VOA News Center Associate Producer Jesusemen Oni contributed reporting from Washington. 

WASHINGTON — Mexico’s foreign minister says he has starting negotiating with U.S. officials after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to impose tariffs on Mexican products related to the migrant surge at the border.

Marcelo Ebrard said on Twitter Friday that he had spoken to U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo by phone and said face-to-face talks between the two would take place Wednesday in Washington.

“The summit to resolve the U.S. dispute with our country will be on Wednesday in Washington,” Ebrard said. “We will be firm and defend the dignity of Mexico.”

Earlier Friday, Mexico’s president responded to the U.S. tariff threats with caution urging “dialogue” over “coercive measures.”

“I want to reiterate that we are not going to fall into any provocation; but we are going to be prudent, and we are going to respect the authorities of the United States and President Donald Trump,” said Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador.

His statement Friday morning followed a two-page letter to Trump made public late Thursday, similar in tone, responding to Trump’s announcement on Twitter earlier in the day that the United States would begin imposing an escalating tax on imports from Mexico.

“On June 10th, the United States will impose a 5% Tariff on all goods coming into our Country from Mexico, until such time as illegal migrants coming through Mexico, and into our Country, STOP,” Trump tweeted. Until “the illegal immigration problem is remedied” tariffs will continue to rise monthly, going as high as 25% by October 1.

U.S. border agents have apprehended an increasing number of people, largely from Central America, who crossed the southern U.S. border without authorization in recent months.

In contrast to previous spikes in arrivals, recent groups have included a large number of children, prompting U.S. officials to scramble to support families and children traveling without parents, some of whom are seeking asylum.

In an indication of the pressing demands at the border, U.S. Customs and Border Protection solicited bids for the purchase of tens of thousands of baby diapers, wipes and bottles this past week, according to documents reviewed by VOA on a government contracting website.

Mexico has the “absolute ability and authority to do a lot more than they’re doing,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters Friday.

Reaction from Mexico

Lopez Obrador posted a letter to Twitter after Trump’s announcement that said, “Social problems are not resolved with taxes or coercive measures.”

Trump’s announcement of the new tariffs came on the same day Mexico began the formal process of ratifying the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (US MCA) on trade.

Mexico’s deputy foreign minister for North America, Jesus Seade, says such tariffs would be disastrous, expressing more alarm than the Mexican president.

“If this threat is carried out, it would be extremely serious,” he told reporters. “If this is put in place, we must respond vigorously.”

For one trade expert, who previously served as Mexico’s ambassador to China, a top trading partner for that country and the U.S., the timing of Trump’s tariff statement raises questions about the future of the US MCA.

“By mixing two things — immigration and now just lately drug flow with trade — I think it confuses the issue,” said Jorge Guajardo, a senior director at the Washington-based international trade consulting firm McLarty Associates.

The trade deal “was a triumph for all three countries, and now of course, that all comes into doubt,” Guajardo added.

Marking progress

Some Republican members of Congress but no Democrats were consulted about White House plan, according to acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.

Asked in a hastily arranged conference call with reporters about benchmarks Mexico would need to achieve to have the tariffs lifted, Mulvaney said there needs to be significant and substantial reductions in arrivals from Central America crossing into the United States.

“We’re going to take this and look at it on a day-to-day and week-to-week basis,” Mulvaney said. “We are interested in seeing the Mexican government act tonight, tomorrow.”

Trump has repeatedly accused Mexico of not doing enough to stop Central American migrants from traveling through the country on their way to the United States.

The U.S. system, however, is not infallible. While the country has increased its apprehension rate at the border in recent years, U.S. border agents stop an estimated 65% to 80% of people crossing into the country without authorization, according to a 2018 DHS report. 
…

A Republican redistricting expert advocated for adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census to give an electoral edge to white people and Republicans, opponents of the move alleged in a court filing Thursday.

The filing in Manhattan federal court said a trove of newly discovered documents revealed that Thomas Hofeller, a longtime Republican gerrymandering guru, played a key role in pushing the Trump administration to include a citizenship question on the census for the first time since 1950.

GOP strategist

Lawyers for opponents of adding the question said the files, found on Hofeller’s computer drives after he died last year, also showed that he contributed vital language to a Justice Department letter used to justify the question on the grounds that it was needed to protect minority voting rights.

