objects packed with the highest levels of these chemicals included a sushi tray, a beaded necklace and a spatula. 

While the study, which was conducted by scientists from Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and the organization Toxic-Free Future, did not name any of the specific brands they tested, basic black plastic spatulas can be found at most popular retailers with a homegoods section, including Target, Walmart and Amazon — and are already on many American kitchen countertops. 

“There have been previous studies done in other countries where they’ve seen the same issue of black plastic being contaminated with flame retardants, as well as studies which show flame retardants can leach from kitchen utensils into food and into children’s saliva through the mouthing of toys,” Megan Liu, study co-author and science and policy manager at Toxic-Free Future, told CNN

According to the study, health concerns related to flame retardants include “carcinogenicity, endocrine disruption, neurotoxicity, and reproductive and developmental toxicity.” 

In the study, Liu and fellow researchers posit these household products are being contaminated with these chemicals during the recycling process, as some of the flame retardants found during their testing are the same ones used in electronic enclosures on televisions. 

“These results clearly demonstrate that flame retardant-containing electronics, such as the outer casings of large TVs, are being recycled into food storage containers and utensils,” Heather Stapleton, the Ronie-Richele Garcia-Johnson Distinguished Professor at Duke University, said in a release. “While it’s critical to develop sustainable approaches when addressing our plastic waste stream, we should exert some caution and ensure we’re not contributing to additional exposures to these hazardous chemicals in recycled materials.”

We need your help to stay independent

While consumers may want to consider swapping their black plastic spatula for a bamboo version, this is a problem that will require institutional, rather than individual, shifts for there to be any major change in the types of products allowed to come to market. According to Toxic-Free Future’s Retailer Report Card, some retailers and brands are adopting “safer chemical policies to eliminate hazardous chemicals in key product sectors.” 

“Major retailers must ensure the products they sell, from children’s toys to kitchen spatulas, are not introducing banned cancer-causing chemicals into our homes,” said Mike Schade, Toxic-Free Future’s director of Mind the Store. “As businesses introduce more and more recycled materials into everyday products, retailers must require suppliers to test them to ensure toxic chemicals aren’t hiding in these recycled plastics. Retailers must mind the store and prohibit these toxic chemicals in products, especially in recycled plastics.”

Additionally, some states are taking on the problem of how certain classes of flame retardants are used. Currently, Washington state has the strongest ban in the nation set to take effect January 2025 restricting all organohalogen flame retardants in plastic enclosures for all indoor electronics. 

“In Her Words”: Megan Thee Stallion doc director says rapper is “an example of feminist strength”

Everyone seems to know everything about Megan Thee Stallion.

From her meteoric rise into the upper echelons of the music industry to the Tory Lanez 2020 shooting and subsequent trial that sparked misinformation and a bitter divide in the hip-hop community — people online and in the industry thought they were clued into every minute detail of the Houston-born rapper's life. That's why the rapper, born Megan Pete, had to make a documentary to reclaim her story — "In Her Words."

That's the message underscored at the Manhattan premiere of the Prime Video documentary directed by Nneka Onuorah. In a live telecast from the Los Angeles premiere, Megan and Onuorah gushed about the filmmaking process. Onuorah explained her first meeting with the rapper became a three-hour cry session. The Emmy-winning director knew "it was my life's purpose to support and uplift a young woman through her journey of grief, trauma — using my art as the tool."

But mostly, Onuorah emphasized that of all her films, "This film means the world to me. it's a portrait of resilience and a timeless artifact to remind women of their true inner power." Then the director introduced Megan, who was regally dressed in a purple silk gown and sported an updo. The artist was immediately overwhelmed with emotion as the crowd roared in LA, not entirely aware of the roars in my New York City theater too.

The rapper, who suffered a great deal at the hands of internet hate campaigns and misogynoir before and during Lanez's trial, stated, "I started to watch a lot of people start to dehumanize me and a lot of people were trying to take control of my narrative and tell my story." 

But four years after the shooting, the 29-year-old shared that she was ready to open up about her life. "Let me just go ahead and tell my truth and lay it out on the table because y'all don't respect s**t else but raw and honesty. I was tryna be a cookie-cutter celebrity for y'all. I'm sorry that didn't work out," she said.

Salon's interview with director Nneka Onuorah highlights the experience of making a documentary where we see Onuorah and Megan's "closeness and intimacy" and how Megan Thee Stallion exists as a symbol of empowerment for women. 

The following interview has been edited for length and clarity. 

What was it about Megan that initially stuck out to you that really made you know that this was the right project for you?

What stuck out to me is that a young woman was experiencing a transformation, going through the fire, and I knew she was on her way to rising into a beautiful phoenix. And so it was kind of a coming-of-age story. I felt like the juxtaposition of Megan Thee Stallion going through the most successful point in her career while Megan Pete was struggling, gave it an internal conflict that I think people could really learn a lesson from. So that, to me, was like a no-brainer in terms of the next film I wanted to do.

The documentary is called “In Her Words,” how did Megan reclaim the narrative of her life and career? How’d you aid her along the way?

Megan was so brave to put the hardest point in her life on display. She did not have to do this. I feel like me as a filmmaker, that's why, I didn't use sit-down interviews and a bunch of other people talking. I wanted a first-person experience up close and personal, very intimate access with Megan. So I had to offer myself as a safe space for her to come and be able to really share her thoughts, share her emotions, her feelings and observe her day in and day out. I took time out of my life, almost three years out of my life, to be able to dedicate to showing that experience, because I knew it would be timeless. It will be a timeless doc for women to see, 'How do I go from a disempowered state to an empowered state by activating my own inner power, my inner vulnerability?' and using that as a strength. The motif of Megan Thee Stallion versus Megan Pete shows that perfectly.

Megan is a big anime fan and the same style is seen in her music videos like "BOA" and "Neva Play." Some of the most traumatic moments of Megan’s life like her mom’s death, the 2020 shooting and subsequent trial are all told through animation. Why was animation the right move to retell these heavy life moments?

Number one, I'm always trying to figure out as this artist, what does this person like? I knew Meg liked anime. But beyond that, there's so much conversation or footage around her external experience, but what can tell her internal experience? It's equally as important to know what someone is going through inside. I felt like it would be a strong visualization of what she was going through, whether it was nightmares, anxiety therapy, as well as just like memories of her mom that you know she has in her mind, but she can't hold on to them. I also wanted to offer up a visualization of what she was going through, because I wanted Megan to look back and watch this and be like, "Wow, I'm that strong." Or, "Oh my God, look at that beautiful time I had with my mom." I wanted that to be something that she also was able to reflect on for herself. So I felt like, because she liked anime, giving her her own story as a gift, she would love the anime and to receive it in that way.

It was one of my favorite parts of the documentary. Other standout moments are when Megan spirals over hot chips or when she admits she lied to Gayle King on "Good Morning America" in 2022. How’d you get to such a vulnerable place with Megan? Was it a challenge as a filmmaker?

I wouldn't say it was a challenge. I would say that it was my job to be able to walk away with this film and I think creating that bond and that friendship was a genuine thing. When I shot the chip scene, you can hear my voice talking to her through it. I gave her the space I'm like, "Yo, why you don't want to eat?" I was just being a person with her and giving her the space to express her frustration, having an outlet for that. Where does she have to go to do that? So I gave her space. I gave her a platform. I listened. I think that listening really created a closeness and intimacy. Sometimes you just want people to relate to you and understand you. I really understood her. I get it like, girl, I get it. I love food. So when stuff doesn't go right with that and you stressed underneath, it could spiral into something else. I put the camera on those moments. I think that's what made this different. It's like people, a lot of other filmmakers try to placate and make a film based on what they think, but I'm letting the truth be what it is. That's what filmmaking is and that's my style of filmmaking.

Some of this truth lies in the loss of Megan’s mother, Holly Thomas, and the private grieving of her mother. Did you find that there are some misconceptions about Megan’s private grieving and the public persona she has built?

I think that they just forget that Megan Thee Stallion is a human being — Megan Pete is. Megan Thee Stallion is such an example of feminist strength and an icon and a strong woman. People forget that as a strong Black woman, you can also be vulnerable. You can also go through pain. Those two things can be true and that going through something doesn't make you any less strong. Being strong doesn't stop you from going through things. That was where that came from, and what was important about that for me.

We need your help to stay independent

A large portion of this is because the hip-hop industry has mistreated Megan with exploitative record deals, beefs with rappers and the spread of misinformation online. What about the industry through Megan’s experience did you uncover while filming this movie?

