Politics

(FORT WORTH, Texas) — As the clock ticked toward midnight, staff at an abortion clinic in Texas rushed to provide service for their patients while they still legally could.

“Honestly, there was no rhythm. There was no rhyme. It was a pure push to get everyone that walked in that door yesterday completed before 11:59 p.m.,” Marva Sadler, Whole Woman’s Health director of clinical services, told ABC News.

Sadler was at the Whole Woman’s Health location in Fort Worth until midnight Tuesday assisting the push to serve patients before the most restrictive abortion law in decades went into effect.

While she said she felt proud to be able to provide care for the patients Tuesday night, when she returned to the office early Wednesday, that feeling “was immediately replaced by the thought that we were going to come in this morning and have to turn so many women away,” Sadler said.

Texas’ Senate Bill 8 went into effect at midnight after the Supreme Court did not respond to providers’ request for an emergency injunction in the midst of a legal challenge to the law. It still remains to be seen how the Supreme Court will react.

The law bans physicians from providing abortions “if the physician detects a fetal heartbeat,” including embryonic cardiac activity, which can be as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. The law prohibits the state from enforcing the ban, instead authorizing private citizens to bring civil suits against anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion.

Whole Woman’s Health and other independent abortion providers, as well as Planned Parenthood clinics, are still providing abortion care in Texas in strict adherence to the new law. However, because the ban is so soon after a person may be able to detect a pregnancy — let alone book an appointment — “the tragedy is that we can only provide abortion for about 10% of the people that we could provide abortion for yesterday,” Amy Hagstrom Miller, founder and CEO of Whole Woman’s Health, said on a press call Wednesday.

Patients seeking abortions had heard about the upcoming law, Sadler said, and so in Fort Worth, “the schedule was full, because patients knew it was their last resort.”

“They made those appointments and were willing to come in and wait with us and to be patient with us, in almost a desperation to be seen,” Sadler said.

Clinic staff hustled to see those patients, completing 67 in-office procedures and upward of 50 follow-up appointments for medication abortions. On a typical day, the office sees more like 15 procedures and 20 medication abortion patients, according to Sadler.

The last procedure was at 11:56 p.m.

The clock wasn’t the only added pressure for clinic staff. Anti-abortion protesters were working until midnight, too, standing outside the clinic shining flashlights on the parking lot as patients entered and exited, Sadler said.

The protesters took extra efforts to slow down work Tuesday, Sadler and Hagstrom Miller claimed, calling both the police and fire department on the clinic.

Usually, the office has clinic escorts to shield patients from protesters as well as a security guard, but with the last-minute rush did not have those resources. Staff stood in place of the security guard into the night, Sadler said.

This is the third time Whole Woman’s Health, which operates four abortion clinics in Texas and was behind a landmark 2016 Supreme Court case that protected the right to abortion, has had to shutter operations due to laws in the last decade. The first was after the law that led to the Supreme Court case was enacted, and the second was last year when the state ordered abortion services to temporarily stop due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

“It’s a place I think we find ourselves in here in Texas often,” Sadler said. “And you would think that we would get used to it, but, I don’t know that you can ever get used to people being so mean.”

She said she and the staff felt pressed to action because “they don’t sleep on the other side.”

“I’m tired, there is no doubt about that. I’m not sure how I’m getting my body to move, but I do know this: I do know that even though this is horrible and I don’t have the best answers to give my patients, I am still — my staff, my team, the wonderful abortion care workers in this state are still the best people to help these women navigate the hardest decisions of their lives,” Sadler said.

“And we can’t give up because Texas kind of beats us up, because a woman is still going to get pregnant and not want to be pregnant today,” she said. “So it hurts. It’s hard, it’s heavy, it seems impossible many times, but if not us, then who?”

Her voice choked with emotion, Sadler asked to share this message with patients: “We won’t give up, we have their back, and we’re going to continue to do everything we can to support them in their time of need.”

ABC News’ Devin Dwyer contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — For the first time in 39 years, Social Security payments made to retired Americans this year, and every year after, will exceed tax revenues coming into the federal government in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic’s economic downturn, according to a new government report.

Social Security payments for retired Americans will be exhausted in 2034 — a year earlier than previously predicted, says the 2021 report from the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees, which oversees both programs. After that, tax incomes will only cover 76% of anticipated benefit needs. As for Social Security’s disability insurance program, those funds will run dry in 2057 — eight years earlier than previously predicted.

