The Israeli government on Monday expressed openness to discussions led by the U.S. about disagreements with Lebanon over the countries’ shared maritime border.

Click Here:

Talks could be “for the good of both countries’ interests in developing natural gas reserves and oil” the office of Israeli Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz’s office said in a statement, according to Reuters.

ADVERTISEMENT

The statement reportedly follows Steinitz’s meeting with U.S. envoy David Satterfield. 

The U.S. and Lebanese governments did not immediately offer comment, according to Reuters. 

The Middle Eastern nations have been in discord over borders, affecting about 330 square miles of the sea, the news service noted. Gas fields have been discovered in the disputed area.

President TrumpDonald John TrumpDemocrats claim victory as Trump gets battered in court Juan Williams: Anti-abortion extremism is on the rise Trump feels squeeze in tax return fight MORE is being squeezed in the fight over his tax returns.

House Democrats are expected to initiate a court case in the near future to obtain the documents. And a series of recent developments may not bode well for Trump’s efforts to keep lawmakers from seeing his returns.

“It’s unavoidable that he can’t hide from this anymore, no matter how hard he tries,” said Maura Quint, executive director of Tax March, which supports the efforts to obtain Trump’s returns.

ADVERTISEMENT

Democrats see several actions that took place last week as positive signs for their efforts.

Federal judges made rulings that sided with Democrats in two other cases where they issued subpoenas to obtain the president’s financial information.

Additionally, The Washington Post on Tuesday reported about a draft IRS memo written last fall finding that the Treasury secretary has no discretion when it comes to requests for tax returns made by the chairmen of Congress’s tax committees. That memo wasn’t finalized and doesn’t specifically mention Trump, but Democrats see it as confirming their interpretation of the law.

And New York state lawmakers on Wednesday passed legislation that would allow the chairmen of Congress’s tax committees to request the state tax returns of Trump and other federal, state and local officials.

All of these developments come as House Democrats prepare to take legal action to obtain Trump’s tax returns. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard NealRichard Edmund NealTrump feels squeeze in tax return fight Republicans attempt to amend retirement savings bill to include anti-BDS language House votes to boost retirement savings MORE (D-Mass.) previously issued letters and subpoenas seeking Trump’s personal and business tax documents from 2013 to 2018, but those were rejected by the Treasury Department.

Neal told reporters on Thursday that there is likely to be some action in his effort to obtain Trump’s returns in the coming days.

When asked if that action would be a lawsuit, he said he’s “always thought that’s where this is going to end up.”

Trump broke with decades of precedent during his 2016 campaign when he didn’t voluntarily make any of his tax returns public. He has said that he doesn’t want to release them while under audit, though the IRS has said that audits don’t prevent people from releasing their own tax information.

The latest developments suggest that Trump’s tax returns might not permanently stay private. While Neal’s requests for the documents have cited a tax-code provision that requires the Ways and Means Committee to review tax returns it receives from Treasury in a closed session, the panel could vote to submit a report to the full House, which could make some or all of Trump’s tax information public.

Trump is expected to mount a vigorous defense in the fight over his tax returns, having already obtained outside counsel. He has also said that voters don’t care about his tax documents.

“I won the 2016 Election partially based on no Tax Returns while I am under audit (which I still am), and the voters didn’t care,” Trump tweeted earlier this month. “Now the Radical Left Democrats want to again relitigate this matter. Make it a part of the 2020 Election!”

Recent polling from Morning Consult and Politico has found that essentially half of registered voters back congressional Democrats’ efforts to obtain Trump’s tax returns.

Republicans say that they don’t think Democrats’ efforts to obtain Trump’s tax returns will hurt the president politically.

Doug Heye, a former Republican National Committee spokesman, said that the new developments in the fight over the returns are “more noise that the president doesn’t want,” but they may not be too damaging because voters generally already have their minds made up about the president.

“Voters are by and large decided one way or the other on Trump,” he said.

Heye added that Trump’s supporters like it when he fights, and “this is another avenue for him to do that.”

Republican strategists also say that voters care more about other issues than they do about Trump’s tax returns. And they said that Democrats’ aggressive efforts to investigate Trump on his tax returns and other issues could end up backfiring.

“It’s clear that [Democrats are] going above and beyond oversight,” said GOP strategist Ford O’Connell. “They’re playing a political game to take Trump down.”

