(NEW YORK) — A new financial disclosure report filed by Donald Trump shows that the former president has doubled his number of business holdings since leaving the White House.
The 101-page disclosure report, filed with the Federal Election Commission as part of Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, details his personal wealth and income since January of 2022 and offers a first look at the state of his vast business interests since he returned to private life.
The report, which was filed weeks late even after Trump was given two 45-day extensions, shows that Trump has acquired hundreds of new assets — but it’s unclear exactly how the former president’s businesses have been faring because much of financial information is only reported in broad ranges, per FEC requirements.
Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club, which has served as a destination spot for his supporters and allies, brought in over $5 million over the last 15 months according to the report. The club brought in more than $24 million in the final year of his presidency, according to his disclosure report from 2021.
The Trump Hotel at the Old Post Office in Washington, D.C., which also served as a popular spot for Trump’s allies during his presidency, also brought in more than $5 million last year in the months prior to its sale in May, per the filing.
Trump also reported bringing in over $5 million from each of his other major properties, including his golf clubs in Virginia, New Jersey, Palm Beach, and Scotland, as well as other signature properties in New York and Chicago, according to the filing.
The new filing also shows that Trump Media, one of Trump’s new ventures that includes his Truth Social platform, is worth between $5 million and $25 million — but that the business brought in no more than $201 over the past 15 months.
The disclosure report also shows Trump is still earning royalties from his books, including between $100,001 and $1 million from his 1987 book, “The Art of the Deal.”
(NEW YORK) — Former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Friday he is not running for president in 2024.
“The time is not right for me and my family,” Pompeo said in a statement.
Pompeo, 59, said he and his wife Susan made the decision “after much consideration and prayer.”
Pompeo served under former President Donald Trump as director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2017 to 2018 and as secretary of state from 2018 to 2021. He was considered a potential Republican candidate for president as the 2024 election shapes up.
Republicans who have thrown their hat into the ring include Trump, Nikki Haley, who served as a U.S. ambassador to the U.N. in the Trump administration, and Asa Hutchinson, the former governor of Arkansas.
Among Democrats, Marianne Williamson and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have announced bids for the White House.
President Joe Biden has repeatedly said he intends to run for reelection in 2024 barring some major issues such as his health. However, the Democrat has not officially announced a decision.
Biden told reporters Friday that he plans to announce his plans “relatively soon.”
“I’ve already made that calculus,” Biden said on the tarmac as he departed Knock, Ireland, when asked whether his trip to the country has changed or influenced his plans on seeking re-election. “But the trip here just reinforced my sense of optimism about what can be done.”
When pressed on the decision, Biden added, “I told you my plan is to run again.”
In January, Pompeo told CBS News he was considering a 2024 run for president but was still undecided on whether to throw his hat in the ring.
The former Kansas congressman also announced his decision not to run during an appearance on Fox News Friday evening.
“While we care deeply about America, and the issues that I’ve been talking about this last year and a half, and frankly for decades, matter an awful lot, this isn’t our moment,” he said about himself and his wife.
Pompeo hinted at potential future bids for president in his statement Friday.
“To those of you this announcement disappoints, my apologies,” Pompeo said. “And to those of you this thrills, know that I’m 59 years-old. There remain many more opportunities for which the timing might be more fitting as presidential leadership becomes even more necessary.”
ABC News’ Sarah Kolinovsky contributed to this report.
(MISSOURI) — The Missouri attorney general announced new limitations Thursday on gender-affirming care for minors and adults in a move that has sparked outrage from advocacy and LGBTQ groups.
Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s limitations would require adults to attend 18 months of psychological or psychiatric assessments via a therapist before receiving gender-affirming care “to explore the developmental influences on the patient’s current gender identity and to determine, among other things, whether the person has any mental health comorbidities.”
Providers also would need to prove that “the patient has exhibited a medically documented, long-lasting, persistent and intense pattern of gender dysphoria” for at least three years, according to the announcement.
LGBTQ advocates slammed Bailey’s decision to restrict the health care available to both adults and minors, arguing that Bailey’s announcement is based in discrimination and not science.
“The Attorney General’s claims are maliciously cherry-picked and come from unverified sources that allow him to promulgate disgusting, obstructive and misleading information into an emergency rule,” said PROMO, Missouri’s LGBTQ+ public policy and advocacy organization, in a statement to ABC News.
