Biden calls overturning of Roe a ‘sad day’ for Supreme Court, country

Biden calls overturning of Roe a ‘sad day’ for Supreme Court, country
Biden calls overturning of Roe a ‘sad day’ for Supreme Court, country
ABC News

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden on Friday harshly criticized the Supreme Court’s decision upending abortion rights and called on Congress to enshrine access in federal law.

“It’s a sad day for the court and the country,” Biden said as he delivered remarks from the Cross Hall of the White House.

“Today the Supreme Court of the United States expressly took away a constitutional right from the American people that it had already recognized,” he said. ‘They didn’t limit it, they simply took it away. That’s never been done to a right so important to so many Americans but they did it.”

The court’s conservative majority voted Friday to overturn Roe v. Wade as it upheld a Mississippi law that bans nearly all abortions past 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Justice Samuel Alito, who also authored the bombshell draft opinion leaked to the public earlier this year indicating this outcome, wrote in the opinion that Roe was “egregiously wrong from the start.”

“Abortion presents a profound moral question,” Alito wrote. “The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”

The Supreme Court’s three liberal justices slammed the majority’s opinion, writing that the decision essentially “says that from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of.”

Biden said he believed Roe was correctly decided, calling Friday’s ruling a “tragic error” by the high court.

Biden called on Congress to take action to enshrine abortion rights at the federal level.

“No executive action from the president can do that,” Biden said.

“This fall, Roe is on the ballot,” he added.

“This decision must not be the final word,” he said. “With your vote, you can act. You can have the final word.”

He called out President Donald Trump’s influence by name.

“It was three justices, named by one president, Donald Trump, who are the core of today’s decision to upend the scales of justice and eliminate a fundamental right for women in this country,” he said.

“Make no mistake: this decision is a culmination of a deliberate effort over decades to upset the balance of our law,” he said. “It is a realization of an extreme ideology, and a tragic error by the Supreme Court, in my view.”

Abortion rights activists previously told ABC News they believed Biden could employ the Food and Drug Administration and Medicaid to fill gaps in care.

Biden took such action on Friday, stating he was instructing the Department of Health and Human Services — which oversees the FDA — to take steps to protect access to medication abortion in the wake of Roe being overturned.

Biden also expressed concern Friday that the ruling would impact other Supreme Court decisions relating to the notion of privacy — such as contraception and same-sex marriage rights.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion on Friday, stated such unenumerated rights should be reconsidered.

Thomas specifically called for the reconsideration of Griswold v. Connecticut, which established the right of married couples to use contraception; Lawrence v. Texas, which protects the right to same-sex romantic relationships; and Obergefell v. Hodges, which establishes the right to same-sex marriage.

“Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” he wrote.

The Supreme Court’s ruling was met with immediate protest from individuals on both sides of the abortion debate. Biden called on Americans to keep all protests peaceful.

ABC News’ Ben Gittleson contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Supreme Court opens door to overturning rights to contraceptives, same-sex relationships and marriage

Supreme Court opens door to overturning rights to contraceptives, same-sex relationships and marriage
Supreme Court opens door to overturning rights to contraceptives, same-sex relationships and marriage
ABC News

(WASHINGTON) — When activists learned the Supreme Court was considering overturning abortion rights, they feared other rights, such as same-sex marriage, same-sex relationships and contraceptives, might be next.

On Friday, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned Roe v. Wade validated those concerns by stating that other precedents from the high court should be reconsidered.

Thomas called for the reconsideration of Griswold v. Connecticut, which established the right of married couples to use contraception; Lawrence v. Texas, which protects the right to same-sex romantic relationships; and Obergefell v. Hodges, which establishes the right to same-sex marriage.

“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents,” he wrote.

“After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated,” Thomas wrote.

Activist groups across the country are sounding the alarm about a potential fight for previously protected LGBTQ and reproductive rights.

“The anti-abortion playbook and the anti-LGBTQ playbook are one and the same,” said Sarah Kate Ellis, the president and CEO of LGBTQ advocacy organization GLAAD, in a statement. “Our bodies, healthcare and our future belong to us, not to a meddling politician or extremist Supreme Court justices, and we will fight back.”

The lack of reference to “abortion” in the Constitution and the fact that “no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision,” was used in the opinion that led to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Still, Justice Samuel Alito stated in the opinion that other unenumerated rights that aren’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution are not immediately in doubt.