Click Here:

But those who support Democrats’ effort to obtain Trump’s returns say that the effort is important even if it doesn’t damage the president’s reelection prospects.

“It’s really not a matter of whether this is something that will hurt him politically or not, it’s a matter of the people making sure that the president is working in their interests and not [his] own,” Quint said.

Despite the momentum for Democrats, it still could be a while before they see Trump’s tax returns. A court case over the issue could take some time to reach its final conclusion, particularly if the Supreme Court eventually takes it up.

And while New York state’s bill on Congress requesting state tax returns could become law soon, Neal has suggested that he might not use the authority he would have under the measure to request Trump’s state tax returns. Neal’s stated purpose for requesting Trump’s federal returns focuses on an interest in legislative proposals relating to how the IRS audits presidents.

“The difficulty is that we don’t have control over state taxes,” Neal said, comparing the New York bill and his efforts to “green apples and red apples.”

He added that Trump’s state tax returns could provide a baseline to compare with federal tax returns but “for the moment, we’re still proceeding on our own path.”

One of the state lawmakers who introduced the New York legislation, Assemblyman David Buchwald (D), told The Hill that while Trump’s state tax returns may not directly be related to Neal’s stated purpose for seeking Trump’s federal returns, “there are other legitimate legislative tasks that state tax returns are relevant to.”

State Sen. Brad Hoylman (D), who introduced the legislation in the other chamber, said that New York is giving Congress another way to access some of Trump’s tax information.

“I’m not sure they’ll take advantage of it, but if they need to, it will be available, I hope,” he told The Hill.

Niv Elis contributed.

President TrumpDonald John TrumpDemocrats claim victory as Trump gets battered in court Juan Williams: Anti-abortion extremism is on the rise Trump feels squeeze in tax return fight MORE said at a news conference in Japan on Monday that he is not bothered by North Korean missile testing, splitting with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. 

When asked whether he was “bothered” by North Korea’s tests, Trump responded,  “No, I’m not. I am personally not.”

“All I know is that there have been no nuclear tests. There have been no ballistic missiles going out. There have been no long-range missiles going out. And I think that someday we’ll have a deal,” Trump said, according to a White House transcript of the president’s remarks. He also said he was in “no rush.”

Trump called the North Korean leader, Kim Jong UnKim Jong UnTrump splits with Japanese host, saying he’s not ‘personally’ bothered by North Korea missile tests Trump agrees with Kim, rips Biden at Japan presser Trump meets Japan’s new emperor in lavish welcome ceremony MORE, a “very smart man” and suggested the missile tests were meant to “get attention.”

“Who knows?” he added. “It doesn’t matter.”

Abe, meanwhile, did not take the same stance as Trump, telling reporters that the tests were “of great regret.” 

“This is violating the [United Nations] Security Council resolution,” the Japanese prime minister said. “It is of great regret. But at the same time, between Kim Jong Un and President Trump a certain new approach was taken and that is something that I pay tribute to.”

Abe also said that Japan feels threatened by the testing due to its close proximity to North Korea. 

Trump is in Japan for a four-day state visit. While there, he tweeted about the North Korean missile testing that took place earlier this month, saying that he has “confidence that Chairman Kim will keep his promise to me.”

Abe has previously called for better enforcement for U.N. resolutions regarding North Korean missile testing, according to Bloomberg News. 

Pyongyang earlier this month fired short-range missiles from its east coast, according to the South Korean military. 

–Updated at 7:43 a.m.

 

Click Here:

The Trump administration is under fire for granting millions in trade-related farm aid to a company owned by two Brazilian brothers under investigation for violating U.S. anti-corruption laws.

JBS USA, an American subsidiary of an international meatpacking corporation, has reportedly received millions from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) aid program for farmers and ranchers caught up in President TrumpDonald John TrumpDemocrats claim victory as Trump gets battered in court Juan Williams: Anti-abortion extremism is on the rise Trump feels squeeze in tax return fight MORE’s trade war.

Trump has sought to protect the ailing U.S. farm sector from tariffs on the country’s agricultural exports through direct payments and crop purchases from the USDA.

ADVERTISEMENT

Click Here:

He announced Thursday that the USDA would offer $16 billion more in aid to U.S. farmers and ranchers, following $12 billion in assistance unveiled in July.