Bailey’s announcement focuses on the risks associated with gender-affirming care, but physicians have told ABC News that all medications, surgeries or vaccines for any kind of treatment come with risk and gender-affirming care is no different.
They say knowing the risks and benefits of treatment – and of not treating a condition – can help families and individuals make an informed decision.
Major national medical associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and over 20 more agree that gender-affirming care is safe, effective, beneficial and medically necessary.
Due to gender-related discrimination and gender dysphoria, trans youth are more likely to experience anxiety, depressed mood and to think about or attempt suicide. Gender-affirming hormone therapy has been found on average to improve the mental health of transgender adolescents and teenagers, according to a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Gender dysphoria refers to the stress of being in a body that doesn’t feel like one’s own.
Though Bailey calls puberty blockers “experimental” in his announcement, drugs in the class have been FDA approved since the 1990s to treat early puberty. They are not specifically approved to treat gender dysphoria, but have been studied and commonly prescribed for that purpose for decades.
Modern gender-affirming care is based on “decades of clinical experience and research and, therefore, they are not considered experimental, cosmetic or for convenience,” per the World Professional Association for Transgender Health standards of care.
Studies have also shown that it’s rare for people to reverse a transition after undergoing gender-affirming care, according to research in the journal LGBT Health which also found that those who reverse their transition often do so because of pressures from family and social stigma.
Rates of regret for gender-affirmation surgery are extremely low — research shows they hover around 1%, according to the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery medical journal. Rates of regret for knee and hip surgeries are significantly higher, studies show.
Bailey also cited the high mortality rate for transgender people in his announcement. Studies in the Duke University Press, the National Cancer Institute and Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology have shown that transgender people face economic and social marginalization, violence and discrimination at a higher rate than non-transgender people — that research asserts that these issues likely play a role in the persistence of poor health and higher mortality in the community.
The research asserts that these issues likely play a role in the persistence of poor health and higher mortality in the community.
Bailey’s announcement comes amid an investigation into a St. Louis transgender health care center that is accused by a whistle-blower of “using experimental drugs on children,” distributing medication “without individualized assessment” and “without parental consent,” according to the attorney general’s office.
The center said it was “alarmed by the allegations.”
The emergency regulation is effective starting April 27 until February 6, 2024.
“We are taking this matter very seriously and have already begun the process of looking into the situation to ascertain the facts,” Washington University’s Transgender Center said in a statement. “As always, our highest priority is the health and well-being of our patients. We are committed to providing compassionate, family-centered care to all of our patients and we hold our medical practitioners to the highest professional and ethical standards.”
Civil rights organizations including Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri vowed to pursue litigation against the move from the attorney general’s office.
“Gender-affirming care is critical in helping transgender adolescents succeed in school, establish healthy relationships with their friends and family, live authentically as themselves, and dream about their futures,” the organizations said in a joint statement. “We will defend the rights of transgender people through any necessary legal action, just as we have done in other states engaging in this anti-science and discriminatory fearmongering.”
Gender-affirming care for youth has been restricted in at least 12 states.
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) — A Jan. 6 rioter seen in chaotic video assaulting and pinning a Metropolitan Police Department officer in a doorway was sentenced Friday to 7 years and 6 months in prison.
Patrick McCaughey was at the front of the mob that trapped D.C. officer Daniel Hodges the building’s lower West Terrace tunnel as he was repeatedly assaulted by rioters.
Judge Trevor McFadden described the assault as among the “most dangerous and violent clashes with police” and that McCaughey’s actions amounted to “some of the most egregious crimes committed on that day.”
Officer Hodges told the court the trauma he experienced in that doorway continues to haunt him and that “all Americans” were victims of McCaughley’s assault.
“Not a day goes by that I do not recall the events of January 6,” he said.
Wearing a baggy orange short sleeve jumpsuit and a dressing the judge in a somber tone, McCaughey said what he did on Jan. 6 was “the greatest embarrassment of my life.”
“I will be a felon … unworthy of the trust and rights I once enjoyed,” McCaughey said.
McCaughey apologized to the police and his own family before the judge read and explained his sentence.
McFadden said McCaughey’s expression of remorse and lack of prior criminal history weighed in favor of a lighter sentence.
The judge ultimately rejected the government’s recommendation of 15-plus years. Instead he issued three separate sentences, all to be served concurrently.