In reality, the lawyers argued, the documents show the census change is part of a wider Republican effort to restrict the political power of Democrats and Latino communities.

“The new evidence reveals that Dr. Thomas Hofeller, the longtime Republican redistricting specialist, played a significant role in orchestrating the addition of the citizenship question to the 2020 Decennial Census in order to create a structural electoral advantage for, in his own words, ‘Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites,’ and that defendants obscured his role through affirmative misrepresentations,” the filing said.

The change, announced in spring 2018, seems poised for approval by the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard arguments in April and is likely to rule by July. It’s not yet clear if the Hofeller documents might affect the pending case, though the American Civil Liberties Union apprised the high court of the latest developments Thursday in a letter signed by Dale Ho, director of the group’s voting rights project and a lawyer who argued against adding the question before the top court.

States, cities and rights groups had sued in New York and elsewhere, arguing that the question would suppress the count of immigrants and strengthen congressional representation and funding for areas where mostly Republicans reside. States with large numbers of immigrants tend to vote Democratic.

Lawyers for President Donald Trump’s administration say the commerce secretary has wide discretion to design the census questionnaire.

On Thursday, lawyers for groups including the ACLU said that the files show that a Justice Department official and a transition official for President Donald Trump testified falsely by hiding Hofeller’s role in asking for the question. They asked U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman to issue sanctions or consider finding individuals in contempt.

Ho, of the ACLU, said documents found after Hofeller’s death last year revealed the administration’s “goal was to dilute the voting power of minority communities. That’s literally the diametric opposite of what the administration has been saying all along.”

Furman gave the Justice Department until Monday to respond. An official with the department declined to comment on the record.

Furman set a hearing in the case for June 5.

Daughter turns over documents

The Hofeller documents cited by lawyers were discovered when his estranged daughter found four external computer hard drives and 18 thumb drives in her father’s Raleigh, North Carolina, home after his death last summer.

The New York Times reported that she contacted Common Cause, which had recently sued in state court to challenge North Carolina’s legislative districts, which had been drawn by Hofeller.

Furman, the federal judge, ruled in January that the question could not be included on the census, saying fewer people would respond to the census and that the process used to add it was faulty. Federal judges in California and Maryland reached similar conclusions in separate lawsuits.

Besides the citizenship question, the Supreme Court also is expected to decide within weeks, in cases from North Carolina and Maryland, whether to set limits for the first time on drawing districts for partisan advantage.
…

A Republican redistricting expert advocated for adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census to give an electoral edge to white people and Republicans, opponents of the move alleged in a court filing Thursday.

The filing in Manhattan federal court said a trove of newly discovered documents revealed that Thomas Hofeller, a longtime Republican gerrymandering guru, played a key role in pushing the Trump administration to include a citizenship question on the census for the first time since 1950.

GOP strategist

Lawyers for opponents of adding the question said the files, found on Hofeller’s computer drives after he died last year, also showed that he contributed vital language to a Justice Department letter used to justify the question on the grounds that it was needed to protect minority voting rights.

In reality, the lawyers argued, the documents show the census change is part of a wider Republican effort to restrict the political power of Democrats and Latino communities.

“The new evidence reveals that Dr. Thomas Hofeller, the longtime Republican redistricting specialist, played a significant role in orchestrating the addition of the citizenship question to the 2020 Decennial Census in order to create a structural electoral advantage for, in his own words, ‘Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites,’ and that defendants obscured his role through affirmative misrepresentations,” the filing said.

The change, announced in spring 2018, seems poised for approval by the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard arguments in April and is likely to rule by July. It’s not yet clear if the Hofeller documents might affect the pending case, though the American Civil Liberties Union apprised the high court of the latest developments Thursday in a letter signed by Dale Ho, director of the group’s voting rights project and a lawyer who argued against adding the question before the top court.

States, cities and rights groups had sued in New York and elsewhere, arguing that the question would suppress the count of immigrants and strengthen congressional representation and funding for areas where mostly Republicans reside. States with large numbers of immigrants tend to vote Democratic.

Lawyers for President Donald Trump’s administration say the commerce secretary has wide discretion to design the census questionnaire.