“The $16 billion in funds will help keep our cherished farms thriving and make clear that no country has a veto on America’s economic and national security,” Trump said Thursday. “We will ensure that our farmers get the relief they need and very, very quickly.”

U.S. farmers and ranchers are among the hardest hit by the trade-war blowback from China and the European Union. Trump’s tariffs on steel, aluminum and Chinese goods prompted retaliatory levies on U.S. crops and livestock, hurting producers already reeling from low commodity prices and severe weather.

But Democratic lawmakers are pressuring the Trump administration to retract its payouts to JBS USA, citing its link to a foreign corporation run by brothers at the center of corruption and bribery probes in both the U.S. and Brazil.

“Allowing taxpayer funds to support foreign agricultural companies, particularly corrupt foreign companies, at a time when farmers in Wisconsin and across the country are suffering from pain caused by your trade wars is outrageous,” wrote Sen. Tammy BaldwinTammy Suzanne BaldwinWarren vows to fight ‘tooth and nail’ for LGBTQ protections as president This week: House to vote on bill to ban LGBTQ discrimination Overnight Defense — Presented by Huntington Ingalls Industries — Pentagon approves transfer of .5B to border wall | Dems blast move | House Dem pushes Pelosi to sue over Trump’s Yemen veto MORE (D-Wis.) in a Thursday letter to Trump.

“I’m calling on you to explain how you allowed this to happen.”

JBS USA operates dozens of beef, pork, and poultry packaging plants throughout the U.S. and is among several firms facing retaliatory tariffs on American agricultural products. The company has received $64 million in aid through four contracts with the USDA, according to the New York Daily News.

JBS USA’s parent company is based in Brazil, so the U.S. firm is technically eligible for USDA aid because it sources livestock from American farmers.

“Our sole intent for participating is to support U.S. producer prices and help our American producer partners,” JBS USA told The Hill in a statement, adding that it employs 62,000 workers across 28 states and Puerto Rico.

“We operate U.S. pork plants, processing American hogs raised by U.S. farmers – the true program beneficiaries.”

JBS USA was formed in 2007 when Brazilian corporation JBS SA purchased Swift & Co, a major U.S. meatpacker. Through a string of other high-profile acquisitions, JBS USA has grown to become the second-largest producer of beef, pork and poultry in the country.

As JBS USA reaped profits from its growing American operations, the Brazilian brothers who owned the parent company—Josely and Wesley Batista—faced severe legal trouble at home and in the U.S.

The Batistas have admitted to bribing thousands of Brazilian officials and are facing accusations of insider trading and lying to prosecutors. The Justice Department is also investigating the Batistas for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, according to court records obtained by The Hill.

“It is simply unconscionable that corrupt foreign-owned companies like JBS currently qualify for assistance under the USDA’s vendor criteria,” wrote Sen. Richard Blumenthal in a Monday letter to Agriculture Secretary Sonny PerdueGeorge (Sonny) Ervin PerdueOn The Money: Senate passes disaster aid bill after deal with Trump | Trump to offer B aid package for farmers | House votes to boost retirement savings | Study says new tariffs to double costs for consumers Trump administration announces B aid package for farmers hurt by trade war with China USDA relocates expert economists, researchers who challenge Trump policies: report MORE.

Sen. Debbie StabenowDeborah (Debbie) Ann StabenowCongress: Support legislation to defend Medicare home health  Dems want climate change, tax hikes in infrastructure deal Critics accuse EPA of weakening pollution rule for Pentagon MORE (D-Mich.), ranking member on the Senate Agriculture Committee, said in a statement that the payouts to JBS were “alarming,” particularly because Brazilian soybean growers have profited from a sharp decline in orders from the U.S.

“This adds insult to injury,” Stabenow said. “We need a focused trade strategy to protect our farmers, businesses, and consumers.”

JBS USA isn’t the first company to come under scrutiny for receiving trade-related aid.

GOP senators successfully shamed Chinese-owned Smithfield into returning roughly $240,000 in aid to USDA last year. But Republicans and the Trump administration have shown little of the same concerns about JBS.

Perdue brushed off concerns about JBS’ ownership, insisting that USDA aid would not benefit the Batistas.

“These are legal companies operating in the United States. This is no different than people buying Volkswagens or other foreign autos where their executives may have been guilty of some issue along the way,” Perdue said in a Friday statement.