(WASHINGTON) — The Justice Department on Friday asked the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency stay of an appeals court ruling that would sharply restrict access to the widely-used abortion medication mifepristone.
The restrictions were set to take effect early Saturday morning.
On behalf of the Food and Drug Administration, the DOJ has asked the court to impose an immediate administrative stay of the 5th Circuit’s abortion pill decision — to preserve the status quo while the justices consider the application — but to ultimately stay the ruling pending appeal.
“If allowed to take effect, the lower courts’ orders would upend the regulatory regime for mifepristone, with sweeping consequences for the pharmaceutical industry, women who need access to the drug, and FDA’s ability to implement its statutory authority,” the DOJ stated.
The government says the ruling creates a “host of unprecedented issues” that put the FDA in an “impossible position,” particularly in light of the dueling order out of Washington state.
“Regulated entities are trying to discern their legal duties and urgently demanding guidance. FDA has spent the last week first grappling with the implications of the district court’s order, then racing to untangle the different and enormously more complicated issues raised by the Fifth Circuit’s decision. And in the meantime, another district court has enjoined FDA from doing anything to change the conditions on the distribution of mifepristone in 17 States and the District of Columbia — which means that FDA risks contempt if it takes action to permit the marketing of mifepristone in a manner consistent with the Fifth Circuit’s order. This Court should put a stop to that untenable situation by staying the district court’s order in full,” the Justice Department’s application said.
The administration told the high court that a decision by a district court federal judge in Texas is “the first time any court has abrogated FDA’s conditions on a drug’s approval based on a disagreement with the agency’s judgment about safety — much less done so after those conditions have been in effect for years.”
A few minutes earlier, Danco Labs, maker of the abortion pill mifepristone, also filed an emergency application with the court seeking a full stay of the Texas judge’s order pending appeal or asks the justices to take up the case immediately on the merits and decide it this spring.
Danco cites the conflicting ruling from the Eastern District of Washington as the primary basis for urging the court to get involved now.
The company cites “regulatory chaos” that would ensue if those old FDA restrictions snap back at midnight and an “untenable limbo for Danco, for providers, for women and for health care systems all trying to navigate these uncharted waters.”
Notably, both the FDA and Danco warn that if the 5th Circuit’s decision stands — reverting to circa-2000 restrictions of the abortion pill — all existing doses of mifepristone would be “misbranded” because their labeling would no longer comply with the approval standard.
In turn, they suggest, those doses could not be properly sold or distributed under regulations. Adjusting the drug’s labeling “could take months” they say.
The government also points out that such a scenario would invalidate all generic versions of the drug, since those were approved for use subsequent to the year 2000.
And, they warn of danger to women …. forcing the government to “reinstate a now-obsolete and unfamiliar dosing regimen [from 2000] that includes higher doses of mifepristone than what we now know are needed for the intended use,” which could harm patients.
(WASHINGTON) — A six-week abortion ban that replaces Florida’s 15-week ban was signed into law Thursday night by Gov. Ron DeSantis, after the state House of Representatives passed the bill earlier in the day.
“We are proud to support life and family in the state of Florida,” DeSantis said in a statement. “I applaud the Legislature for passing the Heartbeat Protection Act that expands pro-life protections and provides additional resources for young mothers and families.”
DeSantis had said he would sign a six-week ban should it be sent to his desk.
The White House on Thursday called the bill “extreme and dangerous,” adding that the ban “flies in the face of fundamental freedoms and is out of step with the views of the vast majority of the people of Florida and of all the United States.”
The ban prohibits all abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, before most women know they are pregnant. The ban makes exceptions for when the woman’s life or health is at risk and cases of rape or incest, under certain conditions. Even with its current ban in place, Florida has fewer restrictions compared to nearby states.
The bill passed by a vote of 70 to 40. It passed in the Senate last week.
There are four conditions in which physicians can provide abortions under the ban.
To provide abortion care under the law’s exceptions, two physicians would have to certify in writing that the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to save the woman’s life or avert a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman, according to the law. This does not including psychological conditions.
If two physicians are not available, one physician would have to certify in writing that there is a medical necessity for the legitimate emergency medical procedure to save the pregnant woman’s life or avert irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function and certify another physician is not available for consultation, the law states.
Abortions will also be permitted in cases where the pregnancy has not progressed to the third trimester and two physicians certify in writing that the fetus has a fatal fetal abnormality, according to the law.
