Connect with us

Politics

World Health Organization Defends Its Relationship With China After Trump Threatens to Cut Funding

Published

on

  • President Trump announced Tuesday that he would cut funding to the World Health Organization; however, minutes later, he backtracked and said he was only considering cutting those funds. 
  • Trump criticized the W.H.O. for being “China-centric,” a criticism it has also faced from other Republican lawmakers over the course of the pandemic.
  • The W.H.O. responded Wednesday by defending its relationship with China and by urging the United States not to cut funding.
  • Loss of funding from the U.S. could cut deep, as that funding makes up 14% of the W.H.O.’s budget.

Trump Says The U.S. Is Looking at Cutting Funding to W.H.O.

President Donald Trump announced he would be cutting United States funding to the World Health Organization at a Tuesday coronavirus press briefing. However, a little more than 15 minutes later, he backtracked and said he was only considering cutting that funding.

“We’re going to put a hold on money spent to the W.H.O.,” he originally said.

“We’re going to put a very powerful hold on it and we’re going to see. It’s a great thing if it works but when they call every shot wrong, that’s no good. They called it wrong. They call it wrong. They really, they missed the call.” 

“So quick follow-up on that,” a reporter asked him later. “Is the time to freeze funding to the WHO during a pandemic?”

“Well, maybe not,” he said. “I’m not saying that I’m going to do it. But we’re going to look at it.”

A different reporter then pressed Trump by saying he had said funding would be cut. 

“No, I didn’t,” Trump said. “I said we’re going to look at it. We’re going to investigate it. We’re going to look at it, but we will look at ending funding, yeah.”

While, currently, no decision has been reached on whether or not to defund the W.H.O. on the U.S. side, if the country were to pull the plug, it could be a deep cut for the organization. The U.S. is the W.H.O.’s biggest donor, and according to its website, U.S. contributions make up 14% of the W.H.O.’s budget.

On top of that, Trump had already previously requested that Congress slash the country’s W.H.O. contribution from $122 to $58 million for the fiscal year in 2021. 

Trump Calls the W.H.O. “China-centric”

Part of the reason why Trump has threatened to cut the W.H.O.’s funding is because of the organization’s relationship with China and its opposition to Trump restricting travel with China back at the end of January.

“They actually criticized and disagreed with my travel ban at the time I did it,” Trump said Tuesday. “And they were wrong. They’ve been wrong about a lot of things. They had a lot of information very early and they didn’t to want to — they seemed to be very “China-centric.” 

“They called it wrong,” he added. “They called it wrong. They really, they missed the call. They could have called it months earlier. They would have known, and should have known, and they probably did know.” 

In January, the W.H.O., cited evidence that it said “[showed] that restricting the movement of people and goods during public health emergencies is ineffective in most situations and may divert resources from other interventions.”

“In fact, we oppose it,” W.H.O. Director General Tedros Adhanom said. 

On February 11th, the W.H.O did partially revise its stance on travel restrictions, saying that such restrictions “…may have a public health rationale at the beginning of the containment phase of an outbreak, as they may allow affected countries to implement sustained response measures, and non-affected countries to gain time to initiate and implement effective preparedness measures. Such restrictions, however, need to be short in duration, proportionate to the public health risks, and be reconsidered regularly as the situation evolves.” 

Of course, U.S. travel restrictions haven’t been short. In fact, they’ve been in place for over two months now. That ban was also imposed well into the outbreak only after China had already reported thousands of cases.

Other public health experts have also argued that travel bans require strenuous amounts  of government resources and that there are more effective ways of fighting the spread of the virus, including measures like comprehensive testing.

However, some experts have praised Trump for closing the borders between the U.S. and China. That includes one of the lead members of Trump’s Coronavirus Task Force, immunologist Dr. Anthony Fauci.

“One of the things that we did very early and very aggressively, the president put the travel restriction coming from China to the United States and most recently from Europe to the United States because Europe is really the new China,” Dr. Fauci said in a March 22 interview with CBS’ Face the Nation. 

Other Lawmakers Criticize the W.H.O. for Inaction Against China

Trump’s potential cut to the W.H.O. is just the latest in a series of criticism from Republican lawmakers. 

Monday night on Fox News, Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) accused the W.H.O. of bending the knee to China, pointing to several instances including a January 14th tweet from the W.H.O. Notably, that tweet referenced a preliminary investigation from Chinese authorities who said there was “no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus.”

That statement has since been proven false. 

In that interview, Scott also mentioned that he had asked the W.H.O to investigate China but the organization turned him down.

“If they had done their job,” he said, “everybody would have gotten more ready. We wouldn’t have shut down this economy, and we wouldn’t have all these people dead all over the world.”