“This helps US Farmers by supporting prices.”

But Democrats say they intend to keep the spotlight on JBS USA and on broader issues with the USDA’s aid program.

Earlier this month, Rep. Rosa DeLauroRosa Luisa DeLauroWatchdog: DeVos used personal emails for work in ‘limited’ cases Press: Who will be the first conservative to take on Trump? A good week for the nation’s family planning program MORE (D-Conn.) introduced a bill to limit USDA payouts to U.S.-owned firms and told the Daily News the Trump administration needed more oversight.

“Their incompetence and lack of transparency has shown that they cannot be trusted to get this right,” she told the paper.

President TrumpDonald John TrumpDemocrats claim victory as Trump gets battered in court Juan Williams: Anti-abortion extremism is on the rise Trump feels squeeze in tax return fight MORE on Monday sounded an optimistic note about future negotiations with Iran, saying at a press conference in Japan that he’s not looking for regime change despite increasing tensions between the two countries.

“I’m not looking to hurt Iran at all. I’m looking to have Iran say, ‘no nuclear weapons,'” Trump said during a press conference in Japan.

ADVERTISEMENT

The president, who as recently as last weekend threatened that war would be “the official end of Iran,” appeared far more welcoming to sitting down with the country’s leaders. But the two sides have shown few signs of coming to the table as the U.S. readies to deploy additional troops to the region.

In making the case for a renegotiated nuclear pact with Tehran, Trump echoed the same logic that he’s used to argue that North Korea will eventually give up its nuclear weapons, thus far to no avail.

“I think we’ll make a deal,” Trump said Monday. “I think Iran — again, I think Iran has tremendous economic potential. And I look forward to letting them get back to the stage where they can show that.

“These are great people,” he added. “It has a chance to be a great country, with the same leadership. We’re not looking for regime change. I just want to make that clear. We’re looking for no nuclear weapons.”

Click Here:

Trump earlier Monday said he welcomed the assistance of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe trying to negotiate with Iran as a third party.

Transgender and public health advocates are ready to fight the Trump administration over a new proposed policy that seeks to roll back transgender health protections.

The proposed rule from the Department of Health and Human Services, which was released Friday ahead of a long holiday weekend, would rewrite an Obama-era policy that prohibited health discrimination based on sex.

The proposal faced immediate backlash, and advocacy groups signaled they are gearing up for a potential court fight.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The ACLU refuses to allow the Trump administration to try to drag us backwards and roll back these essential, life-saving protections against discrimination,” said Louise Melling, deputy legal director with the American Civil Liberties Union.

“We will fight to make sure that who you are and the care you need will not be treated as a pre-existing condition ever again. Should HHS finalize this discriminatory rule, we will see them in court,” Melling said in a statement.

The Obama administration expanded the Affordable Care Act’s definition of sex discrimination to include gender identity, but those rules were blocked by a federal judge in 2016.

The Trump administration’s proposed definition, advocates said, will make it easier for doctors, hospitals and insurance companies to deny care or coverage to transgender patients, as well as women who have had abortions.

The rule is wide-ranging, and impacts hospitals, doctors and clinics that accept federal reimbursement. It also impacts insurance companies that participate in the health insurance exchanges.

Roger Severino, director of the HHS civil rights office, said the proposal was not intended to put patients at risk, and that the agency does not condone discrimination.

“We believe in the inherent human dignity of all people,” Severino said on a call with reporters. “That goal is not changed by this rule.”

Jocelyn Samuels, who ran the HHS civil rights office until the beginning of 2017, said she is concerned that no matter what the regulation says, rhetoric from the administration could make providers believe they have the right to deny treatment to LGBT people.

There are “very real repercussions” for the health and well-being of LGBT people, said Samuels, who is now the executive director of the Williams Institute, an independent think tank at UCLA Law.

Mara Keisling, executive director for the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE), said the proposal will “abandon two million Americans who already face significant barriers to accessing adequate and life-saving health care.”

“It’s about the right of every American to be treated with dignity when they walk into an emergency room, meet a new doctor, or find the right insurance plan,” Keisling said. “If permitted, this rule will promote ignorance and hate that no American should have to face while seeking care.”

A group of religious hospitals and providers first challenged the expanded ObamaCare non-discrimination provisions in 2016, arguing they could be forced to give treatment that violates their religious beliefs, like transition-related care.