The recession and increased mortality rate due to the COVID-19 pandemic are the main factors driving the earlier depletion of funds, according to the report — the red flags adding to the pressure for federal lawmakers to act as a wave of retiring baby boomers and the pandemic’s new variants are sure to put more strain on an already stressed system.

The report says last year’s Social Security income exceeded costs by $11 billion. When excluding interest earned on the program’s trust fund assets, the program’s deficit is $65 billion.

While the funding shortfall would seem to point to benefit cuts, the nonpartisan Concord Coalition estimated Wednesday that Social Security could start liquidating the trust funds’ bonds to cover its obligations absent congressional action.

“Sudden and substantial benefit cuts await Medicare and Social Security beneficiaries in less than 15 years — well within the lifetimes of many current recipients — as long as lawmakers continue to ignore the warning signs in these reports. Solutions must be found that are fiscally and generationally responsible,” said Robert Bixby, the coalition’s executive director.

Though there has been no movement on Capitol Hill or within the Biden White House to address the report’s findings, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen affirmed the administration’s commitment to sustaining some of the nation’s most prominent social welfare programs.

“Having strong Social Security and Medicare programs is essential in order to ensure a secure retirement for all Americans, especially for our most vulnerable populations,” Yellen said in a statement Tuesday. “The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to safeguarding these programs and ensuring they continue to deliver economic security and health care to older Americans.”

As for Medicare, the report indicated the depletion of its funds in 2026 remains unchanged.

Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden, D-Ore., issued a statement Tuesday saying Congress must work “hand in hand with President Biden” to ensure the continuation of both Social Security and Medicare.

When Social Security funds are dried up, “workers in the future will take a 25% cut in benefits, even though they’ll still be contributing to Social Security with every single paycheck,” Wyden said in the statement. “And while the projected depletion of the Medicare Trust Fund remains unchanged from last year’s report, this provides cold comfort to the millions of Americans who rely on the Medicare program for their health care.”

The report says both Social Security and Medicare will soon face “long-term financing shortfalls.” The COVID-19 pandemic and accompanying recession significantly impacted both programs’ funds, with employment, earnings, interest rates and GDP dropping substantially last year.

On average, 65 million Americans receive Social Security benefits each month, and a rapidly growing retired population, compounded by a decreasing birth rate, will only increase program costs.

By 2034, adults 65 and older are projected to outnumber the population under age 18 for the first time in the nation’s history, according to data from the Census Bureau.

ABC News’ Trish Turner contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(AUSTIN, Texas) — A law that took effect in Texas Wednesday outlaws abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.

The law effectively bars abortions in the America’s second most populous state, making it the most restrictive abortion law in the nation.

Here are six questions answered about Texas’ new law.

1. What does the law allow and not allow on abortions?

The law, Senate Bill 8, bans abortion once the rhythmic contracting of fetal cardiac tissue can be detected. That’s usually around six weeks, before some women may even know they’re pregnant. Most of the abortions performed nationwide are after six weeks of pregnancy.

There is an exception in the Texas law for abortions in cases of medical emergencies. The law does not make exceptions for pregnancies resulting from incest or rape.

When a person is six weeks pregnant, it typically means the embryo started developing about four weeks prior, based on the formula used to figure out when a person will give birth. People don’t often realize they are pregnant until after the six-week mark.

A fetal heartbeat is typically first detected five to six weeks after gestation.

2. Who will enforce the law?

The Texas law is unusual in that it prohibits the state from enforcing the ban but allows private citizens to bring civil suits against anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion — i.e. driving a person to an appointment or offering financial assistance — but not the patient herself.

People who successfully sue an abortion provider under this law could be awarded at least $10,000.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed the so-called “heartbeat ban” on May 19 and it went into effect on Sept. 1.

The heartbeat bill is now LAW in the Lone Star State.

This bill ensures the life of every unborn child with a heartbeat will be saved from the ravages of abortion.

Thank you @SenBryanHughes, @ShelbySlawson, & #txlege for fighting for the lives of the unborn in Texas. pic.twitter.com/aolhUKM9tv

— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) May 19, 2021

3. Is the law here to stay or can it be blocked in court?

The law — which went into effect after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, canceled a hearing on the law planned for Monday — is currently facing several legal challenges in lower courts.

Women’s health groups filed an emergency request with the U.S. Supreme Court to block the law while legal challenges continue. The court has not yet responded to the request.

The court has only been asked at this stage to decide whether or not to issue a temporary injunction on the law while lower-level court proceedings continue. Whatever the decision, legal experts cautioned that it will not have direct bearing on the precedent in Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion, or abortion rights more broadly across the country.

The justices are likely to weigh in on the matter but do not operate on a fixed timeline.