The fourth condition according to the law in which physicians can provide abortions is if the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest and the gestational age of the fetus is not more than 15 weeks, as determined by a physician. At the time the woman schedules or arrives for her abortion appointment, she must provide a copy of a restraining order, police report, medical record or other court order or documentation proving that she is a victim of rape or incest.
Physicians will be required to report incidents of rape or incest in minors to the central abuse hotline, according to the law.
Only physicians will be allowed to provide abortion services.
Anyone who performs or actively participates in an abortion outside these rules commits a felony of the third degree. If the abortion results in the death of the woman, the crime becomes a second-degree felony.
Abortion pills must also be disbursed in person by physicians, prohibiting abortions over telehealth visits and prohibiting the delivery of abortion pills by mail. Physicians must also be physically present in the same room as the woman when the termination of pregnancy is performed or when dispensing abortion pills.
The ban would go into effect if the Florida Supreme Court upholds the 15-week ban, which is being challenged by the Center for Reproductive Rights and other groups.
“Across the country, pregnant people are being pushed to the brink of death because they can’t get an abortion,” Elisabeth Smith, director of state policy and advocacy at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement. “Yet Florida lawmakers have rushed this dangerous ban through the legislature with no concern for their citizens and how it will harm them. This bill threatens to end abortion almost entirely amid a growing public health crisis. If this ban takes effect, Floridians would be stranded in a vast abortion desert and forced to travel over 1,000 miles to get an abortion.”
“No one should have to face that, and many people will not be able to make that journey,” Smith added.
New data shared with FiveThirtyEight indicates that over 66,000 people couldn’t get an abortion in their home state after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last June. Florida, however, surged in abortions in the wake of the ruling with people from other Southern states visiting, according to the data.
In anticipation of the ban passing, abortion providers in Florida told ABC News they’ve seen a flood of patients from other states.
“Literally every clinic session we are seeing patients from other states. Every time I’m in the health center, there is a patient — at least one if not multiple — from Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, all over the Southeast, who traveled hundreds of miles to get their health care,” Dr. Sujatha Prabhakaran told ABC News.
In turn, it’s created a domino effect where women in Florida are unable to get appointments in their home state.
“That means that patients in those centers are having to travel,” Prabhakaran said. “They’re not able to access care in a timely way in their own communities. So, then they’re having to travel further south to access care in Florida.”
(WASHINGTON) — The Biden administration is proposing a rule that, if finalized, would open eligibility for Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance exchanges to recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program.
On Thursday, the White House announced the Department of Health and Human Services is planning to put forward a rule that expands the definition of “lawful presence” to include DACA recipients, also known as “Dreamers.” The administration intends to implement the policy change by the end of the month, according to the White House.
“Health care should be a right, not a privilege, and my administration’s worked hard to expand health care. And today, more Americans have health insurance than ever,” President Joe Biden said in a pre-recorded video announcing the decision. “Today’s announcement is about giving DACA recipients the same opportunity.”
Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra applauded the decision, noting about a third of current DACA recipients do not have health insurance.
Some recipients have had access to coverage through work, military service, and programs some states have expanded to them.
Advocates say undocumented immigrants and DACA recipients deserve to be rewarded for their help keeping the economy afloat during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“These were people who were providing health care, or providing other types of care, helping keep small businesses open and ensuring that people had food to eat. At the same time, many of these same individuals who were part of our frontline workforce during the pandemic, they themselves were left behind unable to access many of the assistance programs that the rest of us were able to access,” said Sergio Gonzales, Executive Director of the Immigration Hub. “Not only was this just completely unfair and unjust, but it also makes no sense. When we have healthier people and we have people who are able to access health care that moves the entire country forward. That ensures that we have healthier communities at large.”
Paloma Bouhid, a DACA recipient, says she lost health care coverage when she was laid off from her tourism and hospitality job during the pandemic and was “terrified” of contracting COVID. She recently started her own company organizing homes, businesses and other spaces for clients and had to get private insurance for some medical tests she had to undergo.
“It’s so expensive and it’s such a big part of my financials, being a small business owner, that I’m still very paranoid about getting sick or being in an accident. It’s just absolute paranoia,” Bouhid said. “This comes as a huge relief to know that if something does happen I am covered and I can take care of myself and prioritize my health and know that’s going to be okay.