“To ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” the document states. “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”

Thomas’ note to “correct the error” established in other precedents, however, has put LGBTQ groups like GLAAD, the National LGBTQ Task Force and reproductive rights organizations like Planned Parenthood, on edge.

“We must push back now – on all state and federal lawmakers and courts – to fight for abortion access and reproductive choice, the right for transgender people to access life-saving healthcare, the right to bodily autonomy, and the right to sexual freedom,” said Kierra Johnson, the executive director of the National LGBTQ Task Force, in a statement.

She continued, “These are our most basic liberties — to live a life of dignity, private from government interference. The Court has no place interfering with our constitutional right to make decisions about our own bodies.”

ABC News’ Devin Dwyer contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade in landmark case involving abortion access

Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade in landmark case involving abortion access
Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade in landmark case involving abortion access
Robert Alexander/Getty Images

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Friday ruled to overturn Roe v. Wade and the fundamental right to abortion that has been the law for almost 50 years.

The court ruled 6-3, in an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, who called Roe “egregiously wrong from the start.”

The court upheld a Mississippi law that bans all abortion past 15 weeks, with very few medical exceptions.

The court also overturned Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood, two landmark decisions legalizing abortion nationwide.

Alito also wrote the bombshell draft opinion leaked to the public earlier this year. The three liberal justices dissented.

Alito wrote that the Constitution “does not confer a right to abortion,” stating it is ultimately up to the states to regulate abortion access.

“Abortion presents a profound moral question,” Alito wrote. “The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”

In their dissent, Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan lamented that millions of American women will lose a right because of the court’s decision.

“It says that from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of,” their dissent reads. “A State can force her to bring a pregnancy to term, even at the steepest personal and familial costs. An abortion restriction, the majority holds, is permissible whenever rational, the lowest level of scrutiny known to the law.”

The three justices also pushed back on the majority’s reasoning that each state can address abortion access as it pleases.

“That is cold comfort, of course, for the poor woman who cannot get the money to fly to a distant State for a procedure,” they wrote. “Above all others, women lacking financial resources will suffer from today’s decision.”

Since Roe v. Wade in 1973 and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, the court has forbidden states from banning abortions prior to fetal viability outside the womb, roughly 24 weeks, according to medical experts.

Mississippi had argued that Roe and Casey were wrongly decided and that each state should be allowed to set its own policy.

Jackson Women’s Health, the state’s only remaining abortion clinic, argued that the high court’s protection of a woman’s right to choose abortion is clear, well-established precedent and should be respected.

After oral arguments in December, a majority of justices voted initially to side with Mississippi, according to a leaked first draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito published by Politico in early May and confirmed to be authentic by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Majorities of Americans have long supported upholding Roe v. Wade and oppose state bans on all abortions, according to ABC News/Washington Post polling.

But Americans appear more divided on the type of ban at issue in Mississippi. A Marquette University Law School poll late last year found 37% favored upholding a 15-week ban, with 32% opposed.

Mississippi’s sole clinic only performs abortions up to 16 weeks.

As the Supreme Court case was pending, several Republican-led states enacted unique laws that effectively circumvent constitutional protections for abortion.

Texas’ SB8 — a near-total ban on abortions — took force in September, deputizing everyday citizens to sue anyone who “aids or abets” an illegal abortion. Oklahoma recently implemented a similar citizen-enforced measure that bans all abortions, with only exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother.

The Supreme Court ruled last year that it could not intervene to block the state laws.

Twenty-six states are considered certain or likely to ban abortions following a Supreme Court decision overturning Roe, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights. Fourteen states plus Washington, D.C., have laws explicitly protecting access to abortion care.

The ruling is the Court’s most significant on abortion rights in years and the first for the current 6-justice conservative majority with Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Trump’s focus on 2020 election got in the way of COVID response during deadly winter, Birx says

Trump’s focus on 2020 election got in the way of COVID response during deadly winter, Birx says
Trump’s focus on 2020 election got in the way of COVID response during deadly winter, Birx says
Michael Reynolds/EPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images

(NEW YORK) — Dr. Deborah Birx, a former White House COVID response coordinator under then-President Donald Trump, told Congress on Thursday that Trump’s focus on the 2020 election got in the way of a strong COVID response in the winter of 2021.