Advocates said transgender people already face barriers to care, and the proposal will make the situation even worse.

The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, obtained complaints filed to HHS relating to sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination through a Freedom of Information Act request in 2018.

The group found the majority of complaints were by transgender individuals who were refused health coverage or care simply because of their gender identity, not because they were seeking specific transition-related care.

President TrumpDonald John TrumpDemocrats claim victory as Trump gets battered in court Juan Williams: Anti-abortion extremism is on the rise Trump feels squeeze in tax return fight MORE repeatedly pledged support for the LGBTQ community on the campaign trail in 2016, and has sought to portray himself as an ally of the community during his time in office.

Yet he has consistently sided with religious conservatives and signed off on policies that would narrowly define gender and erode protections for transgender individuals.

For example, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed a rule that would allow federally funded shelters to turn away transgender people for religious reasons.

The administration also finalized rules making it easier for health workers and institutions to deny treatment to people if it would violate their religious or moral beliefs.

In addition, the military’s transgender ban took effect earlier this month, despite objections from advocacy groups and medical experts.

Advocates said they are concerned that the latest proposal is adding to the string of policies that could jeopardize the gains made in ensuring transgender individuals receive equal access to care.

“The Trump-Pence Administration is sanctioning blatant discrimination in health care by attempting to reverse the landmark health care rights law,” said Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center. “We are prepared to protect and defend patients against this dangerous attempt to reverse their rights.”

Any potential lawsuits won’t happen for some time. The proposal will need to go through the traditional notice-and-comment rulemaking process, and until a final rule is published, current law will remain in effect.

Keisling said the transgender community should make sure their voices are heard.

“Today, transgender people all over the country are terrified that the president is coming for their healthcare,” Keisling said. “It absolutely matters that this a proposed rule, but the fear, the anger, the feeling marginalized, starts today from this proposed rule.”

Addiction to video games is now considered a mental health disorder by a leading international body.

The World Health Organization (WHO) added video game addiction to its International Classification of Diseases (ICD) in an update Saturday, according to NBC News.

ADVERTISEMENT

Click Here:

The classification refers to “gaming disorder” as “a pattern of persistent or recurrent gaming behavior” that becomes so extensive it “takes precedence over other life interests.”

The move comes less than a year after WHO added gaming addiction to its list of potentially harmful technology-related behaviors.

Shekhar Saxena, the WHO’s expert on mental health and substance abuse, told NBC News that the disorder is rare and is only diagnosed following months of extended playing.

A lobbying group for the video game industry pushed back on the new classification, saying video games are “enjoyed safely and sensibly by more than 2 billion people worldwide” and noting that the “educational, therapeutic, and recreational value” of games is widely recognized.

The updated ICD containing the new classification will be presented at the annual World Health Assembly held this month. The classification will not be adopted until 2022.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin TrudeauJustin Pierre James TrudeauOn The Money: Judge upholds House subpoena for Trump financial records | Trump vows to appeal ruling by ‘Obama-appointed judge’ | Canada, Mexico lift retaliatory tariffs on US | IRS audit rate falls Pence will travel to Canada to rally support for new NAFTA On The Money: Treasury rejects Dem subpoena for Trump tax returns | Companies warn trade war about to hit consumers | Congress, White House to launch budget talks next week | Trump gets deal to lift steel tariffs on Mexico, Canada MORE on Monday notified the country’s lawmakers he intends to bring forward legislation to ratify United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the deal that replaces the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Bloomberg News reported.

Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland introduced a “ways and means” motion in the House of Commons, the first step to getting the deal approved by parliament.

ADVERTISEMENT

Click Here:

Trudeau said last week that he was eager to complete a deal, according to Bloomberg.

Vice President Mike PenceMichael (Mike) Richard PenceWatch live: Pence participates in Memorial Day ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery Mike Pence delivers West Point commencement address Dozens of graduates walk out in protest of Pence address MORE is scheduled to meet with Trudeau in Ottawa on Thursday to discuss advancing the agreement.

The U.S. earlier this month reached a deal to lift steel and aluminum tariffs on Canada and Mexico, removing a significant roadblock to domestic approval of the USMCA. Canadian and Mexican officials have now indicated they will ratify the agreement.

Congressional Democrats, however, have said involved parties must tighten labor and environmental standards before passage in the U.S.