Legal experts say the law’s enforcement mechanism — allowing private citizens to sue — has complicated the legal dispute before the Supreme Court because it is not clear who might bring a lawsuit and how widespread private legal action might be.

4. What will women who live in Texas do now for abortions?

Texas is home to nearly 14 million women who now face expensive and time-consuming options to obtain care, abortion rights advocates argue.

Abortion providers told the Supreme Court the law is expected to limit abortion access to 85% of patients across Texas.

“Patients will have to travel out of state – in the middle of a pandemic – to receive constitutionally guaranteed health care,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is leading the challenges to Texas’ law. “And many will not have the means to do so. It’s cruel, unconscionable and unlawful.”

Several clinics in Texas reported full waiting rooms up until the midnight deadline.

“Our clinic staff saw patients until 11:56 last night, just 3 minutes before the 6 week abortion ban went into effect in Texas,” Whole Women’s Health, a top abortion provider in Texas, posted on Twitter.

Abortion clinics in Texas will still remain open though, but only those in compliance with the law, according to abortion rights providers.

“We’re offering ultrasounds to women … if there is no fetal cardiac activity, we’re able to prepare them for abortions,” Amy Hagstrom Miller, CEO of Whole Women’s Health, which operates four clinics in Texas, told reporters Wednesday.

All 24 of Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas’ health centers also remain open, providing consultation and other services, including abortions, in compliance with the law, according to Vanessa Rodriguez, a call center manager for the organization.

5. Will other states follow Texas’ lead?

Eight other U.S. states have enacted similar six-week bans and all have been blocked by courts, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights, which claimed in May that Texas’ law intends to “harass, frighten, or bankrupt people who seek care and those who provide it.”

However, if the Texas law stands in federal court, it would be likely that other states trying to restrict abortion access will move to pass similar laws.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to rule when its next term begins in October on the state of Mississippi’s appeal of lower court decisions striking down a state ban on all abortions after 15 weeks, with exception of medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality.

The case is seen as a major challenge to Roe v. Wade.

6. What happens when women don’t have access to abortions?

Women who carry unwanted pregnancies to full-term often face long-term physical and mental health complications, data show.

In Texas, the maternal mortality rate is 18.5 deaths per 100,000 live births, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Patients who are denied abortions also face a “large and persistent increase” in financial distress in the years after, according to a working paper published last year by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Looking at credit report data, researchers found that being denied an abortion increases the amount of debt 30 days or more past due by 78% and increases negative public records, such as bankruptcies and evictions, by 81%. The economic fallout appeared to be the worst for women who were forced to have a child when they were not prepared to, the data show.

ABC News’ Devin Dwyer and Alexandra Svokos contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court will be moving forward with a controversial ban on most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy that’s set to take effect on Sept. 1.

The American Civil Liberties Union confirmed the news late Tuesday night.

“The Supreme Court has not responded to our emergency request to block Texas’ radical new 6-week abortion ban, SB8. The law now takes effect. Access to almost all abortion has just been cut off for millions of people. The impact will be immediate and devastating,” ACLU tweeted. “The law bans abortion as early as six weeks into pregnancy — before many people even know they’re pregnant. The result is that many Texans will be forced to carry pregnancies against their will.”

The law, Senate Bill 8, which would be among the strictest in the nation, also authorizes private citizens to sue anyone who helps a woman obtain abortion services and in turn receive at least $10,000 in damages per instance.

Abortion providers on Monday appealed to the court for an immediate emergency injunction blocking the law while legal challenges continue. They claim the Texas restrictions would “immediately and catastrophically” limit abortion access for 85% of patients and force many clinics to close across the state.

Justice Samuel Alito, who oversees matters coming out of federal courts for the 5th Circuit, which includes Texas, gave the state until 5 p.m. Tuesday to lay out its argument for rejecting the request. He could decide on his own or refer the matter to the full court for a vote.

“In less than two days, Texas politicians will have effectively overturned Roe v. Wade,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is leading the challenges to Texas’ law.

“Patients will have to travel out of state — in the middle of a pandemic — to receive constitutionally guaranteed healthcare. And many will not have the means to do so. It’s cruel, unconscionable, and unlawful,” she said.

ACLU said that by allowing anyone to sue a person they believe is providing abortion or assisting someone in accessing abortion after six weeks, the law “actively encourages private individuals to act as bounty hunters by awarding them at least $10,000 if they are successful.”