On Thursday, lawyers for groups including the ACLU said that the files show that a Justice Department official and a transition official for President Donald Trump testified falsely by hiding Hofeller’s role in asking for the question. They asked U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman to issue sanctions or consider finding individuals in contempt.

Ho, of the ACLU, said documents found after Hofeller’s death last year revealed the administration’s “goal was to dilute the voting power of minority communities. That’s literally the diametric opposite of what the administration has been saying all along.”

Furman gave the Justice Department until Monday to respond. An official with the department declined to comment on the record.

Furman set a hearing in the case for June 5.

Daughter turns over documents

The Hofeller documents cited by lawyers were discovered when his estranged daughter found four external computer hard drives and 18 thumb drives in her father’s Raleigh, North Carolina, home after his death last summer.

The New York Times reported that she contacted Common Cause, which had recently sued in state court to challenge North Carolina’s legislative districts, which had been drawn by Hofeller.

Furman, the federal judge, ruled in January that the question could not be included on the census, saying fewer people would respond to the census and that the process used to add it was faulty. Federal judges in California and Maryland reached similar conclusions in separate lawsuits.

Besides the citizenship question, the Supreme Court also is expected to decide within weeks, in cases from North Carolina and Maryland, whether to set limits for the first time on drawing districts for partisan advantage.
…

A group of detained asylum-seekers sued the U.S. government Thursday claiming immigration officials in five Southern states are systematically denying them parole.

In the second lawsuit of its kind filed against the Trump administration, legal advocacy groups representing 12 plaintiffs are seeking class action status on behalf of hundreds of asylum seekers being held in detention centers in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee. In addition to Central American migrants, the plaintiffs include a member of a Cameroonian opposition party and Cuban and Venezuelan political dissidents.

Migrants who arrive at U.S. ports of entry and ask for refuge in the United States are not eligible for bond hearings in front of a judge, but they can be released from detention on parole for humanitarian reasons under a 2009 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policy.

Denying parole

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Southern Poverty Law Center, claims that in recent months there has been an “unwritten policy and practice of categorically denying parole to asylum-seekers” that violates the government’s “own directive and guidelines.”

According to ICE data cited in the complaint, the New Orleans Field Office, which oversees the five states, granted parole in 76% of cases in 2016, but just 22% in 2017. In 2018, parole was granted in just two of the 130 cases in which ICE made a determination, or less than 2%, the complaint said.

The Justice Department declined to comment. The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

​Administration centerpiece

President Donald Trump, who has made immigration a centerpiece of his administration, has said migrants are abusing the asylum system by making fraudulent claims to stay in the country for months or years as their cases work their way through a backlogged immigration court system.

He has pledged to end a practice of what he calls “catch and release” by detaining more asylum-seekers during their court proceedings.

U.S. officials say the system is overwhelmed by thousands of migrants, mostly from Central America, claiming fear of returning to their home countries. Families are often released to live in the United States because of limits placed on how long children can be held in detention, but adults can be locked up indefinitely during their court cases unless ICE decides to release them.

ICE expanded its detention capacity this year by 2,500 beds in three facilities in Louisiana, where many of the plaintiffs are being held.

First lawsuit in March 2018

One plaintiff in the lawsuit is a transgender woman who said she fled police repression in Cuba, sought asylum in El Paso, Texas, in January and has been detained since. During months in ICE custody, the suit alleges, she said she was periodically held in isolation and has yet to receive an interview to be considered for release.

A separate lawsuit filed in March 2018 made similar claims about ICE field offices in Detroit, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, El Paso, Texas, and Newark, New Jersey. Last July, a federal judge ordered ICE to follow its own policy and grant parole to asylum seekers who are not a flight risk or a danger to the community in those jurisdictions.
…

A group of detained asylum-seekers sued the U.S. government Thursday claiming immigration officials in five Southern states are systematically denying them parole.

In the second lawsuit of its kind filed against the Trump administration, legal advocacy groups representing 12 plaintiffs are seeking class action status on behalf of hundreds of asylum seekers being held in detention centers in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee. In addition to Central American migrants, the plaintiffs include a member of a Cameroonian opposition party and Cuban and Venezuelan political dissidents.

Migrants who arrive at U.S. ports of entry and ask for refuge in the United States are not eligible for bond hearings in front of a judge, but they can be released from detention on parole for humanitarian reasons under a 2009 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policy.