Birx, who has written a book on her time working with the White House in the early days of the pandemic, spoke to the House Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis largely about what she said were the errors the Trump administration made and times she disagreed with its approach.

She told the committee that was told to delete recommendations of masks and social distancing in reports that went out to states’ governors and that those reports — once put out weekly — would only be provided if the states asked.

Birx said she thought the best approach would be complete transparency and to arm the states with all the data available

The former COVID coordinator and longtime public health official also said she put together a plan in September and October for how to go into the surge that she “knew was coming to the United States throughout that fall and winter of 2020 into 2021.”
MORE: ABC News Exclusive: Dr. Birx speaks to Trump disinfectant moment, says colleagues had resignation pact

She said she was given reason to believe that the plan would be used by the White House, but instead it never went anywhere.

“That strategy was never fully executed in all of its robust and comprehensive approach because the teams were never brought back together,” Birx testified.

“I believe it is because they were distracted by the post-election issues,” she said.

That fall and winter was the deadliest time of the pandemic in the US. More people died than at any other point in the pandemic to date.

Birx also said that she believes if Trump had followed her recommendations and data, lives would’ve been saved.

The misinformation circulating in the White House, Birx said, made it hard to act on plans.

“When you no longer agree on what is actually happening in the country and what needs to be done, and there’s not consensus on that, then you lose the ability to execute in the maximum efficient and effective way,” Birx said.

Going forward, Birx said the country still is not in a good place.

She argued that the Biden administration needs to be watching for new variants that could cause surges and launch quickly on proactively testing vulnerable people and prescribing Paxlovid, which can be lifesaving if given in the first five days of illness.

She also said the country shouldn’t overlook the toll that hospitalizations have taken on people, even as the country surpasses the tragic milestone of one million deaths.

“Hospitalizations in people over 70 is not benign. It’s not benign,” she said.

“I know everybody focuses on the deaths but I want to make it clear, many more Americans have suffered really significantly from being hospitalized and another whole group still has long COVID,” Birx said.

“And so you know, this isn’t trivial — this virus is not trivial, and should not just be immediately discarded as we’re doing fine. We are not doing fine yet.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Violence against abortion clinics rose in 2021, report says

Violence against abortion clinics rose in 2021, report says
Violence against abortion clinics rose in 2021, report says
Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images

(NEW YORK) — Violence against abortion providers significantly rose in 2021, according to a report from the National Abortion Federation published Friday.

The report, which measures a variety of acts of violence and disruption, found the most significant increases were in stalking, blockades, hoax devices/suspicious packages, invasions and assault and battery, compared to 2020’s findings.

Vandalism and assault and battery continue to be the most common offenses, but other acts have seen major jumps, with stalking increasing 600% from 2020, according to the report.

Overall, the new data has found increased reported incidents of anti-abortion individuals “pushing, shoving, using pepper spray against, slapping, kicking, and physically fighting clinic escorts, staff and others outside of clinics.”

Melissa Fowler, chief program officer at National Abortion Federation, said that NAF found that abortion clinics are not facing peaceful protests, but rather a “coordinated campaign” that threatens abortion providers.

“It’s really important that people understand the trends… and also the people behind those numbers,” Fowler said. “We can’t sit back and let it be socially acceptable to harass abortion providers.”

The report also draws specific attention to the Jan. 6 insurrection, as NAF has found that many of those known to commit violence and disruption against abortion clinics have also been found to have been a part of the riots at the Capitol in early 2021.

Fowler told ABC News that it was important for the organization to include those details because they feel that it is important to make people aware of the overlap in activity by “extremist groups.”

Amanda Kifferly, vice president of abortion access and clinic security director of The Women’s Centers, told ABC News that while for many Americans the behavior of insurrectionists was shocking on Jan. 6, abortion providers like herself were familiar with it.

She said that she actually looked up one of the usual protestors at her clinic on Facebook and watched as he live streamed his participation in the Capitol attack.

“We were so familiar with the tactics that we saw. The bullying, the loud noises, the militia gear, the harassing language that was used,” she said. “They are pro-violence and the words that they were saying like ‘hang people’ was very familiar.”

Fowler said the connections between anti-abortion and white supremacy groups are not new and they’ve been noted since abortion was legalized in the 1970s.