 

 

In 2019, states are taking action to restrict or expand access to abortion amid a national debate over Roe v. Wade.

Multiple states such as Kentucky and Georgia have passed bills that ban abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, around six weeks of pregnancy, while Alabama recently passed the strictest abortion law in the country, banning the procedure with few exceptions.

ADVERTISEMENT

Several other states are considering “trigger” laws that go into effect to ban abortion should Roe v. Wade be overturned, while other states like New York have passed bills that enshrine abortion rights.

Click Here:

States like Alabama are specifically hoping their new laws force the Supreme Court to take up a challenge to Roe v. Wade, which established a woman’s right to abortion in 1973.

Here are the states that have passed or are considering new abortion laws in 2019:

STATES THAT PASSED NEW LAWS

Alabama
Law: The nation’s most restrictive abortion ban with no exceptions for rape or incest.

In May, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey (R) signed into law the nation’s most restrictive abortion ban, which makes it a felony for Alabama doctors to perform or attempt to perform an abortion. The only exception made under the law is for in cases where the life of the mother is endangered by her pregnancy. It has not taken effect, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Planned Parenthood announced a legal challenge Friday.

Arkansas
Law: An abortion ban after 18 weeks into pregnancy with exceptions.

Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) signed a bill in March that bans abortions after 18 weeks into pregnancy, with exceptions for rape, incest and medical emergencies. The state also passed a law in February that would automatically make abortion illegal in Arkansas if Roe v. Wade were overturned. The law is expected to take effect this month, but the ACLU has vowed to sue.

Georgia
Law: The state passed a fetal heartbeat abortion ban in May.

Gov. Brian Kemp (R) signed a “heartbeat” bill in May that would ban abortions if a fetal heartbeat can be detected. The ACLU said it plans to challenge the law in court. The state currently bans abortions after the 20-week mark, but in light of the new law, an abortion could be banned as early as six weeks into pregnancy. The bill would take effect next year unless it’s blocked in court.

Indiana
Law: The state has signed two laws this year, with the first banning dilation and evacuation in some cases and the second allowing medical professionals to choose not to perform abortions.

Gov. Eric Holcomb (R) signed two abortion-related measures in April, both of which limit access to the procedure. One law signed by Holcomb prohibits dilation and evacuation abortions, a common method used in second-trimester abortions. There are exceptions for women who would suffer “substantial and irreversible” physical damage from continuing the pregnancy. It takes effect July 1, but the ACLU said it plans to sue.

The other would give more medical professionals the option to choose not to perform abortions or take part in abortion-inducing care.

Kentucky
Law: A judge has temporarily blocked a “heartbeat” bill from going into effect.

Gov. Matt Bevin (R) signed legislation in March banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, usually at around six weeks of pregnancy. A federal judge stopped the law from going into effect while it’s being challenged in court by the ACLU.

Mississippi
Law: The state passed a “heartbeat” abortion ban this year slated to take effect July 1 that was blocked by a federal judge on Friday.

Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant (R) in March signed a bill banning abortions in the state once a fetus has a detectable heartbeat. The law was challenged in court by the Center for Reproductive Rights. Judge Carlton Reeves, an Obama appointee, said it “smacks of defiance.”

Missouri
Law: The state has banned abortion at eight weeks in the state.

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson (R) in May signed a bill banning abortion in the state at the eight-week mark in a pregnancy. The law takes effect Aug. 28. Legal challenges are expected.

New York
Law: In January, Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) signed a bill that protects access to abortion even if Roe v. Wade is overturned. The law decriminalizes abortion and allows some late-term abortions in cases where the fetus is not viable or when necessary to protect the mother’s life.

Ohio
Law: Abortion is banned once a fetal heartbeat is detected.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) signed into law one of the country’s most stringent abortion laws in April, banning abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected. The law will take effect in July unless it is blocked in court. The law is currently being challenged in court by the ACLU.

Utah
Law: Utah has approved a ban on abortions in the state after 18 weeks, with some exceptions.

Gov. Gary Herbert (R) signed a bill in March banning abortions after 18 weeks. A federal judge blocked the state from enforcing the law while it’s being challenged in court by the ACLU and the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah. The law creates criminal penalties for doctors who perform abortions after 18 weeks of pregnancy.

North Dakota
Law: The abortion method commonly used in second trimester abortion is banned in the state.