Denying parole

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Southern Poverty Law Center, claims that in recent months there has been an “unwritten policy and practice of categorically denying parole to asylum-seekers” that violates the government’s “own directive and guidelines.”

According to ICE data cited in the complaint, the New Orleans Field Office, which oversees the five states, granted parole in 76% of cases in 2016, but just 22% in 2017. In 2018, parole was granted in just two of the 130 cases in which ICE made a determination, or less than 2%, the complaint said.

The Justice Department declined to comment. The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

​Administration centerpiece

President Donald Trump, who has made immigration a centerpiece of his administration, has said migrants are abusing the asylum system by making fraudulent claims to stay in the country for months or years as their cases work their way through a backlogged immigration court system.

He has pledged to end a practice of what he calls “catch and release” by detaining more asylum-seekers during their court proceedings.

U.S. officials say the system is overwhelmed by thousands of migrants, mostly from Central America, claiming fear of returning to their home countries. Families are often released to live in the United States because of limits placed on how long children can be held in detention, but adults can be locked up indefinitely during their court cases unless ICE decides to release them.

ICE expanded its detention capacity this year by 2,500 beds in three facilities in Louisiana, where many of the plaintiffs are being held.

First lawsuit in March 2018

One plaintiff in the lawsuit is a transgender woman who said she fled police repression in Cuba, sought asylum in El Paso, Texas, in January and has been detained since. During months in ICE custody, the suit alleges, she said she was periodically held in isolation and has yet to receive an interview to be considered for release.

A separate lawsuit filed in March 2018 made similar claims about ICE field offices in Detroit, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, El Paso, Texas, and Newark, New Jersey. Last July, a federal judge ordered ICE to follow its own policy and grant parole to asylum seekers who are not a flight risk or a danger to the community in those jurisdictions.
…

The United States is giving Mexico 10 days to stop illegal migrants from heading north to the U.S. border, or the country will be slapped with tariffs on all of its products.

The announcement was made in a tweet by U.S. President Donald Trump Thursday evening.

“On June 10th, the United States will impose a 5% Tariff on all goods coming into our Country from Mexico, until such time as illegal migrants coming through Mexico, and into our Country, STOP,” Trump tweeted. Until “the illegal immigration problem is remedied” tariffs will continue to rise monthly, going as high as 25% by Oct. 1.

“Mexico’s passive cooperation in allowing this mass incursion constitutes an emergency and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States,” Trump said in a subsequent statement. “Mexico has very strong immigration laws and could easily halt the illegal flow of migrants, including by returning them to their home countries.”

Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador responded with a tweet of his own. In a letter he posted on Twitter he said “social problems are not resolved with taxes or coercive measures.”

Trump’s announcement of the new tariffs came on the same day Mexico began the formal process to ratify the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade.

Lopez Obrador said he was sending his foreign minister, Marcelo Ebrard to Washington to try to negotiate a solution.

Mexico’s deputy foreign minister for North America, Jesus Seade, says such tariffs would be disastrous.

“If this threat is carried out, it would be extremely serious,” he told reporters. “If this is put in place, we must respond vigorously.”

Some Republican members of Congress but no Democrats were consulted about the plan, according to acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.

Asked in a hastily arranged conference call with reporters about benchmarks Mexico would need to achieve to have the tariffs lifted, Mulvaney said there needs to be significant and substantial reductions in illegal migrants from Central America crossing into the United States.

“We’re going to take this and look at it on a day-to-day and week-to-week basis,” Mulvaney said. “We are interested in seeing the Mexican government act tonight, tomorrow.”

The acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Kevin McAleenan, told reporters on the call there is “an organized smuggling effort” involving commercial bus lines controlled by criminal organizations “to move 100,000 people to our country every four weeks.”

Trump has repeatedly accused Mexico of not doing enough to stop Central American migrants from traveling through the country on their way to the United States.
…

The United States is giving Mexico 10 days to stop illegal migrants from heading north to the U.S. border, or the country will be slapped with tariffs on all of its products.

The announcement was made in a tweet by U.S. President Donald Trump Thursday evening.