Kifferly and Dalton Johnson, the CEO of Alabama Women’s Center, said that’ve had to work to have law enforcement officials, different security providers and deescalation tactics implemented to address the violence and disruption that their clinics face.

The report also found that the pandemic affected the type of violence and disruption against abortion providers, as well as how many incidents were actually reported.

At a Thursday press call, Fowler said that many of their member facilities struggled to stay open due to regulations from the government, as well as from staffing issues. The strain of the pandemic, Fowler said, also meant that providers were not as capable of recording all incidents of harassment.

Kifferly said that she and her clinic staff experienced this, as they were “exhausted and became under more scrutiny.” Specifically, Kifferly said she and her staff had difficulty proving they were essential workers during the pandemic.

Fowler, Kifferly and Dalton all said that they don’t believe that the anti-abortion protestors that they have encountered are able or willing to have respectful conversations about the issue of abortion.

NAF reports have found acts of violence and disruption not only committed at abortion clinic sites, but also at the homes, churches and schools of the children of abortion providers.

Fowler said that NAF’s priority continues to be the safety and well-being of their providers and their patients, and working to get patients the care that they need.

The NAF has been collecting data on incidents of violence and disruption against abortion providers since 1977, according to the release.

To do so, they collect monthly reports from their member facilities and allied organizations and conduct follow-up reports.

For the 2021 report, NAF received reports from 80% of their facility members, and suspect that there is underreporting in some areas, such as picketing, hate mail and calls, hate email, internet harassment, obstruction and trespassing.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Mom opens up about getting ready to donate kidney to 2-year-old son

Mom opens up about getting ready to donate kidney to 2-year-old son
Mom opens up about getting ready to donate kidney to 2-year-old son
Courtesy Pamela Bish

(NEW YORK) — If you could give your child the gift of life, would you?

Pamela Bish, a Georgia mom of three, recently got the chance to do so and she immediately jumped at the opportunity. Her youngest son, Carter Bish, 2, needs a new kidney, and after multiple tests and processes, doctors finally gave her the green light to undergo the live organ donation.

Now, Pamela Bish and her son’s procedures are scheduled to go ahead on July 8.

“It’s not just about being a match. There’s other things that they have to consider,” Bish told Good Morning America.

“My vessels have to be a certain size. They had to make sure I had two kidneys. They had to make sure that I didn’t have any cysts on my kidneys. They had to make sure I don’t have high blood pressure. They have to make sure I’m not pre-diabetic,” she explained. “So there were all kinds of things that I had to go through in order to make sure that I, as a donor, could continue to be healthy and live a healthy life with only one kidney.”

She remembers the day she got the critical phone call telling her she was cleared.

“When I got that final call of, ‘I have good news. You have been approved,’ it was instant relief, and just instant peace and calm. And then, the excitement just kicked in,” Pamela Bish said.

Although Carter is only 2 years old, his health challenges began before he was even born.

“I went in for my 20-week ultrasound and the radiologist came in and they said that Carter, there was a lot of things wrong with him and he was not compatible with life, that he wouldn’t make it, he wouldn’t be able to live because I didn’t have much amniotic fluid,” Bish said. “[They said] his kidneys just looked awful. They looked just filled with cysts and a lot of fluid.”

It was devastating news for Pamela Bish and her husband, Dale Bish, who are both originally from Pittsburgh but moved to Dacula, Georgia, partway through her pregnancy with Carter. They decided to get a second opinion from doctors at The Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, where they were told it appeared that Carter had a urinary blockage.

“Throughout all those weeks, between weeks 20 and 30, I would have some fluid and then it would go down and Hopkins just said they wouldn’t recommend any other interventions because he does have a little bit of fluid and if he has enough to just breathe it in and develop his lungs enough, that he could make it,” Pamela Bish said.

“He would likely need dialysis and he would likely need a transplant down the road. But we just had to wait and see, and that was probably the most difficult part, carrying him knowing that we weren’t sure if we were going to have a baby to bring home or not.”

Against the odds, Carter did make it, and shortly after he was born, he was transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit at Children’s Scottish Rite Hospital in Atlanta, where he was put on a ventilator and received various treatments before he could be placed on peritoneal dialysis, a type of treatment for kidney failure, according to the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK).

Pamela Bish estimates that her son has had at least 11 surgeries, and multiple setbacks and different health issues, but her little boy has fought through them all. She describes Carter as a happy child who loves baseball and was, naturally, one for Halloween this past October.