“This is a racial and economic justice catastrophe. Decades of racism and structural inequality within the health care system have left Black and Latinx people and anyone trying to make ends meet with few alternatives to the cruel reality that Texas politicians have created,” the organization added. “This is a full-scale assault on patients, our health care providers, and our support systems. This abortion ban is blatantly unconstitutional. We won’t stop fighting until it’s blocked.”

Attorneys for Texas have said the abortion providers lack legal standing to preemptively challenge the law since it has not yet taken effect or had any impact on their patients or services.

Texas is one of 13 states that have passed laws banning abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy; legal challenges have so far prevented all from taking effect.

S.B. 8 runs plainly counter to the Supreme Court’s precedent in 1973’s Roe v. Wade and affirmed in 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which established that state restrictions on abortion before a fetus can be viable outside the womb are unconstitutional.

“SCOTUS really might be on the verge of functionally ending legal abortion in TX and hoping no one notices,” said ABC News legal analyst and Cardozo law professor Kate Shaw in a post on Twitter.

The court is set to reconsider its precedents later this fall in the biggest abortion rights case to come before the justices in years. The case, which is out of Mississippi, will determine whether all pre-viability abortion bans are unconstitutional or whether a new standard should be applied.

In a statement Tuesday night, Texas advocates and health care providers condemned the abortion ban.

“The hypocrisy of Texas SB8 passing is that it was passed on the premise of saving or valuing life by a majority white men led legislative body that places no value on life,” Marsha Jones, the executive director of The Afiya Center, said.

“In the last decade, the Texas legislature has passed many racist, classist, and dangerous abortion restrictions that have made it very difficult to access care,” Kamyon Conner, the executive director of the Texas Equal Access Fund, said. “SB 8 essentially bans abortions and codifies intimidation, which will have the most impact on communities that already struggle to access health care.”

“It’s a dark day in Texas. Politicians are supposed to put aside partisan differences for the common good, but Abbott has led Texas politicians into an extreme path for his personal gain,” Carisa Lopez, the political director of the Texas Freedom Network, said. “We know abortion is healthcare and education is power. It’s more important than ever for us to openly talk about abortion and the need to keep medical decisions between a person and their doctor.”

Addressing pregnant women in Texas and beyond, ACLU wrote on Twitter that they have a network of abortion funds and support networks that “will do everything in their power to help you get the information and care you need. Go to http://needabortion.org to find out more, including how to contact an abortion fund.”

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court could decide as soon as Tuesday evening whether Texas can move forward with a controversial ban on most abortions after 6 weeks of pregnancy that’s set to take effect on Sept. 1.

The law, Senate Bill 8, which would be among the strictest in the nation, also authorizes private citizens to sue anyone who helps a woman obtain abortion services and in turn receive at least $10,000 in damages per instance.

Abortion providers on Monday appealed to the court for an immediate emergency injunction blocking the law while legal challenges continue. They claim the Texas restrictions would “immediately and catastrophically” limit abortion access for 85% of patients and force many clinics to close across the state.

Justice Samuel Alito, who oversees matters coming out of federal courts for the 5th Circuit, which includes Texas, gave the state until 5 p.m. Tuesday to lay out its argument for rejecting the request. He could decide on his own or refer the matter to the full court for a vote.

“In less than two days, Texas politicians will have effectively overturned Roe v. Wade,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is leading the challenges to Texas’ law.

“Patients will have to travel out of state – in the middle of a pandemic – to receive constitutionally guaranteed healthcare. And many will not have the means to do so. It’s cruel, unconscionable, and unlawful,” she said.

Attorneys for Texas have said the abortion providers lack legal standing to preemptively challenge the law since it has not yet taken effect or had any impact on their patients or services.

Texas is one of 13 states that have passed laws banning abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy; legal challenges have so far prevented all from taking effect.

S.B. 8 runs plainly counter to the Supreme Court’s precedent in 1973’s Roe v. Wade and affirmed in 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which established that state restrictions on abortion before a fetus can be viable outside the womb are unconstitutional.

“SCOTUS really might be on the verge of functionally ending legal abortion in TX and hoping no one notices,” said ABC News legal analyst and Cardozo law professor Kate Shaw in a post on Twitter.

The court is set to reconsider its precedents later this fall in the biggest abortion rights case to come before the justices in years. The case, which is out of Mississippi, will determine whether all pre-viability abortion bans are unconstitutional or whether a new standard should be applied.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(TAMPA, Fla.) — When it came to announcing that all U.S. troops had left Afghanistan, concluding America’s military ground presence there — and after 20 years the end to America’s longest war — word came not from President Joe Biden, who set the deadline, but from the top general overseeing the rushed and dangerous evacuation.