“On June 10th, the United States will impose a 5% Tariff on all goods coming into our Country from Mexico, until such time as illegal migrants coming through Mexico, and into our Country, STOP,” Trump tweeted. Until “the illegal immigration problem is remedied” tariffs will continue to rise monthly, going as high as 25% by Oct. 1.

“Mexico’s passive cooperation in allowing this mass incursion constitutes an emergency and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States,” Trump said in a subsequent statement. “Mexico has very strong immigration laws and could easily halt the illegal flow of migrants, including by returning them to their home countries.”

Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador responded with a tweet of his own. In a letter he posted on Twitter he said “social problems are not resolved with taxes or coercive measures.”

Trump’s announcement of the new tariffs came on the same day Mexico began the formal process to ratify the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade.

Lopez Obrador said he was sending his foreign minister, Marcelo Ebrard to Washington to try to negotiate a solution.

Mexico’s deputy foreign minister for North America, Jesus Seade, says such tariffs would be disastrous.

“If this threat is carried out, it would be extremely serious,” he told reporters. “If this is put in place, we must respond vigorously.”

Some Republican members of Congress but no Democrats were consulted about the plan, according to acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.

Asked in a hastily arranged conference call with reporters about benchmarks Mexico would need to achieve to have the tariffs lifted, Mulvaney said there needs to be significant and substantial reductions in illegal migrants from Central America crossing into the United States.

“We’re going to take this and look at it on a day-to-day and week-to-week basis,” Mulvaney said. “We are interested in seeing the Mexican government act tonight, tomorrow.”

The acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Kevin McAleenan, told reporters on the call there is “an organized smuggling effort” involving commercial bus lines controlled by criminal organizations “to move 100,000 people to our country every four weeks.”

Trump has repeatedly accused Mexico of not doing enough to stop Central American migrants from traveling through the country on their way to the United States.
…

Acting U.S. Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan said Thursday he did not authorize and was not even aware of a White House directive to have the U.S. Navy warship USS John S. McCain “out of sight” when President Donald Trump visited Japan.

“I would never dishonor the memory of a great American patriot like Senator (John) McCain,” Shanahan told reporters traveling with him aboard a U.S. military aircraft en route to Singapore. “I’d never disrespect the young men and women who crew that ship.”

During a visit to Indonesia earlier, Shanahan told reporters “What I read this morning was the first I heard about it.” He said he is asking his chief of staff to look into the matter.

An email seen by VOA shows discussions about the USS John S. McCain between the White House Military Office and an officer with the U.S. Navy’s 7th Fleet ahead of Trump’s trip.

“USS John McCain needs to be out of sight,” reads the email’s third bullet-pointed request.

“Please confirm #3 will be satisfied,” the email emphasized.

​Trump says he was not informed

Trump tweeted Thursday that he was not informed about the controversy surrounding the USS John S. McCain during his visit to Japan.

​

Shanahan’s spokesman, Army Lt. Col Joe Buccino, said the acting secretary of defense also “was not aware of the directive to move the USS John S. McCain, nor was he aware of the concern precipitating the directive.”

“In terms of ship movements, the only ships I’ve moved is the USS Abraham Lincoln,” Shanahan added during a press event at the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Indonesia. He was referring to his early deployment to the Middle East of the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier strike group, which was sent to deter potential threats from Iran.

The Wall Street Journal first reported the directive to hide the USS John S McCain from Trump.

Long feud continues

Trump frequently feuded with longtime Republican senator and 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who died last year.

The USS McCain was originally named for the senator’s father and grandfather, both Navy admirals, and now honors all three men.

Meghan McCain, Sen. McCain’s daughter, called Trump a “child” who is “deeply threatened by the greatness” of her father. “Nine months since he passed, Trump won’t let him RIP. So I have to stand up for him,” she tweeted.

Media outlets report that a tarp was used to obscure the ship’s name ahead of Trump’s stop. When senior Navy officials figured out what was happening, they directed Navy personnel to remove the tarp, which was not present Saturday before Trump’s visit.

“The name of the USS John S. McCain was not obscured during the POTUS visit to Yokosuka on Memorial Day. The Navy is proud of that ship, its crew, its namesake and its heritage,” Navy Chief Information Officer Rear Adm. Charlie Brown tweeted Thursday.