While immigrant advocates largely praised the president’s announcement, some conservatives slammed his plan to expand health care for DACA recipients.
“Rewarding illegal immigration will bring more illegal immigration. This is an insult to American citizenship,” Republican Sen. Tom Cotton tweeted.
There are approximately 580,000 current recipients of the program, and nearly 800,000 young migrants have benefited from DACA, according to data collected by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services shows. The program was launched by the Obama-Biden administration in 2012, which allowed some immigrants who were brought to the country as children to legally work and stay in the country for renewable periods of up to two years if they meet several strict requirements. DACA does not provide a pathway to citizenship.
Multiple legal challenges have threatened the fate of DACA since its inception, with a current lawsuit working its way through district court in Texas. In 2021, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen ruled that the program was unlawful. A federal appeals court later upheld his decision but allowed protections for current recipients to remain in place pending the lower court’s review of the Biden administration’s efforts to codify the program into administrative law. While recipients are still allowed to apply to renew their status every two years through DACA, new applicants have been barred for nearly two years.
(CHICAGO) — The Democratic National Committee’s decision to have Chicago host its 2024 convention caps a lengthy decision making process, leaving many Democrats pleased but others in rival cities wishing they had gotten the nod.
The DNC announced on Tuesday that the Windy City will hold the nominating convention, the party’s first full event since 2016, after the coronavirus pandemic rendered its 2020 bash, originally slated to be held in Milwaukee, a largely online affair. Chicago beat out Atlanta and New York City to win the confab, letting Illinois lawmakers take a victory lap due to the city’s progressive politics and strategic location in the hot regional battleground of the Midwest.
“It’s a testament to Chicago and Illinois’s priorities aligning with Joe Biden and the Democratic Party the past several decades. Abortion is legal and protected, assault weapons were recently banned, and Chicago is one of the strongest union towns in the country. We’re the complete package,” said Illinois Democratic strategist Tom Bowen.
Democrats who spoke to ABC News said Chicago checked several of the party’s most important boxes in terms of logistics, politics and policy. The city — home to 2.7 million people — is a travel hub and, having already hosted nominating conventions for both parties, has the existing infrastructure to absorb the tsunami of attendees.
It’s also a progressive city in a blue state situated in the middle of a national battleground. Illinois is located near Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin, three competitive states that are at the heart of Democrats’ strategy to reelecting President Joe Biden next year.
“Illinois is the anchor of the blue wall states in the Midwest and the perfect place to springboard the reelection campaign’s work in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan,” Bowen said.
Coverage of the convention is likely to spill over into neighboring states, helping reach the kind of swing voters who may not live in Illinois itself.
The friendly politics of Chicago were underscored with last week’s election of progressive Brandon Johnson as mayor-elect over a more moderate Democrat with ties to conservative-aligned groups.
And on policy, having the party powwow in Illinois helps avoid awkward disagreements with a conservative state government. Biden and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker are largely aligned, and the state has adopted Democratic orthodoxy on both economic and hot-button social issues like abortion. The city also has a strong union presence in its hotels, something lacking in Atlanta.
And to top it all off, Pritzker, himself wildly wealthy with a deep fundraising network, personally assured national Democrats that they wouldn’t go into debt if they hosted the convention in Chicago.
“It’s no secret that the Midwest is key to holding the White House and electing Democrats up and down the ticket in 2024. Now, after all, Chicago and the entire Midwest looks like America and is the capitol at the heart of the nation,” Pritzker said in a victory lap on Tuesday.
“Illinois is home to a bustling metropolis, a strong rural tradition, thriving suburbs, not to mention a long-standing history rooted in civil rights and workers’ rights and reproductive rights,” he added.
Still, while picking Chicago may not have burned bridges in either New York or Atlanta, the decision ruffled some feathers in both cities, which would have enjoyed a surge of attention and a potential economic windfall if selected.
“The city would have received a significant benefit from the convention monetarily, from a tax perspective and from an image perspective,” said New York City-based Democratic Hank Sheinkopf, referencing ongoing concerns about crime. “The best cure for crime is people walking around, people believing there is no crime, that it’s overrated, [and] it’s not as bad as people think.”
And supporters in Atlanta pushed back on Democrats’ worries about unions’ smaller footprint compared to Chicago, saying the city’s role in delivering the Senate and White House for the party should have outweighed those concerns.