Last year, Carter’s kidneys also improved to the point where he could even be removed from dialysis.

“He made it a year without dialysis treatment and maintaining his levels. But then things just started to get bad again. His labs started to look not so good,” Pamela Bish explained. “He could create urine but his urine was not good urine, so it wasn’t clearing his body of all the toxins.”

Carter started undergoing dialysis again but would eventually need a transplant. He also had to recover from hip surgery before he would be well enough to receive a kidney.

Now, his mother is looking forward to being the lifeline he needs and giving him a shot at what she hopes is a long life ahead of him.

“I want him to know that during the times in his life that people were telling him that his life wasn’t worth saving or keeping, that his family and his friends and the people around him never believed that for one minute,” Pamela Bish said. “They all believed that his life was worth it and that he would be OK.”

“If you would see him today, you would not know a thing is wrong with him. He is the most adorable, cutest, sweetest little guy. He never stops talking. He has won the hearts of everyone around him,” she added.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

One month after Uvalde massacre, new revelations continue to compound community’s grief

One month after Uvalde massacre, new revelations continue to compound community’s grief
One month after Uvalde massacre, new revelations continue to compound community’s grief
Brandon Bell/Getty Images

(UVALDE, Texas) — One month has passed since a gunman killed 19 students and two teachers at Robb Elementary School, and a series of new revelations about the May 24 shooting has done little to abate the frustrations of Uvalde’s residents as they continue to heal.

State and local officials have spent weeks trying to reconcile incomplete and, at times, conflicting reports on the shooting and the questionable police response. And while multiple investigations remain ongoing — including one being conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice — some critical facts remain elusive following one of the deadliest school shootings in the nation’s history.

Some information emerged this week when Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steven McCraw, whose agency is conducting one of the probes, testified before the Texas state legislature. McCraw, who presented an updated timeline of events that he said was based on video surveillance and police communications, characterized the police response as an “abject failure,” and offered what appeared to be the most complete account of what occurred during the deadly rampage.

In McCraw’s telling, enough officers and equipment arrived on the scene within three minutes to “neutralize” the 18-year-old shooter. He also made the stunning assertion that the door to the classroom containing the gunman might have been unlocked all along — even as officers waited more than an hour to find a key that would open it.

“One hour, 14 minutes and eight seconds. That’s how long the children waited, and the teachers waited, in rooms 111 and 112 to be rescued,” McCraw said. “And while they waited, the on-scene commander waited for radios and rifles. Then he waited for shields. Then he waited for SWAT. Lastly, he waited for a key that was never needed.”

Police officers arrived on-scene almost immediately, but failed to overcome logistical and communications challenges in time to limit the carnage. McCraw said officers had difficulty communicating because their radios had no reception inside the building, contributing to a leadership vacuum that crippled the police response.

McCraw reserved his harshest criticism for Pete Arredondo, the embattled school district police chief who was the on-scene incident commander. McCraw called Arredondo “the only thing stopping a hallway of dedicated officers from entering” the classrooms and killing the gunman.

“[Arredondo] decided to place the lives of officers before the lives of children,” McCraw said.

McCraw’s condemnation of Arredondo has added to a growing chorus of outrage over the police response on May 24. Emotional accounts from survivors and first responders before Congress and in the press have cast a critical eye on law enforcement.

“They’re cowards,” teacher Arnulfo Reyes, who lost 11 students and sustained multiple gunshot wounds, told ABC News in an exclusive interview. “They sit there and did nothing for our community. They took a long time to go in … I will never forgive them.”

Meanwhile, after several weeks of community members calling for Arredondo’s resignation, the Uvalde school superintendent on Wednesday placed Arredondo on administrative leave. Arredondo has not responded to multiple requests for comment from ABC News.

“He should never be allowed to work in law enforcement again,” one member of the Uvalde community told ABC affiliate KSAT on Wednesday. “My personal opinion.”

Many Uvalde residents say the shifting narrative has fostered an immense distrust of authorities — while the lack of information has provided little solace to relatives of the victims. A number of family members hope that an upcoming report from the county medical examiner will answer some of their most pressing questions.