Gen. Frank McKenzie, the head of U.S. Central Command, spoke to reporters from his headquarters at MacDill Air Force Base, in Tampa, Florida.

“I’m here to announce the completion of our withdrawal from Afghanistan and the end of the military mission to evacuate American citizens, third-country nationals and vulnerable Afghans,” he said, appearing on a television screen in the Pentagon Briefing Room.

To mark the moment for history, McKenzie noted the exact time the last U.S. military plane had cleared the skies over the land where the U.S. had spent so much time, money, and most of all, American blood.

“The last C-17 lifted off from Kabul airport this afternoon at 3:29 p.m. East Coast Time and the last manned aircraft is now clearing airspace above Afghanistan,” he said, which would have one minute before midnight in Kabul.

“Tonight’s withdrawal signifies both the end of the military component of the evacuation, but also the end of the nearly 20-year mission that began in Afghanistan shortly after Sept. 11 2001. It’s a mission that brought Osama Bin Laden to justice, along with many was Al Qaeda co-conspirators, and it was not — it was not a cheap mission,” he said.

The cost, in American lives, he said, was 2,461 U.S. service members killed and more than 20,000 wounded, including the 13 service members killed and at least 20 wounded in Thursday’s ISIS-K suicide bomber attack outside Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul.

“No words from me could possibly capture the full measure of sacrifices and accomplishments of those who served, nor the emotions they’re feeling at this moment. But I will say that I’m proud that both my son and I have been a part of it,” McKenzie said.

And while the military prides itself on leaving no one behind, McKenzie said Americans in “the very low hundreds,” who had wanted to leave, couldn’t get to the airport.

“There is a lot of heartbreak associated with this departure,” McKenzie said. “We did not get everybody out that we wanted to get out. But I think if we stayed another ten days, we would not get everybody out that wanted to get out. It’s a tough situation,” McKenzie said.

He said that in the five final flights that took off, no Americans made it on board. The U.S. had continued to reach out to Americans still there, he said, and the military was “prepared to bring them on,” but none made it.

“While the military evacuation is complete, the diplomatic mission to ensure additional U.S. citizens and Afghans who want to leave continues,” he said.

It’s unclear what the evacuation picture will look like now that the U.S. military is gone. McKenzie repeated the U.S. is working with international partners to pressure the Taliban to ensure safe passage for those who want to leave, but the Taliban have also said at recent press conferences that they do not want Afghans to take their talents out of the country.

Biden, who has long opposed the war in Afghanistan, stuck to his decision to withdraw troops by the end of the month as the U.S. approaches 20 years since the Sept. 11 attacks, despite pressure from lawmakers and other allied nations to extend the mission.

The president did not speak on Monday, instead releasing a written statement following McKenzie’s remarks thanking commanders and service members for completing the withdrawal on schedule and “with no further loss of American lives” and praising the evacuation effort as “the largest airlift in US history.”

He said he would address the American people on Tuesday on his decision not to extend the U.S. military’s presence.

“For now, I will report that it was the unanimous recommendation of the Joint Chiefs and of all of our commanders on the ground to end our airlift mission as planned,” he said in the statement, although military leaders had lobbied Biden earlier this year to leave a residual U.S. force in Afghanistan to support the Afghan army and government.

He closed by listing the names of the 13 service members in last week’s attack “who lost their lives last week to save tens of thousands.”

Secretary of State Antony Blinken, in remarks Monday following a virtual meeting with allied nations on Afghanistan, announced the U.S. Embassy in Kabul was moved to Doha, Qatar.

“A new chapter of America’s engagement with Afghanistan has begun — one in which we’ll lead with diplomacy. The military mission has ended, new diplomatic mission has begun,” he said.

Blinken said that the exit of U.S. diplomats was the “prudent” step to take because of the security threat.

Ambassador John Bass — the former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan who returned to Kabul to oversee the evacuation operation — will lead an ongoing effort to get Americans, Afghans and other foreigners out of Afghanistan in the weeks to come, Blinken announced.

“We will continue our relentless efforts to help Americans, foreign nationals and Afghans leave Afghanistan if they choose,” Blinken said.

Overall, Blinken said he believes there is still a “small number of Americans — under 200, and likely closer to 100 — who remain in Afghanistan and want to leave.”

Even for those who have said they want to stay, Blinken said, the U.S. would still work to get them out if they changed their minds.

He also pledged to the Afghans who worked alongside the U.S., who wanted to leave but were unable to get out, the U.S. would continue to try to help them.

“Our commitment to them has no deadline,” he said.

He did temper expectations.