I learned that the industry is deeply misogynistic and that they're intimidated by a woman who's just deeply honoring herself for herself. Audre Lorde's "The Power of the Erotic" really was an inspiration for this. It talks about how women have to say yes to themselves: their erotic nature, their empowerment and it's not in service of men all the time. So I made the film because it highlights that and how the industry is threatened by that and how patriarchy is threatened by that. What I learned about the industry is that it's deeply patriarchal. That made me want to do it even more, to show a woman's journey by two women.

Ultimately, in the end, we see the emotional release Megan has when Tory Lanez is convicted of the shooting. What was it like seeing it in real-time? What message do you hope this documentary and Megan's story leave people with?

I was deeply emotional. I saw Meg go through everything. So to see her have that justice and that release, that cry, it just captured my heart. I want people to take away to tell the truth, to speak up for yourself, to not be afraid to be vulnerable and not try to present yourself as strong all the time. But allow yourself to go through these moments. I say the only way out is through. It's not avoiding but just going through things so that you can get through them. That is what is so great about this movie. What I want people to take away from this movie is just knowing that they have a power within, innate, as a woman, and that they can access it if they just continue to stick by themselves in opposition.

"In Her Words" is now available to stream on Prime Video.

YouGov poll: 1 in 8 women say they have voted differently than their partner without telling them

An ad reminding women that they can vote differently from their partners — and aren't obliged to tell them about it — appears to be touching on a very real phenomenon. According to a YouGov poll, 1 in 8 women voted differently from their partners in an election without telling them.

That's about the same percentage as men who said they've done so. In 2016, when Donald Trump had not yet completed his takeover of the Republican Party, his "shy" supporters maintained that no one is obliged to share who they voted for.

In an election where women's rights and health have moved to center stage in wake of abortion bans and Trump's threats to "protect" women against their will, disagreements within opposite-sex relationships might be more common. Women have typically voted for the Democratic candidate at a higher rate than men, but polls have shown an even wider gender gap in this election cycle, with women backing Vice President Kamala Harris by as much as 12% over Trump.

That's a stark contrast to the 46% of men in the YouGov survey who believed that their partners would be voting for Trump, versus the 40% who said the same about Harris.

For many Trump supporters, the idea of Harris winning would be infuriating enough, but conservative TV figures and activists added another dimension to the rage in MAGA circles: a woman daring to challenge the primacy of a man, who is none the wiser. The woman with a hat and American flag in the offending pro-Harris ad, Charlie Kirk complained, “coming in with her sweet husband, who probably works his tail off to make sure that she can go and have a nice life and provides for the family, and she lies to him saying I’m going to vote for Trump, then she votes for Kamala Harris as her little secret in the voting booth.”

7 of Martha Stewart’s most iconic recipes to enjoy while watching Netflix’s “Martha”

"Martha" on Netflix is all the rage right now. While Stewart's own endorsement of the documentary's portrayal of her life and career is questionable, it's evident the Netflix show is most certainly attracting eyes, with many viewers tuning in to learn the some of the more intimate details all about Stewart (which Salon's own Joy Saha recaps here). 

Stewart, a bastion of everything from gardening to cooking to home decor, has been depended upon for decades to supply legitimate, reliable advice and tips to scores and scores of fans — and detractors, too.

So, if you're looking to watch the documentary this weekend, why not whip up some Martha classics to go along with it? No matter if you're looking to sip on a drink or delve into some comfort food, Stewart's deep, deep catalogue has a slew of options for whatever you're craving.

And of course, as always, it's your kitchen, so feel free to make whatever swaps, changes or substitutions you would like based on what you have on hand — and, let's be real, your energy and motivation levels, too. 

We need your help to stay independent

This is sort of a "Martha in a glass" type drink: It's made with pineapple, Chambord and vodka and comes courtesy of the New York City restaurant Balthazar. Be aware, though, that this is by no means a traditional, or classic, martini; don't accidentally refer to it as a "martini" in shorthand and throw your guests into disarray.
 
You can also substitute any other berry liqueur into the recipe if you don't have Chambord — as long as you shake it before serving. 
Preparing artichokes can definitely be intimidating, but the end result is truly so worth it. There's a certain simplicity to them: This recipe calls for artichokes, lemons, olive oil and salt, plus melted butter or a dipping sauce. Because there's no frills here, be sure you're purchasing and using high quality ingredients. Follow the directions closely, use your sharpest knife and you should be good to go.
 
Who knows — you might even impress yourself.
This verdant, richly packed soup has cabbage, potatoes, spinach, an outrageously flavorful broth and much, much more. It's as delicious as it is healthful, packed with tons of vitamins (and colors).
 
Don't skimp on the toppings. The cheese, oil and lemon really help perk up the flavor right before serving.
This rustic dish calls for a boneless pork shoulder, but you can use any braising-friendly cut of meat you have. I'm partial to the Italian flavoring here, complete with tomatoes, wine, fennel seed and Parmigiano-Reggiano. The dish is stellar on its own but enjoying it atop polenta, potatoes or even pasta elevates it even further.
 
Give yourself ample amounts of time here, though, whether you're cooking it in a slow cooker, in the oven or on the stove. Depending on the cut of meat, this could take a very, very long time, so just make sure the dish can luxuriate in the rich cooking broth and get plenty tender prior to serving it up.

 


Want more great food writing and recipes? Subscribe to Salon Food's newsletter, The Bite.


To put it frankly, people go bonkers for these cookies.
 
Stewart's rendition of the iconic classic has a higher amount of brown sugar and butter than usual and her cookies are known for being incredibly soft and chewy. If you're a crispy person, you might want to swap in more granulated sugar versus brown. 
There's a live-and-let-live energy to this dish that is super refreshing: You don't have to be too fussy, you don't have to get all amped up over the picture-perfect crust or the most pristine fruit filling. This recipe allows you to just relax a little, which is cool — and it's also absolutely delicious. Stewart calls for cherries, miscellaneous berries and peaches, but feel free to use what you have (frozen works, too!)
 
There's a certain convivial enjoyment that comes out of serving dessert like this. We're sure you'll like it
The piece de resistance! Stewart's cheesecake is legendary. 
 
She calls for the usual suspects (graham crackers, butter, cream cheese eggs, sugar), as well as lemon and sour cream, which add a slight tartness and a bit of bright freshness to help round out the flavors. Be mindful and read through the recipe well: There's a water bath technique and Stewart calls for a springform pan, so familiarize yourself with both (and maybe order a springform pan!) so you can be sure this turns out beautifully. 

I visited Chef Sujan Sarkar’s Smorgasburg showcase and tried tandoori tacos for the very first time

Growing up, food was a big part of my family’s annual Diwali celebrations. Our dining table was always filled to the brim with an elaborate spread of homemade entrees and sweets. Chana masala (a chickpea curry made with onions, tomatoes, spices and herbs), biryani and fried fish (which was usually paired with rice and ghee, a type of clarified butter) were our main showstoppers on the menu. Accompanying them were freshly baked aloo (or potato) samosas, pan-fried aloo tikkis, pakoras, baingan bharta (eggplant curry) and sweets — so many sweets! There were gulab jamun, jaleebi, laddoo and barfi…just to name a few.

This year, I celebrated my first Diwali away from home after moving to New York City. In anticipation of the holiday, I stopped by Michelin-starred Chef Sujan Sarkar’s showcase at Smorgasburg to try a few of his festive bites.

Sarkar — the head chef behind NYC's Baar Baar restaurant and Chicago’s Indienne — teamed up with Shan Foods, a producer of packaged spice mixes, to create two popular appetizers traditionally enjoyed on Diwali. “Bringing together Shan’s iconic spices with Chef Sujan’s innovative touch, these recipes are made to inspire so you can recreate at home,” a poster outside of Shan’s Smorgasburg tent read.

Last Saturday, I made my way to Williamsburg to try Sarkar’s creations. Mini tandoori tacos, an Indian-Mexican fusion, and panipuri, a popular South Asian street food, were on the menu. When I arrived, only samples of the tandoori tacos were available to try. I was given one free taco to taste.


Want more great food writing and recipes? Subscribe to Salon Food's newsletter, The Bite.


The taco, though small, was incredibly delicious. It consisted of a soft taco shell topped with shredded cheese, a medley of shaved vegetables and tandoori chicken that was made using Shan’s Tandoori Masala spice mix. The appetizer itself paid homage to authentic South Asian flavors, pairing it seamlessly with another well-known international dish. For me, the tandoori chicken was the star of the show and its flavors made me nostalgic for my mom’s home cooking. I’ve never had a tandoori taco before, but Sarkar’s culinary creation had me craving more.

In addition to the taco, I was gifted a free bag of two Shan brand spice mixes: Chicken Tikka and Chana Masala. I'm looking forward to trying my hand at making tacos inspired by Sarkar’s recipe.