“Name the state that gave you the Senate, and a margin this time: Georgia. Name the state that put 2020 out of reach for Trump: Georgia. Shouldn’t the Democrats in those states see the Democratic convention in their state? We can’t always say we can only have conventions in states that only have x-number of labor hotels,” said Jarrod Loadholt, a partner in the Ice Miller law firm’s public affairs branch who lives in Georgia.
Still, strategists in other cities said any perceived snub wouldn’t harm cooperation with the national party moving forward.
“We couldn’t compete financially. There’s no shame in that,” said one Georgia Democratic strategist, referencing Pritzker’s financial assurances.
“We made a very good presentation. They took us seriously. And the Biden administration has someone in Georgia every week, so they are certainly not ignoring us. We are grateful to them. We look forward to continue working for them and reelecting them. There is zero anger and zero bitterness,” the strategist added.
While Biden himself has not officially declared his reelection campaign, he and members of his administration are fanning out across the country to tout the record of his first two years in office, including a bipartisan infrastructure bill and an effort to boost the domestic semiconductor industry.
“The period leading up to and through the convention also creates a unique opportunity to engage people throughout the region and to highlight the positive impact of Biden-Harris economic policies like the Infrastructure Act,” said Karen Finney, a former DNC official and a Democratic strategist with ties to the White House.
So far, Biden’s only challengers are self-help author Marianne Williamson and attorney and anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who filed paperwork to run and is expected to announce his bid on April 19.
(WASHINGTON) — The Florida House of Representatives on Thursday passed a six-week abortion ban that would replace the state’s 15-week ban. The bill now heads to the governor’s desk for his signature.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has said he would sign a six-week ban should it be sent to his desk.
The ban would prohibit all abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, before most women know they are pregnant. The ban makes exceptions for when the woman’s life or health is at risk and cases of rape or incest, under certain conditions. Even with its current ban in place, Florida has fewer restrictions compared to nearby states.
The bill passed by a vote of 70 to 40. It passed in the Senate last week.
There are four conditions in which physicians can provide abortions under the ban.
To provide abortion care under the law’s exceptions, two physicians would have to certify in writing that the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to save the woman’s life or avert a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman, according to the law. This does not including psychological conditions.
If two physicians are not available, one physician would have to certify in writing that there is a medical necessity for the legitimate emergency medical procedure to save the pregnant woman’s life or avert irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function and certify another physician is not available for consultation, the law states.
Abortions will also be permitted in cases where the pregnancy has not progressed to the third trimester and two physicians certify in writing that the fetus has a fatal fetal abnormality, according to the law.
The fourth condition according to the law in which physicians can provide abortions is if the pregnancy is as a result of rape or incest and the gestational age of the fetus is not more than 15 weeks, as determined by a physician. At the time the woman schedules or arrives for her abortion appointment, she must provide a copy of a restraining order, police report, medical record or other court order or documentation proving that she is a victim of rape or incest.
Physicians will be required to report incidents of rape or incest in minors to the central abuse hotline, according to the law.
Only physicians will be allowed to provide abortion services.
Anyone who performs or actively participates in an abortion outside these rules commits a felony of the third degree. If the abortion results in the death of the woman, the crime becomes a second-degree felony.
Abortion pills must also be disbursed in person by physicians, prohibiting abortions over telehealth visits and prohibiting the delivery of abortion pills by mail. Physicians must also be physically present in the same room as the woman when the termination of pregnancy is performed or when dispensing abortion pills.
New data shared with FiveThirtyEight indicates that over 66,000 people couldn’t get an abortion in their home state after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last June. Florida, however, surged in abortions in the wake of the ruling with people from other Southern states visiting, according to the data.
In anticipation of the ban passing, abortion providers in the Florida told ABC News they’ve seen a flood of patients from other states.
“Literally every clinic session we are seeing patients from other states. Every time I’m in the health center, there is a patient — at least one if not multiple — from Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, all over the Southeast, who traveled hundreds of miles to get their health care,” Dr. Sujatha Prabhakaran told ABC News.
In turn, it’s created a domino effect where women in Florida are unable to get appointments in their home state.
“That means that patients in those centers are having to travel,” Prabhakaran said. “They’re not able to access care in a timely way in their own communities. So, then they’re having to travel further south to access care in Florida.”