“We have no illusion that any of this will be easy,” Blinken said. “Or rapid. This will be an entirely different phase from the evacuation that just concluded. It will take time to work through a new set of challenges.”

Following the Pentagon’s announcement, GOP lawmakers blasted Biden for withdrawing troops despite not having all Americans evacuated with Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., calling the evacuation a “national disgrace” and a “direct result of President Biden’s cowardice and incompetence.”

Sen. Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also said in a statement that Biden “will forever be remembered for leaving American citizens and U.S. legal permanent residents behind and in harm’s way in Afghanistan.”

The end of the war

In the final days, as the U.S. was set to withdraw forces, the Taliban seized and overtook the presidential palace in Kabul on Aug. 15 after Afghan President Ashraf Ghani fled his home country for the United Arab Emirates, leading to the collapse of the Afghan government.

The Pentagon sent in 6,000 troops, the U.S. Embassy in Kabul was evacuated and chaos has since enveloped the capital city, bringing the 20-year war to a grim end.

Since Aug. 14, U.S. military aircraft have evacuated more than 79,000 civilians from Hamid Karzai International Airport, including 6,000 Americans and more than 73,500 third-country nationals and Afghan civilians, including Special Immigrant Visa holders, consular staff, at-risk Afghans and their families, McKenzie said on Monday.

In total, U.S. and coalition aircraft combined to evacuate more than 123,000 civilians.

ISIS-K, an affiliate of the Islamic State in Afghanistan and a sworn enemy of both the U.S. and the Taliban, claimed responsibility for attacks on American forces amid heightened fears fighters will force Afghanistan to break out into another civil war.

Over the weekend, the U.S. struck two ISIS-K targets in Afghanistan, including a person it said was involved in planning future attacks.

An Afghan health official reported that in one of those strikes, just hours before the U.S. would end its longest war, at least six Afghan civilians were also killed, including four children.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Education Department on Monday launched civil rights investigations into five states that have barred indoor masking mandates, alleging that the governors are creating an unsafe learning environment for students with disabilities at heightened risk of severe illness from COVID-19.

It’s an aggressive new legal tack from the Biden administration to challenge Republican governors who insist indoor mask mandates don’t work.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that schools are generally safe if students and staff universally wear masks. School districts who struggled with COVID-19 outbreaks this year – oftentimes sending thousands of kids home – typically did not require masks.

The investigations focus on Iowa, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Utah. The Education Department says it is not including Florida, Texas, Arkansas and Arizona at this time “because those states’ bans on universal indoor masking are not currently being enforced as a result of court orders or other state actions.”

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Dr. Jill Biden, a mom of three, has been an educator for over 30 years. Dr. Biden is the First Lady of the United States and she continues to teach as a professor of writing at Northern Virginia Community College

Parenthood is experiencing conflicting emotions at the same time—loving your children more than life itself, never wanting to let them go, while also understanding they will one day walk out the door without looking back, ready to conquer the world on their own.

It’s the tangled joy and fear of watching your child take their first step onto a school bus alone.

It’s wrestling with complicated problems and weighing risks—losing sleep, worrying about what path to take, wondering if you’re making the right choices.

As children return to in-person learning at schools across the country, however, it’s not the routine risks of childhood that are keeping parents awake at night. It’s the complicated realities of this pandemic.

Experience has already shown that virtual learning can leave kids feeling isolated and alone: The kindergartener who is exhausted by constantly focusing on her computer screen—but doesn’t have the language to express her discomfort. The middle-schooler who can’t get the hands-on guidance he needs and starts to believe that he is a failure—that he’s falling behind because he just isn’t smart enough. The talented high-schooler, hoping for an athletic scholarship in a sport she’s unable to play because sports have been canceled.

As this school year begins, families across the country thought we could exhale after so many difficult months and now we’re holding our breath once again.

So many are asking: How can I be sure that my child is safe? What do I do if our family is exposed to the virus? What will we do if we have to return to virtual learning?

Parents, I want you to know that your child, your school, and your family are at the heart of all that my husband, Joe, is doing to help our country defeat and ultimately recover from this pandemic.

As a teacher for over 30 years, and a mom even longer, I know that classrooms are so much more than places where our children learn math and reading.

We’ve all seen it: when our kids make friends that last for years, when they learn to settle disagreements or find confidence trying out for sports teams.

Parents rely on schools, too, heading to our jobs or pursuing our own education, knowing that our kids are in a safe and trustworthy environment.

This Administration is doing all we can to keep schools open and at the same time safeguard our children.