To Chris Coelen, the “Love Is Blind” experiment is not about proving if what the title says is true

Those who know how reality TV works may take issue with Chris Coelen viewing “Love Is Blind” as a documentary. "We just want to know what's the truth, what's happening,” the creator of the unscripted romance hit told Salon on Thursday, “And so then you try to fill in the gaps.” 

Coelen is referring to developments the audience witnessed during its recently completed and Washington, D.C.-set seventh season, and more specifically, the decision of two couples to have sensitive conversations off-camera, one of which was a soft preview to the end of their relationship.

Wednesday’s reunion episode caught up with the participants one year after their tumble through “the experiment,” as the show’s producers along with hosts Vanessa and Nick Lachey refer to its matchmaking premise. During the 88-minute spectacle, exes Timothee Godbee and Alexandra Byrd explained why everything seemed fine in one scene and the next found them on the verge of a breakup. Eventually, they did call the whole thing off, seemingly out of nowhere. 

“I love that they ultimately did that on the reunion,” Coelen said, “But I think it was to their detriment that they didn't do it during the experiment itself.”  

“I'm all for being really transparent and open about whatever people are talking about,” Coelen added, pointing to the couple‘s explanation from “slightly different perspectives.” Godbee voiced his concerns about how he might come across to the audience, while Byrd said she was trying to protect him and his image from the production. 

To Coelen, participants who hide things during the process of “Love Is Blind” are only damaging their own relationships. “It just creates a negativity. And the people who are much more open about, ‘Hey, I’ve got an issue, “Hey, I'm feeling a certain way’ . . . ultimately, whether they work out or not, benefit from that.”

“We're not filming with them 24/7. We only know what they tell us,” he added. “And I know sometimes that's frustrating for a viewer like, why weren't they there? Because we're not ‘Big Brother.’ We aren't there all the time.”

It’s worth noting that Coelen offered this perspective unasked, and as a tangent to a conversation about the relationship “Love Is Blind” participants have to broader social and political conversations simmering throughout American culture.

Understandable. In the aftermath of the show's tea-spilling reunions, which take place a year after the action is filmed, its fandom takes to the Internet to speculate on pillory participants who may not have received the glowiest edits. (There's also the matter of published reports in The New Yorker and Business Insider detailing past contestants' claims, some of which are related to ongoing lawsuits, that producers engineer the action to create a toxic environment. Coelen's production company Kinetic Content has steadfastly denied those allegations.)

But the season’s larger tensions had nothing to do with dating across party lines or who someone voted for. Whether a couple lasted or didn’t ultimately came down to how openly they communicated. In the end, two Season 7 couples made it to the altar and are still together. 

With Coelen looking ahead to the Valentine's Day 2025 premiere of the Minneapolis season, currently in post-production, we spoke to him about the topics that entered the seventh season chat, what the series tells us about dating, and what to expect next.

The following interview transcript has been edited for length and clarity.

I’ve seen every season of “Love Is Blind,” and I don't recall if any participant in a previous season distinctly identified who they voted for. Has that happened before?

I can't tell you for a fact whether people have talked about it or not talked about it in the past, or how much. I'm assuming that it's happened sometimes. I mean, there are so many conversations that happen in the pods that it is humanly impossible to know everything, even as much as I'm in the raw footage. . . If somebody's conversation around politics feels relevant to their story, then we'll endeavor to include that. We're really looking to include things in the stories that feel like they are relevant to them or the choices that they're making.

As the “Love Is Blind” franchise has expanded into international editions, and discussion around it has expanded, viewers have remarked on the differences in how this format translates between cultures. But I think that's true of the American version, too. I’ve been married forever, but in watching the Seattle season I recognized regionally specific issues that I’ve heard about. All our different cities have very distinct dating cultures. Were you aware of any DC dating culture truisms when you brought the show to that city?

"In my mind, we never set out to prove that love is blind. That was never the intention."

I personally was not, no. I've read a lot about it after the fact, people from DC saying how awful, in their words, the dating culture is. The only thing that I was aware of was it's a big metropolitan region that we haven't been to before, and so we thought it was an interesting place to go to. And there's a diversity of kinds of people there. That was what we looked at.

… I can't tell you that it is or isn't more awful than anywhere else. . . I'd just seen articles from, you know, the Washington Post, or the Washingtonian or whatever that describe the dating culture in DC as really terrible. So I don’t think there are a lot more specifics around that, but that's how they describe it.

From articles I’ve read and from the perspective of somebody that I know who's single and lives there, part of what makes DC a uniquely challenging terrain for a single person is the fact that so many people work in government or for politicians.

Related to that, I think that “Love Is Blind” is somewhat unique in that there are fewer expectations of outcomes that you might see in other dating or romance reality shows. I wonder if that makes things more challenging from city to city, especially after seven seasons.

I don't think it makes it challenging. I think it makes it exciting because you never know what you're going to get, or the kinds of things that people are going to talk about. There are some staples of, you know, what you want your future to look like, and where geographically do you want to live, and do you want to stay in the same region? Kids or no kids. You know, that kind of thing.

But I definitely think that the way people talk to each other continues to evolve. . . There's obviously nuance to geographic regions within the US, and obviously, there are distinctions around the world. But generally, people are people and are concerned about the same kinds of things and in their heart of hearts, want the same sorts of things for themselves if they're in that place where they're ready for sort of a longer-term, committed relationship. Maybe not at every stage of their life, but at that place in their life, I think people are much more similar than you'd probably realize.

So on Salon’s Culture desk, all of us watch the show from different generational perspectives. One of my colleagues is younger and single, and she wrote that the formula for “Love Is Blind” is broken and asked, “So why do we keep watching?” What is your answer to that?

I'm always interested to hear what people's take is on it. In my mind, we never set out to prove that love is blind. That was never the intention. I think the idea of love being blind is sort of an ideal that many of us would like to believe is true.

It's funny, when we were first designing the title card for the show we were like, “Oh, wouldn’t it be fun to have the “is” sort of flip, like on a hinge? So it's like, “Love is Blind/ Is Love Blind”? Because that's kind of the point of it being an experiment.

We need your help to stay independent

So saying it's broken, I guess that depends on what your perspective is . . . The point isn't that they get engaged, or [whether] they get married or not. The actual question at the heart of the series is whether that feeling, that love that many people describe, is that enough to survive whatever the real world throws at them? And the people who get the altar and say yes, say, “I do," you know, the fact that 11 of those 13 couples who have done that so far are still together. . . supports the theory and the idea of what the show really is about.

For me, making it, it's completely unpredictable. Season 8 is completely different, you know, and I think the fact that we try to just lean into whatever it's giving us, seeing people's speculations throughout the years of, “Oh, now the producers want this to happen,” “Oh, now they think we want mean girls.” No. In the Seattle season, that's just what happened. That’s what keeps it really interesting and fun.

As with any successful unscripted series even if people don't watch, they know the formula. There are certain reality competition series where the first and second seasons are seen as more authentic, and afterward, there's an awareness of what the expectation is that changes the show's dynamic.

That is the inevitability of the observer effect: Any time something is closely observed it changes the thing that is observed. So how do you think this has impacted “Love Is Blind” over the past almost five years and soon, eight seasons?

Because it's popular, there are people who say, “This is a way that I can get some visibility,” for whatever reason. We try to weed that out. You can't completely discount it, right? But we try to gauge if somebody's priority, if they found someone to fall in love with, that they would be interested in being married. Or are they more heavily weighted toward the idea of, “Oh, I'd like being on TV”?

By the way, we're not always right. We're human. We really try. . . . But when you're in a situation where you know someone who's come into “Love Is Blind” is serious about wanting to find love, and then somebody else somehow gets through and is just toying with them for that [exposure], that strikes me as really, really wrong and not fair to the participants.

Yes, that was a riveting conversation between Nick [Dorka] and Hannah [Jiles], with her reading his goals in his journal and making accusations about that. [One of Dorka's goals, according to Jiles' reunion report, was to become the most famous person ever on "Love Is Blind."]

There are also experiences we witness on the show where men talk about masculinity or, as Tim said during the reunion, “I'm a Black man, I can't be angry on television. I'm not going to portray that” —  those concerns that speak to larger conversations outside of “Love Is Blind,” including general conversations about how to be around other people.

I mean, I love that part of it, honestly. Even though “Love Is Blind” is not about, “let's have really meaningful, weighty conversations that are relevant to what's going on in the country and in the world,” the participants are doing that.

One of the things I really enjoy about it is — and in the season I'm currently working on, Season 8, you'll see some of this — that people who develop really strong emotional bonds but find out they're on differing sides of an issue are able to kind of grapple with what that means in a way you really don't see in our culture.