“[The medical examiner] can tell us more or less what happened to our child. Was [her death] immediate or could she have been saved if [police] went in faster?” Kim Rubio, the mother of Uvalde victim Lexi Rubio, told ABC News’ Mireya Villareal. “I just think about how long she was there. Was she scared? Was she in pain? It just worries me.”

Demands for investigative documents also reached new heights this week, prompting a new round of infighting among officials.

Uvalde Mayor Don McLaughlin on Tuesday accused McCraw of “[having] an agenda, and it’s not to present a full report on what happened and to give factual answers to the families of this community.”

On Wednesday, a Texas state senator who represents Uvalde filed a lawsuit against McCraw’s agency seeking access to its investigative records. The Department of Public Safety did not respond to the lawsuit nor to McLaughlin’s criticism.

“From the very start, the response to this awful gun tragedy has been full of misinformation and outright lies from our government,” state Sen. Roland Gutierrez, a Democrat, wrote in an eight-page complaint.

During his Tuesday appearance before the state legislature, McCraw said the district attorney who covers Uvalde, Christina Busbee, told him to cease contact with lawmakers and the press. McCraw pledged to release investigative records and video surveillance footage of the shooting once Busbee approves their release.

Uvalde residents say they hope they won’t have to wait much longer.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

First LGBTQ National Park Service center to open at Stonewall Inn

First LGBTQ National Park Service center to open at Stonewall Inn
First LGBTQ National Park Service center to open at Stonewall Inn
TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP via Getty Images

(NEW YORK) — The new Stonewall National Monument Visitor Center will be the first LGBTQ+ visitor center within the National Park Service, and organizers are set to break ground on the new endeavor.

The center is set to open in the summer of 2024 and will take over the half of the Stonewall Inn that is no longer occupied by the bar on Christopher Street in New York City’s West Village.

The center will be led by Pride Live, a social advocacy and community engagement organization for the LGBTQ+ community.

“Our goal from the beginning has been to look at what can we do and how can we preserve, advance and celebrate the legacy of the Stonewall Rebellion,” said Ann Marie Gothard, president of the Pride Live Board of Directors, in an interview with ABC News.

The Stonewall Uprising of June 1969, which began as a police raid of a gay bar and turned into a dayslong protest, was the catalyst for the modern gay rights movement and is what Pride celebrations nationwide commemorate each year.

The Stonewall National Monument was designated as the first U.S. national monument dedicated to LGBTQ+ rights and history by President Barack Obama in 2016.

Gothard hopes the visitor center can be a gathering point, a “welcoming location for all people to really explore and experience LGBTQ history and culture.”

Gothard said it “could help to really bring people of differing minds together to learn about the LGBTQ history, as well as culture,” in a time when LGBTQ rights are under legislative attacks.

The site is expected to feature historical and art exhibits, as well as events and lecture series, hosted by LGBTQ creators and figures. They plan on hosting in-person and virtual tours of the spaces, as well.

The center will serve as the home base for a dedicated group of National Park Service Rangers, who will be focused on preserving the Stonewall National Monument, but it will mainly be managed by Pride Live.

“The designation of Stonewall as a National Monument is an important step in memorializing an invaluable historical landmark that represents courage, hope and triumph for the LGBTQ community,” Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland said in a statement.

The groundbreaking ceremony will be livestreamed on YouTube at 10:30 a.m. ET on June 24.

The Stonewall National Monument Visitor Center will be funded by donations.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Retirees face threat from economy and market turmoil: Experts

Retirees face threat from economy and market turmoil: Experts
Retirees face threat from economy and market turmoil: Experts
katleho Seisa/Getty Images

(NEW YORK) — A market drop, a price spike and a looming recession — this year has battered the finances of everyday Americans. But some can wait out the misery. Eventually, the market will likely improve, as will debilitating grocery and fuel costs.

Older people and retirees, however, lack the luxury of time. For them, the twin crunch of rising living costs and falling stock returns sounds an especially urgent alarm, straining their budgets while choking off supplementary funds from their portfolios, experts told ABC News.

Typically, financial advisors encourage older people to transition their holdings away from volatile assets like stocks to predictable assets such as bonds, since as one ages, the risk of a major downturn begins to outweigh the reward of sizable gains. Nevertheless, many older people and retirees retain significant stock holdings.

Fifty-nine percent of Americans aged 65 and older own stock either directly or through accounts like a 401(k), according to a Gallup poll updated in May. The share of older people invested in the stock market is slightly larger than the 56% measured in 2021 and the 55% in 2020, though the difference is not statistically significant, Gallup says.