Public health officials have laid out clear guidelines on how schools can bring kids back to the classroom safely and the American Rescue Plan has provided the support schools need to hire additional staff, including nurses.

As we’ve seen this year, so many children are dealing with grief, loss, and trauma. In order to truly serve our kids, schools must support mental health with the social and emotional resources that students need to recover, learn and grow. That’s why we are helping schools hire more counselors and social workers.

I have so much faith in the community of educators who serve our students—from teachers to bus drivers to cafeteria workers. Their job is more than just a paycheck. They come to work because they care about students almost as much as parents do.

With classes beginning again, the uncertainty of COVID-19 remains.

Still, we do know that vaccines and wearing masks provide the best protection available against this virus.

To keep our schools open and safe this year, it will take all of us coming together—being honest about the risks we face, listening to science, and working as one.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — With fewer than 4 in 10 Americans approving of President Joe Biden’s handling of Afghanistan, there is overwhelming bipartisan support for keeping U.S. troops in the country until all Americans and Afghans who aided the United States during the 20-year war have been evacuated, a new ABC News/Ipsos poll finds.

Although President Joe Biden has held firm that all U.S. troops must be out of the country by Tuesday, regardless of whether the evacuation mission at hand is complete, Americans broadly disagree, according to the poll.

The poll was conducted using Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel and all interviews were completed after the terrorist attack at Kabul’s Hamid Karzai International Airport that left at least 13 U.S. service members and 170 Afghans dead. Hundreds more were wounded in the attack, which an affiliate of the Islamic State, ISIS-K, claimed responsibility for.

More than 8 in 10 (84%) Americans think U.S. troops should remain in the country until all Americans are evacuated, and just over 7 in 10 (71%) think they should stay until all Afghans who helped the United States are evacuated as well.

Breaking from the typical polarization that characterizes public attitudes, support for U.S. troops staying is strikingly consistent across party lines. Among Republicans, Democrats and independents, overwhelming majorities — 87%, 86% and 86%, respectively — believe U.S. troops should not leave until all Americans are out of Afghanistan. The partisan gap is also negligible for keeping troops in Afghanistan until all Afghans who aided the United States are evacuated, with 77% of Republicans, 72% of Democrats and 70% of independents saying troops should stay until that happens.

Speaking about the attack Thursday, Biden said the mission’s danger is why he’s “been so determined to limit the duration” of it.

“The sooner we can finish the better. Each day of operations brings added risk to our troops,” the president said Tuesday, two days before the suicide bombing. “Every day we’re on the ground, is another day we know that ISIS-K is seeking to target the airport and attack both U.S. and allied forces and innocent civilians.”

In a statement Saturday afternoon following a meeting with his national security team, Biden said U.S. troops are continuing to evacuate civilians amid “extremely dangerous conditions,” warning that another attack is “highly likely in the next 24-36 hours.” Earlier Saturday, the U.S. Embassy in Kabul issued an alert similar to the one issued roughly 14 hours before Thursday’s terrorist attack warning of security threats at the airport, telling all U.S. citizens to avoid the area or “leave immediately” if at the gates. In the evening, the U.S. embassy issued an updated warning of a “specific, credible threat” at the airport.

Fewer than 4 in 10 (38%) Americans approve of the president’s handling of Afghanistan — 17 points lower than the share who said they approved of Biden’s handling of the U.S. troop withdrawal in a July 23-24 ABC News/Ipsos poll.

While Sunday’s ABC News/Ipsos did not measure Biden’s overall approval, FiveThirtyEight’s tracker averaging presidential approval polls showed his approve-disapprove ratings were even for the first time during his term, converging at 47%-47% as of Friday.

But the public’s disapproval of his handling of Afghanistan has not influenced their views on other issues, according to the new ABC News/Ipsos poll. A strong majority (64%) approve of how Biden is responding to the coronavirus pandemic, which is virtually identical to the findings in July’s ABC News/Ipsos poll. Biden also enjoys high approval (62%) for his handling of rebuilding U.S. infrastructure.

A majority (55%) of the American public also approves of his handling of the economic recovery; 53% approved in July’s poll. About 4 in 10 (41%) approve of his handling of immigration and the situation at the southern border, compared to 37% last month.

On his handling of gun violence and crime, issues that track closely with one another, about half of Americans disapprove — 52% and 50%, respectively. But this actually represents an improvement since July, when 61% of Americans disapproved of Biden’s handling of gun violence and 58% disapproved of his handling of crime, according to the July ABC News/Ipsos poll.