You see a lot of yelling at each other in our culture most of the time. Even going back to, I think, Season 3 with Bartise [Bowden] and Nancy [Rodriguez] talking about abortion, for instance, and the way that they talked about it right, even though they're coming at it from different places, they're talking about it with care and love and compassion and respect. I think you're going to see more of that in the future.


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


One from this season that sparked a lot of conversation with the audience was Ramses’ and Marissa’s talks about her military service versus his cultural upbringing and progressive views. When you were editing their story, were there discussions about how you would frame that within their specific narrative?

I mean, there are multiple conversations that they had which are very memorable, whether it's the conversation they had at the dinner table about, you know, they didn't want their officiant to be cis-hetero. When they talked about her military service, he had his opinion, and she felt judged.

For us, it's a judgment call: What feels like it's relevant to the issues that they're trying to figure out? They certainly had talked about it in the pods. It wasn't a secret that she had served in the military. But I think for whatever reason, it continued to be an issue for them. And as I think a lot of people have noted, it doesn't seem to be the thing that ultimately derailed them, but I think it's part of it.

. . .That felt like a very fraught conversation that could have derailed them, or maybe they’d come back together and figured it out. And I know in the next conversation with her friends, they talk about, you know, how they felt like they were able to overcome that and talk through it.

That was an interesting conversation too. Here are other women who had served in the military and Ramses is like, “Oh, I would never, you know, date someone that's in …” which is a pretty bold thing to say to those people who have served. And I just thought that was interesting to see how they kind of navigated through that as well. They ultimately seem to come to a place of support, you know. At least from them.

Going back to my question about participants talking about how they voted and related topics,  it seems to me in a show like this that even though you do have people sequestered in a pod and you take away their phones for a couple of weeks, the way they interact with strangers is going to be affected by any kind of seismic event occurring in the world.

Do you feel like the proximity to the election impacted any of the discussions and interactions of the upcoming Minneapolis season?

I think that would probably be in any place. To your point, and, I think it's a good point, whatever's going on in the world does affect your worldview and your concerns and your hopes and your fears for your future and potentially your future generations, right? So I don't know if I would specifically pinpoint it to the election.

. . . But I think you’re right. The worldview and the topics they talk about, it's very much shaped by what they've been exposed to, or what's going on in the culture, for sure. I think some of those are ongoing issues.

All episodes of "Love Is Blind" are streaming on Netflix.

Who crowned Mariah Carey the Queen of Christmas, anyway?

"It's time!" Mariah Carey sings as the calendar filps over from October 31 to November 1 — signaling the start of the holiday season, whether you like it or not.  

The powerhouse vocalist and songwriter has ruled Christmas with a festive fist for the last 30 years since her song "All I Want For Christmas Is You" made Christmas music popular again with its release in 1994. Ever since, the song has become the longest-charting single in any genre. It spent 65 weeks on Billboard’s Hot 100, arguably making it the most popular original holiday song of the last several decades. Her subsequent album, "Merry Christmas," has sold 18 million copies and is blasted everywhere people go from the time the pumpkins get packed away till the tree comes down. 

In an interview with The New York Times, Carey hinted at new music and shared that she's headed on a 21-date holiday tour that starts in November. Commenting on her Christmas song's 30th anniversary and its everlasting success, Carey said, “It’s really rewarding, and I’m just grateful and thankful for it and for all the people that come up and say, ‘I love your music,’ or, ‘I listen to your Christmas music in July’ — that started to become a thing,” she said. “I’ve always wanted to do this for my life, and so now we get to do it.”

But how did the pop vocalist transform from writing hits like "Fantasy" to "All I Want For Christmas Is You?" Salon explains it all:

Carey thought it was too early in her career to drop a Christmas album

Thirty years ago, the then 25-year-old pop star wasn't so sure about diving into Christmas music.

“I felt it was too early in my career," Carey explained in her interview with the Times.

But the singer's love of Christmas always endured, as she worked on several arrangements for classic Christmas songs like “Joy to the World” and “Silent Night." While she was working with her writing partner, Walter Afanasieff, they knew they needed original songs.

Carey recalled the opening melody came to her late one night. So she pulled out a small keyboard. “Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding,” she sang. The songwriter was looking for lyrics that meant something to her. So she said, “I started thinking about: ‘I don’t want a lot for Christmas.’”

And with one line, the genre of Christmas music changed forever. After years of Christmas music sticking to a more traditional, orchestral sound and spiritual themes, Carey shook things up. She followed in the footsteps of Motown stars Stevie Wonder, The Ronettes and Darlene Love from the '60s.

“Her album set the standard and really kind of redefined what a Christmas album could be,” Maureen McMullan, senior concert producer and former assistant chair of the voice department at Berklee College of Music in Boston told the Times.

Even another popular Christmas artist, Kelly Clarkson, said, “When Mariah came out with her first Christmas record, she changed the game for all of us. She paved the way for all of us to be able to have a chance at creating original Christmas songs because she proved to the industry how not only lucrative it could be — but how magical it can be to have a record that is a part of your life every year.”

Where did the "It's Time" videos come from?

The Queen of Christmas has also changed the holiday season with an annual tradition. At the end of spooky season on Halloween evening, Carey waits for the clock to countdown. When it hits midnight, the singer immediately posts a video of her ushering us into the holiday season — usually singing in a high note — "It's time!"

We need your help to stay independent

Kickstarting the videos in 2019, each year they become more festive and elaborate. In this year's video, the pop star partnered with Kay Jewelers. The spooky, black and white video features Carey dressed as Morticia Addams from "The Addams Family." She dances with a man who plays Gomez Addams, Morticia's husband. That is until the clock hits midnight and the date changes from Oct. 31 to Nov. 1. Carey then sings her legendary, "It's time" as Gomez turns into a snowman and her set is a winter wonderland, with "All I Want For Christmas Is You" blaring.

“It wasn’t even really like an announcement,” Carey said. “People would say, ‘Hey, when is it OK to put our lights up and put our tree up?’ and ‘When do you do it?’ People would just ask me that because I guess they thought I was very Christmassy.”

Now, Carey said, “I love ‘It’s time.’ It’s so fun.”

 

Experts: Harris proposal could ease housing crisis — while Trump plan would drive up inflation

The next president of the United States will inherit, among other pressing issues, a housing crisis that has seen average rents increase by 19% since 2019, leaving tens of millions of Americans paying more than 30% of their income towards rent and many others homeless. Vice President Kamala Harris, seeking the mantle of a sober problem-solver in comparison to former President Donald Trump, has released an extensive plan to reduce the costs of housing, largely by building more of it.

Harris' proposed effort to add 3 million new housing units, part of "A New Way Forward for the Middle Class," centers on providing a lot of incentives — expanding the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) to help developers build affordable rental housing, creating a new Neighborhood Homes Tax Credit to support the construction and rehabilitation of owner-occupied homes in low-income communities, introducing a tax cut for homebuilders building houses for first-time homebuyers and providing an additional $40 billion for state and local governments to expand the housing supply. Additionally, Harris wants to provide $25,000 in down-payment assistance for first-time homebuyers.

In an analysis published in the Washington Post, Mark Zandi, the chief economist of Moody's Analytics, and Jim Parrott, a fellow at the Urban Institute, described the plan as “the most aggressive supply-side push since the national investment in housing that followed World War II.” Other experts who are less sanguine about the possibility of reaching the 3 million mark still acknowledge that substantial growth is possible.

The premise of Harris' plan, of course, is that an increase in the housing supply will drive down costs. While that logic is largely agreed upon by economists, some progressives have stressed that the plan will only be effective if a Harris administration invests primarily in low-cost housing built for low-income renters and detached from the speculative market. In that respect, argues policy analyst Matt Bruenig in Jacobin, the Harris plan falls short by by funneling public money into the for-profit housing market, offering only temporary affordability to working and middle-class Americans.

"To meaningfully address the housing crisis, Democrats need to move beyond just the public-private paradigm and invest directly in housing as a public good," he wrote, while also acknowledging that Harris' plans include meaningful policies to curb exploitation by private-sector landlords.

The willpower to build more housing often falters in the face of apparently prohibitive costs, political opposition and self-serving incentives, a reality that is playing out on the state and local level. Perhaps that's why Harris is relying on grants to spur growth rather than trying to impose housing target requirements on states. Efforts by governors to require low-density towns and suburbs to pull their weight faced intense pushback from local governments and suburban lawmakers who didn't want to be forced to do anything, or heard from constituents who wanted to maintain their high-value, pristine neighborhoods. While California and Massachusetts Democrats reached a deal in their respective states, Gov. Kathy Hochul, D-N.Y., was forced to scrap her housing proposal despite working with large Democratic majorities in the legislature.