Scott then went on to say Senate Homeland Security Committee Chair Ron Johnson (R-WI) had agreed to investigate the W.H.O’s response.

Last week, Senator Martha McSally (R-AZ) called for Adhanom to step down from the W.H.O. because, according to McSally, he’s assisting China in covering up underreporting.

W.H.O. Defends Its Relationship With China

The W.H.O. responded directly to Trump’s potential funding cut Tuesday morning. Its regional director for Europe said, “We are still in the acute phase of a pandemic so now is not the time to cut back on funding.”

Senior adviser to Adhanom, Bruce Aylward, also defended the organization’s relationship with China, saying, “It was absolutely critical in the early part of this outbreak to have full access to everything possible, to get on the ground and work with the Chinese to understand this.” 

“This is what we did with every other hard hit country like Spain and had nothing to do with China specifically,” Aylward added.

Aylward also defended the W.H.O.’s January recommendation to keep borders open, saying that Beijing had worked hard to identify and detect early cases and their contacts, ensuring they didn’t travel.

See what others are saying: (Business Insider) (The New York Post) (CNBC)

Politics

Biden Mistakenly Calls Out For Dead Lawmaker at White House Event

Published

on

The remarks prompted concerns about the mental state of the president, who previously mourned the congresswoman’s death in an official White House statement.


“Where’s Jackie?” 

Video of President Joe Biden publicly asking if a congresswoman who died last month was present at a White House event went viral Wednesday, giving rise to renewed questions about the leader’s mental acuity.

The remarks were made at the White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health, which Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-In.) had helped convene and organize before her sudden death in a car accident.

The president thanked the group of bipartisan lawmakers who helped make the event happen, listing them off one by one, and appearing to look around in search of Rep. Walorski when he reached her name.

“Jackie, are you here? Where’s Jackie?” he called. “I think she wasn’t going to be here to help make this a reality.” 

The incident flummoxed many, especially because Biden had even acknowledged her work on the conference in an official White House statement following her death last month.

“Jill and I are shocked and saddened by the death of Congresswoman Jackie Walorski of Indiana along with two members of her staff in a car accident today in Indiana,” the statement read.

“I appreciated her partnership as we plan for a historic White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health this fall that will be marked by her deep care for the needs of rural America.”

The Age Maximum Question

Numerous social media users and news outlets presented the mishap as evidence that Biden, who is 79, does not have the mental capacity to serve as president. Others, meanwhile, raised the possibility of imposing an age maximum for the presidency.

Most of the comments against the president came from the right, which has regularly questioned his mental stability. However, the idea of an age limit goes beyond Biden and touches on concerns about America’s most important leaders being too old.

While Biden is the oldest president in history, former President Donald Trump — who is 76 and has also had his mental state continually questioned — would have likewise held that title if he had won re-election in 2020.

These concerns extend outside the presidency as well: the current session of Congress is the oldest on average of any Congress in recent history, and the median ages are fairly similar among Republicans and Democrats when separated by chambers.

There is also a higher percentage of federal lawmakers who are older than the median age. Nearly 1 out of every 4 members are over the age of 70.

Source: Business Insider

What’s more, some of the people in the highest leadership positions are among the oldest members. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.), is the oldest-ever House Speaker at 82, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) — the president pro tempore of the Senate and third person in line for the presidency — is the same age, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is 80.

As a result, it is unsurprising that a recent Insider/Morning Consult poll found that 3 in 4 Americans support an age max for members of Congress, and more than 40% say they view the ages of political leaders as a “major” problem.

Those who support the regulations argue that age limits are standard practice in many industries, including for airplane pilots and the military, and thus should be imposed on those who have incredible amounts of power over the country.

However, setting age boundaries on Congress and the President would almost certainly necessitate changes to the Constitution, and because such a move would require federal lawmakers to curtail their own power, there is little political will.

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (Business Insider) (NBC News)

Continue Reading

Politics

Churches Protected Loophole in Abuse Reporting for 20 years, Report Finds

Published

on

In some cases, Clergy members failed to report abuse among their congregation, but state laws protected them from that responsibility.


A Nationwide Campaign to Hide Abuse

More than 130 bills seeking to create or amend child sexual abuse reporting laws have been neutered or killed due to religious opposition over the past two decades, according to a review by the Associated Press.

Many states have laws requiring professionals such as physicians, teachers, and psychotherapists to report any information pertaining to alleged child sexual abuse to authorities. In 33 states, however, clergy are exempt from those requirements if they deem the information privileged.

All of the reform bills reviewed either targeted this loophole and failed or amended the mandatory reporting statute without touching the loophole.

“The Roman Catholic Church has used its well-funded lobbying infrastructure and deep influence among lawmakers in some states to protect the privilege,” the AP stated. “Influential members of the Mormon church and Jehovah’s witnesses have also worked in statehouses and courts to preserve it in areas where their membership is high.”