For each issue, at least two-thirds of Democrats approve of how Biden is handling them. His highest approval ratings among his own party are for his handling of COVID-19 (91%), infrastructure (91%) and the economic recovery (89%), and his lowest approval ratings — each at 67% — are for his handling of the border, gun violence and Afghanistan.

Among the key group of independents, approval ratings track closely with the results among the public overall for each issue.

Fewer than a third of Republicans approve of Biden’s handling of each issue, but he gets the highest marks for his handling of the pandemic response (32%). On his handling of Afghanistan, only 1 in 10 (11%) Republicans approve, his lowest mark of the issues polled.

While two-thirds (67%) of Americans are at least somewhat worried about a major terrorist attack in the United States, Republicans are more likely to be concerned than Democrats and independents, 80% compared to 59% and 65%, respectively.

But even after the deadly terrorist attack in Kabul, the public has a lower level of concern for a major terrorist attack at home than during other times in recent years when it was measured by ABC News/Washington Post polls. In October 2014, about 7 in 10 (71%) of Americans were worried about an attack in the United States; in January 2015, about three-quarters were worried; and in September 2016, the last time this question was asked in ABC News polling, nearly 8 in 10 (78%) were worried.

A majority (56%) of Americans also feel that the end of the United States’ military presence in Afghanistan makes no difference in how safe the nation is from terrorism. Over a third (36%) feel this makes the United States less safe from terrorism, but again, Republicans are more likely than Democrats and independents to think it makes America less safe, 59% compared to 21% and 36%.

METHODOLOGY – This ABC News/Ipsos poll was conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs’ KnowledgePanel® Aug. 27-28, 2021, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 513 adults. Results have a margin of sampling error of 4.9 points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are 31%-24%-36%, Democrats-Republicans-independents. See the poll’s topline results and details on the methodology here.

ABC News’ Dan Merkle and Ken Goldstein contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., accused President Joe Biden and his administration for painting a rosier picture of the Afghanistan evacuations as the Aug. 31 U.S. troop withdrawal looms.

“There is clearly no plan. There has been no plan. Their plan has basically been happy talk,” Sasse told ABC “This Week” co-anchor Martha Raddatz.

In an earlier interview with Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Raddatz pressed the secretary about the United States’ ability to get the remaining U.S. citizens and Afghan allies out of the country once all U.S. troops where out of Afghanistan.

Blinken pointed to private and public assurances from Taliban leadership to allow free travel after America’s departure to anyone who wishes to leave the country. Sasse called the interview “disgusting” and he said the thinking that the U.S. should trust the Taliban is “stupid” and “insane.”

“And their plan still seems to be, ‘let’s rely on the Taliban’ because the Taliban cares a lot about what world opinion thinks of them — it was a disgusting revelation of yet again no plan,” Sasse added.

The senator, who serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee, has been critical of the U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan since the final months of the Trump administration.

“I fear this weak retreat is not grounded in reality and will make the world a more dangerous place,” Sasse said in a statement in November 2020.

In the last few days, Sasse has repeatedly urged Biden to keep troops in Afghanistan past Tuesday’s deadline to ensure that every U.S citizen and ally who wants to leave the country is safely evacuated.

Raddatz asked the senator Sunday what he thinks should be done to continue evacuations.

“There are some small ways to try to do things around the margins. But what we need is a commander in chief that actually has a big plan and a big way to solve this problem,” Sasse responded, accusing Biden of being “disconnected from reality.”

Sasse continued to hammer the “happy talk” he claimed is being used by Biden and that he said won’t resolve the growing terror threat in Afghanistan.

“The consequences are going to be a return of the Taliban that has been willing to provide safe haven to terrorists in the past,” Sasse added. “We have so many different groups who want to turn Afghanistan into the global capital city of jihad, and the administration doesn’t have a plan.”

Raddatz asked Sasse whether his plea to keep more U.S. forces in Afghanistan past the Tuesday deadline would put them at risk.

“Given that the Taliban said this date was a red line, given that ISIS is now carrying out these horrendous bombings and threatening more violence, wouldn’t staying have put our forces more at risk?” Raddatz asked.

“Joe Biden put our forces at risk by having no plan for how to evacuate. We are absolutely at risk,” Sasse responded.

“Abandoning Bagram base will be read about in military textbooks for decades as one of the stupidest military blunders ever,” Sasse continued, adding that the rapid reduction of U.S. forces in Afghanistan has left a “ridiculously untenable position” for evacuations.

“Thirteen servicemen and women died this week, and our families across this country are in prayer for those families and for the ultimate sacrifice they have made, but they were doing something to make sure that no one was left behind,” Sasse said.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.