Progressives at the time cast some of the blame on Hochul for opposing the inclusion of "good cause" eviction, which would give tenants the ability to challenge rent hikes in court, and missing a chance to form a broader coalition around her proposal. While sudden and unfair evictions have always been an unfortunate reality, tenants' rights groups warn that landlords have become even more audacious in their attempts to maximize profits and exploit renters since the chaos and desperation of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In August 2024, the Department of Justice sued RealPage, a real estate company they accused of price-fixing to drive up rents. DOJ officials alleged that the company's algorithmic pricing helped landlords collude and set rents above market rate, which "deprives renters of the benefits of competition on apartment leasing terms and harms millions of Americans.” The effects of RealPage's scheme was far-reaching; at least half of the country's landlords reportedly ate from the trough, calculating that even if rent hikes resulted in vacancies, they would still make larger profits.

We need your help to stay independent

Harris, citing unscrupulous behavior by those landlords, proposes in her housing plan to pass the Preventing the Algorithmic Facilitation of Rental Housing Cartels Act in Congress, which would make price-fixing illegal under antitrust laws. While some conservative economists have warned that the proposal would discourage development and worsen the housing shortage, others have argued that the conventional neoliberal antipathy to rent controls is misguided — in many places where strong rent controls are in place, such as New Jersey, the housing supply has actually increased.

Landlords have also been accused of hoarding low-cost housing units and selling them for an exorbitant price, knowing that the desperation of some renters would more than offset any wasted space. In some cases, they are reportedly keeping some units off-market on purpose. In New York City, for example, while the vacancy rate of on-market units is hovering at 1.4% — the lowest since 1968 — no one knows just how many units that should be open are not included in official figures. Local lawmakers have proposed legislation to find out by requiring landlords to disclose all vacant units, and may soon find an ally in the White House.

"Some corporate landlords — some of them buy dozens, if not hundreds, of houses and apartments.  Then they turn them around and rent them out at extremely high prices, and it can make it impossible, then, for regular people to be able to buy or even rent a home," Harris said in a speech focused on costs-of-living issues. To address this, Harris is proposing a second piece of housing legislation — the Predatory Investing Act — which would strike tax benefits for investors buying up large numbers of single-family rental homes.

In order to pass either piece of legislation designed to curtail unfair landlord practices, Harris will need the buy-in of Congress and certainly prefers her fellow Democrats as governing partners. GOP positions on housing this election cycle have largely ranged from oppositional, in the case of Project 2025 proposals to scale back federal affordable housing programs and weaken tenant protections, to ambivalent, in the case of the Trump campaign's promises to reduce costs by defeating inflation and stopping "the unsustainable invasion of illegal aliens which is driving up housing costs." Critics of Trump's economic policies have argued that his plans to raise tariffs across the board are likely to drive up inflation, not ease it.

Harris, jumping on a string of chilling remarks by Trump, has spent the closing days of the campaign focusing mainly on her rival's dictatorial and vengeful fantasies. There's evidence, however, that more time comparing her housing plan to Trump's apparently missing homework or Project 2025's wish list would be effective — many Americans have fallen victim to the housing crisis, and now look to their president not only for relief in the broadest sense of the word, but also, according to polling data, policies like rent control and the expansion of affordable housing.

America’s elites are running interference for Donald Trump

“On the occasion of the great German victories, which have astonished an admiring world, we see the dawn of a new era in Europe that will carry with it a renewal with respect to politics and economics under the leadership of Germany. Denmark’s task will of necessity be grounded in actively seeking her place through mutual co-operation with Greater Germany.”

  • Danish foreign minister Erik Scavenius, 1940

One assumes that a Dane reading that statement now would wince, just as any person in any country occupied by Nazi Germany during World War II would be embarrassed by evidence that fellow citizens acted so sycophantically towards an oppressive and lawless occupier. Nobody likes a Quisling, or, at least, very few people would want to be seen as an eager lickspittle to tyranny.

The historical facts say otherwise about people’s actual behavior. Despite postwar governments’ efforts to show that resistance to occupation was widespread, in Western Europe only about one to three percent of populations were active resisters (in Eastern Europe, where Nazi rule was far more savage, the percentage rose to 10-15 percent). The percentage who collaborated equaled or exceeded that of resisters in Western Europe, while the great majority simply tried to get on with their lives and find enough food and fuel to survive.

In France, particularly, a historical legacy that still causes rancor was the wartime behavior of the wealthy elite. A disproportionate number not only did not even passively resist but showed themselves eager to lick the polish off Hitler’s jackboots, if necessary. 

Names now associated with consummate chic, like L'Oreal’s wealthy founder, Eugène Schueller (who already supported French fascist groups in the 1930s); the family of Louis Vuitton; and Coco Chanel, agent of the German Abwehr and reputed “horizonal collaborator,” were prominent among the accommodators. Even François Mitterrand, who became French president during the 1980s, had a collaborationist past.

Americans would doubtless prefer to think that nothing like that could happen in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. But the reactions of our own elites to the behavior of the Republican Party in general, and the Trump phenomenon in particular, have increasingly given the lie to such complacency. We have seen over the last eight years how journalists for prestige publications have assiduously normalized Donald Trump. Is it a case of rote journalistic convention that turns Trump’s demented ravings into something resembling the blandly acceptable “policy statements” of a typical gladhanding pol? Is the press merely operating in Pavlovian fashion, in the same manner they clean up grammar and usage according to the AP style manual?

Or is something else happening; is the press manifesting an unadmitted genuflection to raw power, exercised arbitrarily, out of calculated self-preservation? Or are we seeing, perhaps, a kind of masochistic admiration for the bully?

This journalistic kowtow reached a new depth with the decision of the Washington Post – the newspaper that famously brought down Richard Nixon – to withdraw a planned endorsement of Kamala Harris. The commentary on this action, even from some liberal outlets, was curiously tentative: that newspaper  endorsements don’t really matter, anyway, and “We can’t know for certain what went into these decisions.” On the contrary, what went into Post owner Jeff Bezos’s decision is a metaphysical certainty.

It was a calculated decision to protect his other business interests from spiteful retaliation by a potential president Trump, and it was presaged for almost a year by Bezos’ move to hire a new publisher, Will Lewis. The latter made his bones in the UK division of Rupert Murdoch’s lying machine as a Mr. Fixit, cleaning up the remnants of Murdoch’s phone-hacking scandal by deleting inconvenient emails and sowing the landscape with red herrings.

Why else would a savvy mogul like Bezos hire a person against whom UK police have now launched a preliminary investigation, except to serve as hatchet man at the Post newsroom when unpleasant decisions have to be taken? Democracy dies in darkness, indeed.

The Post scandal received plenty of attention, as the media loves nothing more than to write about itself, but a similar incident occurred at the same time that received far less attention. In August, there was a brief flap when the Trump cabal, attempting to use Arlington Cemetery for partisan purposes, filmed a campaign ad amid the gravestones. This being strictly against the rules, an Army employee intervened and was shoved to the ground by one of Trump’s goons.

The Army kept mum about the incident, and the employee, probably correctly fearing retaliation and harassment, declined to press charges. That would have buried the incident but for congressional Democrats demanding a response from the military. On Oct. 25, the same day the Post flap made headlines, the Army’s report slipped under the door: so heavily redacted as to be worthless in adding to any knowledge of the Arlington incident.

We need your help to stay independent

A parallel event, almost completely unreported in the mainstream media, occurred with the Navy. The U.S. Naval Academy recently invited an author to lecture on “what happens to militaries under authoritarian rule.” Whereupon, and predictably, congressional Republicans successfully pressured the academy to rescind the invitation.

Quite apart from the fact that the academy is an accredited academic institution that theoretically should uphold freedom of thought, the U.S. Navy is a branch of the most powerful military in the world. But then, so is the Army, which cravenly accommodated Trump in a similar fashion by issuing a non-report to avoid any embarrassment to Trump.

When I worked on the Hill – only a few years ago, which now seems as remote as the Pleistocene Epoch – the military almost always got its way. I am not even implying that it was a sinister or bullying entity, but like a giant oil tanker sailing at 20 knots, it had irresistible force and momentum. That, and jobs in congressional districts. Nobody pushed the military around.

The same ought to apply to Bezos, the world’s second-richest man. The obsequiousness of politicians before the wealthy is a thing to behold. In 2008-2009, in the aftermath of the financial meltdown, and during 2010, when the Affordable Care Act was passed, I saw the power of the wealthy on display. Despite the recognition that bank CEOs, hedge fund managers, brokers, and asset managers caused the crash, they emerged unscathed: Congress obediently recapitalized them and refused to set compensation limits or attempt claw-backs. The rest of us bore the pain. Likewise, single-payer, negotiated drug prices, and price caps were instantly off the table in health care reform, thanks to the money power of the health care-industrial complex.