“This loophole has resulted in an unknown number of predators being allowed to continue abusing children for years despite having confessed the behavior to religious officials,” the report continued.

“They believe they’re on a divine mission that justifies keeping the name and the reputation of their institution pristine,” David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, told the outlet. “So the leadership has a strong disincentive to involve the authorities, police or child protection people.”

Abuses Go Unreported

Last month, another AP investigation discovered that a Mormon bishop acting under the direction of church leaders in Arizona failed to report a church member who had confessed to sexually abusing his five-year-old daughter.

Merrill Nelson, a church lawyer and Republican lawmaker in Utah, reportedly advised the bishop against making the report because of Arizona’s clergy loophole, effectively allowing the father to allegedly rape and abuse three of his children for years.

Democratic State Sen. Victoria Steele proposed three bills in response to the case to close the loophole but told the AP that key Mormon legislators thwarted her efforts.

In Montana, a woman who was abused by a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses won a $35 million jury verdict against the church because it failed to report her abuse, but in 2020 the state supreme court reversed the judgment, citing the state’s reporting exemption for clergy.

In 2013, a former Idaho police officer turned himself in for abusing children after having told 15 members of the Mormon church, but prosecutors declined to charge the institution for not reporting him because it was protected under the clergy loophole.

The Mormon church said in a written statement to the AP that a member who confesses child sex abuse “has come seeking an opportunity to reconcile with God and to seek forgiveness for their actions. … That confession is considered sacred, and in most states, is regarded as a protected religious conversation owned by the confessor.”

See what others are saying: (Associated Press) (Deseret) (Standard Examiner)

Continue Reading

Politics

Texas AG Ken Paxton Allegedly Flees Official Serving Subpoenas in Truck

Published

on

Following the news, a judge granted the attorney general’s request to quash the subpoenas.


Paxton on the Run

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton fled his own home in a truck Monday morning to evade an official trying to serve him a subpoena, according to an affidavit filed in federal court.

Last month, several nonprofits filed a lawsuit seeking to block Texas from charging individuals under the state’s abortion ban in cases that happened out of state or prior to Roe v. Wade being overturned.

Two subpoenas were issued summoning Paxton to a Tuesday court hearing, one for his professional title and the other addressed to him personally.

Early on Monday Ernesto Martin Herrera, a process server, knocked on the front door of Paxton’s home in McKinney and was greeted by Texas state senator Angela Paxton, who is the Attorney General’s wife.

According to the affidavit, Herrera identified himself and informed her that he was delivering court documents to Mr. Paxton. She responded that her husband was on the phone and in a hurry to leave, so Herrera returned to his vehicle and waited for Ken to emerge.

Nearly an hour later, the affidavit states, a black Chevrolet Tahoe pulled into the driveway, and 20 minutes after that, the attorney general stepped out.

“I walked up the driveway approaching Mr. Paxton and called him by his name,” Herrera wrote in the affidavit. “As soon as he saw me and heard me call his name out, he turned around and RAN back inside the house through the same door in the garage.”

Shortly afterward, Angela exited the house and climbed into a truck in the driveway, leaving a rear driver-side door open.

“A few minutes later I saw Mr. Paxton RAN from the door inside the garage towards the rear door behind the driver side,” Herrera wrote. “I approached the truck, and loudly called him by his name and stated that I had court documents for him.”

“Mr. Paxton ignored me and kept heading for the truck,” he continued.

The affidavit adds that Herrera placed the documents on the ground by the vehicle and stated that he was serving a subpoena, but the Paxtons drove away.

Process Server or Lingering Stranger?

Following the publication of the affidavit in The Texas Tribune, Ken attacked the news outlet on Twitter and claimed to fear for his safety.

“This is a ridiculous waste of time and the media should be ashamed of themselves,” he wrote. “All across the country, conservatives have faced threats to their safety – many threats that received scant coverage or condemnation from the mainstream media.”

“It’s clear that the media wants to drum up another controversy involving my work as Attorney General, so they’re attacking me for having the audacity to avoid a stranger lingering outside my home and showing concern about the safety and well-being of my family,” he continued.

On Monday, the attorney general filed two requests: a motion to quash the subpoena and another to seal the certificates of service, which included the affidavit.

His lawyers argued that Herrera “loitered at the Attorney General’s home for over an hour, repeatedly shouted at him, and accosted” him and his wife.

U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman granted both requests on Tuesday.

In a statement, the attorney general said that Herrera is “lucky this situation did not escalate further or necessitate force.”

See what others are saying: (The Texas Tribune) (CNN) (Fort Worth Star-Telegram)

Continue Reading