Asked whether he would open an investigation, Shanahan said he needed to find out more about the incident first.
…

Acting U.S. Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan said Thursday he did not authorize and was not even aware of a White House directive to have the U.S. Navy warship USS John S. McCain “out of sight” when President Donald Trump visited Japan.

“I would never dishonor the memory of a great American patriot like Senator (John) McCain,” Shanahan told reporters traveling with him aboard a U.S. military aircraft en route to Singapore. “I’d never disrespect the young men and women who crew that ship.”

During a visit to Indonesia earlier, Shanahan told reporters “What I read this morning was the first I heard about it.” He said he is asking his chief of staff to look into the matter.

An email seen by VOA shows discussions about the USS John S. McCain between the White House Military Office and an officer with the U.S. Navy’s 7th Fleet ahead of Trump’s trip.

“USS John McCain needs to be out of sight,” reads the email’s third bullet-pointed request.

“Please confirm #3 will be satisfied,” the email emphasized.

​Trump says he was not informed

Trump tweeted Thursday that he was not informed about the controversy surrounding the USS John S. McCain during his visit to Japan.

​

Shanahan’s spokesman, Army Lt. Col Joe Buccino, said the acting secretary of defense also “was not aware of the directive to move the USS John S. McCain, nor was he aware of the concern precipitating the directive.”

“In terms of ship movements, the only ships I’ve moved is the USS Abraham Lincoln,” Shanahan added during a press event at the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Indonesia. He was referring to his early deployment to the Middle East of the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier strike group, which was sent to deter potential threats from Iran.

The Wall Street Journal first reported the directive to hide the USS John S McCain from Trump.

Long feud continues

Trump frequently feuded with longtime Republican senator and 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who died last year.

The USS McCain was originally named for the senator’s father and grandfather, both Navy admirals, and now honors all three men.

Meghan McCain, Sen. McCain’s daughter, called Trump a “child” who is “deeply threatened by the greatness” of her father. “Nine months since he passed, Trump won’t let him RIP. So I have to stand up for him,” she tweeted.

Media outlets report that a tarp was used to obscure the ship’s name ahead of Trump’s stop. When senior Navy officials figured out what was happening, they directed Navy personnel to remove the tarp, which was not present Saturday before Trump’s visit.

“The name of the USS John S. McCain was not obscured during the POTUS visit to Yokosuka on Memorial Day. The Navy is proud of that ship, its crew, its namesake and its heritage,” Navy Chief Information Officer Rear Adm. Charlie Brown tweeted Thursday.

Asked whether he would open an investigation, Shanahan said he needed to find out more about the incident first.
…

Special counsel Robert Mueller Wednesday declined to clear President Donald Trump of obstructing justice, though the president responded by declaring himself innocent and the “case is closed.” In his first public comments on the Russia probe, Mueller said because of a long-standing Department of Justice policy, the president cannot be charged with a federal crime while in office, and he indicated it is up to Congress to take further action. White House correspondent Patsy Widakuswara has more.
…

Special counsel Robert Mueller Wednesday declined to clear President Donald Trump of obstructing justice, though the president responded by declaring himself innocent and the “case is closed.” In his first public comments on the Russia probe, Mueller said because of a long-standing Department of Justice policy, the president cannot be charged with a federal crime while in office, and he indicated it is up to Congress to take further action. White House correspondent Patsy Widakuswara has more.
…

Louisiana lawmakers on Wednesday passed a strict new abortion ban that would prohibit the procedure before some women even know they are pregnant, joining a half-dozen conservative states with similar measures. 

In a 79-23 vote, the Louisiana House gave final passage to a bill barring abortion once there’s a detectable fetal heartbeat, as early as the sixth week of pregnancy. Gov. John Bel Edwards, the Deep South’s only Democratic governor, supports the ban and intends to sign it into law despite opposition from national party leaders who say such laws are attacks on women.  

“I know there are many who feel just as strongly as I do on abortion and disagree with me — and I respect their opinions,” Edwards said in a statement after the ban’s passage. “As I prepare to sign this bill, I call on the overwhelming bipartisan majority of legislators who voted for it to join me in continuing to build a better Louisiana that cares for the least among us and provides more opportunity for everyone.” 

Lawmakers in conservative states across the nation are striking at the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationally. Abortion opponents are pushing new restrictions on the procedure in hopes that a case will make its way to the high court, where two new conservative justices appointed by President Donald Trump could help overturn Roe. 