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


Given the political hegemony enjoyed by vast corporate interests and institutional leviathans like the military, how is it that they can no longer fend off shakedowns by hack politicians? If a man with $207 billion cannot defend himself if the coming election goes a certain way, what does that mean for the rest of us non-rich proles who can’t even afford a competent lawyer, let alone the ability to deploy massive lobbying power?

By the same token, if an institution with more firepower than any entity on earth meekly submits to threats that are thus far hypothetical, how would it act if Trump were actually in power? Would its leadership drop the oath to the Constitution and swear an oath to Trump personally, as the German Army did when it swore personal allegiance to the Führer rather than the Weimar constitution? Trump has already said he wants generals like Hitler had. More to the point, would the military turn that firepower on us if ordered? 

America’s privileged elites have set a terrible precedent, and in so doing, have merely encouraged even more extortionate threats. Like the French elites in World War II, they have become Quislings, establishing a tone of sycophancy and eagerness to please that unmistakably telegraphs that the rest of us are on our own. If a half-senile demagogue can knock down supposedly powerful institutions like nine-pins, then our own personal rights, backed up not by money and power but by a scrap of parchment in the hands of a corrupt court, are worthless. 

The fiction writer Alan Furst, in Mission to Paris, writing of the political upper crust of France in the autumn of 1938, could have been describing America’s elite in 2024:

[It was] a gentleman’s treason. And the operatives could depend on one hard-edged principle: that those who style themselves as men of the world know there is an iron fist in every velvet glove, understand what might await them in the shadows and so, having decided to play the game, they will obey its rules. 

“That is sick!”: Newt Gingrich loses it over ad informing women they can secretly vote for Harris

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is raging about an ad telling women they don't have to reveal to anyone, including their husbands, how they vote in the 2024 election.

“In the one place in America where women still have a right to choose, you can vote any way you want,” actress Julia Roberts says as a woman casts a ballot for Vice President Kamala Harris. “And no one will ever know.”

Later, her husband asks her: “Did you make the right choice?”

“Sure did, honey,” the woman replies, before Roberts asks viewers to vote for the Harris-Walz ticket.

The ad, produced by the group Vote Common Good, has thrown conservatives into a frenzy. Gingrich joined the chorus in a Thursday interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity, who complained about celebrities endorsing Harris en masse.

“These people are dishonest,” Gingrich responded. “And so, for them to tell people to lie is just one further example of the depth of their corruption. I mean, how do you run a country where you’re walking around saying, ‘Wives should lie to their husbands, husbands should lie to their wives’?”

Gingrich, who had an affair during his second marriage, then held Democrats responsible for America's moral degeneration. “I mean, what kind of a totally amoral, corrupt, sick system have the Democrats developed? If you think about it at that level, it is astonishing, the decay," he said, before claiming that the "decay" is why Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who reportedly maintained at least three romantic liaisons outside of his marriage with Cheryl Hines, left the Democratic Party and endorsed former President Donald Trump.

Long before the Roberts ad aired, Gingrich had been using extreme rhetoric to describe the supposed Democratic unraveling of American society. During the 1990 midterm elections, a group led by Gingrich issued pamphlets among Republicans encouraging them to label their opponents with words like "destroy," "collapse," "traitors," "decay" and "sick" as a key mechanism of persuasion. In his interview with Hannity, Gingrich pulled out "sick" three times in less than 10 seconds.

“Instead of having a dignity and patriotism and a sense of morality, these are really sick people,” Gingrich continued. “And the more you watch them, to say, ‘Oh, why don’t you lie to your husband?’ as a publicly advocated ad? That is sick! And I think we ought to have the courage to say this is a sick, dishonest party.”

Joe Rogan pushes back on JD Vance’s claim that women “celebrate” abortion

Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, showed so little concern for women suffering under abortion restrictions in a Thursday interview with Joe Rogan that the podcaster was forced to push back and correct him multiple times. Throughout the three-hour interview, Rogan asked the GOP vice presidential candidate to clarify his views on abortion, citing bans across the country and the prosecution of women who travel out-of-state to get an abortion where it is legal.

“That’s concerning to me, if there’s a place in the country where it’s legal to have a medical procedure and you live in a state where it’s not legal that your state can decide what you can and can’t do with your body, which is essentially based on a religious idea,” Rogan said.

Vance, who had once called for a national abortion ban, claimed to be unaware of such laws. "I don’t like the idea, to be clear. I’ve not heard of this, maybe as like a possibility, but not as something that actually exists in the law, but I’ve not heard of somebody being arrested, and I don’t like the idea of arresting people for moving about the country,” Vance responded.

GOP-led local governments have taken up the lead in passing travel bans, while conservative lawyers and politicians are using existing state laws to go after those seeking to escape restrictions. Even when pregnant people can make the journey, it is a process fraught with risk and danger. The dam against anti-abortion measures broke when the the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which former President Donald Trump bragged about and Rogan said enabled “religious men who are trying to dictate what women can or cannot do with their bodies.”

"I understand the pushback against that, but I think you can go, like with so many other issues, you can go way too far about it, and it becomes trying to celebrate" abortion, Vance said, dismissing the idea of terminating a pregnancy as a difficult medical choice. "At the very best, if you grant I think every argument of the pro-choice side, it is a neutral thing, not something to be celebrated."

"I think there’s very few people who are celebrating, though," Rogan replied.

Vance, seeming eager to maintain the civil tenor of the interview, suddenly agreed, claiming that social media was creating that impression. But by the end of the interview, he had still not disavowed his position that abortion is akin to slavery or that he and Trump will end federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

Trump says “war hawk” Cheney would not be so tough if she had to face “nine barrels shooting at her”

Donald Trump is rebutting the “fascist” charge in the final days of the campaign by publicly fantasizing about one of his leading critics facing what sounds an awful lot like a military firing squad.

Speaking with Tucker Carlson, an ex-Fox News anchor who recently interviewed a Holocaust denier and claimed that he was physically attacked by a “demon” — such is the state of American conservatism — Trump lambasted former Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., as a “deranged person” who only dislikes him because, in his telling, he’s reluctant to invade other countries.

“The reason she couldn’t stand me is that she always wanted to go to war with people. If it were up to her we’d be in 50 different countries,” Trump claimed. “She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with the rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her. OK, let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face.”

The former president and three-time Republican nominee has in recent weeks repeated his call for using the military to go after “the enemy within.” Over the summer, he also shared a post on social media declaring Cheney “GUILTY OF TREASON” and calling for her and other such traitors to be subjected to “TELEVISED MILITARY TRIBUNALS.”

A generous assessment of Trump’s remarks would be that he’s just engaged in typical antiwar rhetoric, lambasting the militarism of those who would start a war but never fight in one themselves. In this telling, Trump is not calling “for Cheney’s execution,” as the Drudge Report put it, but merely engaged in some opportunistic criticism, if not rank projection.

During the Vietnam War, a 22-year-old Trump got out of the draft by having a friend of his father claim that he had “bone spurs” (that friend later described the diagnosis as a “favor”). There is no record of him then protesting that conflict.

As president, the 78-year-old Republican was anything but antiwar, escalating every military conflict he oversaw, from Syria to Yemen to Somalia — within hours of taking office, he authorized a disastrous Special Forces raid that killed an 8-year-old girl (and U.S. citizen) — while eliminating safeguards meant to protect civilians from American drone strikes. He threatened to start a war with North Korea, before befriending its dictator, and dropped a $16 million “MOAB” (or, “Mother of All Bombs”) on Afghanistan — the largest non-nuclear munition in the U.S. military’s arsenal. Thousands of people were directly killed by the U.S. military during Trump’s four years in office.

“What I do is authorize my military,” Trump said as a way of explanation, meaning: He got the lawyers out of the way and told the armed forces to do as they please, at whatever cost to foreign life. The man who campaigned in 2016 on not just killing “terrorists” but their families took that ethos to the presidency. As The Washington Post reported, Trump, as president, was shown a video of a CIA air strike in Syria, in which the operator opened fire only after the target walked away from the home in which their wife and children resided. Instead of praising their diligence, Trump demanded to know: “Why did you wait?

All of which is to say: When Trump criticizes Cheney for being a “war hawk” he does so because her last name is Cheney and that’s the most obvious criticism. It’s no different than Trump calling his former ally Chris Christie “fat”: It’s an easy, superficial attack that many critics would say applies to him too.

We need your help to stay independent

Consider Iraq: In 2000, per CNN, Trump was advocating a preemptive strike. “I’m no warmonger. But the fact is, if we decide a strike against Iraq is necessary, it is madness not to carry the mission to its conclusion,” he wrote. Two years later, he told Howard Stern that he backed a U.S. invasion, lamenting only that it hadn’t been “done correctly” during the first Gulf War. He turned against the war only after everyone else did, around 2006; by the time he was running for president, in 2016, he was attacking former President Barack Obama for getting out, accusing him of “founding” the Islamic State by ending the U.S. occupation.