Data on Fidelity’s 21.2 million 401(k) investors shows that — as of late March — more than a third of people aged 60-67 have at least 67% or more in stocks, the financial services firm told ABC News.

By necessity, some older people under financial stress need to sell stock to shore up their budgets, even if they stand to lose potential gains down the road by selling in a down market, experts said. But individuals should take steps to avoid such a choice, if possible, like drawing on other portfolio income like dividends or taking up additional work, they added.

“Market risk is particularly important if you need money soon, as is the case with many soon to retire or already living in retirement,” Rob Williams, the managing director of financial planning and retirement income at Charles Schwab, told ABC News.

“Markets, global-political risk, and inflation are clearly concerning many investors,” he added. “There’s a general fear.”

Retirees typically carry two types of exposure to the stock market: 401(k)s and other accounts sponsored by their employer as well as IRA and other brokerage accounts held away from their employer, Williams said. Americans largely rely on retirement funds, since the share of employers that provide pensions has declined in recent decades.

Oftentimes, investors peg 401(k) accounts to the S&P 500, which has fallen more than 20% so far this year. Investors flocked to funds that tracked the S&P because of its incredible run during bull market that began in 2009 and lasted more than a decade.

Meanwhile, the tech-heavy Nasdaq — which also drew considerable investment due to years of outsized returns — has fallen nearly 30% over that period, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average has dropped about 16%.

Difficult times for the market and the economy may continue, experts said. The Federal Reserve last week raised borrowing costs significantly, hiking its benchmark interest rate 0.75%, the largest increase since 1994. Additional rate hikes will likely follow, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said.

In theory, the moves should slash inflation by slowing the economy and eating away at demand. But the strategy also risks tipping the economy into a recession.

Even though such economic prospects pose a challenge for older people and retirees, they shouldn’t panic, experts said. “At some point, the business cycle and the market cycle play out,” Mona Mahajan, senior investment strategist at Edward Jones Investors, told ABC News. “You’ll get a down year in equities. Volatility should be expected if you’re exposed to equity markets.”

Whenever possible, older people and retirees should try to weather the potential downturn without a major sell off, experts said.
Recent Stories from ABC News

“It’s always better to be in the market than trying to time yourself in and out of the market,” Mahajan said. “Investors are notoriously poor at picking market bottoms — or tops, for that matter.”

But older people who rely on their portfolios for regular income will find it more difficult to weather a downturn, said Williams, the managing director at Charles Schwab. For them, it’s of paramount importance that they diversify their holdings, so their day-to-day finances do not depend on volatile assets or segments of the market, he said.

“The less time you have to recover, the more critical it is to have a diversified allocation that limits exposure to individual securities or sectors of the market and with exposure to a mix of cash, bonds, and stocks,” he said.

Older people also benefit from a portfolio that provides alternative sources of income beyond gains in stock price, Williams said. “Investment income in the form of interest and dividends can create a floor of cash flow to avoid having to sell investments, in particular in bear markets,” he added. Dividends from U.S. companies held for at least 60 days are taxed at the capital gains rate, which runs anywhere from 0% to 20%, depending on one’s tax bracket; as opposed to the higher tax rate for personal income.

To be sure, the economy may avert a recession altogether. And the stock market may have fallen nearly as far as it will go, since many investors have already acted in anticipation of additional rate hikes from the Fed.

For now, older people can draw solace from the possibility that the worst in markets has already passed, said Mahajan, the senior investment strategist at Edward Jones.

“In our view, we’re closer to the bottom than we are to the top,” she said.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Supreme Court gun ruling sparks furor in New York, Washington

Supreme Court gun ruling sparks furor in New York, Washington
Supreme Court gun ruling sparks furor in New York, Washington
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court ruling Thursday striking down a New York state law limiting the right to carry a concealed handgun in public is sparking a furor from Albany to Washington as gun safety activists and Democrats warn the ruling will lead to more guns, and more violence.

The high court’s ruling struck down the century-old law mandating that gun owners demonstrate “proper cause” to carry a concealed handgun outside of their homes.

The 6-3 opinion was authored by Justice Clarence Thomas for the conservative majority with the three liberal justices dissenting.