ABC News’ Rachel Scott and Cheyenne Haslett contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — The FBI on Thursday made a probable cause arrest in North Dighton, Massachusetts, in connection with the leaked documents probe.
Attorney General Merrick Garland announced Jack Teixeira was taken into custody in relation to the investigation into “alleged authorized removal, retention and transmission of classified national defense information.”
Teixeira, 21, is a member of the Massachusetts Air Force National Guard.
“FBI agents took Teixeira into custody earlier this afternoon without incident,” the attorney general said. “He will have an initial appearance at the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.”
Garland continued: “I want to thank the FBI, Justice Department prosecutors and our colleagues at the Department of Defense for the diligent work on this case. This investigation is ongoing. We will share more information at the appropriate time.”
The FBI said it was continuing to conduct law enforcement activity at the residence where Teixeira was arrested.
“Since late last week the FBI has aggressively pursued investigative leads and today’s arrest exemplifies our continued commitment to identifying, pursuing, and holding accountable those who betray our country’s trust and put our national security at risk,” the FBI said in a statement.
Earlier, at the Pentagon, spokesman Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder, said, “It is important to understand that we do have stringent guidelines in place for safeguarding classified and sensitive information. This was a deliberate, criminal act — a violation of those guidelines.”
Media reports have described the documents as being shared among a small group of users on Discord before getting wider notice. The Washington Post interviewed one person, who said he was part of the group, who believes the alleged leaker, who he said goes by the moniker “OG,” worked on a military base.
President Joe Biden broke his silence earlier Thursday on the leak of apparently highly classified documents after the Washington Post report.
Biden told reporters in Dublin that the Justice Department was “getting close” in its criminal investigation into how the U.S. intelligence documents — which seem to contain top-secret information about the Ukraine war and other parts of the world — ended up online.
“Right now there’s a full-blown investigation going on and, you know, with the intelligence community and the Justice Department, and they’re getting close,” Biden said when asked if he could provide an update on the probe. “But I don’t have an answer.”
The disclosure has raised diplomatic issues over the apparent revelation that U.S. intelligence has been spying on its allies as well as on its adversaries. Asked whether he was concerned about the leak, Biden played down its potential impact.
“I’m concerned that it happened,” Biden said. “But there is nothing contemporaneous that I’m aware of that is of great consequence.”
The Washington Post characterized the alleged leaker as a “young, charismatic gun enthusiast” who began disseminating the documents in a private server group on Discord last fall.
The Washington Post cited an interview with a teenager who said he was part of the group, which he said he joined at the start of the pandemic and contained roughly two dozen members, some from foreign countries.
The teen referred to the leaker as “OG” and said he was in his early to mid-20s, though the minor denied to share his real name, where he lived or the military base where he said the person worked. The minor said “OG” had dubious views of law enforcement and the intelligence community, and would rant about “government overreach.”
Washington Post reporter Shane Harris described the leaker as someone who was “trying to impress his friends,” and the newspaper said it was unlikely he intended for the documents to spread across the internet.
ABC News has not independently confirmed the report.
A Pentagon spokesman, when asked for comment on the Washington Post report, referred ABC News to comments made by Department of Defense spokesman Chris Meagher during a press briefing on Monday.
Meagher said at the time that the department was “working around the clock to look at the scope and scale of the distribution, the assessed impact and our mitigation measures.”
A senior U.S. official told ABC News Thursday highly sensitive material has been shared too widely within the government for some time. The official had no information on the source of this leak but called it “a massive betrayal” by whoever is responsible.
After reports surfaced that authorities wanted to speak with a member of the Air National Guard, the National Guard Bureau issued a statement, saying, “We are aware of the investigation into the alleged role a Massachusetts Air National Guardsman may have played in the recent leak of highly-classified documents.
“The National Guard takes this issue very seriously and will support investigators. National security is our foremost priority and any attempt to undermine it compromises our values and degrades trust among our members, the public, allies and partners,” the statement said.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, in his first public comments on the leak Tuesday, also said he was limited in what he could say about the matter amid the DOJ’s investigation.
He told reporters he was first informed of the apparent leak on April 6, after some documents were posted on popular social media sites, and that investigators were focusing on documents dated Feb. 28 and March 1.
“We take this very seriously and we will continue to investigate and turn over every rock until we find the source of this and the extent of it,” Austin said.