Gov. Doug Burgum (R) in April signed into law a measure that outlaws a second trimester abortion procedure known as dilation and evacuation. In addition, abortion rights advocates are considering filing a lawsuit over a law that would require a clinic to read a script about reversing medical abortions.

Tennessee
Law: Gov. Bill Lee (R) in May signed a so-called “trigger” law that would make abortion illegal if Roe v. Wade is altered or overturned.

Texas
Law: Gov. Greg Abbott (R) is expected to sign an abortion bill that would punish any doctor who failed to treat an infant that survived an abortion procedure.

The Texas Senate also passed a bill eliminating exceptions for the state’s ban on abortion after 20 weeks. Current exceptions allow for an abortion if the fetus is unviable or has “severe and irreversible” abnormalities, which critics say could lead to “discriminatory abortions.” The bill is currently under consideration in the state House.

Vermont
Law: Gov. Phil Scott (R) is expected to sign a bill making abortion a “fundamental right.”

The bill, approved by both the House and Senate, would “recognize as a fundamental right the freedom of reproductive choice” and “prohibit public entities from interfering with or restricting the right of an individual to terminate the individual’s pregnancy.”

STATES CONSIDERING NEW LAWS

Delaware
Law: Two restrictive abortion laws were defeated in committee earlier this year.

A Republican state lawmaker introduced two anti-abortion laws in January — one would ban abortions after 20 weeks, while the other would require women to see an ultrasound before they get an abortion. Neither bill made it out of the House Health and Human Development Committee.

Florida
Law: A fetal heartbeat abortion ban failed in the Senate earlier this year.

House Bill 235, filed in January, aimed to ban an abortion if a fetal heartbeat is detected, while House Bill 1335 moved to require minors to get notarized, written consent from a parent or legal guardian to get an abortion. The first bill died in committee, while the latter passed the state House but died in a Senate committee.

Idaho
Law: A currently proposed bill would make abortion murder.

An Idaho Republican lawmaker proposed in January a bill that would seek to make abortion murder and end its exemption from the state’s current murder laws. The bill would repeal part of existing state code that protects women getting abortions, as well as their doctors, from getting charged with murder.

Illinois
Law: A proposed bill would make abortion a fundamental right.

A group of Democratic lawmakers introduced a bill in February that would create a fundamental right to abortion in the state. Under the proposed law, there would be no restrictions on getting an abortion, and a woman could get an abortion at any time during her pregnancy for any reason. The bill is still in a House committee.

Louisiana
Law: A fetal heartbeat bill is close to reaching the governor’s desk.

House and Senate committees passed a fetal heartbeat bill in May. The bill passed in the Senate and is set to go back to the full House for a final vote. If it passes, it will head to Gov. John Bel Edwards’s (D) desk for his signature. Breaking with his party, he has said he will sign it.

Massachusetts
Law: A bill is being considered to expand abortion access, allowing for abortions after 24 weeks.

A bill proposed in January aimed to remove obstacles and expand abortion access in the state. The bill, titled the ROE Act, was filed by Democrats and would allow for abortions after the 24-week mark, considered to be so-called “late-term” abortion. The measure has drawn criticism from Republicans. It was referred to a Senate committee.

Montana
Law: A bill requiring an infant born alive after an abortion procedure to be treated as a legal person under the laws of the state.

Gov. Steve BullockSteve BullockTester will endorse a 2020 candidate ‘in the next week’ Whip list: Who’s clinched a spot in the 2020 Democratic debates Budowsky: 3 big dangers for Democrats MORE (D) vetoed a “born alive” bill passed by the legislature this session. Lawmakers considered multiple laws restricting abortion in 2019, including a “heartbeat” bill and a ban on abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

Minnesota 
Law: A ban on abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

In March, a Minnesota Senate committee advanced a bill that would ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, except in the cases of risk or danger to the mother. The legislation has so far stalled there.

New Mexico
Law: A statewide criminal ban on abortion.

The state Senate upheld an existing law making an abortion a felony, a law that would apply if the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade.

Pennsylvania
Law: A proposal would ban abortions for babies because of a Down syndrome diagnosis.

House lawmakers approved in May a measure that would bar abortions solely because of a possible Down syndrome diagnosis. Aborting a baby based on its sex is already outlawed in the state. The bill has an exception permitting women to get abortions in cases of rape, incest or endangerment to the mother. It was sent to the Senate.