Cheney, recall, voted for Trump twice, while her father, former Vice President Dick Cheney, even appeared at a Trump campaign fundraiser in 2020. Both only broke with Trump after Jan. 6, 2021, when they saw him incite a mob and try to seize power after losing a free and fair election. They may well be “hawks,” but that is not their issue with Trump and it is certainly not Trump’s real issue with them.

Having established that Trump himself is a militarist — one actively encouraging his allies in Israel to ignore the haters (from human rights lawyers to President Joe Biden) and “do what you have to do” to Gaza and Lebanon; one who argues that might makes right and that Ukraine should have never even tried to fight off Russia — we can safely dismiss his fantasy about Liz Cheney as being about matters of war and peace.

It seems, really, that the former president can’t get over Cheney abandoning him (for a Black woman, no less) and that he’s treating his narcissistic injury by publicly imagining scenarios in which she might die, complete with the number of armed men (nine, the same as a U.S. Army Infantry Rifle Squad) who would be pointing their guns at her.

To Cheney, at least, the implication was clear.

“This is how dictators destroy free nations,” she wrote on social media. “They threaten those who speak against them with death. We cannot entrust our country and our freedom to a petty, vindictive, cruel, unstable man who wants to be a tyrant.”

A pregnant teenager died after trying to get care in three visits to Texas emergency rooms

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

Series: Life of the Mother:How Abortion Bans Lead to Preventable Deaths

More in this series

 

Reporting Highlights

  • Three Trips to the ER: At 6 months pregnant, Nevaeh Crain visited two Texas ERs a total of three times in 20 hours, seeking care for troubling symptoms.
  • Fetal Tests Cost Time: On her third trip, a doctor insisted on two ultrasounds to “confirm fetal demise” before moving her to intensive care. Hours later, Crain died.
  • One of at Least Two Deaths: Crain is one of at least two Texas women who died under the state abortion ban. Josseli Barnica died after a miscarriage in 2021.

These highlights were written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story.

Candace Fails screamed for someone in the Texas hospital to help her pregnant daughter. “Do something,” she pleaded, on the morning of Oct. 29, 2023.

Nevaeh Crain was crying in pain, too weak to walk, blood staining her thighs. Feverish and vomiting the day of her baby shower, the 18-year-old had gone to two different emergency rooms within 12 hours, returning home each time worse than before.

The first hospital diagnosed her with strep throat without investigating her sharp abdominal cramps. At the second, she screened positive for sepsis, a life-threatening and fast-moving reaction to an infection, medical records show. But doctors said her six-month fetus had a heartbeat and that Crain was fine to leave.

Now on Crain’s third hospital visit, an obstetrician insisted on two ultrasounds to “confirm fetal demise,” a nurse wrote, before moving her to intensive care.

By then, more than two hours after her arrival, Crain’s blood pressure had plummeted and a nurse had noted that her lips were “blue and dusky.” Her organs began failing.

Hours later, she was dead.

Fails, who would have seen her daughter turn 20 this Friday, still cannot understand why Crain’s emergency was not treated like an emergency.

But that is what many pregnant women are now facing in states with strict abortion bans, doctors and lawyers have told ProPublica.

“Pregnant women have become essentially untouchables,” said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law and policy professor emerita at George Washington University.

Texas’s abortion ban threatens prison time for interventions that end a fetal heartbeat, whether the pregnancy is wanted or not. It includes exceptions for life-threatening conditions, but still, doctors told ProPublica that confusion and fear about the potential legal repercussions are changing the way their colleagues treat pregnant patients with complications.

In states with abortion bans, such patients are sometimes bounced between hospitals like “hot potatoes,” with health care providers reluctant to participate in treatment that could attract a prosecutor, doctors told ProPublica. In some cases, medical teams are wasting precious time debating legalities and creating documentation, preparing for the possibility that they’ll need to explain their actions to a jury and judge.

Dr. Jodi Abbott, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University School of Medicine, said patients are left wondering: “Am I being sent home because I really am OK? Or am I being sent home because they’re afraid that the solution to what’s going on with my pregnancy would be ending the pregnancy, and they’re not allowed to do that?”

There is a federal law to prevent emergency room doctors from withholding lifesaving care.

Passed nearly four decades ago, it requires emergency rooms to stabilize patients in medical crises. The Biden administration argues this mandate applies even in cases where an abortion might be necessary.

No state has done more to fight this interpretation than Texas, which has warned doctors that its abortion ban supersedes the administration’s guidance on federal law, and that they can face up to 99 years in prison for violating it.

ProPublica condensed more than 800 pages of Crain’s medical records into a four-page timeline in consultation with two maternal-fetal medicine specialists; reporters reviewed it with nine doctors, including researchers at prestigious universities, OB-GYNs who regularly handle miscarriages, and experts in emergency medicine and maternal health.

Some said the first ER missed warning signs of infection that deserved attention. All said that the doctor at the second hospital should never have sent Crain home when her signs of sepsis hadn’t improved. And when she returned for the third time, all said there was no medical reason to make her wait for two ultrasounds before taking aggressive action to save her.

“This is how these restrictions kill women,” said Dr. Dara Kass, a former regional director at the Department of Health and Human Services and an emergency room physician in New York. “It is never just one decision, it’s never just one doctor, it’s never just one nurse.”

While they were not certain from looking at the records provided that Crain’s death could have been prevented, they said it may have been possible to save both the teenager and her fetus if she had been admitted earlier for close monitoring and continuous treatment.

There was a chance Crain could have remained pregnant, they said. If she had needed an early delivery, the hospital was well-equipped to care for a baby on the edge of viability. In another scenario, if the infection had gone too far, ending the pregnancy might have been necessary to save Crain.

Doctors involved in Crain’s care did not respond to several requests for comment. The two hospitals, Baptist Hospitals of Southeast Texas and Christus Southeast Texas St. Elizabeth, declined to answer detailed lists of questions about her treatment.

Fails and Crain believed abortion was morally wrong. The teen could only support it in the context of rape or life-threatening illness, she used to tell her mother. They didn’t care whether the government banned it, just how their Christian faith guided their own actions.

When they discovered Crain was pregnant with a girl, the two talked endlessly about the little dresses they could buy, what kind of mother she would be. Crain landed on the name Lillian. Fails could not wait to meet her.

But when her daughter got sick, Fails expected that doctors had an obligation to do everything in their power to stave off a potentially deadly emergency, even if that meant losing Lillian. In her view, they were more concerned with checking the fetal heartbeat than attending to Crain.

“I know it sounds selfish, and God knows I would rather have both of them, but if I had to choose,” Fails said, “I would have chosen my daughter.”

“I’m in a Lot of Pain”

Crain had just graduated from high school in her hometown of Vidor, Texas, in May of 2023 when she learned that she was pregnant.

She and her boyfriend of two years, Randall Broussard, were always hip to hip, wrestling over vapes or snuggling on the couch watching vampire movies. Crain was drawn to how gentle he was. He admired how easily she built friendships and how quickly she could make people laugh. Though they were young, they’d already imagined starting a family. Broussard, who has eight siblings, wanted many kids; Crain wanted a daughter and the kind of relationship she had with her mom. Earlier that year, Broussard had given Crain a small diamond ring — “a promise,” he told her, “that I will always love you.”

On the morning of their baby shower, Oct. 28, 2023, Crain woke with a headache. Her mom decorated the house with pink balloons and Crain laid out Halloween-themed platters. Soon, nausea set in. Crain started vomiting and was running a fever. When guests arrived, Broussard opened gifts — onesies and diapers and bows — while Crain kept closing her eyes.

Around 3 p.m., her family told her she needed to go to the hospital.

Broussard drove Crain to Baptist Hospitals of Southeast Texas. They sat in the waiting room for four hours. When Crain started vomiting, staff brought her a plastic pan. When she wasn’t retching, she lay her head in her boyfriend’s lap.

A nurse practitioner ordered a test for strep throat, which came back positive, medical records show. But in a pregnant patient, abdominal pain and vomiting should not be quickly attributed to strep, physicians told ProPublica; a doctor should have also evaluated her pregnancy.

Instead, Baptist Hospitals discharged her with a prescription for antibiotics. She was home at 9 p.m. and quickly dozed off, but within hours, she woke her mother up. “Mom, my stomach is still hurting,” she said into the dark bedroom at 3 a.m. “I’m in a lot of pain.”