President Joe Biden said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling, saying it “contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all.”

“In the wake of the horrific attacks in Buffalo and Uvalde, as well as the daily acts of gun violence that do not make national headlines, we must do more as a society — not less — to protect our fellow Americans,” he said in a statement. “I urge states to continue to enact and enforce commonsense laws to make their citizens and communities safer from gun violence.”

The decision sparked an outcry among New York Democrats, including New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul, who said she might call a special session of the state legislature to consider responses to the ruling — falling just six weeks after 10 Black people were killed in a mass shooting at a Buffalo supermarket.

“It is outrageous that at a moment of national reckoning on gun violence, the Supreme Court has recklessly struck down a New York law that limits those who can carry concealed weapons,” Hochul tweeted.

“In response to this ruling, we are closely reviewing our options — including calling a special session of the legislature,” she added. “Just as we swiftly passed nation-leading gun reform legislation, I will continue to do everything in my power to keep New Yorkers safe from gun violence.”

New York City’s Democratic Mayor Eric Adams warned that the ruling would allow for more guns on the streets and put residents at risk.

“We have been preparing for this decision and will continue to do everything possible to work with our federal, state, and local partners to protect our city. Those efforts will include a comprehensive review of our approach to defining ‘sensitive locations’ where carrying a gun is banned, and reviewing our application process to ensure that only those who are fully qualified can obtain a carry license,” he said in a statement.

“We will work together to mitigate the risks this decision will create once it is implemented, as we cannot allow New York to become the Wild West,” he added, ahead of a public press conference.

Congressional Democrats pan ruling after prominent mass shootings

Democrats in Washington, meanwhile, bemoaned the decision, noting that it comes as the nation grapples with a spate of high-profile mass shootings, including in Buffalo and at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.

“Just weeks after mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde, as parents and young people across the country call for an end to gun violence, the far-right Supreme court has struck down one of the nation’s oldest gun safety laws. Congress must pass gun safety legislation now,” Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., tweeted.

“This right-wing Supreme Court just gave in to the gun lobby and struck down a critical New York State gun control law. As we face rising gun violence across the country, this decision will only make it harder to protect New Yorkers from dangerous weapons in our communities,” added Rep. Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y.

Aligned groups advocating for stricter gun laws echoed those lamentations, painting in stark terms the violence they say could follow the ruling.

“More people will be harmed by guns as a result of today’s decision,” Everytown for Gun Safety Executive Director Eric Tirschwell said Thursday. “More people will be intimidated by guns, more people will be shot and wounded and more people will be shot and killed. By wrongly issuing this decision, and ignoring its public safety implications, the Supreme Court risks converting the Constitution into a suicide pact…”

Republicans, gun rights groups rejoice

Republicans and gun rights groups, for their part, hailed the ruling, casting it as a needed protection of the Second Amendment.

“Today’s SCOTUS decision reaffirms what we already knew: the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” tweeted Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont. “This is a major victory for law-abiding gun owners across America.”

“While states like NY have tried to restrict your Constitutional 2nd Amendment right through burdensome laws and regulations, today’s Supreme Court ruling rightfully ensures the right of all law-abiding Americans to defend themselves without unnecessary government interference,” said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., in a tweet.

The National Rifle Association, the nation’s preeminent gun rights group, praised the ruling as a “watershed win.”

“The right to self-defense and to defend your family and loved ones should not end at your home. This ruling brings life-saving justice to law-abiding Americans who have lived under unconstitutional regimes all across our country, particularly in cities and states with revolving door criminal justice systems, no cash bail and increased harassment of law-enforcement,” NRA chief Wayne LaPierre said in a statement.

Ruling comes as Congress pushes gun reform bill

The reactions come as Congress is working to move forward with a gun reform bill that would, among other things, provide funds for states to implement so-called red flag laws and close the “boyfriend loophole” to keep weapons out of the hands of domestic abusers, and break a 26-year long stalemate on bipartisan gun legislation on Capitol Hill.

Democrats, in particular, have been buoyed by what they say is public support for stricter gun laws, including a September Pew survey showing that majorities of Democrats and Republicans are against people carrying concealed guns without a permit.

The legislation is expected to ultimately pass, with 15 Senate Republicans voting Thursday to end debate on the bill ahead of a final vote by the end of the week and House Democrats, expected to be supportive, controlling that chamber.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.