Rhode Island
Law: A bill enshrining abortion rights in the state.

The state House passed a bill in March that would guarantee abortion rights in the state, but it was voted down by the state’s Senate Judiciary Committee. Senators have vowed to attach the bill to other legislation.

South Carolina
Law: A “heartbeat” abortion law banning the procedure at six weeks.

Gov. Henry McMaster (R) has said he will sign the bill, which passed the state House but was not taken up by the Senate before the legislative session adjourned for the year.

Wisconsin
Law: Wisconsin’s Democratic governor plans to veto abortion restrictions recently passed.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) has vowed to veto abortion restrictions the state assembly passed last week. One of the bills passed was the so-called born alive measure, which requires abortion providers to give care to babies who survive abortion attempts. Doctors would reportedly face prison time if they did not provide necessary medical care.

STATES TO WATCH

Alaska is considering what would become the nation’s strictest abortion ban if passed
A bill introduced May 15 moves to make abortion illegal across the state and would define abortion as “murder of an unborn child.” It would make performing or attempting to perform one a felony. There would be no exceptions for the life of the pregnant mother or for rape or incest victims.

Iowa’s “heartbeat” bill stalled in the courts
A judge recently struck down the state’s fetal heartbeat bill. A year after Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a fetal heartbeat bill, a Polk County judge struck down the legislation before it took effect, saying it violated the Iowa Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses.

Kansas protected abortion rights by the state Constitution
The state’s Supreme Court ruled in April that women have the right to an abortion under its Constitution after two abortion providers challenged a state ban on dilation and evacuation abortions. The ruling enshrines the legal right to abortion in the state even if Roe v. Wade were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Kansas and Oklahoma both failed to restrict medical abortion
State lawmakers tried and failed to override Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly’s (D) veto of a bill that would force doctors to tell women the abortion pill can be reversed, while the Oklahoma Supreme Court struck down a state law requiring physicians to use strict protocols for medically terminated pregnancies.

Maine, Nevada and Hawaii are considering expanding access to abortions
Lawmakers in Maine and Hawaii are considering bills that would expand the number of medical professionals allowed to provide abortions. Meanwhile, Nevada’s state assembly advanced a measure in May that would end requirements forcing doctors to tell pregnant patients about “emotional implications” of an abortion and which would also remove criminal penalties for inducing abortion.

Virginia is challenging abortion restrictions through the court system
Activists are challenging state abortion restrictions in a federal trial that began in May. Current state laws being challenged include licensing standards for abortion clinics, the requirement that patients get an ultrasound at least 24 hours before an abortion and rules that only doctors perform the procedure in the first trimester.

Fiat Chrysler is seeking a merger with Renault that is valued at more than $35 billion, according to Reuters.

Although shares rose for both companies, the deal comes with complications, including the French government’s role as the biggest shareholder for Renault and existing ties between Renault and Nissan, Reuters noted.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The market will be careful with these synergy numbers, as much has been promised before and there isn’t a single merger of equals that has ever succeeded in autos,” Evercore ISI analyst Arndt Ellinghorst told Reuters.

Fiat is reportedly proposing an all-share “merger of equals” in which a 2.5-billion euro dividend would first be paid to current Fiat shareholders, after which investors in each company would receive half of the final institution.

Click Here:

Current Renault Chairman Jean-Dominique Senard would likely become CEO of the new entity, with John Elkann, head of the Angelli family, which controls 29 percent of Fiat, serving as its chairman, according to Reuters, which cited sources familiar with the talks.

Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini said avoiding any job or budget cuts to the new entity would be essential, Reuters noted. A lawmaker from Salvini’s League party added that the Italian government may seek a stake in the new entity to balance out France’s stake.

The deal could take over a year to finalize, Fiat CEO Mike Manley said in a letter to employees seen by the news service.

Fiat is currently highly profitable in North America. But in Europe, where most of its plants are running under 50 percent capacity, the automaker lost money last quarter, with new European Union emissions curbs likely to add to its woes.

Renault, meanwhile, has no business in the U.S. but has been a trailblazer in electric car and fuel-efficient technologies.

“The case for combination is also strengthened by the need to take bold decisions to capture at scale the opportunities created by the transformation of the auto industry,” Fiat said, according to Reuters.