Heartbeat bills

Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi and Ohio have enacted similar so-called heartbeat bills, while Missouri lawmakers approved an eight-week ban on abortion. Alabama went even further, outlawing virtually all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest. None of the bans has taken effect, and all are expected to face legal challenges.

Louisiana’s prohibition would take hold only if neighboring Mississippi’s law is upheld by a federal appeals court. A federal judge temporarily blocked that Mississippi law Friday.

Abortion rights activists said Louisiana’s bill would effectively eliminate abortion as an option before many women realize they are pregnant, calling the proposal unconstitutional.

The legislation includes an exception from the abortion ban to prevent the pregnant woman’s death or “a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function” — or if the pregnancy is deemed “medically futile.” 

But it does not include an exception for a pregnancy caused by rape or incest. 

A doctor who violates the prohibition under the bill could face a prison sentence of up to two years, along with the revocation of his or her medical license. 

Although similar abortion bans have drawn sharp criticism from Democrats nationwide, Louisiana’s proposal won wide bipartisan support and was sponsored by a Democrat from the northwest corner of the state, Sen. John Milkovich.

Up for re-election

Support from Edwards, running for re-election this fall against two Republicans, is expected to help shore up his position with some voters in his conservative home state, even if it puts him at odds with national Democratic Party leaders and donors.

The ban is one of several bills that Louisiana lawmakers are advancing to add new restrictions on abortion, including a proposal to ask voters to rewrite the state constitution to ensure it offers no protections for the procedure. Another bill would limit where medication-induced abortions can be performed to the state’s three licensed abortion clinics.
…

Louisiana lawmakers on Wednesday passed a strict new abortion ban that would prohibit the procedure before some women even know they are pregnant, joining a half-dozen conservative states with similar measures. 

In a 79-23 vote, the Louisiana House gave final passage to a bill barring abortion once there’s a detectable fetal heartbeat, as early as the sixth week of pregnancy. Gov. John Bel Edwards, the Deep South’s only Democratic governor, supports the ban and intends to sign it into law despite opposition from national party leaders who say such laws are attacks on women.  

“I know there are many who feel just as strongly as I do on abortion and disagree with me — and I respect their opinions,” Edwards said in a statement after the ban’s passage. “As I prepare to sign this bill, I call on the overwhelming bipartisan majority of legislators who voted for it to join me in continuing to build a better Louisiana that cares for the least among us and provides more opportunity for everyone.” 

Lawmakers in conservative states across the nation are striking at the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationally. Abortion opponents are pushing new restrictions on the procedure in hopes that a case will make its way to the high court, where two new conservative justices appointed by President Donald Trump could help overturn Roe. 

Heartbeat bills

Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi and Ohio have enacted similar so-called heartbeat bills, while Missouri lawmakers approved an eight-week ban on abortion. Alabama went even further, outlawing virtually all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest. None of the bans has taken effect, and all are expected to face legal challenges.

Louisiana’s prohibition would take hold only if neighboring Mississippi’s law is upheld by a federal appeals court. A federal judge temporarily blocked that Mississippi law Friday.

Abortion rights activists said Louisiana’s bill would effectively eliminate abortion as an option before many women realize they are pregnant, calling the proposal unconstitutional.

The legislation includes an exception from the abortion ban to prevent the pregnant woman’s death or “a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function” — or if the pregnancy is deemed “medically futile.” 

But it does not include an exception for a pregnancy caused by rape or incest. 

A doctor who violates the prohibition under the bill could face a prison sentence of up to two years, along with the revocation of his or her medical license. 

Although similar abortion bans have drawn sharp criticism from Democrats nationwide, Louisiana’s proposal won wide bipartisan support and was sponsored by a Democrat from the northwest corner of the state, Sen. John Milkovich.

Up for re-election

Support from Edwards, running for re-election this fall against two Republicans, is expected to help shore up his position with some voters in his conservative home state, even if it puts him at odds with national Democratic Party leaders and donors.

The ban is one of several bills that Louisiana lawmakers are advancing to add new restrictions on abortion, including a proposal to ask voters to rewrite the state constitution to ensure it offers no protections for the procedure. Another bill would limit where medication-induced abortions can be performed to the state’s three licensed abortion clinics.
…