Fails drove Broussard and Crain to another hospital in town, Christus Southeast Texas St. Elizabeth. Around 4:20 a.m., OB-GYN William Hawkins saw that Crain had a temperature of 102.8 and an abnormally high pulse, according to records; a nurse noted that Crain rated her abdominal pain as a seven out of 10.

Her vital signs pointed to possible sepsis, records show. It’s standard medical practice to immediately treat patients who show signs of sepsis, which can overtake and kill a person quickly, medical experts told ProPublica. These patients should be watched until their vitals improve. Through tests and scans, the goal is to find the source of the infection. If the infection was in Crain’s uterus, the fetus would likely need to be removed with a surgery.

In a room at the obstetric emergency department, a nurse wrapped a sensor belt around Crain’s belly to check the fetal heart rate. “Baby’s fine,” Broussard told Fails, who was sitting in the hallway.

After two hours of IV fluids, one dose of antibiotics, and some Tylenol, Crain’s fever didn’t go down, her pulse remained high, and the fetal heart rate was abnormally fast, medical records show. Hawkins noted that Crain had strep and a urinary tract infection, wrote up a prescription and discharged her.

Hawkins had missed infections before. Eight years earlier, the Texas Medical Board found that he had failed to diagnose appendicitis in one patient and syphilis in another. In the latter case, the board noted that his error “may have contributed to the fetal demise of one of her twins.” The board issued an order to have Hawkins’ medical practice monitored; the order was lifted two years later. (Hawkins did not respond to several attempts to reach him.)

All of the doctors who reviewed Crain’s vital signs for ProPublica said she should have been admitted. “She should have never left, never left,” said Elise Boos, an OB-GYN in Tennessee.

Kass, the New York emergency physician, put it in starker terms: When they discharged her, they were “pushing her down the path of no return.”

“It’s bullshit,” Fails said as Broussard rolled Crain out in a wheelchair; she was unable to walk on her own. Fails had expected the hospital to keep her overnight. Her daughter was breathing heavily, hunched over in pain, pale in the face. Normally talkative, the teen was quiet.

Back home, around 7 a.m., Fails tried to get her daughter comfortable as she cried and moaned. She told Fails she needed to pee, and her mother helped her into the bathroom. “Mom, come here,” she said from the toilet. Blood stained her underwear.

The blood confirmed Fails’ instinct: This was a miscarriage.

At 9 a.m, a full day after the nausea began, they were back at Christus St. Elizabeth. Crain’s lips were drained of color and she kept saying she was going to pass out. Staff started her on IV antibiotics and performed a bedside ultrasound.

Around 9:30 a.m., the OB on duty, Dr. Marcelo Totorica, couldn’t find a fetal heart rate, according to records; he told the family he was sorry for their loss.

Standard protocol when a critically ill patient experiences a miscarriage is to stabilize her and, in most cases, hurry to the operating room for delivery, medical experts said. This is especially urgent with a spreading infection. But at Christus St. Elizabeth, the OB-GYN just continued antibiotic care. A half-hour later, as nurses placed a catheter, Fails noticed her daughter’s thighs were covered in blood.

At 10 a.m., Melissa McIntosh, a labor and delivery nurse, spoke to Totorica about Crain’s condition. The teen was now having contractions. “Dr. Totorica states to not move patient,” she wrote after talking with him. “Dr. Totorica states there is a slight chance patient may need to go to ICU and he wants the bedside ultrasound to be done stat for sure before admitting to room.”

Though he had already performed an ultrasound, he was asking for a second.

The first hadn’t preserved an image of Crain’s womb in the medical record. “Bedside ultrasounds aren’t always set up to save images permanently,” said Abbott, the Boston OB-GYN.

The state’s laws banning abortion require that doctors record the absence of a fetal heartbeat before intervening with a procedure that could end a pregnancy. Exceptions for medical emergencies demand physicians document their reasoning. “Pretty consistently, people say, ‘Until we can be absolutely certain this isn’t a normal pregnancy, we can’t do anything, because it could be alleged that we were doing an abortion,’” said Dr. Tony Ogburn, an OB-GYN in San Antonio.

At 10:40 a.m, Crain’s blood pressure was dropping. Minutes later, Totorica was paging for an emergency team over the loudspeakers.

Around 11 a.m., two hours after Crain had arrived at the hospital, a second ultrasound was performed. A nurse noted: “Bedside ultrasound at this time to confirm fetal demise per Dr. Totorica’s orders.”

When doctors wheeled Crain into the ICU at 11:20 a.m., Fails stayed by her side, rubbing her head, as her daughter dipped in and out of consciousness. Crain couldn’t sign consent forms for her care because of “extreme pain,” according to the records, so Fails signed a release for “unplanned dilation and curettage” or “unplanned cesarean section.”

But the doctors quickly decided it was now too risky to operate, according to records. They suspected that she had developed a dangerous complication of sepsis known as disseminated intravascular coagulation; she was bleeding internally.

Frantic and crying, Fails locked eyes with her daughter. “You’re strong, Nevaeh,” she said. “God made us strong.”

Crain sat up in the cot. Old, black blood gushed from her nostrils and mouth.

“The Law Is on Our Side”

Crain is one of at least two pregnant Texas women who died after doctors delayed treating miscarriages, ProPublica found.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has successfully made his state the only one in the country that isn’t required to follow the Biden administration’s efforts to ensure that emergency departments don’t turn away patients like Crain.

After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion, the administration issued guidance on how states with bans should follow the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. The federal law requires hospitals that receive funding through Medicare — which is virtually all of them — to stabilize or transfer anyone who arrives in their emergency rooms. That goes for pregnant patients, the guidance argues, even if that means violating state law and providing an abortion.

Paxton responded by filing a lawsuit in 2022, saying the federal guidance “forces hospitals and doctors to commit crimes,” and was an “attempt to use federal law to transform every emergency room in the country into a walk-in abortion clinic.”

Part of the battle has centered on who is eligible for abortion. The federal EMTALA guidelines apply when the health of the pregnant patient is in “serious jeopardy.” That’s a wider range of circumstances than the Texas abortion restriction, which only makes exceptions for a “risk of death” or “a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function.”

The lawsuit worked its way through three layers of federal courts, and each time it was met by judges nominated by former President Donald Trump, whose court appointments were pivotal to overturning Roe v. Wade.

After U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix, a Trump appointee, quickly sided with Texas, Paxton celebrated the triumph over “left-wing bureaucrats in Washington.”

“The decision last night proves what we knew all along,” Paxton added. “The law is on our side.”

This year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the order in a ruling authored by Kurt D. Engelhardt, another judge nominated by Trump.

The Biden administration appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the justices to make it clear that some emergency abortions are allowed.

Even amid news of preventable deaths related to abortion bans, the Supreme Court declined to do so last month.

Paxton called this “a major victory” for the state’s abortion ban.

He has also made clear that he will bring charges against physicians for performing abortions if he decides that the cases don’t fall within Texas’ narrow medical exceptions.

Last year, he sent a letter threatening to prosecute a doctor who had received court approval to provide an emergency abortion for a Dallas woman. He insisted that the doctor and her patient had not proven how, precisely, the patient’s condition threatened her life.

Many doctors say this kind of message has encouraged doctors to “punt” patients instead of treating them.

Since the abortion bans went into effect, an OB-GYN at a major hospital in San Antonio has seen an uptick in pregnant patients being sent to them from across Southern Texas, as they suffer from complications that could easily be treated close to home.

The well-resourced hospital is perceived to have more institutional support to provide abortions and miscarriage management, the doctor said. Other providers “are transferring those patients to our centers because, frankly, they don’t want to deal with them.”

After Crain died, Fails couldn’t stop thinking about how Christus Southeast Hospital had ignored her daughter’s condition. “She was bleeding,” she said. “Why didn’t they do anything to help it along instead of wait for another ultrasound to confirm the baby is dead?”

It was the medical examiner, not the doctors at the hospital, who removed Lillian from Crain’s womb. His autopsy didn’t resolve Fails’ lingering questions about what the hospitals missed and why. He called the death “natural” and attributed it to “complications of pregnancy.” He did note, however, that Crain was “repeatedly seeking medical care for a progressive illness” just before she died.

Last November, Fails reached out to medical malpractice lawyers to see about getting justice through the courts. A different legal barrier now stood in her way.

If Crain had experienced these same delays as an inpatient, Fails would have needed to establish that the hospital violated medical standards. That, she believed, she could do. But because the delays and discharges occurred in an area of the hospital classified as an emergency room, lawyers said that Texas law set a much higher burden of proof: “willful and wanton negligence.”

No lawyer has agreed to take the case.

Mariam Elba contributed research. Cassandra Jaramillo contributed reporting. Andrea Suozzo contributed data reporting.