DiscussionDIVAS

Ready to rumble on Capitol Hill

If partisan politics weren’t already in full swing now that the Democrats control Congress, they came to a head this week with Democrats pushing through the war spending bill and issuing subpoenas for top Bush Administration officials to testify before Congress.

The war spending bill requires troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq in October of this year. Congress narrowly approved the bill, with just two Republicans in both Houses joining Democrats. The bill allocates an additional $124 billion for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush has made it very clear he will veto the measure, marking the first of his presidency.

How does the veto process work?
Once a bill hits his desk, a president has 10 days to sign it into law or veto it. If he does veto the bill, it goes back to Congress and must be approved by a two-thirds majority in both houses.

What are the subpoenas about?
Democrats used their majority status to subpoena three top Republicans: Condoleeza Rice and two Republican National Committee (RNC) members. They want Rice to discuss prewar knowledge of weapons of mass destruction, and they want RNC officials to say whether White House staff used RNC email accounts—instead of official White House accounts—to purposely skirt scrutiny of conversations held in relation to the saga of the eight fired U.S. attorneys and other issues. (Read previous WeeklyDIVA for more on this topic.)

The big picture
In many ways these efforts are public relations stunts, with Congress pointing the finger at the President and vice versa. The war bill passed by just 10 votes in the House and five in the Senate, so a two-thirds majority may be tough to get. However, a CBS/New York Times poll shows a majority of the public favor a timeline for withdrawal, and say Congress should make the decision on when that happens.

Male finger on the button

Amidst the Virginia Tech tragedy, you might have missed it, but on Wednesday the Supreme Court voted to support a nationwide ban on a controversial abortion method.

Abou the decision
In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court backed the 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, a federal law barring doctors from using a particular abortion method called “intact dilation and extraction,” often referred to as “partial-birth abortion” (generally used by anti-abortion supporters) or “D&X” (generally used by abortion-rights supporters).

[The procedure is typically performed in the second or third trimester of pregnancy. You can read more about it on the Kaiser Family Foundation web site.]

The only female on the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, wrote the dissenting opinion, fiercely challenging the decision and saying the thinking “reflects ancient notions of women’s place in the family and under the Constitution.”

How did it come about?
Basically it comes after a lot of legal back and forth. First, the Supreme Court struck down an attempt to ban the procedure in 2000. Then Congress took it into its own hands in 2003 and passed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which President Bush signed it into law.

But three states objected and blocked the law from taking effect. Federal appeals courts backed them up. But the Justice Department put on the brakes and filed their own case to the Supreme Court—Gonzales v. Carhart. The high court heard arguments in November and cast votes Wednesday. (See a timeline here.)

What does it mean?
Now, if a doctor performs this abortion procedure, he can face criminal charges and spend up to two years in jail. Some doctors say the language within the law could apply to all abortions, possibly putting them at more risk. There is a caveat for women whose lives are at stake.

The big picture
Ninety percent of abortions take place in the first trimester. But the court’s decision marked a big win for the anti-abortion movement. And while women in the United States are still guaranteed a Constitutional right to an abortion under the 1973 decision Roe v Wade, abortion rights supporters worry this decision spurs opponents to push for more restrictions at the state level and to ultimately overturn the landmark decision. The reality is, five men changed the abortion debate as we knew it.

Talk back: How do you look at this issue?

By the way, thanks to Digable Planets for the headline.

Sorry seems to be the… easiest word

A week of high-profile apologies, a firing, and the case of missing emails.

The Duke apology
First, charges against three Duke University lacrosse players accused of sexually assaulting a stripper last spring were thrown out by the North Carolina attorney general, who called the prosecutor in the case “unchecked.” Both the NAACP and a national rape and abuse group supported the outcome. The prosecutor, who apologized to the boys on Thursday, was up for re-election when they were arrested.

The Imus apology
Also on Thursday, another racially charged fiasco was swiftly resolved. Don Imus, a veteran radio broadcaster, shock jock, and member of the National Broadcasters Hall of Fame, was fired—first from MSNBC where his radio show was simulcast, then from CBS. Why? On his April 4 broadcast, Imus made racially disparaging remarks about the Rutgers University women’s basketball team, finalists in the Women’s NCAA Championship. Major advertisers pulled their support for Imus’ show and by Thursday he was off the air waves. Imus has apologized.

The Wolfowitz apology
World Bank employees want Paul Wolfowitz, the head of the bank, to resign for helping his girlfriend get a sweet job at the State Department. He says he’s sorry. Wolfowitz was once second in command at the Defense Department and has been at the World Bank since 2005. (What is the World Bank?)


The case of missing e-mails
Last month we wrote about the controversy swirling over the firings of eight U.S. attorneys. And next week Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is expected to testify in the matter. But the new news is that official White House emails—possibly related to the firings—are missing. Why? Apparently 50 employees or so used Republican National Committee email accounts to communicate rather than official White House accounts. This means some emails may not have been automatically saved as required by the Presidential Records Act, and could be lost. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy says he’s not buying it and wants the emails produced. Stay tuned.

Utah has a Dixie. Who knew?

Census data released this week about population growth in metropolitan areas revealed some not-so-shocking facts: New York is home to more people than any other U.S. city (18.8 million), Atlanta is growing like gangbusters, and New Orleans’ population fell the most of any city between 2000 and 2006.

But one fact in particular caught our eye: St. George, Utah is the number one fastest growing metro area in the United States. Where?

It’s in Dixie
If you didn’t know Utah had a Dixie, neither did we. It’s the Southwestern part of the state and at one time home to cotton fields. In the 1850s and 60s, long-time Mormon leader Brigham Young encouraged folks to move to the area and plant cotton crops. He even imported Southerners to plant cotton. St. George is a major community in Utah’s Dixie today.

What’s happening?
Perhaps not surprisingly, more native-born Americans, including retirees, are moving out of big cities to places like St. George, in part to find more affordable housing but still maintain an urban feel. In fact, so many are leaving that without an influx of immigrants into major metropolitan areas, several cities would have experienced population loss over the study’s period.

The big picture
The tourism board for St. George attributes much of the growth to “competitive construction rates and low crime.” But note it’s only about 120 miles outside of Las Vegas. And while a large portion of residents are over age 55, it is close enough that one could live in St. George and work in Las Vegas. Given that there are about 128 million commuters in the U.S., 34 million of whom commute outside their metro area to another, it’s not impossible.

As more people choose to live outside of the city where they work—and commute—we may soon find ourselves discussing more seriously whether to spend money on better mass-transit systems, like France’s bullet, which broke speed records this week.